Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 200

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 195←Archive 198Archive 199Archive 200Archive 201Archive 202Archive 203

What makes a good DYK image?

I'm looking at WP:DYKIMG where it says The media must be suitable, attractive, and interesting; images in particular must display well in the small size of the {{Main page image/DYK}} template and find that description lacking. For sure, requiring it to be "suitable" is a tautology, and I'm not sure what it means for an image to be "interesting" in a DYK context. As for "display well", that is often a point of contention when I mention that an image isn't good. So, what do folks think would be more specific attributes that we should mention in DYKIMG to help improve our image selections? RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 2 June 2024 (UTC)

Much of that is too nebulous to be useful, I'd be inclined to yeet everything between the two 'must's. Images shouldn't be gratuitous, but I think that's covered within WP:DYKGRAT, I don't think it warrants repetition.--Launchballer 19:31, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
I would have thought the recent one on 3 June was too grainy and low quality and just another portrait. —Bagumba (talk) 02:54, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes we try to balance the availability. It's really easy to get a great shot of an existing building. Not so much an Indonesian doctor who died in 1983. That doesn't mean we should run lots of images of buildings. Valereee (talk) 18:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
yes. --evrik (talk) 19:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
If we go off that case, WP:DYKIMG would more accurately be The media must be suitable, attractive, and interesting. —Bagumba (talk) 00:22, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there should be any requirement to be attractive. But I do think they need to be recognizable. Most of the photos I object to fail on the recognizable aspect. RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
We need to refine our palates rather than write new recipes. --evrik (talk) 01:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Kenneth Law

Considering we currently have an ongoing discussion about how to handle negative BLP hooks, this nomination may be of interest. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:19, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

An almost wholly negative article about a BLP subject who has ongoing criminal court proceedings? DYK shouldn't touch this with a bargepole. Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:53, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
I touched it. Now we'll see what happens. --evrik (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I failed the nomination per WP:DYKHOOKBLP. RoySmith (talk) 00:19, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it fits the criteria you've cited. It's factual and relatively neutral. --evrik (talk) 00:33, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Factual or not, "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided" It also says "this is a stricter requirement than BLP as a whole". RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
The hook itself is relatively neutral. --evrik (talk) 00:45, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I've invited comments from WP:BLPN.[1] I don't see a neutral hook in the article. Everything is either about pending charges, or it's attributed to Law himself. Rjjiii (talk) 02:49, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
If you were to write on say ... Charles Manson, even a neutral hook may be perceived as somewhat negative. --evrik (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
... that the Beach Boys did a cover of a Charles Manson song? RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
I'll approve that hook when you write the article. --evrik (talk) 22:41, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
The article is written, that's where the hook came from. I'll keep it in mind if it ever reaches GA. RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
Saw this through the BLPN notification. Regardless of whether WP:DYKHOOKBLP applies, putting an article on the mainpage about someone who is currently on trial for fourteen counts of murder seems like a terrible idea. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 08:39, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I've rejected. This seems to be another Tate case. Almost identical: Law himself says he sold the stuff. Ping to Bremps. Valereee (talk) 10:10, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure why this is a terrible idea. People do bad things. If the person is notable for doing bad things, the hooks may be uncomfortable. Also, I don't think this should have been closed as it does a disservice to the author. --evrik (talk) 14:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Evrik, I don't think it's an exaggeration to say that you think every borderline nomination should be accepted. You should be aware that this is a fringe viewpoint. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:07, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: I've never said that. What I've seen in the last month is a hyper focus on the negative BLPs. I think we've lost perspective. Also, I don't appreciate your negative personal attack. --evrik (talk) 16:19, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
"I've never said that." You are correct evrik, I said it. Can you point out that negative personal attack you refer to, perhaps keeping this nomination in mind? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not going down this rabbit hole. --evrik (talk) 16:29, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Excellent, so will you strike that WP:PA accusation? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
You strike your comment. I'll strike mine. --evrik (talk) 16:48, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Negative? I thought this was interesting. :D Valereee (talk) 17:01, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
you think every borderline nomination should be accepted. You should be aware that this is a fringe viewpoint. This comment steps away from the question of content ('should this nomination be approved?'; 'what sort of hooks should DYK approve?') and becomes an accusation of character ('the way evrik thinks about DYK is abnormal and implicitly bad'; 'evrik approves almost everything, implicitly thoughtlessly'. I would also encourage AirshipJungleman29 to withdraw this personal attack against evrik. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:25, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
If the person in question had been convicted of doing terrible things, I might have a less strong opinion, but until Law's trial is actually concluded he is notable for being accused of doing terrible things. The fact that people look at this hook an conclude "this man has done bad things" before the court has actually determined whether he did or not is precisely one of the main reason that this seems like a terrible idea. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Original article author here. I understand this is a very sensitive issue, but I want to clarify that Law has admitted to selling sodium nitrite. The only remaining question is whether he did so illegally, which has to do with interpretation of the law instead of facts. There's very little disagreement on what actually happened. Bremps... 17:23, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
I am aware that Laws admits to selling sodium nitrite. That isn't really relevant to my objection. He is solely notable for being accused of 14 counts of murder and his suspected involvement in possibly hundreds of deaths. While those charges remain unresolved I cannot see how putting him on the front page of Wikipedia, especially on DYK, which is not at all set up for nuance, can possibly be a good idea. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 20:29, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
The question of whether or not he actually did it is a separate question from if it is a good idea to highlight that on the main page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:16, 7 June 2024 (UTC)
Hello. Didn't Andrew Tate get featured on DYK? I understand there are arguments to not featuring Law on DYK, but citing Tate isn't a good example because Tate got featured on DYK. Bremps... 17:25, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it ran, and there was concern among others in the community that the hook was too negative. Others are concerned that we shouldn't run a hook that normalizes what the person is mostly famous for. There's been a boatload of discussion about how to handle future similar cases, and I think this is a good example because it's a very similar case: in each case, the person said this about themself. Valereee (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2024 (UTC)
That was a case of running something up the flagpole, you see who salutes and you see who shoots. --evrik (talk) 02:08, 7 June 2024 (UTC)


Alexei Starobinsky

@TheSandDoctor, Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus, and Sgubaldo: The article says "his work remained unknown outside of the Soviet Union", but the hook says "remained unknown in the West" which isn't the same thing. RoySmith (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith, Piotrus, and Sgubaldo: Well, I guess that shows a misconception on my end. I thought of the Eastern Bloc. The source states "It was a very complicated model based on a quantum theory of gravity, but it caused a sensation among cosmologists in what was then the Soviet Union....Unfortunately, because of the difficulties Soviet scientists still had in travelling abroad or communicating with colleagues outside the Soviet sphere of influence at that time, the news did not spread outside their country.”, which seems to imply it is talking about the Bloc ("Soviet sphere of influence") yet then contradicts itself by talking of country in the singular. TheSandDoctor Talk 14:59, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith @TheSandDoctor I’m happy to change either the article or the hook if necessary. Let me know. Sgubaldo (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I updated the hook to say Soviet Union, so I think we're good now. RoySmith (talk) 15:56, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Sgubaldo (talk) 17:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, @RoySmith:! TheSandDoctor Talk 18:25, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
You are right the source is contradictory. I'd go with Soviet Union for the hook to be safe. Alexei Starobinsky does not have a pl wiki article, so I cannot (quickly) check Polish sources (since I am not 100% sure what would be the spelling of his name in Polish); and whatever I found would be ORish anyway (as in, whether he was cited or not). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Alexandru Talex

Nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Alexandru Talex

Minor point perhaps, but the bolded article does not say that the Crusade of Romanianism is a far-right organisation. In the body, on first mention, it doesn't really say about it other than that it was "founded by Stelescu in opposition to the Guard". In the lead, it's described as a "proletarian-fascist group", but that's not directly cited anywhere and while I suppose that implies far-right, it would be good to state and cite explicitly if it's in the hook. @Dahn, Gerda Arendt, and AirshipJungleman29: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:42, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5

Note: Earwig is down right now, all of these are still pending the copyvio checks. RoySmith (talk) 21:01, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, Earwig is back up so I was able to complete the checks. No problems found. RoySmith (talk) 23:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Siege of Durham (1006)

@AirshipJungleman29, CSJJ104, and WatkynBassett: I'm confused by the "seems to have" part. Was he alive or not? RoySmith (talk) 20:36, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

That is the phrasing used in the sources, which was copied into the nomination template if you wish to check. I suspect that, as with many things in that time period, it is impossible to say for certain. If it is an issue for appearing on the main page, then I would be happy for one of the alt hooks to be used instead. --CSJJ104 (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I was confused at first as well, but this is exactly how the source frames it. All the best! WatkynBassett (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I like ALT2 the best. SL93 (talk) 21:07, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it works well for a hook when it is impossible to say for certain. SL93 (talk) 23:10, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Given that this set is the next one due to be displayed, can I check if your concerns have been answered? Alternatively, are you able to update the queue, possibly using Alt2 as suggested by SL93? CSJJ104 (talk) 02:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
If that's the wording the source uses, then I guess I'm OK with it. As for ALT2, isn't that kind of in WP:DYKGRAT territory? I won't object if another admin wants to use it, but it wouldn't be my preference. RoySmith (talk) 12:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Possibly. I was really just wanting to check no more work was needed before the article appears on the main page, and it sounds like there is not. CSJJ104 (talk) 13:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Izzy Scane

@AirshipJungleman29, BeanieFan11, and Hameltion: The article talks about goals, but the hook says points. Are those the same thing? Any reason we can't use the same word in both places? RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

  • I just edit-conflicted to say the same thing - my comment read "What does "led the country on points" mean? Which country (the hook does not identify one)? What points? This is jargon." Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Thanks for catching – my error. Hook should say goals (points are goals + assists). Could replace the first use of "the country" with "NCAA Division I" or "American college lacrosse" if needs elaboration. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 20:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Trust Machine: The Story of Blockchain

@AirshipJungleman29, TheSandDoctor, and SL93: The article says just "refugees" which got turned into "stateless refugees" in the hook. It's not clear those are the same thing. RoySmith (talk) 20:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

It appears to just be "refugees". Even though I'm saying that now, I cannot read The New York Times source because it wants me to subscribe. SL93 (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Guest link: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/movies/trust-machine-review.html?unlocked_article_code=1.zE0.WJLP.k5QOsGhlogu6&smid=url-share RoySmith (talk) 20:59, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. I see "We learn how, thanks to blockchain, neighbors in Brooklyn can trade solar electricity; how the technology might provide records for stateless refugees; and how it offers a way for fans to buy equity in an artist they like, without the middle men who come with sales on the internet." I'm not sure if "records" are the same as "identities". I'm hoping that the nominator knows. SL93 (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith, SL93, and AirshipJungleman29: NYT says they're stateless, Hollywood Reporter says the IDs are "official identities independent of the failed nations they’re fleeing". TheSandDoctor Talk 21:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I have added the word "stateless" to the article. SL93 (talk) 20:45, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Bernard Mellor

@AirshipJungleman29, Generalissima, and Mystery Merrivale: The article says Mellor worked in a unit which was headed by Fleming. To me, saying "alongside" implies they were the same rank. This sounds more like "worked for" rather than "worked alongside". RoySmith (talk) 20:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. I would say that I worked alongside managers at my job, even though I'm just a regular employee. "If you work alongside other people, you all work together in the same place." SL93 (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

The Last of Us season 1

@AirshipJungleman29, Rhain, and OlifanofmrTennant: Come on, folks. The article says "The New Yorker claimed the series budget exceeded..." which got turned into a statement of fact in wiki-voice in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 20:55, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:DYKHOOK, if the source is not willing to the say the fact in its own voice, the hook should attribute back to the original source as well. Since The New Yorker is willing to say the fact in its own voice, I figured the hook could safely do the same. The article attributed the information for consistency with surrounding sentences, but it was unnecessary so I've rephrased it anyway. – Rhain ☔ (he/him) 23:16, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
To my ear, when I hear "X claimed", there's an implicit measure of doubt about the veracity of the claim, especially when it's paired with "sources suggested" as it was in the article. If you trust the source to be correct, then no need to equivocate with "claimed" and an attribution in the article. And if you feel the need to provide the attribution in the article, then it needs to be in the hook as well. RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list of older nominations was archived about twelve hours ago, so I've created a new list of 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 23. We have a total of 231 nominations, of which 86 have been approved, a gap of 145 nominations that has increased by 34 over the past 10 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) 02:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)

Carrie Swain

It looks like this was pulled from the main page by Theleekycauldron at WP:ERRORS under a somewhat odd complaint raised by Andrew Davidson. The hook fact that was pulled comes from one of the few historians writing on Swain in a published history book (and the most detailed research in an academic publication on Swain currently in existence). That hook fact is probably the most significant thing about her as a performer. It's what makes her encyclopedic. If we can’t state the fact making the subject of primary interest to researchers/historians, and the fact that makes them principally encyclopedic I think we have lost our way at DYK. I think it was a bad choice, particularly since it’s a fact not likely to change given the age and subject matter. Since it was pulled, it needs to be re-opened and put back into the review process so a new hook can run at a different time. That should have been done at the time the hook was pulled from the main page. 4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I think that hook fails verification and have made edits to the article and posted an explanation and quote on the article talk page. (cross-post from WP:ERRORS) Levivich (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
No, hooks pulled from the front page are not put back into the review process. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Why not? Why can't this article get nom'd with a different hook? There are other possible hooks for this article. Levivich (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Don't know, but I suspect that it comes down to the fact that if it (or other pulled hooks) do run again, they'll have been on the main page for longer than others, because there was a mistake in them. That seems an odd course. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I left a note on the talk page. I disagree that the hook fails verification, and think the source is being misread by the other reviewer; particularly when one knows the timeline of women in minstrel shows (they were barred from appearing on the minstrel stage and did not appear at all until the 1870s, and even then usually not in blackface parts). Regardless, there should have been a good faith attempt to replace this with a suitable hook from something else in the article which was pointed out by others at the ERRORS discussion. @ AirshipJungleman29 I've seen hooks in the past get returned to review so I don't agree with that assertion that it doesn't happen. Is there a written policy to that effect? 4meter4 (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
There have been various cases (especially in similar ones where the pull is questionable) in which hooks pulled from the front page are added to the front page in the middle of a DYK cycle, at around the 'same time' they were pulled, as a last hook so that the ultimate total amount of time the hook spends on the front page is not more than that of other hooks. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I had the same thought about women not appearing in minstrel shows, 4meter4, but it looks to me like Anne of Denmark legitimately was cast in the minstrel show she devised at least once. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron That is not correct. Anne of Cleaves participated in masques which was a common form of entertainment in European courts of the 16th century and has nothing to do with either the European minstrel or the American minstrel show. Also, these are two completely different and unrelated art forms with two very different styles, formats, and repertoire. The European minstrel flourished during the medieval period, with the troubadour being the best known example of the minstrel of that period. The minstrel show being referred to here in the Carrie Swain article began in the United States in the early 19th century and is considered the first original form of theatre that arose specifically from American culture in the United States and which did not come from Europe. It was exported from America to Europe and elsewhere globally through traveling American minstrel troupes and through that some non-American groups adopted its style. However, it remained predominantly an American form of entertainment, that was not widely practiced outside of the United States. Anne of Denmark was long dead by the time the minstrel show first came into existence, and could not have possibly been involved with the American minstrel show, and she was born long after the decline of the European minstrel in the 14th century. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
What's all this kerfuffle about minstrels and their shows? The hook just refers to entertainers. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 It's tangentially related. The definition and origins of blackface is somewhat debated. Some scholars define blackface as not simply the practice of darkening ones skin through the use of makeup, burnt coal, etc. but also the accompanying racist caricatures that originated within the American minstrel show of the 19th century. The minstrel show had a whole set group of racist stock characters such as the Mammy stereotype (see Category:Blackface minstrel characters). They define blackface as being invented by lower class white men in America in the early 19th century and being a concept that came specifically from the minstrel show. Others however, take a broader view and argue the practice should be dated earlier to English Renaissance theatre to plays like Shakespeare's Othello where you had a white actor having his skin darkened to portray a black character. And of course there are racist statements in Othello. However, Othello was not a stock character, and its difficult to find patterns in blackface performance in Europe of the period, as opposed to the systematically racist structure of the American minstrel show where the majority of the cast was in blackface, there were set blackface parts consistent in the minstrel show format and structure in all of the afterpieces/plays from troupe to troupe, and it was intentionally parodying and denigrating African-Americans through racist tropes. Others date blackface even earlier to the mystery plays in Europe where religious plays were staged by the church in which actors playing demons and devils who were painted black. All of this to say, its impossible to separate blackface from the minstrel show. As for women in blackface, I think the writer was specifically defining blackface as practice within the minstrel show. The minstrel show barred women from performances until the mid 1850s, when a stock white woman character was added into the mix. No women appeared in blackface roles in the minstrel show until the 1870s when Swain began performing. Women were also barred from the stage in English Renaissance theatre. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich and AirshipJungleman29: if we catch it early, sometimes it goes back into circulation without a hitch. Otherwise, once a hook gets pulled, that's generally the end of its life. DYK has only so many editor-hours, and I don't think they're well-spent on articles that already have taken up a bunch of review time and then turn out to have even more holes. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I could see how a nom might feel that practice was punitive (although I'm sure nobody intends the practice to be punitive). But I also question whether re-running pulled hooks actually requires significantly more editor-hours. For example, if DYK re-ran every single pulled hook in May, that would only be 3 hooks, or 1% of the 276 hooks that ran in May; 1% is hardly a huge extra load on the pipeline. Further, aside from the hook mistakes, these 3 have already been vetted against other WP:DYKCRIT; basically all of WP:DYKCRIT#Articles is done, so a re-review, of just the new hook, would take less work than the first review or any average DYK review, meaning re-running all the May hooks would be less than 1% extra work. So I don't think conserving 1% or less editor hours is worth the cost in terms of discouraging noms, or the cost of not promoting (for the full duration anyway) articles on the main page that otherwise should be promoted, or the cost of not presenting the readers with a good DYK hook (on the second run). I would allow pulled hooks to be re-run, because they are so few and far between. Levivich (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Note to self: write an iffy hook with crap sourcing. Cross fingers that it doesn't get much scrutiny before hitting main page. At 400 hours, log into OutragedReader account to complain loudly at ERRORS about the idiots at DYK having done it again. At ~ 1200 hours, start insisting the hook be pulled. Next morning log back into main account. Apologize profusely; the source was in another language and the machine translation was at fault. Come up with an alternate, and this time brilliant, hook to run again. Cha-ching, probably three dozen editors have worked on the article because of the brouhaha, it appeared for a cumulative 40 hours on the MP, and the hook ends at the top of the month's stats. Win-win-win! :D Valereee (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
"I don't always WP:GAME the system, but when I do, it's 3D chess." 😂 Levivich (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
If we can’t state the fact making the subject of primary interest to researchers/historians, and the fact that makes them principally encyclopedic I think we have lost our way at DYK. I think it was a bad choice, particularly since it’s a fact not likely to change given the age and subject matter. I'm inclined to share OP's sense of things here. This matter feels kind of like straining at gnats (the couching of "possibly the first" not being good enough for DYK) while swallowing camels (perpetuating systemic misogyny in Wikipedia's biographical coverage of humans by reducing the visibility of biographical articles about women), howsoever inadvertently. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I do think it's bad when we have to reduce the visibility of women at DYK. But, to paraphrase Tamzin at a recent Signpost article, this problem can be avoided by not printing falsifiable statements about women. Someone can't be "possibly the first" if they weren't the first, and I don't really see a way around that. Now, would it be maybe more fair to have found a different hook in the article or from the nomination? Maybe. But the priority is trying not to get things wrong, and if we force admins to waste time coming up with a viable alternative on an article that has at least one problem, we're going to make more mistakes and get less done. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
if we force admins to waste time: While I suspect this in unintentional on your part, it seems unfortunate to frame 'helping improve the visibility of women's history content on Wikipedia by making a good faith effort to replace the hook' as 'wasting time', as if reducing systemic bias on Wikipedia isn't a worthy use of time and should only be done when absolutely convenient. Editors are, with narrow exceptions, volunteers, yes. Still, within that we make choices about to what we commit this voluntary time. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
That seems a very uncharitable reading of theleekycauldron's comment. No alternative hook was available, and they would not be able to propose and approve a new hook on their own. No other hook was presented at ERRORS, which is open to all volunteers, even non-admins. CMD (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A few months ago one of Piotrus hooks was pulled and we let it get a second life for the hours it missed - I think it was added on as a ninth?. I think if we can fashion a new hook it may be best to let this run again. 4m4 is a conscientious contributor here and it was an honest mistake missed by a reviewer, a promotor and an administrator. Lightburst (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the above comments that this should not re-run. Sure, it wasn't an intentional error, but it would set a strange precedent to say you can get more than a full day at DYK by introducing hooks that don't comply with the rules...  — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The notion that someone would intentionally nom a bad hook in the hopes of getting the article more than a full day on DYK is, in my view, so preposterous that it's not something Wikipedia need worry about. Levivich (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
What did it say? Because the nominator seems to be disputing your reading. Dahn (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
To clarify what I mean: a hook may summarize in three words info that the author can detail over three pages, without including the specific wording that the hook uses, but outlying the same idea to anyone reading it in good faith. Dahn (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Even clearer: does Shirley Staples, the expert authority on blackface, say something to the tune of Swain being "possibly the first" etc.? Or does she say something else? Because, if she does say that Swain was "possibly the first", and if wikipedian reviewers are "sure" that they know of earlier cases, if the hook was pulled on these grounds, then the problem is not one of hook and source, but on misinterpreting wikipedia guidelines at a reviewer level. Dahn (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
All of these questions about what the source says can be answered by reading the source, which is available for free online, or at least by reading the quote from the source on the article talk page. Again, in short, the source doesn't say she was the first, or possibly the first, female black face performer. It says one newspaper wrote that she was among the first. You can read the quote on the article talk page for yourself. Levivich (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes well I have since read the excerpt provided by Biruitorul above, and not only is this a claim advanced by the author (not a newspaper cited by the author, as you claim), but, in at least one reading of the claim, it also verifies the hook, as per the nominator. Others here may be right that the phrasing is not sufficiently clear, but that is certainly something else than the theatrical lamentations about how the hook is not verified etc. Dahn (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Not sure what words in that excerpt convey to you the idea of "possibly first female blackface performer" (as opposed to "among the first"), but I guess that means that even if you had attempted to verify the hook, you would have deemed it verified. Nevertheless, I think it'd be best if reviewers verified hooks. Levivich (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The "may have been the first" part, and what comes after, clearly rendering the author's opinion. Dahn (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
"may have been the first woman to attempt the acrobatic comedy typical of male blackface work" in absolutely no way means "may have been the first woman to perform in blackface," because "acrobatic comedy typical of male blackface work" is not the same thing as "blackface." Similarly, as to what comes after, "among the first women to put burnt cork on her face" does not mean "possibly the first woman to put burnt cork on her face." Levivich (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The phrasing preferred by the author is enough to make me, and I suppose the nominator as well, unsure about the meaning. If your interpretation is correct, neither me (even with full access to the book) nor the nominator should be expected to have replicated it. Dahn (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment In talking over the Staples source at the talk page on Swain, we came to the meeting of minds that the source language is not clear on the hook fact because of the way the writer made so many side remarks around the hook fact. It was confusing, and it’s better to err on the side of caution. Basically it came down to whether she was referring to blackface in general or a specific type of blackface role in which Swain was possibly the first, and it wasn’t clear which. So for that reason I agree that the hook fact was rightly pulled. We agreed that source could at least rightly say that she was among the first group of women to wear blackface. That could be be the modified version of the hook. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
That meeting of minds about ambiguities in the source is entirely different from an allegation that the nominator has produced WP:OR in creating the hook. Dahn (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
It seems that the original hook overlooked some qualifiers in the source, i.e. Carrie Swain may have been the first woman to attempt the acrobatic comedy typical of male blackface work The hook saying that she was "was possibly the first woman" is similar to "some people say" from MOS:WEASEL, when the source only said that the claim was from one newspaper: One newspaper described Carrie Swain as among the first women to put burnt cork on her face —Bagumba (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Inasmuch as the author believes that blackface acts required more than putting soot on one's face (as in: an acrobatic performance as well), and if this all that can be read in the text, Swain is, under that definition, "perhaps the first". If this is indeed the case, then anyone wanting to challenge that claim would have to come up with another author, using another definition of blackface, specifically saying that "the first blackface act by a woman was/may have been this" -- and not simply "look, I read it in another book that this lady living before also wore blackface". I wouldn't have imagined this would be under any sort of debate. As for the newspaper: that fragment clearly refers to another primacy there -- the painting method (not the act), and it is that claim that is attributed to "one newspaper". I feel that a lot of time is being wasted here to distract from the fact that, while the hook may have been questionable (under clearly AGF terms), its pulling out was justified by the reviewers' own OR, something which should absolutely not be allowed to proliferate. Dahn (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Firstly, nothing in WP:OR forbids the use of editorial discretion to omit a questionable claim, even if an otherwise-reliable source makes it. Nor does it forbid discussing on talkpages or project-pages whether or not a seemingly reliably-sourced claim is actually true: indeed it specifically says that This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards!
Secondly: Inasmuch as the author believes that blackface acts required more than putting soot on one's face (as in: an acrobatic performance as well), and if this all that can be read in the text, Swain is, under that definition, "perhaps the first". Is this just counterfactual speculation about how the source might have meant something completely different to what the parts Levivich quoted say, or can you actually quote where the source says that "acrobatic performance" is a "required" part of a blackface act? Because the natural reading of "typical" would be suggest that the author in fact thinks it's not required! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
It is a possible reading of the text, which the nominator made in good faith. It is perhaps correct to say that other parts of the source make the reading questionable, and therefore make the hook replacable; however, what apparently was done here is an interposing of reviewers between the claim, taken at face value by them as well, and what should go on mainpage, based on their OR. If the reviewers have been able to dig up other acts that precede Swain, they should also be able to come up with a source saying "another woman was probably the first to do blackface" (whatever the definition of the act); otherwise, it is them performing an editorial voice on wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Hopefully everything reported to WP:ERRORS was a good-faith mistake. That doesn't oblige us to keep it on the front page once there is reason to think it is a mistake.
If the reviewers have been able to dig up other acts that precede Swain, they should also be able to come up with a source saying "another woman was probably the first to do blackface" This is an absurd position to take. You cannot seriously be suggesting, for example, that if someone found a source saying "In 1836, Jane Doe performed a blackface act" you would consider it original research to conclude that as 1836 is before 1878 a blackface performance in 1878 cannot have been the first. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I am actuallysuggesting that, because: a) if the source says that, it should presumably also say something about the significance of that act, thereby satisfying the criterion; b) you may think it is not a big deal to do it in this case, but consider what precedent is created -- when users can argue with published sources by freely interpreting other sources. Dahn (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Also note that WP:WEASEL is an editorial guideline for editors, on wikipedia, not usable for invalidating critical judgements by the authors and the sources -- which we may use and render verbatim, or in paraphrase, without this being a problem. Dahn (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
"was possibly the first woman" was a poor paraphrase of what the source said—namely, that one newspaper made the claim. —Bagumba (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
No. It was a paraphrase, poor or not, of Swain being arguably the first woman to perform the "acrobatic" act that the author (not "a newspaper") apparently considered the actual definition of blackface. Dahn (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how "the acrobatic comedy typical of male blackface work" can mean that acrobatic comedy is the actual definition of, or even part of, blackface. (Similarly, I don't see how "among the first" can mean "possibly the first," to me it means not the first.) Although I'm starting to understand how this passage might be confusing to someone who isn't familiar with what blackface is (blackface is not acrobatics or comedy, even if acrobatic comedy was typical of male blackface performers at a certain place and time in history). Levivich (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The point is what blackface is to the (expert) source. Again: pull the hook because it is (arguably) ambiguous, but not because reviwers "know better". Dahn (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
The point is what blackface is to the (expert) source. Despite your repeated assertions the expert source does not say that an "acrobatic act" is part of the "actual definition of blackface". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I get it that this your reading. I get it that another reading may be erroneous. The issue of it "not really saying what it was taken to mean" is legitimate, and may validate the hook being pulled (though not other proclamations about how other reviewers are necessarily wrong); but if did say or had said that, we do not argue with the expert source by substituting ourselves as experts. That is the main point I am making here, and which keeps getting danced around. Dahn (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

"First" hooks

We had yet another "first" hook shown to be wrong on WP:ERRORS today. Looking at the lineup right now, I see a bunch more "first" claims:

Queue 6 ... that the first model of cosmic inflation was formulated by a Soviet physicist but initially remained unknown outside the Soviet Union?

Queue 2: ... that Professor Layton and the New World of Steam is planned to be the first main entry since 2013 in the series Professor Layton, despite it being its developer's most popular media franchise?

Prep 3: ... that Pujol and Quintonil are the highest-rated restaurants in Mexico's first Michelin guide, with two Michelin stars each?

Prep 5: ... that George Kunkel (pictured) portrayed a mountaineer in The Chalice of Courage (1915), the first film to depict assisted suicide?

Prep 6: ... that the Henry Street salamander tunnels in Amherst, Massachusetts, were the first amphibian tunnels (example pictured) in the United States?

Prep 6:... that Joe Shield was the first person from Vermont to be drafted into the NFL and then make a team's roster?

Maybe we want to take a closer look at these before they go live? These kinds of hooks really are problematic and we should stay way from them. It's really hard to prove that something is the first of its kind, and all it takes is one earlier example to show that we're wrong. RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree about a blanket ban, but I do agree with a closer review. The recent problematic first hook was not a typical first hook because it included "possibly", and it should have not been promoted. SL93 (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I just looked at the one in queue 6. If the hook is true, the article Starobinsky inflation should probably mention it. Sgubaldo. SL93 (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I would not mind having a blanket ban, with exceptions possible for rock-solid cases. Schwede66 18:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
For the one in prep 6 about the salamander tunnels, this journal article says "one of the first" and this environment organization says "possibly the first". Pinging nominator Bruxton SL93 (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I see sources which say these were the first, but I also see sources which equivocate and say things such as what @Bruxton quoted above. We should go with the more conservative bunch and not claim a "first" that we can't back up. RoySmith (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I think you mean SL93. I made it clearer. SL93 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith I see two alts. Maybe one of those could work. SL93 (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
ALT1 isn't bad, but how about a terser version of it:
ALT1a: ... that before the Henry Street tunnels (example pictured) were built, volunteers carried spotted salamanders across the street in buckets?
What I don't like about all of these, however, is that we're talking specifically about the Henry Street tunnels but the photo is of some other tunnel. That seems distinctly sub-optimal. RoySmith (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
It seems like this ought to be an extremely easy photo to get, too. Msact, Daderot, Ncnorie, Faolin42, Kithira have all taken photos in Amherst and have edited en.wiki recently. Valereee (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I got some pictures. Will upload tonight. Faolin42 (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@Faolin42 Awesome, dude! RoySmith (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I've added the images at Category:Henry Street salamander tunnels Faolin42 (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Cool. File:Henry Street southern salamander tunnel west entrance, Cushman MA.jpg would be perfect, but for some reason when I try to add it to the article, the editor won't let me. I'm guessing it's just some kind of cache or index delay problem, so I'll just try again later. RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Wow @Faolin42:. excellent. I got interested in these tunnels last year when I saw a toad tunnel in a post office parking lot. I am excited to see the article run. So glad you have such great images of the HS tunnels. Bravo! I never even thought to see if a WP editor lived near. And sorry I have been MIA for a few days. Bruxton (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
That is awesome! Great photos, too! Valereee (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Glad I could help! Faolin42 (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
This is now in Prep 6 with the original "first" hook. I've recently edited the article to add that this emerging-traveling-mating is an event common among amphibians and known as a "Big Night" (sourced to Audubon). In addition to ALT1a, we could also use:
ALT2 ... that salamanders in Massachusetts use purpose-built tunnels under a road to get to their Big Night?
Ping to Bruxton. Valereee (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
According to WP:DYKMOS, we're not required to start hooks with "that". So, we could do:
ALT3: ... why salamanders cross the road? RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I like that one, too! Valereee (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I like that too but I'd suggest "how salamanders cross the road". Levivich (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh, even better! Valereee (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Valereee, I am ok with any hook - the buckets one interested me as well. Regarding the original "first" hook, I imagine that somewhere in the US, amphibians used culverts prior to the Henry tunnels. And if we cannot prove these were the first I am ok with other hooks. Also I uploaded my pics of that toad tunnel and it is decidedly less impressive than the pics by Faolin42 of the tunnels under Henry. Bruxton (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Bruxton, great. Can someone please approve:
ALT3a: ... how salamanders cross the road (pictured)?
It would also make a good quirky, but I like the image a lot. Valereee (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I've promoted ALT3a to Prep. Schwede66 21:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I liked your pictures, especially that there was a sign and a little house. I went back over the articles for the Henry Street tunnels and realized there is a salamander sculpture/path on the Cushman Common, inspired by the Henry Street salamanders. See https://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/wm115XV_Crossroads_Salamander_Amherst_Massachusetts and many other references. Cushman is the village in Amherst where the tunnels are located. I have good pictures of the installation that I took 11 years ago, similar to the above link, but probably can't upload them because of copyright :-(. Faolin42 (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@Faolin42, because the art is under copyright? I think we can upload images of US public art, like here? Valereee (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I will upload, and we'll see how it goes... Faolin42 (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I tried to upload an image of the Crossroads Salamander public sculpture, but the Upload Wizard stopped me because 'someone else's work is visible in the work' I'm submitting. I'll read through the FAQ's and take it to the Village Pump tomorrow to see if I can upload it. Faolin42 (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
I keep imagining a salamander traffic report: "Well, the Big Night is finally here, and traffic at the Henry Street Tunnel is backed up for yards. Tonight's forecast, coming up right after the news." Levivich (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich: Imagine the slippery creatures before the bucket-brigade and the tunnels... oh the humanity! By the look of Faolin42's pictures, the Salamanders got a lot more attention than the filthy wart-ridden toads. File:Toad tunnel entrance.jpg. They do have a playful sign and a mini toad-house at the site File:Davis Toad Tunnel entrance.jpg. "Toad Hollow". The salamander tunnels are more impressive than this toad tunnel - I do not even know how a toad would find it. As I remember it took me a while to locate it! And then media outlets mocked the effort. Checking now, it was the Daily Show in 1999. Bruxton (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
Here's the source I used for my hook, which states that the 'first inflationary model was developed by Alexei Starobinsky'. It wasn't known as 'inflation' yet because the term was coined later and this is mentioned in the article. This other source present in the article also states that 'There had previously been suggestions by some theorists that the universe might have undergone a period of rapid expansion early in its life, but the first to come up with a convincing scenario was Russian cosmologist Alexei Starobinsky...' Sgubaldo (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't referring to the nominated article, but rather the wikilink Starobinsky inflation. SL93 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I realise that the Starobinsky inflation article should mention it. I was replying to the top comment since taking a closer look at each of the hooks was mentioned. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for not understanding. SL93 (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
No worries at all, I should've been clearer. I've added a sentence about this to Starobinsky inflation. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The "there had previously" statements that you quote re Starobinsky make this too dubious to state definitively as a first in DYK. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I understood it as others had previously suggested such a possibility, but no one had ever formulated a proper model. The other source definitively states that it was the first model. If it's considered too dubious, then I won't object to its removal from the queue. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
W/r/t the Swain hook that was pulled today, I noticed the review says "hook verified AGF". I don't understand why a hook would be AGF and not verified when the hook source is available for free on the Internet Archive (courtesy ping reviewer Dahn). My two cents: DYK doesn't need a new rule about "firsts," it needs to actually verify hooks. I don't mean to brag here and I know it's kind of a jerk thing to say, but to drive the point home: y'all can look at my contribs and see that in 15 minutes I was able to google the title of the source book, find it for free on the archives, read the relevant page, see that the fact failed verification, make the appropriate edits to the article, and post an explanation with quotes and links on the article talk page. I only say this to point out that it doesn't necessarily take long to verify hooks. Levivich (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Btw here's an idea for a new rule: get rid of "AGF verification." If a hook can't be verified by at least two people (nom and reviewer), it doesn't go on the main page, period end of story. We have enough verifiable hooks in the pipeline that we don't need AGF verification. Levivich (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
And in doing so you enforce systematic bias on Wikipedia, for obvious reasons. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Nah, avoiding systemic bias does not require not verifying hooks. Take this Swain hook for example: the topic is an American woman and the source is written in English; no systemic bias here. Or, rather, despite not verifying the hook, this hook perpetuates systemic bias (it's about Americans). Levivich (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Systematic bias is rather larger than one hook. See e.g. Wikipedia:Systemic bias#Availability of sources may cause bias. Your proposal would see all hooks cited to offline references and most cited to non-Englih sources rejected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
(It's "systemic" bias, not "systematic.") As WP:SBEXT says, "Availability of sources may cause bias," emphasis mine. That doesn't mean that we must have inaccessible sources to fight systemic bias. And it doesn't mean that inaccessible sources that fight systemic bias must be sources that only one person can verify. It's possible to find two people who can both speak a foreign language or access an offline source. Of course, not AGFing verification makes it harder to fight systemic bias, but it doesn't mean we "enforce" (your word) systemic bias by requiring actual verification. It's about balance and trade-offs. I'll take verification over unverified when balancing the two, even if verification means more systemic bias. And there are third-way compromises, such as the one suggested by Bagumba below. Levivich (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The specific bias that this would cause (not just hypothetically) is Wikipedia:Recentism. I have on multiple occasions gone physically to a large academic library to find material for Wikipedia articles, or requested material from them by interlibrary loan, because that was the only way to find those sources. It is relatively easy for me to do so because I work at a university. It would be less easy to others. I don't think it's reasonable to expect DYK reviewers to do so, any more than it would be to turn Wikipedia or DYK into an encyclopedia of only things that can be found online. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Why not require the nominator to at least quote the relevant sentences that support the hook? —Bagumba (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
+1, it would make verification easier and faster, and buffer against systemic bias because the nom could quote otherwise-difficult-to-access sources (e.g., offline, in another language, etc.). Levivich (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
+1 to having the nom provide a translation. RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
When I nominate hooks, I nearly always include relevant quotations—or explanations if the relevant passage isn't particularly quotable—whether or not the source is online, offline, paywalled, etc., just for accessibility to the reviewer, so I would be supportive of an expectation that nominators include supporting quotations to verify hooks cited to sources the reviewer is not able to access because of a material or language barrier.
I would, however, oppose a blanket elimination of AGF verification. I'm inclined to share AirshipJungleman29's concerns on that matter, and I think Levivich understates or under-recognizes the potentially wide fallout such a change to DYK praxis would have. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I have nearly always included the quote and the translation in offline or paywalled sources I used for my hooks. Dahn (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I often see nominators just link the source without a quote, contrary to the nomination form instructions:

You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting the hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

—Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
DYK helper prompts for the source quote. Valereee (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
But its often not provided, and reviewers should ask for it as part of as AGF review. —Bagumba (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Levivich: Is the question here why I didn't go checking for a source online when there was no reason to assume it was free or archived? If there had been a link to in the text, I would have clicked it. That said, I don't really see what the problem was with the hook: an author arguing that someone gave probably the fist female blackface performance or the like is a definite fact, inasmuch as this is far as the process for identifying facts can take us. This whole section looks rather pedantic, and creating mountains out of molehills. Dahn (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that the author of the source did not argue that someone gave probably the first blackface performance. The claim to "probably first female performer in blackface" was the product of a simple misreading of a (confusingly-written) source. (See the article's talk page for details, and recent edits to the article for the solution.) I don't like to come down hard on any fellow editor for any single mistake -- I've made many myself -- but your response concerns me. "No reason to assume it was free or archived"? What? Why would you have to assume that? If I'm reading your response correctly, you're saying you did not even try to verify the hook simply because there was no link in the reference? Is that seriously the extent of your inquiry? No link = AGF it's fine? It doesn't appear you asked the nom if the source was available, nor for a quote from the source, nor did you google the title to see if you could get it. To me, googling something is like the minimum reasonable effort to find something; it takes seconds. People misread all the time, people make mistakes all the time, that's why it's important to have two sets of eyes on anything important, like on factual claims on the main page of one of the world's busiest websites. I haven't really participated in DYK in years, but it would be both alarming and disappointing if it turns out that DYK reviewers are doing nothing to verify hooks -- as in zero attempt to check the source, which unfortunately seems the have been the case here. Is that normal? Levivich (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich: I don't want to get dragged into this for too long, so here's the gist of it: 1) the original claim made against the hook was that it the phrasing was not about a definitive fact, but rather an indefinite fact (an objection I regard as frivolous); now that claim is that the source doesn't verify the hook, something which I could not verify myself, since I did not check the source; 2) why didn't I check the source? Because there was absolutely no reason to assume that a source published in 1984 is online -- the likelihood that it would've been uploaded on Internet Archive was zero, and the actual uplading there is a likely breach of copyrights. Dahn (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Clearly the likelihood that it would've been uploaded to Internet Archive was greater than zero, since it's uploaded to Internet Archive. FYI, along with many other books from the 1980s and other time periods. Also FYI, whether the Internet Archive's lending of books violates US copyright is the subject of an ongoing court appeal; they're under a court order, which they say they comply with. So for the moment, it appears they are under court supervision, complying with the court orders, and not doing anything illegal, at least pending the appeal. Levivich (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Clearly the expectation that I should explore all probabilities that are less than zero is ridiculous. Dahn (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich: Wait, I've just "checked" the IA version of the source. It doesn't break copyright, because it is subscription-walled, meaning that I cannot check it -- I can only read two pages of it. To take you up at your own game: Why didn't you bother checking if it was actually accessible or not before lecturing me on my mistakes as an editor? Dahn (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The "subscription" is free; yeah, you need to register an account to borrow the book. Levivich (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
OMG, why didn't I assume it was made available on some site, and then created an account on that site just to see if I can then verify a hook in a nom that should occupy no more than 0.0000001% percent of my time on wikipedia? Instead of assuming that the editor has access to the print source and has cited it properly? How could I possibly be this unreasonable? Dahn (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think you should have had to register an account at a website if you don't want to, even if it's free. But I think you should have asked for a quote or a link. I think reviewers should spend the time it takes to verify hooks whenever possible. Levivich (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
It is frankly illusory to assume the quote is worth more than the paraphrase. We may be asking editors to render quotes they copy by hand from print sources, when a hook may summarize a quote that goes over 2 or 3 pages. I know this to be the case, since I have volunteered immense quotes from print or paywalled sources, with translations, for my own DYKs, and I know how much of a hassle this is. Also, it is still unclear to me: was the claim in the hook actually not in the source, at all, or was this merely an objection to "perhaps" and "probably" not including a "definitive fact"? Dahn (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
To clarify what I mean: a hook may summarize in three words info that the author can detail over three pages, without including the specific wording that the hook uses, but outlying the same idea to anyone reading it in good faith. In that instance, while quotes are surely welcome, the very fact of having had access to the three pages in the original print counts as AGF verification. Dahn (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
At any rate, here is the source in question. Biruitorul Talk 07:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
At any rate, the problem is not that the source was inaccurately quoted in the hook; it was the usual problem with "first" hook sources, that they missed someone else who was firster. So the issue of AGF verification is a complete red herring. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
It is very typical to see things like this: an article about Carrie Swain mentioning she may have been the first woman to perform in blackface. The people writing that article cared about Carrie Swain and wanted to write something exciting about her, so they may not have done super extensive research that would have destroyed their thesis of her being the first. Generally, an article about "women in blackface" would be a much better source to confirm "first"ness than an article about one specific woman who may or may not have been the first woman in blackface.
We see this all the time, especially with things like local newspapers where the author wishes to promote their local hero and either exaggerates the claims or omits necessary context ("first woman to perform in blackface while on a unicycle"). "First" hooks should have sources that are more independent from the article subject than what we usually expect. —Kusma (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The claim that "there was an earlier case" should be based on a reliable source specifically stating the claim about someone else. It should not be based on wikipedians doing their own original research and arguing that they know of earlier cases (WP:SYNTH? WP:TRUTH?). In that sense, the hook was entirely valid, particularly under WP:AGF. "We see this all the time, especially with things like local newspapers" -- except this was an expert source, not a local newspaper. Dahn (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Strong claims require strong sources. When the source is shown to be weak or unreliable because editors turned up other evidence contradicting its claims, we should treat the source as unreliable and not run its claim. We should not bury our heads in the sand and insist that they are reliable, despite our external knowledge. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
There's absolutely no way in which this approach can degenerate into a college of self-appointed censors using only the sources/parts of the sources that they feel are reliable. Dahn (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
But thats what the guideline WP:CONTEXTFACTS expects:

The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another.

—Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
As compared to other sources, in some cases that are rather clearly defined there (and that do not make the claim in the source uncitable, just likely to be challenged by another source). The recommendation there is not to get stuck up on a source if another source contradicts it with another, opposite claim -- one can cite both, and the fact will become relative. It certainly doesn't meant that editors should perform OR to "factcheck" the source! Dahn (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I reviewed the Kunkel hook and I saw the "first" fact in the source. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The Q2 "... that Professor Layton and the New World of Steam is planned to be the first main entry since 2013 in the series Professor Layton, despite it being its developer's most popular media franchise?" is not really a "first" hook as we have under discussion, it's "first since 2013", a very different claim. Of course, it has "main entry" as a qualifier as well due to a 2017 game. Mostly not too excitingly worded but not untrue.
P3 "... that Pujol and Quintonil are the highest-rated restaurants in Mexico's first Michelin guide, with two Michelin stars each?" has its first being related not to the subjects but to the Michelin guide, and this claim seems to hold up with the source given and the relevant primary sourcing. CMD (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The Layton hook's verifiability is question at ERRORS, and nom says we can just pull. Valereee (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
  • TLDR in full, but one cautious solution might be to add "claimed/said to be" before a "first" claim, taking it out of Wikipedia's voice. This would I think work for examples 5 & 6 above. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

... that the ancient Greek game polis is one of the world's oldest strategy games?

This is currently being discussed on WP:ERRORS. It's really another example of the "first" problem. Any kind of superlative (first, biggest, oldest, etc) is almost impossible to prove unless you're talking about something that comes from a finite, well-known set. I can be confident when I say that Neil Armstrong ws the first man to walk on the moon, because there's only been a small number of people who have done that and it's trivial to tell which of those was first. But the set of strategy games is open-ended, so there's no feasible way to list all such games that have ever existed and figure out which is the oldest. In this case, it's particularly embarrassing because we just ran the couter-example a few days ago. RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

This is remarkably contrived. The hook is about the game being one of the oldest, not the oldest, and refers to it being oldest from among those known. It being "among the oldest" also covers the situation where it is together with other much older games (say, Sumerian), since they are not as new as the other ones. I'm not even a fan of the "first" hooks, but this is a fabricated outrage if I ever saw one. Dahn (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree. SL93 (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
The "known" was only added after it was complained about at WP:ERRORS. RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
With or without that word, the meaning was already clear, as is any statement about "firsts" in the distant past. I wasn't even referring to it being present/added to the hook. Dahn (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Anything can be among the oldest, you just have the put the line for "oldest" at a convenient point in the timeline for the claim. I'm coming around to supporting a ban on superlatives (highest another one I've seen at DYK), it'll catch some probably good hooks but it might bring about more hooks which tell us more about the topic. "... that ancient Greek sources refer to a game called Polis, but the rules have been mostly lost?"? There are a few more hooks I'd try, but currently unsure due to situations like the article saying both "Many aspects of the game are unknown, such as the shape of the board" but also "the pieces moved in all directions on a square board". CMD (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Support. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose such an unnecessarily wide prohibition on using phrasing that appears in reliable and independent secondary sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)
The point is not if "you put the word oldest etc.", but if the source does. That said, I am sure other, even better hooks can be found for all such situations, but any "ban on superlatives", particularly when they refer to phrasings that are not actually superlatives (but "seem" to be), risks creating more problems than it solves, by giving any overzealous reviewer a carte blanche to shoot down valid hooks. Dahn (talk)
Note that we are already dealing with the Q2 and P3 examples above, in which the supposed problem with the "firsts" isn't even present -- but they were cited anyway, as "bad examples". Imagine what a ban on phrasing would entail, when we're already on this level of overbearing callousness. Dahn (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
I should clarify that I am not defending a personal agenda over here -- I don't recall ever submitting a "first" (or "most" or etc.) hook in my entire contribution. I am just speaking out against a trend that I see as an overreaction, and against attempts to elevate reviewers into a position of discretionary privilege, where pet peeves become written norm. Some "first" hooks are bad, some are not, and they should all be evaluated for their own merits, without prejudice. Dahn (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)
If this is a reply to my comment, I noted that this would be a wide net but I don't see it being harmful at all. Other hooks are possible, and I'm not sure DYK has ever faced the issue of rejecting too many hooks. CMD (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)

Possibly one of the wildest weasels in Wikipedia history

Here's a superlative sighting from yesterday's main page:

  • ... that the ZX Spectrum is one of the best-selling British computers of all time?

This uses the popular weasel "one of the best..." which takes a superlative and weakens it with "one of" to make it fit any also-ran. The actual facts seem to be that the Spectrum was certainly outsold by the Amstrad PCW and the Raspberry Pi. And nowadays, general purpose computing devices such as the iPhone sell more every year in the UK than the ZX Spectrum sold in its entire history.

A good way to test these weasels is to see if they are more definite when the word NOT is attached. For example:

  • ... that the ZX Spectrum is NOT the best-selling British computer of all time?
  • ... that Carrie Swain was NOT the first woman entertainer to perform in blackface?
  • ... that the ancient Greek game polis is NOT the world's oldest strategy game?

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I brought up concerns about the hook above at #ZX Spectrum but no one responded. Courtesy ping to nomination participants @Jaguar, Panamitsu, and AirshipJungleman29:, as well as to discussion commenters @Z1720 and SL93:. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
No, your concerns were that it wasn't surprising enough. I'm just confused as to why Andrew is so bamboozled by a fairly common phrase that isn't actually listed at WP:WTW and which any person who understands English is perfectly able to comprehend. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
Frankly, the 'weasel word' guidance in the Manual of Style seems to encourage this kind of bamboozlement. Language that academic sources and other encyclopedias use to identify relative exceptionality without necessarily guaranteeing universal and total exceptionality gets treated on Wikipedia as a repugnant, disinforming injustice. But which phrasing is actually more confusing? that the ZX Spectrum is one of the best-selling British computer of all time? gives even a reader unfamiliar with the history of British computing a sense that ZX Spectrum is pretty up there and appears to have been an influential device. Meanwhile, Andrew's test, that the ZX Spectrum is NOT the best-selling British computer of all time? is confusing and gives the reader little sense of the ZX Spectrum's place in history. Did it not sell at all? Did it sell averagely? Did it sell pretty well but not the best ever? While one of the best gives a typical reader a good sense of general place in history, the 'test' communicates little of meaning.
All this to say—this seems like a lot of sound and fury from OP about a hook fact that is fine. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
I feel like there are more interesting things to say than 'best-selling'.
... that Clive Sinclair did no market research before launching the ZX80 because he "simply had a hunch"? Valereee (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

Andrew, have you read the hook properly? Are iPhones British computers? ♦ JAGUAR  12:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

Two other such devices were mentioned in this comment, and adding the DYK’s subject still makes it one of the best-selling British computers of all time. I fail to see the error. Interestingness could be a different issue with other such computers, but that isn’t what the complaint is about. SL93 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
  • The hook seems fine. "The actual facts seem to be that the Spectrum was certainly outsold by the Amstrad PCW and the Raspberry Pi." So it's still in the top three. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    Which one of the top three? First best, second best, or third best? Be specific. If it's the third best selling British computer of all time, just say that, instead of a much more vague "one of the best". Just like it's better and more specific to say that someone won an Olympic bronze medal, rather than just describing them as an "Olympic medalist". The latter is not wrong, per se, it's just more vague. Be specific. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    "Avoid vague language" might be the answer to most of our problems on Wikipedia. Then again, there are stylistic choices editors make where vague language might be preferred (not saying I agree, but it is what it is), and this even crops up in the writing of guidelines and policies where vagueness is intentionally used. I recall reading somewhere that vagueness was a preferred writing style at one time, but my memory is hazy on this point. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    And there may be times it's actually the best we can do. If we know the first known examples of a widget were independently developed at A and B around 500 BC, but we don't have any more exact dating than that, then both the A widget and the B widget are "one of the first known widgets", but we really don't know for sure which actually is first. So, "one of" is as specific as we're able to be. But generally speaking, if we can be more specific, we should. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    There's been times when I've been deliberately vague in an article because the specific nature of a single point can go either way, beyond this or that, true or false, or first, second, or third. Perhaps this is because the point is challenged, controversial, or debatable (per the sources), so using a kind of directed, general vagueness in the main text (while giving specificity in a footnote or elsewhere) allows concision where otherwise using specificity would require a lengthy explanation or tangent. In this regard, I can see how vagueness can help keep a hook brief, which is why it is often used. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    EEng taught me that "an ounce of imprecision can save a pound of explanation." As for "one of the best," sometimes that's as precise as one can get. Is Oxford the best university in the world, or the second, or the third? I don't know, but it's definitely one of the best. Not everything is ranked like Olympic medals. "Best selling" is one of those things, it depends on what you mean exactly. Most gross revenue? Most units sold? Etc. Levivich (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
    For the record, my usual formulation is: "An ounce of imprecision saves a ton of explanation." I plagiarized that somewhere, of course. While I'm pontificating, here's another favorite: "Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." EEng 00:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    Often shortened as "omit needless words". Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    But inappropriately, because it refers not just to words per se, but also points of argument, lists of examples, and so on. 03:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs)
    But, perhaps it is appropriate given the context? Saint-Exupéry was talking about engineering airplanes (I think?), while Strunk & White were talking about engineering language. Accurate or no? Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
    Careful: that's possibly one of the wildest weasel in Wikipedia's history. Levivich (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Prep 7

George Webster (presenter)

@AirshipJungleman29, Valereee, and Launchballer: Do we have any WP:BLP issues putting his medical condition on the main page? RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Couldn't see any myself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Me neither. I don't think having a learning disability is a negative aspect of a living person (I have Asperger syndrome myself), and this is in most of the sources so isn't really undue. Was there another BLP concern you had in mind?--Launchballer 16:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Hm. Fair question. We could consider:
ALT1: that CBeebies presenter George Webster (pictured in video) was discovered by a Sky UK television crew while volunteering at his local Parkrun?
Valereee (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
It could work, although I find it less interesting.--Launchballer 16:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I do not see any BLP issues. In general, we should (in my opinion) avoid inspiration porn, so juxtaposing disability and achievements should be done with extra care. The original hook is probably OK here, but it is worth discussing. —Kusma (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think being an extrovert is an achievement.--Launchballer 18:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Admins: all queues are empty!

Pinging @DYK admins: as all queues are currently empty, in the hopes that we can get some preps promoted to queue. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I've promoted one set and am in-progress on checking them. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Once again, I encourage (goad, spur, exhort, beg) some of the DYK regulars who are not admins to get a mop. @BlueMoonset I would be happy to nominate you. RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Nabisco Shredded Wheat Factory

Hi all, upon rereading the sources and consulting with RoySmith I no longer believe the Butterfield's reference supports the ALT0 hook. I made this change to the article in response.

Would it be possible to swap to a modified version of ALT1, "... that the Nabisco Shredded Wheat Factory was used as a marketing tool, with its image printed on cereal packets until 1960?" Perhaps even "... that the Nabisco Shredded Wheat Factory was used as a marketing tool?"

These ones are supported by p.136 of Butterfield. Pahunkat (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)

For reference, p.135 talked about visitors being invited to the factory with in support of marketing on its cleanliness, but doesn't state they were tourists. Pahunkat (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for following up, Pahunkat. Where is the alt hook in the article? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)
Rjjiii, should be there now (diff). Pahunkat (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
@Pahunkat: It's supported by Butterfield 1999, pp. 135–137? That source should be at the end of the sentence containing the hook per WP:DYKHFC. Rjjiii (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Rjjiii Yes, specifically p.136, I've added the reference to the end of that sentence. Pahunkat (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
@Pahunkat: Awesome. I'm about to replace the hook fact. Would you be okay with "... that the Nabisco Shredded Wheat Factory was used as a marketing tool, with an image of the factory on every cereal packet until 1960?" The proposed wording "its image printed on cereal packets" seems a bit close to the source's wording "its image was printed on every packet of cereal" which isn't an issue with the wording in the article itself. Pinging SounderBruce as well, Rjjiii (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Rjjiii, thoughts on a slightly modified "... that the Nabisco Shredded Wheat Factory was used as a marketing tool, with an image of the factory on every cereal packet it produced until 1960?" Pahunkat (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
That's a bit clunky, but it's also closer to the hook that SounderBruce approved. I've put it into Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2. Are you all good with this hook, Pahunkat & SounderBruce? I see it present in the article, cited to a reliable source, and verified by the source, Rjjiii (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks for the help! Pahunkat (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Balance - Template:Did you know/Queue/6

Probably not a major concern; just a note to say the next set in the queue Template:Did you know/Queue/6 is less than 800 characters so even with nine hooks in the set, it will leave empty space. Bruxton (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm more worried about the fact that manganese nitride is a redirect. I do wonder if it's worth having some sort of character counter in each set for precisely this purpose. What is the optimum number of characters?--Launchballer 20:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Redirect bypassed. RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer: With the ellipsis 1000-1100 is near the right number. For reference, the set now is 1134 and seems to work well. Bruxton (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
When we had the 400+ character multihook last month, I promoted several very short hooks and I managed to get it down to 1100 characters, not including ellipses or (pictured). The April Fools' set had ten hooks. We shouldn't be afraid to adjust the number of hooks if they all happen to be very long or very short.--Launchballer 20:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Maybe we should stop counting hooks and start counting column-inches. As The New York Times says[citation needed], "All the hooks that fit, we print"" RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
Typesetters! We can sell the extra space for ads. Bruxton (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
When the revenue starts rolling in, you guys will finally appreciate my copyediting, eh? RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)
It's not a big problem either way. If the left column is too short, we'll nuke an OTD entry. If it's too long, we'll add an OTD entry. Simple! Schwede66 23:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

Prep 6

User:Bernanke's Crossbow, User:evrik, User:SL93 ... that making manganese nitride alloys requires a sponge? I don't think that claim is in the article, not stated that broadly. It says " A sponge is essential to Mn2N synthesis:", but the article also says there are other formulas besides Mn2N that can also be called manganese nitride. And the next paragraph appears to describe an alternate way to make manganese nitride that doesn't mention a sponge. Art LaPella (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)

OK, I added that word. Art LaPella (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)
The words "sometimes" and "requires" are contradictory. The issue arises because the article's structure and title is confusing. The name "manganese nitride" is used here for a family of compounds with a variety of formulae, properties and methods of synthesis. The title of the article should be changed to "manganese nitrides" to make it clear that it's talking about a collection rather than a single compound. And whatever hook we end up with should make it clear exactly what compound it is talking about. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

Prep 3 - bios

Prep 3 has five biographies, and three of them are in a row. This will need to be fixed. SL93 (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Kicked back the one in the middle.--Launchballer 07:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Is it too late to submit a DYK for the article "Gezer"?

@DYK admins: In March of this year, I worked extensively to improve/expand the article Gezer, but for reasons unbeknownst to me - perhaps even because of the vicissitudes of work on other topics, I downright forgot to submit a DYK on this article. Is it possible for me to receive a waiver to submit a belated DYK on this article, even though 3 months have now passed?Davidbena (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say no, three months is a fair bit too long. Perhaps the article could pass GA? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree; GA is the route to DYK for you. Schwede66 00:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
It's also got significant referencing issues, so is not oven ready for a DYK run...  — Amakuru (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Plus issues with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Summary style, both of which are part of the Good Article criteria. GA would be the path to DYK, but the article needs a bit of work. Davidbena, if you do the GA route, it may be wise to request peer review first, and to leave a link to the peer review request at WT:GAN. Rjjiii (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Personally I'm in favour of removing the time restriction on DYKs altogether but until then, rules are rules WaggersTALK 11:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

List of historic places in Gore District

@Hey man im josh, Generalissima, and SL93: The cited source[2] doesn't appear to verify any of the facts in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith It's there. Clicking Detailed List Entry will show the information. SL93 (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Click on "Detailed List entry" near the bottom of that page. There's no way to link to just the entry, sadly. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Had I not already been on that site for a related featured list nomination I wouldn't have known the exact spot to find that information either. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Ugh. I suggest you use the "at=" parameter (see Template:cite web#In-source locations) to describe how to find it and/or quote=. RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay, added. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I Am Human (film)

@Hey man im josh, TheSandDoctor, and Chris Woodrich: I don't see where the article says anything about a "conversation starter". RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I can work that in but I thought that was just a more concise way of saying "The documentary film has subsequently become the topic of screenings and expert panel discussion". The film was screened and then the panels would discuss the science/technology, ethical issues, answer questions from the audience etc. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
That's how I interpreted it as well. If this is not acceptable then I'll keep this in mind in the future when adding hooks to the prep area (new to it and dipping my toes in). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Not to worry, we appreciate the help. RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Seconding SandDoctor, though I missed the ping. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
    The problem is, your signature doesn't match your user name, so when I copy-pasted your signature to ping you, it failed. The rules give you wide latitude to pick a signature that pleases you, but if it doesn't match your user name and you miss pings because of that, it's on you :-) RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Can't renominate for DYK after the article was improved for GA

I tried to renominate Joy (dog) for DYK with the status "Improved for GA" but got an error that the duplicate nomination can't be created. Please advise how to resolve this issue. Thanks, Jacob0790 (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

You should have got an error message saying 'please copy the following substituted template'. I've created it for you at Template:Did you know nominations/Joy (dog) (2nd nomination). I'll leave it to you to add it to T:TDYK.--Launchballer 19:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, Launchballer! Jacob0790 (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

DYK bingo?

Is there some special award we get if every hook in a set gets dragged to WP:ERRORS? I think we're in the running today. RoySmith (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

I award you with this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
You're winner! In all seriousness, of the five that made ERRORS today, I count one courtesy ping, two non-errors, and one typo. Only one of them actually resulted in a pull. We ought to be more careful than that, but this isn't as bad as it looks.--Launchballer 20:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
We've still got almost 4 hours to reach our goal :-) RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)
I am doubtful about the source for the Alexandru Talex hook, but it is a bit late to do anything about it. TSventon (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

We are in the running for it today as well! Schwede66 07:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

The various discussions at Errors about today's DYKs come to 2585 words. Surely, that must be a record! Schwede66 22:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list of older nominations is now a week old and could be archived at any moment, so I've created a new list of 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 29. We have a total of 225 nominations, of which 73 have been approved, a gap of 152 nominations that has increased by 7 over the past 7 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) 02:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

A modest proposal: vital-only BLP hooks

Feedback given to this temperature check. CMD (talk) 04:20, 19 June 2024 (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.

Just a temperature check: what would people think of limiting BLPs on DYK to vital-class articles only? I just feel a lot of the books we get about living persons are relatively boring about people with general notability but not an established history—so their hooks often involve evaluative quotes that aren’t exactly facts (like did you know that American soprano Samantha Adams was called "one of the finest talents under twenty?") and really routine facts that wouldn’t exactly raise any eyebrows (like did you know that Quincy Smith holds the record for fastest lacrosse faceoff in a nationally-ranked tournament qualifier?—someone has to hold that record, I guess). The hooks and articles relating to BLPs also often have the problem of seeming quite promotional, especially as recentism means that a contemporary figure may receive lots of contemporary praise that would not be repeated in a historical source representing their legacy twenty years later.

I know this isn’t exactly a prepared proposal, and if the response isn’t an immediate “hell no”, I’ll put together some examples and evidence to support my thinking. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Without examining the overarching merits, on a practical level this would effectively ban most BLPs by limiting BLP DYKs to GAs and x5s, as the vital article wikiproject juggles existing articles. CMD (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
There is no snowball's hell in chance of such a proposal ever happening, but regardless, for the record I'd be opposed to this. For one thing, it would be deeply unfair to our contributors, many of whom are interested in improving BLPs and want to be acknowledged for their efforts. A blanket or even limited ban on DYK would likely discourage a not-insignificant number of our editors from contributing. I've said this multiple times already in discussions here: the issue isn't BLPs inherently being difficult or problematic, but rather our enforcement of rules and quality control are lacking.
Another issue is systemic bias. Requiring BLP nominations to be vital articles would likely cut off much of the world's people from DYK. We already have an issue with systemic bias (i.e. a focus on the Anglosphere), and doing such a thing would only increase said bias rather than counter it. Most of the world's people would never reach vital article status especially outside the Anglosphere or Europe, which means our already limited pool will become even more limited.
I get where the proposal is coming from, but these efforts to restrict or limit BLP nominations all have their own issues and would arguably do far more harm than good. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
really routine facts that wouldn’t exactly raise any eyebrows (like did you know that Quincy Smith holds the record for fastest lacrosse faceoff in a nationally-ranked tournament qualifier?: Maybe we're operating under different senses of routine, but that doesn't seem that routine. I certainly don't hold that record, and most people don't. "Routine" seems like, "Quincy Smith was in a nationally-ranked tournament qualifier" (so was everyone else in that qualifier) or "Quincy Smith went to secondary school" (so did I). Sure, someone has to hold that record but that seems like saying 'someone'/'something has to be any particular hook fact since otherwise it wouldn't be a fact. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
The issue with these qualifier hooks isn't necessarily their interest or how routine they are but rather their factual accuracy. One of our recurring issues is how our "first" hooks can be misleading or inaccurate. Just see how often "first" hooks end up here on WT:DYK or WP:ERRORS. I don't think requiring BLPs to be vital articles would solve that issue, and in any case BDPs would still be vulnerable to the same issues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
My impression from the semi-recent threads (one thread and another thread) about "first" and "among the best" and other superlative or qualified superlative hooks is that a lot of the objections have been excessively fastidious. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 14:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
But you’ve never heard of Quincy Smith before. It’s as good to you as “someone holds this record”. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
you’ve never heard of Quincy Smith before: That seems like it's sort of the point of WP:DYK: DYK aims to [...] highlight the variety of information on Wikipedia and to present facts about a range of topics. Now I know who holds the record, and I can opt into learning more about that person by clicking the link. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 14:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Narutolovehinata5 the proposal will not pass. Lightburst (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Strong oppose given all the points Narutolovehinata5 raised about the severe chaotic consequences of the proposal. ミラP@Miraclepine 13:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Strong Oppose, and hope to heck and back that this modest proposal was just as tongue-in-cheek as Swift's. "Vital" articles are extremely limited in number, biased toward a Western worldview, and generally at a point where they would not qualify for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 says it all a lot more eloquently than I could. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
For the record, a quick petscan shows that there are around 4,000 vital BLPs; you can probably do further checks to see if any countries are overrepresented. However, bear in mind that 300 are GAs and 100 are FAs, meaning only around 3,600 are realistically eligible (through GA only) for DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
In order for that to happen the rating system would actually have to be meaningful and well applied... currently it is not. Let me be clear: if this were possible and we had a fully fucntional rating system I would be a strong oppose, but I don't see the point of opposing an unborn infant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Oppose for three reasons.
  1. This would basically invite people to abuse the vital article system. Since anyone can edit the vital articles list, they can merely add any articles to the vital-article list that they want to nominate for DYK.
  2. It kind of defeats the purpose of DYK, which is to showcase lesser-known articles.
  3. If the issue is that a hook isn't interesting, the solution is to reject the hook during the nomination process for this reason. The solution should not be to add restrictions on what types of articles should be nominated.
– Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2024 (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.

Thank you all

Thank you all for your work on the Henry Street salamander tunnels hook. It performed well because of everyone's work on images, and on the hook: 28,432 views (1,184.6 per hour). I think the shortened hook and the great images certainly helped. Bruxton (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I was glad that nobody took action on the complaint filed at Errors about the hook. I thought it was perfectly fine and a great hook. Good work, Bruxton et al. Schwede66 04:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
yes I think Valereee and levivich workshopped it. I saw the discussion at errors too. I am glad others found the subject interesting. Bruxton (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Valereee and levivich I am the worst pinger ever. Bruxton (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
And Faolin42 for taking a whole category of photos, and RoySmith for the cleanup on the lead image/hook image.
It's an example of the effect where adjacent content is improved from a DYK appearance. I dunno if there's a name for that. Uk-wiki got a whole new article,[3] and Wikidata was updated.[4] It seems pretty common for Wikidata to get corrected/updated after an article hits the front page. Several articles linked from the lead of the DYK nomination got cleaned up including spotted salamander,[5] amphibian and reptile tunnel,[6] and Big Night (amphibians).[7] Rjjiii (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
That is great. I also started a draft for draft:congressing when I saw the redlink in Big Night but I have not had the motivation to develop. I love it when a plan comes together. Bruxton (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
It takes a village. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I've noticed that content on other wikis often appears after mainpage appearances on en.wp—it's an oft-under-appreciated phenomenon. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Definitely a thing. I created Big Night because while I was checking sources at Henry Street, I came across the term, added it to Henry Street, discovered it was a redlink. It got 3000 views while HSST was on the front page. I created Esther Tailfeathers because I came across her at the Bjarne Store-Jakobsen nomination, ditto. That's two articles from a single editor in a couple of weeks directly because of DYK. And it's absolutely routine for at minimum several editors to make improvements to the target article, which is the whole reason I nominate. For all the criticism we idiots at DYK get for embarrassing WP with our incompetence, the net is a huge positive.
And articles being nominated for ITN get improved routinely to get them onto the MP. OTD probably shows some of the same effect. Valereee (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Great work! I enjoyed the article as well. Lightburst (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Main image

FYI: I just saw a discussion about the lead image at errors. Seems the image has been removed so our lead hook is without. Do we have one to swap? Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I checked all the hooks in the running set, and this one has a free image. It is not ideal but it is something. Template:Did you know nominations/Sitdown strike Lightburst (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm on it. RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Neutrality in a proposed hook

At Template:Did you know nominations/John Caples, User:SafariScribe intends to run with the following hook: that John Caples's mail-order advert for the US School of Music in 1926, became successful and was one of the 100 greatest advertisements of all time? I've attempted to explain why this isn't an acceptable hook, but the nominator refuses to listen. Bringing this here for more visibility - surely this isn't an acceptable hook? We can't just say that something is "the best" in Wikipedia voice without attributing that claim (which is an opinion) to a specific source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Another example of poor superlatives. Probably shouldn't be in Wikivoice in the article either. I see Launchballer has already struck it out at nom. CMD (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I understand your points and was never trying to refute that. Well, I had wanted to change the hook but wanted to get a better way of putting it either. You saying I refused was never done anywhere. Please next time try to check well to know when someone wants to clarify and when they have made up their mind. Thanks though as I will run another hook. Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 13:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure how to interpret @Trainsandotherthings, No, it's a fact. I also saw the same here in p.6. as anything other than a refusal to change the hook. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I have changed the hook. If there is any error with it, let me know too. Courtesy ping to @Trainsandotherthings, @Chipmunkdavis, and @Launchballer. Thanks! Safari ScribeEdits! Talk! 14:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Dagmar Skálová

The nominator of Dagmar Skálová, Evrik, has been temporarily blocked (for 30 days, roughly 27 days remaining); I'm not sure what the protocol is here. Does the nomination stay open until they're unblocked so that they have a chance to respond, or will it be closed due to inactivity? And if the nomination closes without being promoted, does it still count as my QPQ for Brunel University lecture centre? Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 17:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

At least as far as the QPQ goes, the credit is for doing the review, regardless of what happens to the nomination after that. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
When it comes to Dagmar itself, it depends on the circumstances of the nomination. If another editor is willing to take over the nomination in Evrik's absence, it can probably continue. As for the QPQ, it does not matter what happens to the original nomination as QPQs refer to the review itself. Even a nomination that fails or rejects the article can still count as a QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Open Evrik nominations

While we're here, it might be appropriate to list Evrik's open nominations to discuss what to do with them in his absence.

Should these nominations be allowed to continue in his absence or should they be closed? The Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra nomination is probably the one here that needs the most attention as it has an open AFD discussion and is also missing a QPQ; given it was nominated on the 13th, a QPQ would need to be provided by the 20th (or the 27th if we give our usual extension) for it to proceed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

The Xenophon nom has not produced a sourced interesting hook. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
This isn't an argument either way, just an observation, but it'd be a real shame if the Dagmar one is closed considering I think its ALT1 hook would do pretty well. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 05:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Anyone who wants to adopt a nom is free to do so; everything else should be getting closed if reviews turn up issues that require evrik to be resolved. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Gary Orfield and Lookwide Camp would at the very least need new hooks. For the nominations where evrik nominated the work of others, reviewers could ping those writers, who may be open to participating. CMD (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I've pinged the major contributors to the Dagmar article - we'll see if it gets picked up, I guess. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 06:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Orfield is now being reviewed by Crisco 1492 so I'm pinging him about this discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

IAR for nomination for nom?

Wondering what others think about a IAR for a nomination that appears to be 1442 characters short of a 5x expansion. Template:Did you know nominations/Sam Kee Building. I guess I would willing to IAR if others agree but 1442 is significant enough that I thought it best to ask here. Bruxton (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Hm. Comparing the current version of the article to what it was prior to Yue's expansion of it, I think it's in the spirit of DYK's interest in showing readers recently improved articles to WP:IAR this and let the nomination go forward. 1442 characters amounts to around 200 words, about a paragraph, and I don't think we gain as much from letting a paragraph's difference stop this nomination as we gain from letting it go forward. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
From the other point of view, Akinada Tobishima Kaido (currently at WP:DYKNA) is 1519 characters long and viable for DYK on its own; your final sentence could thus be rephrased as "letting an article's difference stop this nomination..." I don't really have an opinion on this particular request—I just thought the different lens was interesting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
No objection to IAR. Valereee (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I started doing checks but I do not have time to stick with this nomination and promote. Another promotor is free to IAR and check it out. Bruxton (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to go against the grain here and oppose an IAR. It being so close to meeting 5x means it shouldn't hurt to add the 200 words or so as long as it's still possible. I get the idea but I'm more of the idea that IAR exemptions should be used sparingly and only with good reason. Allowing this nomination to be passed right now per IAR but not similar cases seems just as unfair as failing the nomination and depriving it of its opportunity. I'm not saying we should reject the nomination, but rather maybe ask for more time for an expansion that shouldn't really be too hard to do. If the nominator was new to DYK, an IAR might have been more appropriate given we tend to be more lenient on newcomers, but this is already their sixth nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Also not seeing the IAR case. Will note however that the lead doesn't really cover the Architecture section, so that's a chunk of the characters needed. CMD (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 and Chipmunkdavis: You are both not wrong - I think a 1,400 shortage is a lot. I initially liked the story and hook ideas. I tried to confirm part of a hook sentence and it went to a map. So primary source with inferences made. Bruxton (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Let's see first if what Chipmunkdavis said about possibly expanding the architecture section can put it over the edge. One possibility, of course, would just simply be to nominate the article for GA status, thus bypassing the question of 5x expansion entirely if it passes. With a quick look at the article, it already seems like a viable GAN once the lead issue is addressed. Pinging Yue for their input. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I will incorporate all the suggestions brought up here and double check the sources I provided (some mistakes already noted here) before I nominate for GA, which I intended to do at some point anyways. I think even if I remedy the issue to the lead, I do not think it would pass the 5× threshold because I misunderstood the unit of measurement and by characters, 1,400+ is a lot. I will make some tweaks nonetheless and let you lot decide on how to move forward. Yue🌙 03:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

1940 NFL All-Star Game (January)

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/1940 NFL All-Star Game (January))

This hook seems very misleading to me... when I think of an "all-star game", that implies that teams are selected from the entire pool of players in the league, and that if all the Green Bay Packers players were picked, this was an extraordinary achievement, in that every one of them was deemed better than players from other teams. In fact, though, when we look at the article, it just turns out that due to the format of the day the Packers team was one of the two competitors in the event, as league champions, with only the opposition taken from other teams. This format of champions vs all-star team remained in place for several seasons after this, so is not even particularly remarkable as a one-off. I'd suggest a hook focusing on something different would be appropriate here. Pinging @Gonzo fan2007, DrOrinScrivello, and Hey man im josh:. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I raised similar concerns at the review and probably should have stuck to my guns, apologies. What about something like,
ALT1: ... that the Green Bay Packers once defeated a team of all-stars chosen from the rest of the league?
DrOrinScrivello (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Amakuru, isn't that the point of WP:DYK and "hookiness"? We have hooks that run counter to prevailing thoughts but do so in a technically correct way. Is this hook wrong or incorrect in anyway? No. I mean come on, we had a hook recently that said "DYK ... that 69 is 'nice'?" The purpose of the hook is to draw the reader into the article. I don't see anything wrong with the hook, nor does it go against any DYK criteria. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I think this is fine. It's a little easter-eggy, but just a little, and that's what DYK is about. The sources all seem to use the term "All Star", so we're OK doing that too, even if it differs from the modern usage of the term. RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
It is absolutely not fine. Hooky doesn't mean misleading readers and stating something run-of-the-mill as if it's remarkable. I'd be fine with DrOrinScrivello's alternative suggestion FWIW. Otherwise maybe we reopen the nom.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Amakuru, with respect, you are not in charge of WP:DYK. If you are uncomfortable with it, while at least 4 others are ok (I proposed it, DrOrinScrivello originally approved it, Hey man im josh promoted it and RoySmith supports it), then maybe move on to other noms? You aren't conveying any criteria this is going against and the hook is not "misleading", as the statement is a true fact. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
There is a hook on Main Page right now that says "DYK ... how salamanders cross the road (pictured)?" This is the same thing, the wording is unique and ambiguous to pull readers into the article. Do all salamanders on earth cross using this salamander tunnel? No. Does that make the hook misleading? No. Because the reader satisfies their interest by reading the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I feel strongly that we should not run this hook. The salamander and number hooks cited were not actively misleading readers. This hook gives the clear impression that all of the Packers players were specifically selected, not that this was an automatic entry as a league champion. Yes, we've run misleading hooks in the past but this is a practice that really needs to stop. Hog Farm Talk 17:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Hmmm, I was in favor of running this (despite us being in an NFL-heavy phase) because I thought the objection was to calling it an All-Star game. But if the objection is to the "all of the players ... were selected" part, yeah, I can see that's a problem. BeanieFan11's proposed alt might work better. RoySmith (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Would the alt proposed at the nom be any better? ... that the entire Green Bay Packers team was chosen to play in the 1940 NFL All-Star Game? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
For me, that's close to the same thing and still carries the connotation that there was something remarkable about them being "chosen" for this game, as if it were an open field if selection in which the entire squad was deemed worthy of choosing. But in reality they were "chosen" because that was the format of the day, no other reason. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I mean, exactly. It's not misleading at all and nowhere does it say that the ALT has to clearly state everything. That is the point of "hookiness". All Pro Bowl selectees are chosen today based on the format of the day. The fun part of the hook is that a normal reader says "wow! Really? Let me read more about that" and then finds out more about a niche topic that isn't well known, even in NFL history circles.
Let's look at some more of today's hooks: :"DYK ... that Drake discovered an ancient Chinese city?" Please, tell me what makes this a good hook? Is it a good hook because it purposefully misleads the reader, knowing full well that "Drake" is way more well-known on the English Wikipedia as Drake (musician) (Drake (musician) has 450k views in the last month, Frederick Seguier Drake has 222 views). I mean come on, this is the exact purpose of DYK. If the purpose is to not mislead, this hook should read as "... that Frederick Seguier Drake discovered an ancient Chinese city?" « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Even ChatGPT got fooled when I asked it "Who is Drake?", it came up with several paragraphs about the musician. When I corrected it with, "No, not that Drake", the best it could do was "It sounds like you might be referring to a different Drake. Could you please provide more context or specify the field or context in which this Drake is known?" RoySmith (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, some of this is frustration from constantly getting "your hook isn't hooky enough" on NFL articles. I finally have a good hook and now its too hooky. I still look at it as not misleading, but begging the question for more information, which is the purpose of DYK. To get people to click on the link from our new or greatly expanded content. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Considering that we're running hooks that read, e.g. "DYK ... that Drake discovered an ancient Chinese city?" – which are 100% obviously meant to be misleading (and arguably even more misleading than this), I see no issue with this hook, considering it is factually accurate (the Green Bay Packers were chosen to the NFL All-Star game). BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@Amakuru, RoySmith, and Hog Farm: thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
The Drake hook is IMO highly problematic as well and is far worse than this one. Running one bad hook we shouldn't have doesn't mean we should run this one also. DYK is turning into a clickbait farm of unencyclopedic/misleading information as everyone just chases views which is why I'm finding myself less and less inclined to participate in the DYK process Hog Farm Talk 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I think since we haven't come to any agreement on this, it's going to be a case of pulling it from the queue and reopening the nom page for fresh ideas. I wouldn't mind something that says the Packers played the all-stars or whatever, something factual, but not this trick line that the whole team was chosen. I don't have a strong view on the Drake thing in fact... in my "what comes to your mind" universe, Sir Francis Drake would be at least as significant as the singer anyway. But either way, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't going to magically make this hook a good one for our readers or acceptable for the main page. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
OK, I've pulled the hook. I'll finish up the backend stuff in a few minutes, but I'll leave it for somebody else to find a replacement (or maybe we can just run with 8). RoySmith (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
For clarity, the point wasn't "this one hook exists, so this one is fine too" but rather that this is the routine process for DYK. This is what makes hooks interesting and unique. RoySmith, just go with DrOrinScrivello ALT1 above. That's fine. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I've pulled the hook. Please build consensus for a new version on the nomination page, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I have done so. That said, @Amakuru, RoySmith, and Hog Farm: any thoughts on today's "... that Bills plays for the Bills?" I point this out, not because I have a problem with it or that it is a one-off thing, but because it is so common to change up the linking of the main article in a hook to some type of pun, play on words, or shortening of a name to make a hook hooky. This is purposefully misleading the reader to make a hook "hooky". Let's expand both links on that hook: "... that Keaton Bills plays for the Buffalo Bills?" Is it hooky anymore? This is my point: DYK makes a point to approve hooks that at the very least are purposefully confusing, but more often than not, are outright misleading, to make the hook interesting. And that's fine! Anything to draw our readers in while still being factual should (and has generally always been) fine. This whole discussion has been bizarre considering how often this "infraction" occurs. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Metaphysics

  • ... that metaphysics may have received its name by a historical accident?

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Metaphysics)

This seems to be not compliant with the guidelines at WP:DYKHOOK, which say that "The hook should include a definite fact". If it may have received its name thus, then it's not definite is it. Also, the line in the article saying "it is often suggested that metaphysics got its name by a historical accident" is an unsupported attribution, we need to be saying who suggests this. And the next line saying "his editor may have coined it" is also rather vague. I'd suggest we need a more thorough detailing in the prose as to what the issue with the name actually is, and reasons as to why it may or may not have been a historical accident, with quotes if appropriate. @Phlsph7, Generalissima, and Launchballer: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Amakuru and thanks for raising this concern. I'm not sure what the right interpretation of "definite fact" in WP:DYKHOOK is. If it means that we cannot state common opinions (in the academic discourse) as such, then it is not a definite fact. If it means that the claim is well supported by reliable sources and "unlikely to change", then it is a definite fact. My experience with this type of meta-discussions is that there is usually no simple way to resolve them so unless you find what I've said so far convincing, it might be best to save ourselves the trouble and go for ALT1 instead.
As for the passage in the article, I don't think it's feasible or desirable to provide a representative list of all philosophers that have suggested this common opinion. I agree that vagueness should usually be avoided but there are cases where it is fitting and this may be one of them. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
If we wanted, we could ascribe the view to Mumford 2012, who uses the exact term "historical accident". This might give the false impression that this is a view advanced by a single philosopher. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Hi @Phlsph7: and thanks for your response. I'll leave it for DYK regulars here to comment on the issue of whether facts that may not be true but whose "possible" status is well-attested and frequently said are valid at DYK - I'd lean towards saying not myself, simply because there are many things that "may" be true, and if they're not necessarily true then such facts aren't generally going to be very remarkable. As for the second point, however, I think this definitely does need to be addressed before the hook goes live. Unsupported attributions are contrary to guidelines at WP:INTEXT and WP:WEASEL, and while I wouldn't expect you to list every philosopher who's ever said it, we need to provide enough information that readers can infer the state of research on this and the likelihood that it's true. This will need to be remedied before the hook goes live. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I reformulated the passage to include attribution. Does this change solve your concern? Phlsph7 (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@Phlsph7: yes, that's great now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
  • There are multiple problems with this hook. Mumford's claim that this was an accident seems to be nonsense and, as discussion of the matter goes back millennia, reference to him would be WP:RECENTISM. The OED has an extensive etymology and the word "accident" does not appear in it. Here are some of its key points:

Asclepius in his commentary on the Metaphysics says that Aristotle thought that ontological philosophy should be taught after natural philosophy, and that this explains why the work is entitled μετὰ τὰ ϕυσικά ‘After the Physics’. Asclepius does not say who first gave the work that title; modern scholars sometimes assume that the title goes back to Eudemus of Rhodes (later 4th cent. B.C.), who, according to Asclepius, produced an edition of the work. The explanation which Asclepius offers for the title of the work receives support from the fact that, as Porphyry (3rd cent., in In Aristotelis Categorias Expositio) and some later writers make clear, Aristotle's Categories was sometimes called πρὸ τῶν τοπικῶν or πρὸ τῶν τόπων ‘Before the Topics’.
...
The title came to be used as the name for the branch of study treated in these books, and hence came to be interpreted as meaning ‘the science of things transcending what is physical or natural’.

So, the word has a likely origin while its later meaning is something of a false etymology or semantic change. Such shifts in meaning are a natural part of language. For example, "science" originally meant knowledge in a general sense from the Latin scientia but has developed over the centuries to its modern meaning of formal and systematic disciplines such as physics. This is not accidental; it's just a consequence of the way the word and the world have developed over time.

Anyway, as there seem to be different ways of presenting this and there's some conjecture involved, it's not a definite fact.

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Hello Andrew and thanks for weighing in. I agree with your concerns about attributing this claim to Mumford. This was mainly done because of the repeated explicit requests above. Mumford 2012 is a high-quality reliable source, so I would be careful about dismissing it as nonsense. There are usually different ways to present or describe a passage of events. I don't think that anything in the text you quote contradicts that this passage of events can be accurately described as a historical accident.
For more high-quality sources supporting this claim:
  • [8]: "The use of the term 'metaphysics' to denote these topics is a historical accident"
  • [9]: "Indeed, it is largely just an historical accident that metaphysics is called what it is..."
  • [10]: "It is a historical accident that gave us the expression ta meta ta physika for certain writings of Aristotle..."
These sources support a stronger claim than Mumford 2012. We could make the hook more "definite" by changing it to:
  • ALT0a: ... that metaphysics received its name by a historical accident?
However, it's not my intention to get into a lengthy discussion on this. It seems that you two are convinced that this claim is inappropriate as a DYK hook. Would ALT1 be acceptable to you? Phlsph7 (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree that it would be good to consider alternatives. The current ALTs are:
My impression is that ALT1 is about a local development in British philosophy and that the division between that and continental philosophy is not adequately explained.
ALT2 has a blatant weasel and so needs to be more specific.
Browsing for ideas, I find a good aphorism that "There are arguments in metaphysics, not facts." An especially astounding example is given and that might make a good hook:
The article already mentions this in a couple of places and it's easy to find more sources such as this and that.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
ALT3 is fine with me. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 Done  — Amakuru (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Sadie O. Horton

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Sadie O. Horton)

Several issue with this... Firstly, the first source for this - [11] - attributes the fact to Horton's son, so shouldn't really even be there as a reliable source for that fact... As for the other sources, [12] is flagged at the bottom as "The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive", although who the actual author is isn't mentioned... so not sure if this is reliable or not? The third source, [13] says "Thanks to the tireless efforts of her son Don, Sadie would eventually become the first recognized female veteran of the Merchant Marine during World War II"... although this one doesn't directly attribute the claim to the son, it does rather sound like they're repeating something that he asserted rather than having independently verified this. And finally, what does "recorded" mean? That would suggest to me that there's some record of it anywhere, not just officially recorded by the military or anything like that... and some of the sources here say "recognised" rather than "recorded". Clarity on exactly what this refers to seems necessary. There are other sources that list different women who served in the Merchant Marine, for example Mary Collom Kimbro, who was killed in June 1942, the same month that Horton enlisted, and in the same article Clara Gordon Main, who became a POW and later received a Merchant Marine Meritorious Service Medal. So are we sure Horton was the first? For me, hooks which assert something as the "first" or "only" need to be more watertight than this, but happy to hear other views. Pinging @SL93, CSJJ104, and AirshipJungleman29:  — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

I would read the third source as saying her son led the campaign to have her recognised as a veteran, rather than saying he made the claim. Reading it again I would agree that this should say she is the first to be recognised, rather than recorded. CSJJ104 (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I’m fine with this being pulled. SL93 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I found a copy of her discharge certificate. It's a DD 256, not a DD 214. I don't know much about these things, but a bit of searching shows they're not quite the same thing. There's enough questions here, I'm going to take SL93's suggestion and pull this. RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I think that the nomination can be withdrawn. I see nothing else that might work as a hook. SL93 (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Battle of Stainmore

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Stainmore)

  • ... that the events following the Battle of Stainmore have been called the end of the first Viking age in England?

If we're going to say a topic "has been called" something, then the article needs to attribute in the prose who called it this, per WP:INTEXT. I wonder if we need to add something about this to the DYK checklist, because these issues come up a lot... @CSJJ104, Soman, and Hey man im josh: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for highlighting @Amakuru. I'll see what I can find later today. If there is a source which states "Historians have called this...", or even one willing to outright state this was the end of the first Viking invasion, would that be acceptable? CSJJ104 (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Noted, I'll keep this in mind in the future when moving hooks to the prep area. Thank you for the feedback! Hopefully CSJJ104 gets this sorted out shortly. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
I was not able to find a source to attribute the statement, and I have removed it. Thanks for drawing my attention to a policy I had not fully appreciated the application of. Is it too late to suggest an alternative hook? Possibly "...that Eric's death at the Battle of Stainmore ended the independence of Scandinavian York?" CSJJ104 (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
@CSJJ104: sure, that would be fine I think. @Soman and Hey man im josh: what do you think?  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I think that sounds pretty neat, so I support that alt hook. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok, but put Eric Bloodaxe name in full linked in hook. It's a pretty cool name. --
 Done  — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Ella Scoble Opperman

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Ella Scoble Opperman)

  • ... that American pianist Ella Scoble Opperman, the first dean of the Florida State College for Women, was praised for growing the college into a credible school of music?

So firstly, it should say "creditable", not "credible", since that's the word used in the source.[14] I have fixed this in the article already, we can also fix it in the hook once we have a final version. But additionally, since this is a quote, it should be a quote in the hook, we're not saying in Wikivoice whether the school was credi(ta)ble or not. And secondly, as per the Battle of Stainmore above, the quote is unattributed. The source itself also has this down as a quote, attributed in footnote 37, but that's a footnote I don't have access to via the Google Books preview so not sure if anyone does know who originally said this? @SL93, Innisfree987, and AirshipJungleman29: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Amakuru I was able to see it as being from "Campbell, University in Transition". I looked it up at and it refers to Doak S. Campbell, who was once the president of the college, so that won't work as a hook. I will suggest some alt hooks.
Amakuru Do either of these work? I can suggest more. SL93 (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi @SL93: Sorry for delay, back for a look now. I'm not sure the second one here is terribly interesting... Having a painting inside your own namesake hall would be quite a normal outcome. The first one's probably OK. I would remove the quotes from legacy, since the later quotes already mean we're not talking about a WIKIVOICE truth. @Innisfree987: as approver, do you have an opinion?  — Amakuru (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
That’s fine with me, agree about removing the quotes around legacy. Here’s a brief attempt to punch it up but I don’t feel strongly, if others prefer the way it was previously written.
ALT *…that the legacy of American pianist Ella Scoble Opperman has been said to continue "to entertain and draw attention to Tallahassee" decades after her death?
Thank you for catching the issue with the original hook @Amakuru, I regret that I missed it. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
That removes the filler about her being the first dean of the Florida State College for Women I guess. I would be OK with either version. @SL93: what think you?  — Amakuru (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
That’s fine. SL93 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
 Done  — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Kekerengu

Template:Did you know nominations/Kēkerengū

OK, so technically the article does not directly say he was an "international fugitive", it says "Incurring massive debts, Tetley fled to Uruguay"... that would probably OK as a paraphrasing, except that the cited source [15] doesn't mention Uruguay anywhere. The article on Tetley himself also says that the Uruguay story is only a possibility, and that he also might have been in England. Probably just need to tidy this up a bit and make sure that source(s), article and hook are all in agreement. As a minor aside, the article also doesn't say that he herded sheep, it merely says he was a sheep farmer. Perhaps it's obvious that a sheep farmer herds sheep, but I prefer it if hook facts are definitely stated rather than just implied myself! @Generalissima, Silver seren, and Hey man im josh:  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

Minnesota State Highway 36

@Rjjiii, NotDragonius, and Nyanardsan: This doesn't seem to pass the interesting test. A highway goes over a river using a bridge. I'm guessing the putative interest factor is that it's a lift bridge, which is relatively rare, but only somebody into bridges would know that, so fails the likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest criteria of WP:DYKINT. On the plus side, I see this nomination was processed mostly by editors I don't see a lot at DYK, so thank you all for helping out! RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Having read the whole article now, I'm not sure there's anything in there that would make a good replacement hook. The best I can come up with is:
... that you can take Minnesota Legislative Route 118 to the Wisconsin state line, but you'll never see a sign for it?
based on the first sentence of History, but it's questionable if there's solid sourcing for the lack of signs. RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Its not currently supported by any source... The given source is from 1933 but the statement is about 2024, so unless they were time travelers or clairvoyants no bueno. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
At least for the time being, let's assume the GA is valid
It also doesn't meet our current standard for how to use maps in articles (the GA review is mistaken, the reviewer appears unaware of the current consesus on maps use). This should be taken out of the queue for now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
What is the current consensus on maps use Horse Eye's Back? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
That they are not an exception to the OR policy. There is an extended stand alone discussion somewhere which half of the community particupated in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@48JCL: regarding the GA review. RoySmith (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith sorry at the time I was not aware. 48JCL 16:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
It's not clear to me if you need to be sorry. See my comment below about the 2023 RFC on maps use which states that it's consensus that maps are an acceptable form of source information and that the use of maps for historical information is a matter of editorial consensus. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
okay I am SUPER confused. 48JCL 16:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Consensus on maps use seems contrary to what Horse Eye's Back is saying. The close to a 2023 RFC states that There is consensus to add (to WP:OR) Source information does not need to be in text form—any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Routine interpretation of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources and that citing maps for historical information is something that remain[s] up to editorial consensus, with no consensus for or against adding something about it to WP:NOR. That text still stands as WP:ORMEDIA ([permanent link). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I believe that HEB is saying that the use of maps in the article goes beyond "routine interpretation", but as you say that is "up to editorial consensus". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes that is what I am saying, this drifts out of routine interpretation and into OR. Only by comparing the cited map to previous and subsequent maps can that intepretation be made, so its not routine and is OR/SYNTH. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

I've collapsed the sub-thread about the GA and maps. If anybody thinks the GA is not valid, WP:GAR is the place to discuss that. My original question is about WP:DYKINT, so hopefully I can steer us back to that. RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)

Mi-naow think this is interesting either. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps
(A is called B but isn't marked B)
  • ... that Legislative Route 118, Cedar Avenue, and Officer Richard Crittenden, Sr. Memorial Highway have all been terms for Minnesota State Highway 36?
(leaning into the several names the road's had.)
(Some Canada on a road for a U. S. state? What's that about? (and thinking that, the reader clicks))
(last one is trying to be quirky by leaning into the somewhat person-sounding names of the cities)
Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I like the last two suggestions, to me those are interesting and quirky. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I like the little Canada one. RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
The linked bridge (Stillwater Bridge (St. Croix River)) is on the National Register of Historic Places. I won't object to the ALTs but did not see an issue with the original hook. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
As I originally quoted, the hook need to be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest. The fact that the bridge is on the NRHP is precisely the kind of "special knowledge" that requirement is talking about. RoySmith (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)
I mean, I feel like the average reader doesn't see many lift bridges and thus would be interested in the article. I agree that the last two are pretty interesting and could work as a hook. What are the next steps?
Also confused as to how the use of maps in the article is non-routine. The GAR has been deleted. NotDragonius (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
The trick I reckon is alerting the viewer that a "lift bridge" is interesting. (Not helped by the article using a photo where the bridge isn't lifted!) CMD (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The average reader probably doesn't even know that there are different types of bridges. If you want them to know it's unusual, tell them. Something like:
... that Minesota State Highway 36 has one of only XX lift bridges in the entire interstate system? RoySmith (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
@NotDragonius: since multiple editors have objected to the previous hook, the next step would be come up with alternative hooks. You can post them and discuss here in this thread. Rjjiii (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, NotDragonius said he was fine with both the Little Canada and the Grant/Elmo hooks, so maybe either could just work instead? Also pinging reviewer Nyanardsan as he hasn't given his input here yet. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Good point. I've switched the hook that others objected to with the "little Canada" hook in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2.[16] If the nominator is good with that, then I think the issue is resolved and they don't have to do anything. Rjjiii (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Alright then, thanks. NotDragonius (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I apologize for my late reply and this tangent. I don't have much input here that might help, as I am a bit opinionated or biased here. I believe all articles a user has worked hard for and deemed interesting enough by them deserve to be considered for DYKN and should place heavier emphasis on more objective criteria such as length, newly promoted or expanded, and cited. Throwing out some articles arbitrarily because they were deemed "not interesting enough" is counterproductive to the improvement of Wikipedia and is demotivating to the nominator (as I have experienced myself several times). Nyanardsan (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Nyanardsan, nobody has ever had their article rejected because it was deemed not interesting enough. That's not a criterion at all! What is required is for a hook to hold some interest. That's where some articles struggle; there just isn't anything interesting that lends itself for a good hook. I have written many articles that I never bothered to nominate at DYK because there just wasn't a good hook in it. Schwede66 02:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
nobody has ever had their article rejected because it was deemed not interesting enough. That's not a criterion at all! What is required is for a hook to hold some interest.: Er—these amount to the same criterion. 'Why was the hook rejected?' 'Because it wasn't interesting.' If the hook had been deemed interesting, it would've been 'interesting enough' to not be rejected. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Er–an article is not a hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
There's a nuance to it. WP:DYKINT refers to hooks, not articles. Articles can be interesting especially to people interested in the subject or its field, but they may not necessarily lend well to hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
A couple notes before I log off:
  • I've added some additonal material about the bridges if there is anything hookable there.[17]
  • The nominator NotDragonius does not seem to edit frequently,[18] so they may not comment here.
  • I've left a notice on the article talk page and nominator talk page.
Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
In the meantime, given that there are still concerns about the hook and it is close to running, I would suggest either bumping it off to prep or even pulling to buy us more time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)
Swapped into prep 2. RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5

Yazathingyan (14th-century minister)

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Yazathingyan (14th-century minister))

Quick and slightly minor question on this... if his common name is simply Yazathingyan, as implied by the title of the article, why does the hook refer to him as Yazathingyan Nga Mauk, a concatenation of two different names which isn't in itself found within the article? @Hybernator, Silver seren, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but this Google Books snippet from The Maniyadanabon of Shin Sandalinka, Volumes 113-116 gives that as his full name. SL93 (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@SL93: you mean his full name is "Yazathingyan Nga Mauk"? If that's the case, then the article should say so I'd think. Currently it lists "Yazathingyan" and "Nga Mauk" as two separate and alternative names.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Amakuru I'm just saying that the one English source I can find has it as his full name. I'm not sure if it's wrong. SL93 (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Now I'm thinking it's his full name per the article on the work at Mani Yadanabon. I'm hoping that Hybernator comes along. SL93 (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
The Nga Nu article implies that Nga is an honorific, and the Yazathingyan article so implies the guy's name was Mauk, who came to be referred to with the honorific Nga, and then elevated to the title Yazathingyan. "Yazathingyan Nga Mauk" is unlikely to be the right way to refer to him - Nga Mauk is probably more correct. Or maybe with commas - ...that Yazathingyan, Nga Mauk, betrayed his brother... Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 07:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps Hybernator intended not to be confused with other people in Burmese history who have the same name "Yazathingyan." (Pls refer to Yazathingyan (disambiguation))
To be exact, in the case of ministers, Burmese tradition is that they were conferred the royal titles by the king and referred in the chronicles by that titles as their official names. But here in this case, since there are several people with the same name (or title), it is his given/ birth name that is used to differentiate from other Yazathingyans.
So to sum up, the subject’s name officially mentioned in the royal chronicle is "Yazathingyan". "Nga Mauk" is his birth name which in this case is used not to be confused with others.
Hope this would explain the confusion. Htanaungg (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Okay, so what I'm getting from this is that the hook as it stands is good to go, right? If yes, please ping Amakuru informing em that it is. Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits) 13:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC) P.S.: Disclosure—I pointed Htanaungg to this discussion. See here.
  • Hi everyone, sorry, just saw the thread. Yes, the custom was to refer to the people by their most recent [typically highest] title. (Titles were usually prepended to the person's existing list of titles and followed by the personal name). Now, in this particular case, the chronicles refer to him as Yazathingyan Nga Mauk (e.g., (Maha Yazawin Vol. 1 2006: 279) and (Hmannan Vol. 1 2003: 401, 405)) and also as Yazathingyan (e.g., (Maha Yazawin Vol. 1 2006: 282) and (Hmannan Vol. 1 2003: 406)). I included Nga Mauk in the hook just to differentiate from many other Yazathingyans in Burmese history. I could have easily left it out as well. Hybernator (talk) 21:34, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Climate change in Asia

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Asia)

  • ... that climate change in Asia is expected to increase already-high flood risks in Asian cities, potentially affecting 932 million people?

A slight mismatch I think between the hook and the article here... For the 932 million figure, the article text says "Over a third of the cities in Asia, with a combined population of around 932 million, are considered at high risk of flooding", but as far as I can tell that's a current statistic, not something that's expected. Presumably that's what also supports the already-high part of the hook, which otherwise might not be in the article. But the increase that's expected is separate and in the next paragraph - "Future warming is expected to substantially increase annual precipitation ... making floods substantially more frequent". I would think this expectation would therefore perhaps affect even more than the 932 million people who are at risk right now? @InformationToKnowledge, Crisco 1492, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Amakuru Would the original hook of ... that climate change in Asia will increase flood risks in the continent's cities, which are already high for 932 million people? From what you said, it appears the original hook will fix the issue. SL93 (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@SL93: yes, it does sound like that matches what the article says...  — Amakuru (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Amakuru Should the original hook be used since it's almost time for the hook to go live? SL93 (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@SL93: Oh yes,  Done thanks. I forgot I needed to implement the change myself as well!  — Amakuru (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Saleh Manaf

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Saleh Manaf)

Just wanted to check what the source says about him being a "dummy canddiate" here? I can't directly see it myself, source [3] doesn't address that part. The main question is whether he was actually a dummy candidate in the senses meant by our article, i.e. someone inserted by others as a foil or non-serious candidate, or whether he was in fact merely a genuine candidate who wasn't expected to win? The wording "Saleh was nominated by small parties inside the council" in the article suggests to me that he and those who nominated him genuinely wanted to win, which may mean a term other than dummy candidate needs to be used. @Jeromi Mikhael, Z1720, Crisco 1492, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Is it possible to use the term underdog? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@Jeromi Mikhael: if that's what sense of the source says, and the article is also updated, then go for it.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Jeromi Mikhael The set will be live soon. Can you fix the issue in time or should the hook be pulled? SL93 (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I've pulled the hook as this is unresolved. I'll reopen the nomination. Schwede66 23:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I've plugged that gap with Suicidal Tour; have done the credits manually. And the article is recommended reading; that's quite the story. Schwede66 00:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66 and SL93: I'm very sorry with the commotion I've caused. I've responded with an ALT shortly after Amakaru replied, but technical problems barred the edit from appearing in this page. I've added an ALT to the nomination page and I've hope any of you could chime in and and give your two cents. Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 23:43, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely no trouble, Jeromi Mikhael. That's what the checking processes are there for. It'll all sort itself out in the end. Keep up the good work. Schwede66 00:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
The same hook was promoted to prep 1 by AirshipJungleman29. It will need to be unpromoted again. SL93 (talk) 21:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Ugh. Why was it in the approved list? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:56, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Good question. It's odd. SL93 (talk) 23:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Answers Research Journal

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Answers Research Journal)

Minor point perhaps, but according to the article it wasn't the journal itself which espoused this view, but an article therein written by Liberty University professor Alan Gillen. Since it's not an editorial or with any direct endorsement, does that still count as being "according to" the journal? In fact, the variant hook suggested by Rjjiii might be better here (reworded to avoid the word claim anyway), as it directly attributes who said this... @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, Sohom Datta, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

If we want to be quite rigorous, this could be rephrased to
Saying "attributed" would require some revision of the article, as currently it just states Gillen argued the origins of HIV goes back to the biblical Fall. The source cited, an article in The Guardian, states that Gillen seems to be suggesting that HIV turned nasty because of Eve munching on the apple and humankind being banished from the Garden of Eden.
Though now that I look at the template page, I've sort of just recreated ALT2. I recognize that Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d considers attribution to the article slightly less snappy, but I'm not sure how else to address what Amakuru has raised here. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@Amakuru@Hydrangeans, thank you for the ping. Well, I guess since journals are inanimate objects, they can never make “claims” or “arguments” in the most literal sense. The journal is simply the medium this professor used to make such claims/arguments. Since DYK hooks typically prefer brevity, how about something like this: that according to research in one creationist journal, HIV has its origins in the Fall? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I would support that wording. Sohom (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't like the hook and I don't like the use of "research" here. Research is defined as "the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions". That is not what happened here. I would prefer a far less controversial hook that doesn't promote crazy religious pseudoscience on the main page. I'm sure people can come up with a hook that doesn't do this. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I like the original hook, and the first rephrased hook. I don't consider the journal itself to have any actual research. SL93 (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Looking briefly at the article and its links, there's an enormous opportunity to come up with better hooks. For example, the editor in chief of the YEC journal, Andrew Snelling, has both supported standard geological dating in billions of years and young-earth creationist dating in thousands of years. That's hilarious and would make a great hook. Does his preferred dating depend on which side of the bed he wakes up on? Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't know how I feel about Wikipedia ridiculing a person on the main page. (However deserving that might actually be) Sohom (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, and I’m not sure which part of the ARJ article Viriditas is referring to. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Well research can be heavily flawed, misleading, or—in this case—purely unscientific. How about replacing research with “study” or “article”:
that according to an article in one creationist journal, HIV has its origins in the Fall? or
that according to one creationist journal’s article, HIV has its origins in the Fall? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Just curious, but what is it that you like about this hook? If I nominated this article for DYK, that would be the last hook I would ever choose. Just wondering about your thought process. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Plus, in accordance with MOS:SEASONS we should say "... has its origins in autumn." EEng 00:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Ambiguity is the least of our problems, but it's still a problem. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
It's not referring to a season. SL93 (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
We know! That's the joke EEng was making. It's too ambiguous. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, the season of fall isn't capitalized, and it is wiki-linked. I get the joke and was messing around, but it really isn't funny. SL93 (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I find it funny, because the hook assumes (or asserts) "The Fall" is a thing. It is not. It's a religious belief unique to a certain kind of religion, and even within that domain, a certain kind of interpretation. Not everyone believes in the "fall of humanity" and "sin". This almost sounds like it violates DYKFICTION. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I understand that, but the hook makes it clear it's from a creationist viewpoint. I would feel different if it was portrayed as some type of actual research-based journal. I guess adding biblical or something similar to the hook is fine though. I do agree with you that there are better options for hooks. I added the hook to the last slot because the whole thing is nonsense. SL93 (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I was curious about this, so I did some searching. Apparently, less than 10% of Americans believe in a Biblical worldview, with numbers as low as 4%. Now, I don't know if any of that is accurate, but I think saying "HIV has its origins in the Fall" might confuse a lot of our readers, perhaps even more so outside the US. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I would have never guessed that. I really need to move at some point. SL93 (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
We explicitly say that the claim is being made by "one creationist journal". I don't see how somebody could misconstrue this as a actual fact (especially outside the US), unless I am missing something here? Sohom (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@Viriditas, to answer your question, I like this hook and I chose this hook for the precise reason of WP:DYKINT: The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest. The most interesting hooks are the ones that leave the reader wanting to know more. This hook is undoubtedly unusual and intriguing. From the perspective of the reader, they will probably ponder, “what does HIV have to do with the season of fall”? That’s when their curiosity kicks in and they notice that Fall links to the biblical fall. “Well, what the heck does the Bible have to do with HIV?” the reader will ask themselves next. That’s when the reader will likely start exploring the bolded link. Frankly speaking, a hook about how a person views Earth’s geological process is uninteresting for the general reader (thus failing WP:DYKINT). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
You think a hook that says an editor in chief who can’t decide between standard geological dating in billions of years and creationist dating in thousands of years is uninteresting? Seriously? Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
To be fair, that proposal, although interesting to me, doesn't seem to be in the article or at least reflected in its wording. I do think we can probably move away from either the original angle or that proposal and try some wackier options:
  • ... that the Answers Research Journal excludes members of the scientific community from its peer review process?
  • ... that a creationist research journal requires authors to sign a statement of faith and may reject papers that contradict its religious beliefs?
  • ... that a creationist research journal does not list authors in its table of contents, and authors are allowed to publish papers under a pseudonym?
I'm not sure if any of these could work (or why we aren't mentioning the "journal" by name in the hook) as non-specialist hooks, I'm just putting these here for consideration. To me the second proposal might seem like a "well duh" hook given it's about a creationist "journal", but it might still be weird or unusual to readers. For the first proposal I decided to mention the journal by name since it isn't blatantly obvious from the title that it's creationist in tone, and the contrast between being a "research journal" and excluding mainstream scientists might raise eyebrows even if it is a bit of a gotcha hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Well, it would really depend on your exact wording/set-up. But for the general reader, it doesn’t seem very hook-y. Also, as mentioned above, there might be some WP:DYKBLP concerns + that content is not in the article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
This set is next to go up so given the concerns raised about the current hook it might be a good idea to pull it or at least bump it off to prep for now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Thinking about the original hook again, another possible issue with the hook is that it might not be immediately clear for non-Christians or even non-devout Christians. Calling it simply "the Fall" could be too vague and it might not necessarily click even to Christians what "the Fall" is referring to. One possible solution could be to clarify it as being the "Fall of man" or "the Fall of Adam" to make the connection much clearer, though another option is of course to move away from that angle entirely. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
  • Kind of shocked this is one of the DYK items that Wikipedia has chosen to highlight. I can't help but feel that something like this is borderline endorsing a statement with likely homophobic intentions (...and during pride month?). I don't know. I know that DYK items are not necessarily endorsing their comments (and that Wikipedia's purpose is to document - certainly I have no objection to this being in the original article), but frankly it's not even an interesting or shocking fact - 'did you know Christian fundamentalists think HIV is punishment for sinning' is news to almost no one, and I have no clue why this should be on Wikipedia's main page. It certainly seems there were objections raised in the process, so why was this approved? (And, calling it the 'Fall' is definitely a gotcha that just hides what this statement is actually saying - that's not a did you know! If you have to trick people into clicking, maybe that's a bad sign that your fact is not actually very interesting or informative on its own?) --Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
    I’m sorry you feel that way but there’s absolutely no violation of WP:DYKG here. The original minor objection raised by Amakuru was to simply make the hook a bit more specific by attributing it to the original article. The “Fall” was not a trick at all. It’s simply a pun. I’ve seen harmless word play on DYK numerous times. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see this as a endorsement of anything, as I have mentioned above, we explicitly label this take "creationist". I don't see how much more clearer we could get. I also (personally) do not see it how this is homophobic, the message of the hook/my takeaway from the hook is "did you know ... that pseudo-science believers have a academic journal that said this weird shit?" rather than a specific endorsement of the weird shit itself. Sohom (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
    That’s exactly correct. Fringe journal saying weird nonsense /= WP saying weird nonsense. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
    I'm with User:Nerd1a4i, who said it better than I could: it's not even an interesting or shocking fact - 'did you know Christian fundamentalists think HIV is punishment for sinning' is news to almost no one. This is exactly what I was thinking but was unable to word it. The hook fails interestingness. More to the point, we recently had an article on DYK, Ronald Reagan and AIDS, which ran on May 19. The idea that HIV was punishment for sinning came out of this era, and is touched upon in the section "Reagan's personal views". The hook from that article, "...that Ronald Reagan did not publicly mention AIDS until 1985, after more than 5,000 people in the United States had died from it?" dovetails with this hook for the same reason. So it does feel like we are running the same kind of material again, except from the POV of creationists. As I said above, I am totally flabbergasted at the sheer obsession on this one hook when there are so many other potential hooks available. It doesn't make sense to me or Nerd1a4i (who is now my unofficial spirit animal). I want to also add, this is a problem I've commented on before. We should not spend so much time arguing about a single hook. Narutolovehinata5 has gone well above and beyond offering examples of new hooks. Please choose one or write one yourself. We have multiple editors now saying that the HIV hook doesn't work, so let's discard it and stop discussing it. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
    @Viriditas, this conversation is completely moot. The hook was already on the main page for the allotted time. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
    Not moot. Debrief and autopsy needed. Viriditas (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
    Yeah, no. Respectfully, let’s not waste editors’ time any further. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
    I see no lessons learned here, so I predict we will see the same problem arise again. I will be watching. Viriditas (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
    Please see our WP:STALK policy. Thank you and happy editing! Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
    I watch as many of the DYK hooks as I can. It’s not stalking. Is there a particular reason you think I would be watching yours? This is why I spoke of a debrief and autopsy. There were no lessons learned here. The question of why HIV and The Fall was chosen as a hook among dozens of others was never answered and I share Nerd1a4i's concerns up above. I will continue watching the nominations for similar problems. If you think I should pay special attention to yours, let me know. Viriditas (talk) 23:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
    When you said “I’ll be watching” I interpreted that to mean you intended to specifically monitor my future DYKs. I now see that’s not the case. No need to give me any special attention (as I am well aquatinted with DYK and core content policies) but I will definitely ping you if I have any DYK questions :) Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Maria Pizzoli

@SL93, Phlsph7, and Bruxton: sorry, a late query on this. I was slightly concerned that the article depends entirely on only two sources, although in fairness you've done a reasonable job of it not seeming like they're very closely paraphrased. There are two sentences that I couldn't match to their sources though:

  • "Pilotti praised her for being as well versed as himself with music"
  • "Her first public appearance was in 1837 when she was invited to attend a music festival with a well-regarded harpist at Società del Casino di Bologna headquarters."

Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

I will look soon. I’m currently waiting for my ride home from work. SL93 (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
The second part is in the second reference. - “In 1837, at just twenty years old, the girl made her first public appearance. The opportunity arose when the director of the Società del Casino di Bologna called her to accompany on the piano a famous harpist who was supposed to perform at their headquarters.” I don’t know where I got “music festival”. I will remove that now. SL93 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
The article now says - “Her first public appearance was in 1837 when she was invited to the Società del Casino di Bologna headquarters to perform on the piano with a well-regarded harpist.” SL93 (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Amakuru I removed the "praised" part because I cannot recall where I found it at, and I fixed the second part. Thank you for the help. SL93 (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
@SL93: great, thank you.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Flemish bond

The current hook for Flemish bond (presently in Prep 6) needs to swap "was" to "were" due to "bricks" being plural. "Bricks" can also be swapped for "brickwork", retaining "was". ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure about that. Certainly "bricks" is plural and would take "were". But "bricks laid in Flemish bond"? Isn't that a collective noun which is treated (at least in American English) as singular? RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
"brick laid in Flemish bond" is a noncount noun (or "mass noun"), and so takes "is" in any national variety (like "water treated with chlorine is"). It's not a collective noun like "the American team", which is interpreted as singular in some varieties and plural in others. EEng 22:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Flemish bond
English Bond
Phlegmish bond
If bricks are laid
in flemish bond
it makes them quite a mass
to call them plural
in wiki-speak
you'd have to be an ass
Burma-shave
RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
"... that bricks laid in Flemish bond were a sign of wealth in colonial Virginia?" is currently in queue 6. I take it that has to be changed. SL93 (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
No, wait, stop. "bricks laid in Flemish bond were a sign" is also correct. From a grammar point of view, you could say "brick laid in Flemish bond is" or "bricks laid in Flemish bond are". But the former formulation has a slightly better tone to it. EEng 00:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
More importantly, that's sourced to a blog, so not a WP:RS. RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
The blog was by a university researcher on a university-managed blog (different from a typical, self-published blog site), with the information quoted from Carolyn Whittenburg, an expert in colonial Virginia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree. A common misconception is that all blogs are unreliable. SL93 (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
McClain isn't an expert and the blog is not editorially reviewed, but Whittenburg is indeed a subject-matter expert so I'm inclined to let it slide. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't know that these are any better as sources, but:
RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: good sources! I bought three books that'll further color this topic more after it stands at DYK. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Queue/7

Oxford (toy company)

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Oxford (toy company))

  • ... that Korean brick toys, colloquially called "Korean Lego", often feature themes of "war and danger", including sets such as military vehicles?

@Piotrus, SL93, and Generalissima: I have tagged the "Themes and characteristics" as being almost all reliant on a single source [19], which raises concerns that it may be closely paraphrasing the source in question. I will probably pull this later today, unless there is a consensus that I'm barking up the wrong tree with this one. The article also relies a lot on quotes, some of which (including the hook facts) are not attributed per WP:INTEXT. At the very least that will need addressing... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@Amakuru I've added the extra citations as requested, duplicating end-of-paragraph citations. I don't see the problem with sourcing; the article uses about a dozen sources. Yes, one of them (a reliable academic paper) is used for much of the content, but AFAIK it is the only source of this quality. All other sources that we could find would be semi-promotional coverage from Korean newspapers and worse (social media). The topic is notable, and the article should not be penalized by the fact that only one source in existence is of good (academic) quality and therefore used extensively. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 12:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm against pulling the hook for a section being almost all reliant on a single source. I would have to see precedent that such a thing is an issue with a reliable source, and I haven't. SL93 (talk) 16:37, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: I have undid your removal of sources with your edit summary of "rm companies sourced to non-independent citations". There is no rule stating that only independent citations can be used in articles. SL93 (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
SL93 Very true, but in a non-exhaustive list of promotional sets we should go with those mentioned in reliable, independent sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:52, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I will have to disagree, unless I can see some guideline or rule stating such. SL93 (talk) 16:53, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I have no issue if it is the consensus here to remove those citations from the article. SL93 (talk) 17:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
See the first paragraph of Wikipedia:Independent sources#Why independent sources are required. A quick glance at the company's website shows many other themed sets not mentioned in the article: Peter Rabbit, Gaspard et Lisa, Disney's Snow White, Thomas the Tank Engine, Miffy the Bunny. Why have the themed sets for Doraemon, MapleStory, and Pororo been randomly selected ahead of those themed sets, the themes of which are notable enough for Wikipedia articles? It gives the false impression of selective promotional editing. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:08, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I get your point, but I would like to hear from Piotrus about why he chose them first, and maybe they can add independent sources to them. I guess I don't understand why there is so much of a rush when the nominator has been active. SL93 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Piotrus is unlikely to reply. The hook is going live in seven hours and they have edited in this time precisely once in the past month. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:19, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I will undo my removal in time then. I have practically no life. Although I see he has edited far often than that by clicking on his contributions, and he responded here around 5 hours ago. SL93 (talk) 17:20, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
5 hours ago is not between 17:00 and 00:00 UTC. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:24, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
And it isn't once in the past month which is my point. It can't go live with the non sequitur tags, and Amakuru's tag anyway. SL93 (talk) 17:25, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I will just undo my edit. I don't see it going live anyway. SL93 (talk) 17:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
The reason those other themed licenced sets were not mentioned is because I did not notice them. Thanks for the IDs, I'll add them shortly. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:42, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
PS. Wikipedia:Independent sources#Why independent sources are required is an essay and I've never seen such refs removed, as long as the content they reference is WP:DUE, and I think it is due here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:51, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
There was no consensus, and it went live, so I removed the tag. SL93 (talk) 00:41, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

Arndt Jorgens

@Bruxton @Muboshgu @Generalissima There's some WP:CLOP with sabr.org/bioproj/person/arndt-jorgens (earwig). It's marginal, but a little copyediting should fix everything. RoySmith (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

I'll take a look at it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:23, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Resolved. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Ice

@AirshipJungleman29, Gonzo fan2007, InformationToKnowledge, and Chiswick Chap: There's extensive copying from https://eartharchitecture.org/. And, it's cited as a source, but it looks like a blog to me so not clear if it's a WP:RS, although https://eartharchitecture.org/?p=730 makes a reasonable argument that it might be. RS or not, the copying far exceeds the bounds allowed by WP:CLOP and I'm surprised that didn't come up at Talk:Ice/GA1 or in our own DYK review. RoySmith (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith, I rewrote the offending paragraph. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:01, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Good work, many thanks. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:03, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Relation (philosophy)

@Hey man im josh, Kusma, and Phlsph7: I'll be honest, I don't understand the cited source well enough to tell if the hook fact is verified or not. Somebody else, preferably a SME, should look at this. RoySmith (talk) 22:39, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

You are right, MacBride 2020 is not the most accessible source for non-experts. I found a few reliable sources that are hopefully more accessible:
  • Heil 2009, p. 312: "The historical record encompasses a proliferation of views on relations ... Flat-out anti-realism: there are no relations; beliefs of the form “a bears R to b” are false."
  • [20]: "Just as there are no numbers or properties, there are no relations..."
  • [21]: "Bradley was of the opinion that at the bottom there are no relations"
Phlsph7 (talk) 07:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

William Henry Harrison Seeley

@Bruxton, CommissarDoggo, and Tbhotch: there's some minor WP:CLOP with victoriacross.org.uk/bbseeley.htm. See earwig for details. A little copyediting should fix the problem. As with all "first" hooks, my bogo-meter gets set off, but I'm willing to accept that there have been few enough VC's handed out that we'd know if there were any earlier ones. Another issue is that in different places, we talk about "American", "American-born", and "American citizen", which are all slightly different things, so somebody should take a closer look to make sure we haven't (as I believe the British might say), bollixed that up. RoySmith (talk) 22:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith For the first bit I can see how that one got past me, but I've hopefully fixed it now for that and another source. As for the American VC thing and whether he was the first, it's a definite, I've never found a source to dispute it and, to my knowledge, no other American received one until WW1.
And finally, the weirdness surrounding different uses of different terms, "American-born" is something I hadn't noticed. It was originally added by another user back in 2017, so likely just didn't get cut when I futzed about with the lead. I've changed it now. "American Citizen" is from a contemporary news title and was solely used as part of the history of how his VC got back to him the second time he lost it.
Oh, and as a Brit, you're spot on with the usage, just not quite with the spelling. Bollocksed. Thanks for taking a closer look at the nom as well, sometimes it just needs to have a fresh pair of eyes on it to point out all the little details that need to be ironed out. CommissarDoggoTalk? 23:29, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Minnesota State Highway 36

I had a hand in this, so somebody else needs to check it over. RoySmith (talk) 22:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Nominated in time, long enough. Earwig gives me no gip. Hook checks out to the amusingly titled Backside 2023 (north east of the big yellow middle), and this seems rudimentary enough for WP:GOOGLEMAPS to be usable. What makes this hook compliant with MOS:CAPS?--Launchballer 20:14, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

Special occasion: Braver Angels convention

Hi. I gather that the DYK volunteers are already working hard and stretched thin, so I understand if nobody has time for this. I nominated Braver Angels for a DYK on June 14th, with the hope that it might be put into the DYK queue for their national convention on June 27-29. Anyway, it's coming up soon, so I'm posting it here in case anyone has a chance to review it, etc. Template:Did you know nominations/Braver Angels. Thanks very much, ProfGray (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

KUER-FM in Prep 5

I'm pretty sure this would be discussed at Errors. It's not necessarily an Error, but let us be deliberate. Here's the nomination form. With this edit, Ravenpuff added quotation marks to the hook with the edit summary add quotation marks since this counts as an inline quote. Two thoughts:

  • I'm not convinced that we need quotation marks here.
  • But if we do, I suggest that the quotation marks should also be italicised.

On the latter point, there's nothing in MOS:ITALICS that covers this. I regard it as being similar to the brackets around the word "pictured" in hooks; those brackets are to be italicised as per WP:DYKMOS. Anyway, there's heaps of time to come to some agreement, I'm sure. Schwede66 05:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

Chapter a Day seems to be the name of a series, which would demand italics. Not seeing the need for quotation marks.--Launchballer 14:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I am also not sure why we need quotation marks but I Will ping @Sammi Brie and Oltrepier: to get their thoughts. Bruxton (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
The italics are because this was the title of a radio show, but I would also now not be opposed to "a chapter a day" with no formatting. Turns out Chapter a Day is a thing, and it isn't in Utah. (In very related news, I just expanded a radio station in Wisconsin.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Chapter a Day is a great read. A series that's been running for close to 100 years. That is quite something. With regards to our hook, I see consensus for the quotation marks to go. Thanks! Schwede66 19:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66 Sorry for replying just now, but I agree with Sammi's point here. Thank you for flagging it, by the way! Oltrepier (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66, Sammi Brie, and Oltrepier: With apologies for missing this discussion: my opinion is that marking the phrase in italics means that it refers to the radio show, but the hook exploits the literal meaning of the words, i.e. literally a "chapter a day". I tried to use quotation marks to point out that we're using the show title as part of the phrasing here. Of course, if this feels totally unnecessary and pedantic, I should say that I don't mind keeping the hook as is, but I would slightly prefer Sammi Brie's suggestion that we just omit the italic formatting – they're not that essential to the hook. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Scotch any indications of a title, @Ravenpuff. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Porter Robinson

I am not too knowledgeable on Wikipedia etiquette or systems but am an avid front page reader everyday. I have noticed and checked through the archive that we've listed 4 Porter Robinson facts in just the first half of 2024. Is it potentially time to retire his facts? I've read his page twice now! Thanks 81.97.68.199 (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

Do you know what days these ran? That'll help us understand the problem better. RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Four hooks about Robinson in six months isn't that many when you compare to the time when we were full of Tay-tay hooks, or our regular features on New York buildings, opera, and radio stations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Capri-Sun

Not strictly a DYK thing, but congratulations to theleekycauldron and Tamzin for Capri-Sun being featured on WP:TFA! RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

:D thanks, Roy! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Sara Houcke (nom)

Anyone want to weigh in on this? I'm seeing it as a hook basically of the form "... that [Circus performer] was known as [performer's PR nickname]", but the nominator and promoter would probably disagree with that characterization. Courtesy pings to @Silver seren and Bruxton. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)

I responded on the nom page. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Side note: I was wondering why someone would want to use the method of whispering to tigers... Lots of tabloid-looking-sources say that tigers are one of the only animals who seek revenge. NPR also has an anecdote about tiger revenge. But first they say a tiger "can jump as far as 25 ft (7.6 m) -- vertically, they can jump over a basketball hoop". Yikes. They tell the story of how one tiger stalked a man and took revenge by killing and eating him. So I conclude that whispering commands to tigers seems prudent because they just might remember the whipping and shouting. Bruxton (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree that a PR nickname should not be used. SL93 (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Because it's PR or what? Since it's not actually promotional for the place in question. The person hasn't worked there in two decades and the place doesn't even have animals anymore. SilverserenC 01:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
Because whatever PR nickname is used is boring, and also not independent of the subject. SL93 (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
The fact that she used whispered commands instead of threats of physical violence is boring? And any information about her is not going to be "independent" of the subject when it's about the subject. Unless you're meaning something else by using independent, since the article isn't about Ringling, so that's not the subject. SilverserenC 03:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
I said that relying on the PR nickname is boring. It seems like the name was chosen by Ringling Bros so the name itself wouldn't be independent of the subject. She worked for Ringling + name from Ringling = not independent by Ringling and her by extension. SL93 (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)
a different ALT has been approved – thanks, all :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Request to close nomination

This is embarrassing. I created an article that already existed. I've nominated said article for CSD and, therefore, am requesting my DYK nomination be failed. (To prevent the inevitability of confusion that will result, I probably shouldn't self-close.) Thank you and sorry. Chetsford (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Closed the nom, but which one is the correct title? One should redirect to the other.--Launchballer 11:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Chetsford, you should merge your content to the existing article. Your work is much better. And when done, you should redirect the title as Launchballer suggests. Schwede66 12:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Thank you and I agree with you both. I've saved a copy and, once it's deleted, will merge the content over. The philosophical issue is I'm not really certain which is the more appropriate title and, because the parallel article's only active editor is retired, and I'm the only active editor on the new article I probably need to resolve that issue which will require some contemplation. During this interregnum, I'm concerned about the existence of two identical articles. But maybe I'm overthinking this? Chetsford (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
This kind of thing happens all the time. I think it has happened to me at least five times, maybe more. It’s totally normal. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Based on Category:Individual tanks I suggest the name America (tank).
I don't think that a deletion was required under A10, which is for an article "that does not expand upon, detail or improve information within any existing article(s) on the subject, and where the title is not a plausible redirect" and your article did improve the previous article. It was deleted as an author request. TSventon (talk) 19:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, don't overthink it. Just create redirects from any possible name to where the live article is. If someone would like to move the target article, there are procedures to deal with it. Schwede66 02:22, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Question re DYK renomination

Hi, I'd like to seek clarification about how to submit a renomination for Oriana Skylar Mastro (which was recently promoted to GA status) as an earlier DYK failed because I didn't complete a QPQ in time. Thanks! W9793 (talk) 02:16, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi W9793, you will need to manually create it at Template:Did you know nominations/Oriana Skylar Mastro 2. Otherwise the normal processes apply. You'll have to do this in the next day or two given it was a 19 June promotion. CMD (talk) 02:35, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Chipmunkdavis - Thank you for the quick reply. I've just attempted to create it manually but not sure if it was done correctly - Template:Did you know nominations/Oriana Skylar Mastro 2? W9793 (talk) 02:55, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I've made some tweaks and added it to WP:DYKN. (DYKN is currently at WP:PEIS so it's not visible, but it is there.) Please be sure to do the QPQ soon! CMD (talk) 03:18, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Admins: all queues are empty!

Pinging @DYK admins: as all queues are currently empty, in the hopes that we can get some preps promoted to queue. Thank you very much. TSventon (talk) 08:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Prep 5

Red Sea mangroves (nom)

@Spaghettifier and Hike395: The hook here ("...that unlike other mangrove ecosystems, Red Sea mangroves have been expanding in area since 1972?") overstates the case. The Red Sea mangroves are contrasted not against "other mangrove ecosystems", but against a "general global decline". As the source introduction notes, there is high variability between individual ecosystems. Would suggest something like "...that despite a global decline in mangrove forests, Red Sea mangrove ecosystems have expanded in area since 1972?" CMD (talk) 01:48, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Your proposed hook is definitely clearer. I'm travelling right now. Would you like to propose an ALT hook at the nomination subpage? — hike395 (talk) 04:01, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
Given it has been promoted, I think (please feel free to correct me) that it gets changed in the prep rather than at the nom page. This is a situation that merits pulling the nom. The text should be changed in the article too though. CMD (talk) 11:49, 24 June 2024 (UTC)
I'll fix it in prep. Spaghettifier (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2024 (UTC)

Jude Law

... that English actor Jude Law is actually named "David", as a result of his parents naming their children after their best friends?

This is incredibly uninteresting and misleading, since his name is "Jude". Just because it's his middle name doesn't mean it's not his real, legal name! In fact, going by one's middle name is very common in England (I go by my middle name, my (British) mother, her father, and all four brothers go by their middle names, same with numerous cousins... and we've all been known by our middle names since birth) so it's actually kind of insulting to suggest these are "made-up" or "nonlegal" names.

Surely there is something legitimately interesting in Jude Law's bio that could replace this hook... JoelleJay (talk) 04:33, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

The nom and the hook ... that the English actor Jude Law is actually named David, a result of his parents naming their children after their best friends? It underperformed 3,745 views 156.0 per hour. Myself, I was not familiar with that convention of using middle names as first names. Courtesy pings for @Hey man im josh, LunaEclipse, and B3251: (the editors from the nom). Bruxton (talk) 05:10, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
There are a lot of examples even in the US, see those listed here. You just don't hear about them because their real first names are just as irrelevant as most people's middle names are. JoelleJay (talk) 06:17, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
The great thing is we're allowed to find different things interesting. I found it unexpected and interesting, which is why I moved it from approved to the prep area. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm confused. According to Pageviews Analysis, it got 35k views the day it ran plus another 24k the next day. RoySmith (talk) 14:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure it got 35K views the day before it ran and 24K on the day it did. Less than 4K views came from the main page. Not seeing anything on Google News that might cause such a spike.--Launchballer 15:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
At the HTTP level, there should be referrer headers which can tell us where the traffic came from, but I have no idea if that information is logged anywhere where we can get at it. RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
toolforge:wikinav! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh, cool, thanks for that link! Unfortunately all I can get out of it is "An error occurred while fetching data for the current title. Try another one", but looks like a nice tool otherwise :-) RoySmith (talk) 15:30, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
see Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders#Jude Law :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
What is a "background view"? RoySmith (talk) 15:25, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
a rough average of the views around the DYK date – it's the way we adjust for non-DYK-related views on an article :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
theleekycauldron according to a suggestion in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Statistics/Archive 1#Distortion in DYKstats, the background is the average of the previous two days' viewing figures. Is that explained anywhere more accessible? TSventon (talk) 11:27, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Also I don't think we should conclude that the hook underperformed, as the adjustment is distorted by a so far unexplained spike in views the previous day. TSventon (talk) 11:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Except the hook is also wrong because it claims he's "actually named" David, as if "Jude" isn't his "actual, legal" name. Would you promote a hook making the same assertions that, e.g., Penélope Cruz's last name is actually "Sánchez"? JoelleJay (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I would guess that a majority of English men use their first given name and that a majority of female actors keep the same stage name, even if they change their surname officially on marriage, so your Penélope Cruz example would not be accepted. I agree that the hook wording is poor as it is unclear what "actually named" means. TSventon (talk) 12:08, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
Penélope Cruz Sánchez is her legal birth name; she has two surnames, as is common in Spanish culture. I am saying that claiming her "last" surname is "actually" her real last name would be just as incorrect and uninteresting as the current hook, as it introduces a false dichotomy on what a "real name" is and the interestingness is predicated on unfamiliarity with relatively widespread naming practices that are themselves not noteworthy (would we consider hooks like "DYK that some people go by their middle names?" or "DYK that Spanish people have two surnames?" intriguing?). JoelleJay (talk) 20:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
https://www.kalzumeus.com/2010/06/17/falsehoods-programmers-believe-about-names/ RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
PS, I once worked with somebody who's cubicle nameplate said their first name was "V", and whose last name was something that sounded Indian, which worked out well because they were Indian. I asked him what the "V" stood for and he said it doesn't stand for anything. In fact, it wasn't his name at all, but the HR system couldn't deal with him not having a first name and a last name so they invented "V" for his first name. Never underestimate the power of HR software to require stupid things. RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Final Fantasy XIV: Dawntrail (resolved)

This is a unique situation. I am not confident in accepting/declining the nomination because of the fact that the article was there last month, but hidden. I am a new reviewer/nominator so thats why. JuniperChill (talk) 11:12, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

I would say that the article wasn't really in public view, so I'd take it. Replied there.--Launchballer 11:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
 Done JuniperChill (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 6

Zwei Gesänge, Op. 1 (Schoenberg)

@AirshipJungleman29, Gerda Arendt, and Narutolovehinata5: The hook statement in the article is sourced to a YouTube recording of the piece being performed. There's nothing there which supports the statement. RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh, never mind, I mis-read the citation. RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Oxtongue River

@AirshipJungleman29, P 1 9 9, and Kevmin: I have some concerns about WP:CLOP vs. ontario.ca/page/oxtongue-river-ragged-falls-provincial-park-management-plan. See earwig report RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

P199 while a good portion of that is due to the 6 word name "Oxtongue River-Ragged Falls Provincial Park", the recreation paragraph does slip into CLOP range and needs a little wordsmithing.--Kevmin § 18:03, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't mind running this hook again, but this edit messed up having this hook on July 1 and the hook was moved up to June 25. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 18:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Ugh, it looks like it got put back in the prep area in Special:Diff/1231117363. How did that happen? RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Pulled and replaced. RoySmith (talk) 19:35, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Prep 7

Tatto Suwarto Pamuji

  • "... that after completing his tenure as regent, Tatto Suwarto Pamuji walked 96 kilometres (60 mi) to fulfill a vow he made?"
  • I can't help thinking that if this goes live, we're going to get someone at ERRORS saying "well yes, but what was the vow? Without that the sentence is a little pointless". Also, there's no link to "regent" (and the article doesn't help either, it just assumes the reader knows what it is). I presume something like Regency (Indonesia) would have to be linked. Pinging @SL93, Generalissima, and Juxlos: Black Kite (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I think the hook itself is fine; the idea is to get somebody curious enough to click and read the article. The problem is that the article itself doesn't say what the vow is, so that should get fixed. RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I see that AirshipJungleman29 added it to the article. SL93 (talk) 21:17, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 21:42, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Lunch (song)

Is the pun really necessary to give it traction? It's a Billie Eilish hook... Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 07:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

What's wrong with puns? I like the hook personally. Hey man im josh (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Possible special occasion hook

We have a nomination for Theobald of Marly requesting to be run on the 8 July, but the nominator is currently suspended and won't be able to fix the issues highlighted before then. I'm not certain it would meet the criteria for the special occasion area, but thought I should raise here in case anyone was willing and able to find a resolution. CSJJ104 (talk) 19:09, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Given an existing article issue that hasn't been resolved, along with confusion over the saint's actual feast day, I've gone ahead and marked the nomination for closure as well as declining the special occasion request. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:22, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I do wonder whether it's worth instituting a rule that says 'any editor blocked more than a week forfeits their noms', as nominations with outstanding issues after a week are liable to be closed and issues could be found at any point.--Launchballer 08:24, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Prep 4 rejigger

A note to our prep builders who have time: I think Prep 4 might need rejiggering. The set has two music related articles, but beyond that I only see two biographies in the set and 5-6 of the hooks seem to be US-centric. Bruxton (talk) 02:16, 25 June 2024 (UTC)

I pulled Tyla (album) (the hook probably needs at least a rewrite) and bumped off The Blue Angles to Prep 2. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
I thought two music related hooks/two hooks for the same area in a single set is okay? Hey man im josh (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
It's technically okay but it's not ideal. The guidelines do say not to have more than two of the same or similar topics per set, but in practice even two is usually considered too much especially when there are free sets to spread them around. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:05, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
It feels like two music or two sports hooks are inevitable in at least half of sets with what's sent to DYK. There's always an abundance of both and if the instructions say it's okay I don't personally see an issue with that aspect of it. With that said, US centric is a valid complaint, and that's fair to want to mix in more bios. Hey man im josh (talk) 04:13, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Hey man im josh You are not wrong. WP:DYKVAR No topic should comprise more than two of the hooks. I just figured that we would likely move some hooks and why not separate the music hooks. Bruxton (talk) 05:03, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Probably because, at the time, I believe every queue was filled or had music hooks already. Most of the non-empty prep areas also already do. Again, I completely understand wanting to mix it up, but I think we struggle avoiding multiple music and sport hooks based on the frequency of the two. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:07, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
You are right. I am glad you are working in this area of the encyclopedia. Welcome! Bruxton (talk) 17:24, 25 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a rare prep that doesn't have two music or sports hooks.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:06, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Me at the Zoo

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Me at the zoo)

  • ... that YouTube co-founder Jawed Karim has updated the description of his video "Me at the zoo" on multiple occasions to criticize the website's business decisions?

@Launchballer, Davest3r08, LunaEclipse, and Schwede66:

No more copyright objections or whatever from me on this one. Just a quick query on the hook, which you can take or leave as you wish: I'd have thought that by far the most remarkable, and indeed interesting, thing about this topic is that Me at the Zoo was the first-ever YouTube video. That's a claim to fame indeed, and not one that I was aware of before I saw this hook for the first time. It seems more likely to interest readers than the current thing about the description being changed - particularly so if you don't actually know it's the first YouTube video ever. Just an idea anyway.

There was also a suggestion at the nom page to defer this hook until 2025 to coincide with the video's launch date. Not sure if that was discussed here yet, and might well be shot down, but again raising it here. Certainly I don't object myself but others might. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:28, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

For the first thing, changing "his video" to "the site's first video" might work even if it makes the hook slightly longer. It could be left to other editors/reviews whether to do that change or simply to do a hook about "Me at the zoo" being the first video. For the second thing, I don't see a good reason to hold off the article for that long and thus to grant an IAR exemption from the special occasion request limit. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:54, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
The word "his" needs to be kept, or he could just be changing anyone's video description. "...his video "Me at the zoo", Youtube's first video, on..."? CMD (talk) 01:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree that "... that "Me at the Zoo" was YouTube's first video?" would be a simpler and punchier hook, but I don't blame the nominator for refraining from putting such a hook forward. "First" hooks get a poor reception among some DYK participants, with some earlier this month suggesting a blanket ban on such hooks. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:44, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm one of those who said that we should stop running first hooks, but qualified that by saying "unless we have solid evidence that it's factually correct". In this case, there is no doubt that it was their first video. Schwede66 02:29, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Suggest changing "his video Me at the zoo" to "the site's first video". I'm not inclined to support running it on its 20th anniversary as it could feasibly run as that day's featured article.--Launchballer 08:51, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
It’s not a featured article; it’s a GA. Schwede66 21:35, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I think what was being asked was for it to be put on hold and be placed in SOHA so that it will run on April 23, 2025. Given that it would obviously be way beyond six weeks, it would require a WT:DYK discussion to allow that to happen per IAR. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Unless I'm completely showing my ignorance of how WP:FA works, ten months should be more than enough time for the article to run as a featured article candidate.--Launchballer 04:38, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Error at WP:DYKN: time for backlog mode?

There seems to be a problem: a few new noms are not showing up at the bottom. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:00, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

That is usual: the WP:PEIS limit has been reached. If the overload gets unduly large, we may have to go into backlog mode, or think how to solve what is becoming an oddly frequent occurrence. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I would suggest starting the discussion about going into backlog mode now. If we start backlog mode with over 200 unapproved nominations and end it with around 60, then that adds 140 extra approved nominations in a short period of time. Under current rules that would need an extended period of 2 sets a day to clear it, which places unnecessary strain on all involved. TSventon (talk) 12:30, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Not on all involved. :D Valereee (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I meant strain on the capacity and willingness of DYK prep builders and admins. TSventon (talk) 13:33, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I have sent out pings to get some of the reviews wrapped up. However, I think it might be time to implement the backlog mode: with GAN having their own backlog in July, DYK can expect a lot of nominations next week. I suggest starting our backlog mode on July 1 as it is a date that is easy to remember. Z1720 (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
That may cause an overload to end all overloads. I suggest waiting to see how big the impact of the GA drive is. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:19, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree. We should hold off on reentering backlog mode for now.--Launchballer 13:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
In the last few days, the number of unreviewed noms has shrunk by about twenty. I definitely propose holding off on this.--Launchballer 20:17, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I would go through and close noms like Template:Did you know nominations/Georgi Romanov which have been dragging on for 2 months. There's no reason to be investing this much effort to rescue a nom when we've got more than we can handle. RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/LS Power

Could somebody please look at this template. There's obviously some bit of broken markup (it's emitting {{DYKsubpage |monthyear=May 2024 |passed= |2= but I can't find what's wrong. RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Atualliy, that's only showing up when it's transcluded into Articles created/expanded on May 21, so maybe it's in an adjacent nom template? RoySmith (talk) 17:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I think I fixed it. Template:Did you know nominations/Voluntary war had an unclosed template. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

Guardian Cap

@AirshipJungleman29, Soulbust, and Crisco 1492: The copyright checks really got pencil-whipped on this one. The Los Angeles Rams became early adopters of the caps in 2021, after quarterback Matthew Stafford injured his hand after hitting it on an uncapped helmet while following through on a pass during training camp. is almost word-for-word from the source. I'm surprised this didn't get flagged in the review. RoySmith (talk) 21:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Yahoo! Sports states:
In 2021, the Los Angeles Rams opted to continue using the caps during practice later in the season to prevent further injury among players. Quarterback Matthew Stafford injured his hand hitting an uncapped helmet while following through on a throw, according to USA Today.
That USA Today article states:
Burger also shared that the Rams opted for additional use of the Caps in practice back in 2021 after quarterback Matthew Stafford injured his throwing hand in training camp upon hitting it on an uncapped helmet while following through on a pass.
So the issue here is just the latter portion of the information? i.e. "after quarterback Matthew Stafford injured his hand after hitting it on an uncapped helmet while following through on a pass during training camp."
The tweak brought down the earwig copyvio% a bit, but it's still high because of a direct quote elsewhere in that USA Today article. The bit about Stafford injuring his hand on an uncapped helmet isn't really flagging anything crazy on the earwig check... Hopefully this clears any concern up, but yeah, let me know. Soulbust (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
"The tweak" referring to what I just tweaked it to: The Los Angeles Rams became early adopters of the caps in 2021, after the team's quarterback, Matthew Stafford, injured his hand on an uncapped helmet during training camp.
Soulbust (talk) 21:37, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Don't obsess over the earwig number. The goal is to read the source, understand what it's saying, and write it in your own words. Taking text from the source and changing a few words here or there is exactly what WP:CLOP is talking about. But, yes, that's the passage that I was talking about. RoySmith (talk) 21:40, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I probably just meant to put that one in direct quotes when I first drafted the article, because, yes this isn't exactly my first time writing an article or just in general, whether on Wikipedia or otherwise. I am aware to not just change a few words here or there. Please let me know if the tweak is sufficiently alleviating the concern or not. If not, I'll go back and see if I can further change it up. Soulbust (talk) 21:42, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Watamou Lamien

@AirshipJungleman29, Soman, and Generalissima: I'm unable to trace the hook back to a statement in the article or the source. Can somebody walk me through it. Also, it looks like the hook that got promoted wasn't actually what was approved. RoySmith (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

The closest thing in the article is "Lamien provided a link between the ROC group of radical young military officers and the PCRV." I'm not sure if that means liaison. SL93 (talk) 00:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
As someone seeing this for the first time, I found that the second bolded link, to Revolutionary Military Organization, provides There were also contacts with the Voltaic Revolutionary Communist Party (PCRV) via Watamou Lamien., which is cited to The group was led by the ROC [...] It also had contact with the PCRV through Watamou Lamien. (Genova, Making New People, 34). Since I think that page is needed to warrant the statement on Watamou Lamien as well, I've gone ahead and added it to that article's citation too, with some rephrasing to reduce the vagueness of 'link'.
As for the use of the word liaison, my sense is the nominator means for the word to describe Lamien being this go-between for OMR and PCRV communication. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:04, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Silence Is Loud

@AirshipJungleman29, Launchballer, and Theleekycauldron: The article says "would have been absolutely verboten in 90s jungle, which in combination with the hook implies that it's genre is 90s jungle, and I don't see anywhere the article says that. RoySmith (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I'm falling asleep, so won't be able to look at this until the morning (it's approximately twenty past ten where I am).--Launchballer 21:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
its genre is jungle, which the article spells out in a few places. 90s was its heyday, this 2024 album is a bit anachronistic. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I think ALT4b changed the meaning somewhat, I think this should be replaced with ALT4a.--Launchballer 05:04, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Actually, once I accept that my confusion is due to my utter lack of clue about post 1980's music, I think the current hook is fine. Shorter is almost always better. RoySmith (talk) 20:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

Marie Kunkel Zimmerman

FWIW, I think the "1890 sketch of Mamie Kunkel" in this article would make a much better lead image than the one we've got now. RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

Adnan al-Bursh

@SL93, Makeandtoss, and Hydrangeans: There's a fair amount of copying from thenationalnews.com. RoySmith (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I took care of it minus "The Prisoners' Affairs Authority and the Palestinian Prisoners Club" which cannot be rewritten. SL93 (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
@SL93: Thanks. Makeandtoss (talk) 14:08, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Prep 3

Medieval garden

The current image is not a great pick for the main page. It's muddy and barely recognizable. I suggest replacing it with File:Tacuin Sauge36.jpg. RoySmith (talk) 16:29, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

While I think the current image is more recognizable than barely, at the thumbnail size used for the DYK space on the main page it's considerably more cluttered than RoySmith's proposed image. The latter is more straightforward to parse and so more immediately communicative and appealing. I agree with making the switch. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:44, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Done. RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Now on main page. Someone - I can't work out who or where - has changed the approved picture for the worst picture in the article. Please urgently change it back. This last-minute ham-fisted fiddling with hooks, without noting it on the template or informing the nominator, is a blight on DYK. Who did it and why? Johnbod (talk) 13:41, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

See my reply at errors. TSventon (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Mark Hutton

@Hey man im josh, Muboshgu, and BeanieFan11: I'm not a grammar expert, but shouldn't it be "was the first Australian"? He's still alive, but the action being described is his pitching appearance, which happened in the past. RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, this is another "first" hook. MLB has been around for 148 years, during which time there's been many thousands of starting pitchers. How sure are we about this "first"? How good was the record-keeping in the early years? RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Record keeping is solid. See List of Major League Baseball players from Australia. Hutton was the sixth MLB player from Australia, first to be a starting pitcher in a MLB game. We dont do OR on Wikipedia, we follow the sources. These all verify the hook: [22][23][24] As far as grammar goes, I defer to the experts. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:35, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I believe you're right about the grammar correction @RoySmith. Thank you for the catch. I've edited the hook and if there are folks more well versed in grammar than I am, well, feel free to make a relevant correction. I did feel comfortable about the verifiability of the hook, but I'll make sure to show my work better in the future. Hey man im josh (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

2018 Malang mayoral election

@AirshipJungleman29, Juxlos, and Ltbdl: This hook violates WP:DYKBLP ("Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided") RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I would dispute it. The policy states:
Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided.
The election was heavily marred by the corruption case, and it was certainly not undue to focus on it. And neither of the arrested candidates are named in the hook. Juxlos (talk) 15:03, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Juxlos. The hook fact is the defining feature of the election. To focus on anything else would be correspondingly UNDUE. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Gladys Stone Wright

@Hey man im josh, SL93, and Grnrchst: Sigh, another "first". With Mark Hutton, above, it's at least plausible that there's an exhaustive and authoritative list of every starting pitcher in a MLB game back to day zero, and that we know their nationalities. But it's not possible know know every single woman who was ever a band director in Oregon, so there's no way we can be sure this is true. RoySmith (talk) 14:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Ah, and I see that SL93 had already found a counter-example. Let's just say no to first hooks. RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Since "just say no" could cause use to increase rather than decrease, should we next expect a spate of 'first' hooks? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

(combining two entries)

It appears that the first woman band director in Oregon was Charlotte Plummer Owen per this. If my alt of ... that when Gladys Stone Wright was the first woman band director at an educators' conference, the male directors applauded her band's performance? doesn't work, I need to think of something else. Pinging reviewer Grnrchst. SL93 (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I think theleekycauldron is great at forming new hooks, so pinging just in case. SL93 (talk) 00:25, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
so sorry, SL93, I never received this ping! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
ALT4: ... that Gladys Stone Wright has a scholarship for women band directors? SL93 (talk) 00:37, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
ALT5: ... that band director Gladys Stone Wright started to learn music when she received a year's worth of free piano lessons along with a $5 clarinet? SL93 (talk) 00:39, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
So do either of these two alts work? SL93 (talk) 21:24, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I like the $5 clarinet theme, but maybe a bit terser:
ALT5a: ... that Gladys Stone Wright got started with a year of free piano lessons and a $5 clarinet?
RoySmith (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I like that better. SL93 (talk) 22:32, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Can ALT5A be moved in? SL93 (talk) 21:18, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith SL93 (talk) 01:30, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Anybody could have done it, but sure, I went ahead and put that in. RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Anybody but myself, and no one was acting on it despite it being the next set to be moved to a queue. SL93 (talk) 01:43, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I suppose that's true. Anyway, it's done, so all is happy in wiki-land :-) RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Han Bong Jin

Feels way too clickbaity IMO because this is just textbook songun at work. Most NK soldiers carry tools not guns. So naturally pro athletes train as part of their military service. RadioactiveBoulevardier (talk) 09:06, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

The facts are that the player was enlisted into the military to prepare for the World Cup, not that they were a soldier who trained as part of the military service they were already doing RadioactiveBoulevardier. It would also be odd for this to exemplify songun, a policy devised forty years after these events. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:01, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

No one trying to help

Helllo senior editors, pls look at my problem at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Xiaotian Quan. When I made a mistake, many editors criticized me, but when I fixed my error or walk on good road, no one tried to acknowledge or assist me. I was delayed because of a busy real-life schedule and forgot the password for my Wikipedia-linked Gmail account, so I couldn't receive any discussion alerts. However, I left a declaration to wait for me in the discussion. The discussion closed after I logged back into my account, and it seems I was a little late.

I've tried to reopen the DYK case and requested guidance from other editors, but none of the related editors responded to help; they only pointed out 'remove tag'. I'm here seeking better guidance from senior editors. Thank you. TheGreatPeng (talk) 09:42, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi TheGreatPeng, it looks like the nomination was closed because it became stale and no actions was being taken. It can be frustrating when real life interferes with editing, but sometimes it happens and DYK has a lot of moving parts that move inexorably forward. I am not sure what you mean by fixing the mistake and having no acknowledgement, you only restarted editing the article less than a day ago; if that is what you are referring to then I don't think there has been time for changes to be ignored. I see you have opened a discussion on the copyright issue, I suggest giving that some time to develop, where the situation may become clearer. Best, CMD (talk) 10:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I said that because I have many problem with DYK editors you can see at [25]. I want to reopen the DYK. Thank you so much for your advise. TheGreatPeng (talk) 10:44, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Given the time that has passed, I think it is unlikely the DYK can be reopened. It is also not going to do any good to open it when the article is tagged for COPYVIO. Working out that COPYVIO issue is going to be the best path forward for this article. CMD (talk) 13:05, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Rewrites

If I rewrote an article, would that make the article new? 48JCL 20:26, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Very unlikely unless it got through GA. What did you have in mind?--Launchballer 21:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
Nothing. I was simply asking. It was about a failed DYK around a month back 48JCL 21:34, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:SOHA

Manizha Talash

@BeanieFan11 and Sammi Brie: Another "first" hook. If we interpret Afghanistan's first female breakdancer to mean the first woman anywhere in Afghanistan to breakdance, that's clearly unprovable. If this means "first woman to represent Afghanistan in the Olympics as a breakdancer", then it's just a plain easter egg. This is the first year breakdancing is in the Olympics. We could write that hook for every woman breakdancer in this year's competition. RoySmith (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

I could have been plainer that maybe ALT0 wasn't the best hook, but ALT1/2 are fine. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
ALT2 seems the best to me. RoySmith (talk) 17:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

A spoonful of sugar (helps the medicine go down)

I usually browse DYK every morning. If I spot an error then I take it to WP:ERRORS because that's the process. But also, if I see a hook I like, then I thank the author. For example, today, I quite liked the hook

  • ... that the Wellesbourne, Brighton's lost river, stopped flowing in 1889?

That might not excite others but lost rivers interest me and I even have a book about the lost rivers of London. So, I thanked the author who turned out to be Hassocks5489 – well done! To do this, I had to drill down into the article history which requires some know-how.

And there's an imbalance because error reporting tends to generate public drama while such thanks don't. So perhaps we should surface the thanks to make them more visible and generate more positive feedback. Here's some ideas:

  • As well as counting the views for each article at DYK, also count the number of thanks that they generate. This can be listed both by article and editor.
  • To make thanking easier, provide a link by each hook. When readers click it, it would thank the nominator, set builder and other editors who helped get the hook to the main page.
  • Put a "hook of the day" link into DYK. This would go to a page where readers could vote for the hook that they like best each day. This would mainly be a straight vote but you might record feedback comments too so that editors could say why they like the hook.

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

If the third option can be done (I suspect it's probably impossible) that would be fantastic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:27, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 4

1964 New York World's Fair pavilions

@Hey man im josh, Epicgenius, and Generalissima: I'm not sure how well this will stand up at WP:ERRORS. The true story is more like "built a house out of salvaged material, including some from several 1964 New York World's Fair pavilions", which isn't very hooky. RoySmith (talk) 19:27, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Good point - the house isn't made entirely out of these pavilions. Would this work?
If not, we could use one of the alts. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:31, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
OK, I went with that, but changed "one" to "a". RoySmith (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
That's a good point, thanks for bringing this up. Luckily there were a number of other good hooks, but I picked that one as it was more quirky and I thought it could work in the quirky slot. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:32, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Way Less Sad

@Hey man im josh, Koopastar, and Dharmadhyaksha: I don't think this hook doesn't meet WP:DYKINT. Songs sampling other songs are very common, and so I don't see how the hook could be "perceived as unusual or intriguing". Thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:44, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

The band emphasized in the currently sourced interview that the sample was unique to the original's fadeout and barely audible, later building the entire song around that sample. Perhaps better phrasing could be:
This text currently isn't in the article, but if this passes DYKINT then it could definitely be adapted. Koopastar (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
That is so much better, Koopastar. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:58, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Barely audible my sphincter, I can hear it perfectly well on both tracks (and I really don't get the point of fadeouts anyway, just stop playing!). I suggest "... that after Cardi B declined AJR's Way Less Sad and her record label tried to offer it to another rapper, AJR withdrew it and released it themselves?"--Launchballer 13:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

DYK error rate

May 2024 errors

May error rate:

  • 93% error-free overall (18 errors / 276 hooks)
  • 95% error-free before MP (15 / 276)
May 2024 errors
Date Hook Error
May 5 that cosplaying as a character from the New California Republic (flag pictured) could potentially lead to accidental arrest due to mistaken suspicion of carrying a bomb? failed verification (report, queue fix)
May 7 that opera composer and librettist Joseph Redding (pictured) was also a chess polymath and lawyer who won a landmark decision before the United States Supreme Court? failed verification (report, MP fix)
May 7 that Kooraban National Park provides a habitat for more than twenty endangered animal species, including koalas? failed verification (report, MP fix)
May 7 that sisters Joanne, Lynette, Amy and Jenny McCarthy were all gymnasts and ten-pin bowlers? failed verification (report, MP fix)
May 7 that the production team of the TV series The Falcon and the Winter Soldier created a highway more than five miles (8 km) long to capture visual effects for a truck action sequence for the episode "The Star-Spangled Man"? hook didn't specify it was a "digital" highway (report, MP fix)
May 8 that even though about 100,000 bombs fell on Le Touquet during World War II, making it "the most mined city in France", it was the first resort in northern France to open its beaches after its liberation? failed verification (report, queue fix)
May 11 that when the Bukharian-Jewish Soviet newspaper Bajroqi Miⱨnat switched to the Latin script, it did not use capital letters, following Jewish writing rules? hook did not specify that it "initially" did not use capital letters (report, queue fix)
May 14 that William F. Fiedler was the only American fighter pilot to become a flying ace in the P-39 Airacobra? failed verification (report, MP fix)
May 15 that Oophaga solanensis frogs can be bought for $3 in their native Colombia and sold for up to $1,000 overseas? hook didn't convey illegality (report, MP fix)
May 17 that the comedian Jonny Pelham is one of only 200 people in the UK to suffer from popliteal pterygium syndrome? "only 200" failed verification and MEDRS (report, MP fix)
May 19 that winter wonderland fairs have become a celebrated annual British tradition – but often for the wrong reasons? "wrong reasons" not in article and not NPOV (report, MP fix)
May 21 that Spider began making alternative music because she felt that not enough Black women were doing so? link to set index article (report, MP fix)
May 22 that the U.S. Army Air Corps were so unimpressed by the Estoppey D-8 that one member stated that he would rather use "nails and a wire"? attributed one person's opinion to entire US Army Air Corps (report, MP fix)
May 24 that actress Nellie McCoy (pictured) suffered a mental breakdown after her theatre performance was criticized, leading to her being committed to a sanatorium? "after her theatre performance was criticized" not in article (report, not fixed)
May 24 that Axel Downard-Wilke (pictured) led a campaign in 2020 to have macrons used in Māori place names in Wikipedia articles? COI (report, MP fix)
May 24 that women were 33 percent more likely than men to search for clown pornography in 2016? "on Pornhub" not specified in hook fact (report, MP fix)
May 26 that during the "trial from hell" Matthew Charles Johnson and his co-accused hurled abuse at the judge and threw human excrement at a member of the jury? certain hook details failed verification; BLPvio (report, MP fix)
May 29 that Israel's systematic destruction of trees and farmland in Gaza has been described as an ecocide? "systematic" in wikivoice instead of attributed (report, MP fix)

June 2024 errors

June error rate (through June 29):

  • 92% error-free overall (19 errors / 255 hooks)
  • 94% error-free before MP (14 / 255)
June 2024 errors
Date Hook Error
June 4 that Barron Trump signed for D.C. United Academy as a midfielder? notability and BLP concerns (report, MP fix)
June 6 that despite "C U in da Ballpit" being Camping in Alaska's best known song, the band says they all hate it? "best known song" failed verification (report, MP fix)
June 8 that the Tang-dynasty politician Fang Yi'ai was put to death and his wife Princess Gaoyang was forced to commit suicide after their failed rebellion against Emperor Gaozong? "put to death" not in article; possibly unapproved/unverified hook promoted (report, MP fix)
June 9 that Carrie Swain was possibly the first woman entertainer to perform in blackface? "first" failed verification (report, MP fix)
June 10 that the ancient Greek game polis is one of the world's oldest strategy games? didn't specify "oldest known" (report, MP fix)
June 10 that dance teacher Mary Ann Wells, despite being in the "I AM" movement, did not enforce rigid technical standards on her students? Pulled for SYNTH (report, queue fix)
June 12 that Professor Layton and the New World of Steam is planned to be the first main entry since 2013 in the series Professor Layton, despite it being its developer's most popular media franchise? failed verification (report, queue fix)
June 13 that Arthur Fulton, his father and his son all won the Sovereign's Prize for rifle shooting? hook fact not clearly in article (report, queue fix)
June 15 Chinese characters DYK image image not in article (report, MP fix)
June 15 that although it was never built, Lynn Conway notes that IBM's ACS-1 would have been the premier supercomputer of the era? not a definite fact (report, MP fix)
June 17 that Zombie Plane cannot take flight from Chuck Norris? confusing; not a definite fact; WP:DYKFICTION (report, MP fix)
June 19 Amen break DYK image copyright (report, MP fix)
June 19 that Pizza Hut’s most expensive pizza was a weighted blanket? failed verification/unreliable source (report, MP fix)
June 20 Olympic Black Power Statue image copyright (no report, MP fix)
June 21 that the efforts of Cora Babbitt Johnson helped delay the construction of Mount Rushmore until 1927? failed verification (report, MP fix)
June 22 that Saleh Manaf was elected as the regent of Bekasi despite being a dummy candidate in the election? "dummy candidate" failed verification (report, queue fix)
June 30 that Hamad City in Gaza was largely destroyed within minutes? failed verification (report, MP fix)
June 30 that when Brighton Aquarium (entrance pictured) opened, it had no exhibits? failed verification (report, MP fix)
June 30 that the extant details about the life of Leontius of Autun can be summed up as "July 1: the burial of Leontius, bishop of Autun (Gaul), 5th century"? failed verification (report, queue fix)

July 2024 errors

Leontius of Autun was pulled out of the queue half an hour before the hook was to go live on 1 July. Do we count that? Schwede66 23:53, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Based on May and June, yes but as queue fix, not MP fix. TSventon (talk) 00:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
 Done Levivich (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2024 (UTC)

Error rate discussion

Anyone should feel free to update the table. I didn't list everything that was at WP:ERRORS, e.g. I didn't list simple copyedits like changing "$" to "US$". Overall, 93% or 95% error-free ain't bad, but IMO given the visibility, it really should be 99%, i.e. less than one per week. It's not ideal to have to rely on people fixing things at WP:ERRORS multiple times per week. Levivich (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

I've always thought that if a hook ran for more than six hours and turned out to have a serious error, we should issue a retraction in the next set. A basic retraction policy underlies most honest sources of information, there's no reason we shouldn't have one as well – we're not like the rest of the project in that you can just edit stuff and it'll be fixed going forward, nothing is on the page for more than 24 hours. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
+1. Ironically, one of the ways that we judge whether a source is reliable is by looking at whether it prints retractions, yet we do not print retractions. I would go further and say that there ought to be a "retraction box" on the main page, where we post as retractions everything that ends up having to be fixed on the main page. In other words, every fix made at WP:ERRORS should be noted in the retraction box on the main page (not just DYK). I have a vague memory of this being discussed and rejected by the community at some point in the last 5 years or so but I don't remember where. Levivich (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I do like the idea of being transparent about errors, but it feels tricky. Maybe 'Corrections' instead of 'Retractions'; retraction seems like it should be for something possibly harmful that was factually incorrect. Like, I wouldn't want us to say we'd 'retracted' that Trump signed as a midfielder.
And really I'm not sure it's a fix to have Trump appear a second time at the MP with us noting the hook was pulled for the article being a BLP vio and questions being raised as to notability and we regret the error, that seems worse than the simple pull. Valereee (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Would a reader be more likely to encounter a retraction box at the bottom of the main page? Or at the talk page of the linked article? The second would be fairly easy to implement. Online, some newspapers don't offer anymore than a "published" and "corrected/updated" date on the article's page.[26] Rjjiii (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee: I think we'd mainly want to use a corrections/retractions box for errors of the hooks; while we can and do pull hooks for article issues, we generally don't maintain a retractions log on articles. I was just thinking something more like:
  • In the second DYK set on June 8, 2024, it was claimed that Jane Doe invented the flywheel. However, multiple inventors have credible claims to the flywheel, some predating Doe by up to 20 years.
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
That would work for me Valereee (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I think there's different levels of error. A poorly worded hook that should be rephrased is bad, but not as bad as something being actively not in the source stated. Lots of those above seem to be that the hook is the thing that isn't covered by the citation - perhaps that is the thing to stress to both reviewers and set promoters - to check that the source being used explicitly states the info being written.
As much as the rest of the article is important, the hook itself is the only bit that is given such high visibility. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)
I object to the Spider error – WP:DYKG doesn't mention SIAs, because they're articles, not DABs. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
There was a reasonable argument at ERRRORs that perhaps that page should be marked as a disambiguation—Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
It's not a perfect measure but I'm using "changed at WP:ERRORS" as basically the definition of "error." I think there's an argument to be made that this particular one might be a de minimis example, like changing "$" to "US$" or adding a wikilink to "George Washington" but I included it because I thought it fell into the category of "clearly against some DYK rule." I'm no expert about DYK rules so maybe that one isn't against any actual rule? Levivich (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
The most concerning errors are the failed verification ones, sadly they seem the most common. Focusing on those would make the most difference both to quality and to the error rate. CMD (talk) 08:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I find the fact verification seems to be a chronic problem concerning, but for me the most concerning is BLP issues. Levivich, it looks like the May 8 Le Touquet hook was pulled before it hit the main page, is that an outlier in these tables? (That is, I'm seeing most of the reports at ERRORS were in Current DYK, which I'm assuming means most actually made it to the main page?) Valereee (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I included it because it was caught at WP:ERRORS and not by "internal" DYK error-correction processes. I think "next DYK" ERRORS should "count" as "DYK errors," e.g. something that DYK "missed." (It's true that most are current-DYK and not next-DYK, but isn't that a bug not a feature?) Levivich (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
No, I just wasn't clear on what the inclusion criteria were, and I do think we should be aiming for all errors to be caught before a set hits Next-but-one DYK. But it would also be interesting to understand how many errors actually made it onto the main page. The vagaries of transclusion and date stamps make my head spin...is there an easy way to note which errors were fixed after the hook moved onto the main page? Valereee (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
And IIRC some were flagged as next-DYK but fixed after it hit the main page (due to length of discussion); I think that's the only one that was fixed before it hit the main page, going from memory. That can be checked by looking whether the "fix" link is to the DYK template or a queue. Levivich (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Can you give the clueless an example? :D Er, one that even I can understand? Valereee (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes of course! Okay, so the "mouse" is that little plastic thing with buttons on it next to your keyboard that kind of looks like a mouse with no tail. Now when you move the mouse on your desk, it'll move the arrow on your screen, and if you hover over one of the links and press the left mouse button... :-D Just kidding, it's a good catch, I can update the list in two seconds later today when I get to a desktop and differentiate between fixed-at-current-DYK and fixed-at-next-DYK. Going from memory there is only one "next" and the rest are "current" but I'll double check and update the table to clarify this. Levivich (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
My mouse is wired, so kind of looks like it does have a tail...does that still count? Valereee (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
lol, somebody please get val a WMF tech grant for a wireless mouse. (On the other hand the tail might make it easier to find.) Levivich (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
I found my TV remote in the fridge the other day. Valereee (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
"Tell me you're a stoner without telling me you're a stoner" 😂 Levivich (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
Oh and to actually answer your question, if you click the "fix" link for the May 8 entry, it takes you to a diff of an edit to one of the queue templates; the other "fix" links go to a diff of the actual DYK template that's transcluded on the main page -- that's how we know those were live when the diff was made, whereas the queue template diff means it wasn't live yet (still in the queue). So ERRORS report + DYK template fix = fixed when it was already on the main page, while ERRORS report + queue template fix = not on main page yet. Levivich (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
OHHH. God, I can't even claim not enough coffee. Thanks! Valereee (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
OK, they're all now updated to specify "MP fix" or "queue fix," and my memory was wrong: there were three queue fixes. I'll note though that there are examples where the error was reported to WP:ERRORS before the item hit the main page, but due to the length of discussion or admin response, the error wasn't actually fixed until it hit the main page. So, for example, the Kooraban error was reported on May 5 as a next-but-one error 2 days before going live, but wasn't fixed until May 7 when it was already live. So just because something is an "MP fix" doesn't mean it wasn't caught until it hit the MP, but it does mean the error hit the MP. Just thought I'd mention this wrinkle. Levivich (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)
This seems quite good. I still support efforts to raise standards, especially at the main page, and to use DYK/GA/FA to promote higher standards, but studies have consistently found that most published news articles contain errors.[27] Many of the errors noted above are also somewhat minor rather than outright bogus. Rjjiii (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)
It's not just newspapers – see Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)

Hamad City

It appears that I have missed a discussion about this nomination and the hook was pulled before it ran. Shouldn't the nomination be reopened since it never ran? Also, I am not really aware of why the hook was not viable. Thanks. Lightburst (talk) 15:00, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, just catching up now. Rather puzzling that Andrew made a point about the hook being wrong by referring to a biased source this publication. This reminds me of the famous quote, "The first casualty in war is the truth". @Amakuru: seemed to indicate that it should be allowed to run again. Hopefully we find a hook which is not sourced or refuted by the Israel Hayom source. Lightburst (talk) 15:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
We have more hooks than we can handle, combined with a high error rate. We should be putting less effort into trying to salvage failed nominations, and more effort into making sure the hooks we publish are accurate. RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
That's very harsh. This one was pulled due to a (good faith) error by the reviewers, the nominator having done the right thing during the nomination phase by realising the issues concerned and proposing an alternative hook. It's one thing in the usual case where an inaccurate hook by a nominator slips through, I wouldn't have a re-run for that, but this one I'd just treat like any other hook that was spotted and pulled from the queue or preps, reopen it and move on with our lives. This isn't a regular occurrence certainly.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:42, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it's harsh. I think our error rate is unacceptably high. RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
In comparison to what per capita percentage of error rates seen on any other main page spot? I feel "unacceptably high" needs context directly to similar numbers of main page presentations from the other contributing projects (eg per every 500 DYK compared to every 500 FA, 500 ITN, etc). Gut feeling of too much is not reason enough to let a single editor decide for the whole project that other peoples work is not good enough.--Kevmin § 20:33, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
The Israel Hayom source comes from the article in question. It appears in a passage which describes extensive fighting for the city long after the airstrike in which it was supposedly "largely destroyed". This inconsistency made it clear that the hook was nonsense. The main culprit is the nominator who wrote the article and so should have been well aware of this from the outset.
If Lightburst doesn't like the source, they should have spotted it and objected when reviewing the article. Note that it was highlighted in the nomination to support the ALT1 hook, which Lightburst reviewed. Checking that the article has reliable sources and is neutral is a standard check. It should be done especially carefully when the topic is contentious.
The article should not be rerun because it has already had over eight hours of invalid exposure on the main page and still seems to be contentious. What ought to be run is a correction, explaining and apologising for the error. How come we never do this when it is commonly considered the mark of a respectable publication? Wikipedia is not a reliable source but we should hold ourselves to a high standard. If DYK published regular corrections then the shame might be a useful check and balance, helping to deter sloppy work.
Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
See #Error rate discussion above for a discussion about corrections/retractions. And, yes, I agree we should do them. RoySmith (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I hated to pick on Andrew because he is my friend: please note Andrew, that I did not choose ALT1 as it reads like Israeli propaganda justifying the destruction - and it was sourced to the "occasionally-biased" Hayom. As you know the source is not red on PRS so it is ok to use... when they are not propping up Bibi or whitewashing his war. I am sure Andrew knows that I did check the article, and my checks are never cursory. My hope Andrew, is that you finally start helping with the business of reviewing, promoting and workshopping rather than just throwing stones and telling us we should apologize. I remember Valereee telling you something similar in a thread. Love you Andrew but you have been a regular at errors and you have not been a regular on the reviewer/promotor gnome side. These hooks are reviewed by many regulars and then fussed with by gnomes. It seems you wait and wait and then shout at us through errors. I for one am sorry that I chose the hook that Andrew called out at errors - it certainly could have been workshopped and fixed on the fly. Lightburst (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Andrew Davidson! ...shame might be a useful check and balance, helping to deter sloppy work. I can say it is difficult work checking and promoting and there are many moving parts. Our best volunteer promotors often leave or do much much less. SL93, Theleekycauldron, Cielquiparle, vaticidalprophet, were some of our best promotors; since I started, all either scaled back or stopped promoting altogether. I want editors to work with me as they did with the June salamander nomination, if editors shamed me I would not be motivated to volunteer for a job that only gives me a dunce cap as a reward. I am sure Cersei did not like the walk of shame either. :) Bruxton (talk) 02:00, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the idea of retractions is to shame anybody. I'm sure I've told this story before, but it's a good story, so here goes. In all the best places I've worked, we did post-mortems when things went wrong. Rule number 1 is that the exercise is about improving the process, not assigning blame, and people take that seriously. In the long run, all that really matters is that the team (company, whatever) improves. Shit will still happen, and it will happen to even the best people, so don't get worked up over it.
A humorous variation on that idea is the "designated goat". Before starting a project, pick somebody at random and declare that everything that goes wrong will be their fault. When, inevitably, something does go wrong, you can just blame it on that person, not waste any more time worrying about assigning blame, and get on with fixing the problem. RoySmith (talk) 02:15, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
Haha, "designated goat" – love that. I'm happy to be the volunteer DG for the next major stuff up. Throw it at me (I can probably cope; am pretty thick-skinned). Schwede66 02:43, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I just remembered that we also lost Borgqueen. And I really feel the loss of Cielquiparle. Some of our finest editors move on. RoySmith, one place I worked, when there was an unsolvable or hard problem, the boss would say it was a "goat" (in private he would use the full term: "goat f^%$K"). I have had my share of issues working here and I learned from them because editors here picked me up and encouraged me. I like it when the crew is all rowing the boat in the same direction. It gets frustrating at times, but the good outweighs the bad. And Schwede - you will never be our goat! I appreciate you! Bruxton (talk) 02:59, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
"Tobey Maguire got bit by a spider but see, me, it was a goat."--Launchballer 09:05, 1 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the idea of retractions is to shame anybody: I'd like that if that were the case, since you're right that retractions and corrections don't have to be about shame, but it's hard to read If DYK published regular corrections then the shame might be a useful check any way other than the idea involving people feeling shame. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:21, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Pure Japanese

Just a heads up on this nomination of mine, which I would like to be put on hold at WP:SOHA for July 17, having just been approved by a reviewer. The prescribed nomination period shouldn't be an issue, since I nominated it 20 days prior to the occasion date. I thought I'd bring this up because everyone seems to be preoccupied with the Olympics hooks. Thanks, Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:03, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

I’ve moved it to the SOHA. Schwede66 13:39, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

GAN backlog drive in July

@DYK admins: and other members of the DYK community: WP:GAN is planning a backlog drive for July. This usually results in lots of DYK nominations, which in turn causes us to go into 2-sets-a-day. If able, please reserve some wiki-time for reviewing hooks and prep sets. Thanks! Z1720 (talk) 21:14, 26 June 2024 (UTC)

Re "in turn causes us to go into 2-sets-a-day", that does not follow. We would only consider such a step if there are sufficient admins willing to commit to it.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
just ask the 'crats to give the bit to everyone who promoted a hook in the past month :v – Hilst [talk] 22:25, 26 June 2024 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Past backlog drives have caused the number of nominations to increase past the 120 threshold. Some editors and admin have used this condition to go to 2 sets a day, even if admin did not indicate that they are committed to it. This notice is to help admin get ready for this possibility. Z1720 (talk) 01:38, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I think 2-a-day mode is a bad idea. As a matter of principle, I go on DYK strike when we do that. If other admins want to put in the time to make it work, more power to you, but I won't be. RoySmith (talk) 01:41, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I also see that as more errors, and less time to fix those errors. SL93 (talk) 02:14, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I'm also an oppose for using 2-a-days as a solution. The burden is too high for those doing the work. It's an unfortunate fact here that those doing the work are vastly outnumbered by those not doing the work, and every solution proposed to move some of that burden onto those not doing the work gets voted down by...wait for it...those not doing the work. Valereee (talk) 12:18, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
I also don't like 2-a-day because it can be unfair to contributors in that how their work can get less main page attention than others that run a full day. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:56, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
We should be fine without 12-hour-sets: that is the problem the new nine-hook sets are intended to solve. I don't think that we should go to two/day, but instead just let it even out over time. A little more discrimination in rejecting hooks wouldn't hurt. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:25, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29, when 9 hooks a set was proposed you calculated that "10 per day minus pulled hooks should even it out." TSventon (talk) 10:34, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't believe I wrote that TSventon? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I did, and I left my workings at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 196#Hook duration dynamics.--Launchballer 10:41, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for my confusion AirshipJungleman29 and Launchballer. TSventon (talk) 11:25, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
On the other hand, I think that nine hook sets, with timing out of older, less interesting noms at WP:DYKNA, should work well as a coherent long-term system. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I was initially somewhat skeptical of 9 hooks per set, but it's been working out really well. At this point, I'd even be in favor of 10 hooks per day and encourage people to write shorter hooks. And, yes, not being so adverse to dropping submissions. By the time a nom gets to be 2 months old and is still struggling to get approved, it's time to move on. Even if we do manage to get it up to standard by investing a lot of work in it, by the time it could get published, it's no longer new, which is a a core part of what DYK is all about. RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
As a promoter I quite like the idea of the opposite RoySmith: going back down to eight-hook sets, and letting the really interesting, stand-out (and definitely error-free) hooks flourish without being surrounded by mediocre ones. The last few preps I've built have been much more enjoyable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:43, 2 July 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't be opposed to that. My main goal is that we never have to run 2 sets a day. If we can get there by being more selective about what we run, I'm all for that, but historically we seem unwilling to do that. RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 2 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 5

Laura Veale

I think the Laura Veale hook would be easier understood if it specified the town of Harrogate Mach61 07:09, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. I think context makes clear enough that it's a place.--Launchballer 08:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer My initial thought was that it was a university or hospital of sorts. Mach61 12:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Added 'the town of'.--Launchballer 12:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

"We want the ball and we're going to score!"

Changed to 'claimed', with the caveat that that is the only part of the hook I have checked, and I'll check the rest later.--Launchballer 12:15, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I think "guaranteed" would be a correct interpretation, since it was overtime and a score would win the game (i.e. he's guaranteeing a score – which would mean victory – if he gets the ball). BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I agree that "guaranteed" works (in the sense of "to assert confidently"), but if that's considered a problem, I think "promised" works much better than "claimed" in this context. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 16:16, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I think the verb you're looking for is "boasted". Or maybe "pontificated" :-) RoySmith (talk) 17:01, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
Yes, "promised" or "pledged" is less confusing. JoelleJay (talk) 01:36, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I had to make sure of the 2004 overtime rules before comment - the. NFL changes from time to time. In 2004

Article 1 The sudden-death system of determining the winner shall prevail when the score is tied at the end of the regulation playing time of all NFL games. Under this system, the team scoring first during overtime play herein provided for, shall be the winner of the game and the game is automatically ended upon any score (including a safety) or when a score is awarded by the Referee for a palpably unfair act.

So by 2004 rules if his team had scored, they would have won. So it is a win-guarantee of sorts. Same NFL overtime rules applied in 2003. Bruxton (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
A guarantee is not just a prediction, it's a promise backed up by an obligation to make the other party whole if you fail to deliver. In conventional use, "I guarantee the power train on this new car you're buying won't fail in the first 10 years, and if it does, I'll replace it for free". That's not what happened here. It was just a boast. There was no "and if we don't, I'll ..." part. RoySmith (talk) 16:18, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
I understand your point. In sports a guarantee is different. nothing was offered by the guy who made the most famous win-guarantee: Joe Namath Super_Bowl_III#Namath's_guarantee. You lose and you are embarrassed so you eat crow like Hasselbeck did in this situation. Bruxton (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I parse the construction "X guaranteed success for Y", noting the past test, as "guaranteed" being a post hoc descriptor of actions X took that did result in success for Y. I don't read it as describing a potentially failed guarantee made by X prior to the outcome of Y, so it's jarring when that latter sense is used. JoelleJay (talk) 01:49, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
It does seem that we are getting too literal. as it is we are replacing a word that works with a synonym for the word. So both work. Lightburst (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2024 (UTC)

Prep 1

Interstate 85 in North Carolina

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Interstate 85 in North Carolina - I swapped this from Queue 2 just now to give more time for discussion)

A couple of queries - firstly, it took me quite a while to even locate in the article where this is referenced. So the text in question is "Past Holly Grove Road on milemarker 96, the northbound lanes cut under the southbound lanes ... the reversed lanes ... the northbound lanes cross above the southbound lanes and return to the normal direction". If we want to say that it "drives on the left" I think we should say that a bit more clearly.

Secondly, I'm not sure the sourcing is adequate for this statement. The cites for the lines in question are links to Google maps, which do indeed show the two lanes crossing twice... but is that sufficient for the above statement about driving on the left, or is this bordering on WP:OR in the absence of sourcing explicitly saying that? I certainly seems interesting, but if 3rd party secondary sources haven't thought to mention it, then I'm not sure we should either. I'd be interested to hear views on that. Pinging @NoobThreePointOh, Daniel Case, JuniperChill, and AirshipJungleman29:  — Amakuru (talk) 13:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The question of inappropriate use of maps as a source for this article was brought up earlier and I pushed it under the rug. So now we're back here with the same issue. I think this needs to be pulled. RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Actually, I just looked at the article and clicked through to the sources. We're not even talking about a map. We're talking about Google Street View, i.e. some photographs taken by the automated camera car. If that's not WP:OR, I don't know what is. This can't stand. RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Pulled and unpromoted. RoySmith (talk) 14:22, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@Amakuru @RoySmith Hold up, I found a proper source from the NCDOT showing a true map of I-85 driving on the left side in Davidson County. I think that should suffice and make it eligible for promotion again. You can go check it if you want as I fixed the sourcing. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Please go discuss it on the nom page and build consensus there. After this getting pulled twice, we need to make sure we get this right this time. RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
Will do. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:15, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith  Done. I'm just running on pure willpower from revisiting Mario Galaxy 2. Let's hope everyone agrees with my comment. NoobThreePointOh (talk) 15:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I would agree with this only insofar as it's not plain-sight evident from the Street View image. Daniel Case (talk) 17:53, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

Edwin Ford Piper

  • ... that American poet Edwin Ford Piper collected 828 folk songs, most of which were from Iowa and Nebraska?

Quick query, because there's a small wording difference between article and hook. The article says that he recorded 828 songs, in the middle of the paragraph about him collecting from Iowa and Nebraska and all that. But the hook says that he collected 828 songs. IS there a reason for this difference in verb? The implication for me is that he may have collected more songs than that over the years, but that he specifically recorded 828 of those. @SL93, Generalissima, and AirshipJungleman29:  — Amakuru (talk) 13:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Amakuru I don't remember why I said "recorded", but it should be "collected". He preserved the songs that he collected per "His most active period of collecting ended with World War I. After the war, he pursued songs only occasionally. By the time of his death in 1939, he had preserved 828 folksongs as well as hundreds of riddles, rhymes, play-party games, folk sayings, and quadrille calls." The hook could also use "preserved" instead of "collected", and I think that is the best option. SL93 (talk) 13:27, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
@SL93: cool, thanks. I've amended the hook. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:34, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Golden Girls (play)

  • ... that before reading the script for the play Golden Girls, at least nine of the cast members were under the impression that they would be taking the lead role?

The wording for this in the article says "as many of eight of his fellow cast members"... Firstly, this probably should say "as many as eight of his fellow cast members". Secondly, is "as many as" the same as "at least"? I'd have thought the opposite, that this means "up to" rather than "at least".... And finally, this is cited to Branagh's autobiography, which may constitute a primary source and Branagh's perspective on this may not match what an independent observer would say. Not necessarily a show-stopper, but I do wonder if it's appropriate to state this in Wikipedia's voice or not. Opinions on a postcard please. @BennyOnTheLoose, Sammi Brie, and AirshipJungleman29:  — Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

  • Branagh's quote is "They were all playing the lead, and that made nine of us in total." Happy for suitable rewordings, and, if character limit permits, for this to be attributed (e.g. "...according to Kenneth Branagh...") I hadn't thought using Branagh as a source for this was problematic tbh. Regards, BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 21:39, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list of older nominations was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 8. We have a total of 258 nominations, of which 89 have been approved, a gap of 169 nominations that has increased by 17 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) 04:23, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Can I also encourage reviewers to pay attention to the Olympic hooks listed above? The first one that's scheduled (for 19 July) hasn't even had a review started yet, and the queue and prep page reaches as far as 15 July already. Schwede66 04:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 3 (week 1 July)

Beijing Watermelon

@Rjjiii, Morgan695, and AdJHu: This should be pulled from prep as it lacks a plot summary and lede that summarizes article's key points, contrary to WP:DYKCOMPLETE. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 21:17, 3 July 2024 (UTC)

The plot summary section was titled something different. But the lead is currently just a single sentence. @Morgan695: do you want to try to quickly expand the lead, or pull the article for more time to write? Rjjiii (talk) 22:33, 3 July 2024 (UTC)
I've expanded the lede to be consistent with articles that meet DYK completeness standards. Morgan695 (talk) 05:00, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
@Rjjiii: Shouldn't an article about a 34-year-old movie include a longer plot summary? The current one isn't even long enough to be called a synopsis. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:10, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh, gotcha, I can be very literal sometimes. Morgan695, what do you think about expanding the plot summary? The questions that the brief summary raises for me are:
  • What is the nature of the relationship between the grocer and students?
  • Does it tie into any broader cultural themes between the two countries?
  • And do we know what elements are based on historical fact and what elements are fiction?
Rjjiii (talk) 07:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I've expanded the plot, though as the film is already something of a meandering slice of life-type story, I don't think it would improve reader comprehension for it to be significantly more detailed than what is currently there. Morgan695 (talk) 15:50, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
@Morgan695: No, it's too short. WP:FILMPLOT demands a self-contained plot summary with a length of 400–700 words. This shouldn't be an issue if you've seen the movie. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 18:34, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
The MOS does not "demand" anything. If a plot can be adequately summarized in less than 400 words, what's the use in unnecessarily bloating it? If you're so sure it's too short, expand it yourself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I was just about to retract my comment until yours came up. In any case, the expansion will suffice since I have no discretion here. @Rjjiii: I got no more concerns on my end. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 19:05, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: thanks for the feedback and following up. The article is better for it, Rjjiii (talk) 05:30, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Giado hook

Hi @SL93, thanks for promoting Giado to Prep 6! Is there any reason why you chose the synagogue hook? It is definitely compelling (hence my nominating it), but it’s actually not totally unusual for Jewish camps in WWII. The ALT0, about prisoners engaging in trade with free people at the boundary of the camp, is way more unusual, and I am aware of very few camps where this was a reality. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 22:56, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Zanahary I have never heard of either things before, and no one shared a preference. I can change it to the first hook if you want. SL93 (talk) 23:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! To be clear, I wasn’t challenging you, only querying whether you’d be opposed to the first hook :) ꧁Zanahary꧂ 23:24, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
I realize that. I will change the hook. SL93 (talk) 23:25, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Zanahary, if you've got a hook preference, it's useful to say so on the nomination. Or provide just one hook and if that's not acceptable for whatever reason, you can always add further hooks later. Schwede66 01:05, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! I thought I had stated a preference, but I see now I just put my favorite hook first. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 01:12, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
@Zanahary, it's also acceptable for a nominator or reviewer to strike out a hook. The lets the promoter know you think the hook shouldn't be used. Valereee (talk) 18:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 7 William Beck

... that William Beck was a gold miner, member of the Wisconsin State Assembly, and the first chief of the Milwaukee Police Department? That sounds rather mundane to me and not interesting in violation of WP:DYKINT. Link to nom page; Queen of Hearts is the nominator. The reviewer is new, hence I wouldn't expect them to pick up on this. Do others here think this is fine? Schwede66 23:34, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

I agree. It’s just a list of jobs. SL93 (talk) 00:08, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd disagree. I don't think every day would a person be a gold miner and a politician; if the wording could be fixed to emphasize that, the interest might bump up. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with your point, but maybe a better hook can be found as suggested by Airship. SL93 (talk) 01:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
FWIW, one of New Zealand's most famous politicians, Richard Seddon aka King Dick, used to be a goldminer. Maybe that's only unusual outside of places where there's gold. Schwede66 01:54, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry, the article is about a German immigrant to New York, where he was a policeman, then to California to be a gold miner, who at various points was captured by Native Americans and involved in a shipwreck, and we've ended up with a hook mostly about obscure American political positions??? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:42, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Given the opposition to the above hook, maybe this might work better?
  • ... that William Beck emigrated to the US from Germany, became a policeman at 19, was wounded by a Native American tribe, and was shipwrecked before becoming Milwaukee's first police chief?
It's a bit on the long side at 189 characters and this could be shortened further, but maybe it's a better option here? The article does say "first chief of the Milwaukee Police Department" and so I don't know if "Milwaukee's first police chief" is accurate enough or not, but I was trying to make the hook more concise. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:33, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Do we need "Milwaukee" in this context ? Sohom (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Him being Milwaukee's first police chief (or at least being the first chief of their police department) is kind of the point so yes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:34, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah that does make sense, imo this hook is better than the current one. (thoughts @Queen of Hearts ?) Sohom (talk) 05:17, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Looks good to me Queen of Hearts talk 14:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Someone will need to make the change then. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Done. SL93 (talk) 23:42, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

Republica (plant) and Republica weatbrooki

@Kevmin, InformationToKnowledge, and AirshipJungleman29: I cannot find in either article where it states that these species were named after the city of Republic. Can someone please quote the passage where it says this in both articles? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

In Republica (plant): "They chose to erect a new genus, named for Republic". Can't find it in the other article, but if it isn't it can easily be inserted in the last sentence of "History and classification". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Missing sentence added to the end of the first paragraph in history and classification They chose the genus name as a latinized feminine form of the city name Republic.--Kevmin § 14:59, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Joseph Tetley

@Schwede66, Aszx5000, and Hey man im josh: The source says, "Adjusted to 2017 rates, Tetley ran off with under $7,000,000 NZD." Should the hook be changed to add "under NZ $7 million? Z1720 (talk) 01:53, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

That would be more accurate, I suppose. Schwede66 01:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I think the current hook reads better. I assumed that the sources implied it was "circa" or "almost" $7m. Saying "under" could imply anything from $0 to $7m?. thanks. Aszx5000 (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm fine with that adjustment based on the implication. I don't think anybody is going to assume that they ran off with 1m given the context. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I added "under" to the hook. Z1720 (talk) 16:54, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Banana (2024 video game)

@Generalissima, Panamitsu, Zxcvbnm, and Hey man im josh: While the Game Rant source verifies this information, the Polygon source says, "By June 17, Banana peaked at 858,915 players, briefly making it Steam’s most played game." Should this hook be changed to mention that it was the most played game on June 17? Z1720 (talk) 02:02, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

In the review we agreed that it be changed to "... reached the second highest concurrent player count on Steam?" ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:55, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
On top of this I do think it should be made clearer that this was not an all-time record. ―Panamitsu (talk) 02:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
"Was briefly the second-most played game on Steam" sounds more accurate. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:14, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that could be a better wording. Hey man im josh (talk) 11:56, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Album covers of Blue Note Records

@Joeyquism, PSA, and AirshipJungleman29: While the word "look" has been used in two of the titles of sources referenced in the article, the quote is not used in the article body. Can this be added to the article, or should the hook's wording be changed? Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

The source I cited for this submission has "visual identity of jazz" in its body; this phrasing also shows up in the article itself. Could this be a better alternative for the hook ( ... that the album covers of Blue Note Records have been considered to be the visual identity of jazz?) joeyquism (talk) 02:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry; I read your initial message wrong. How about this revision (in the reception and impact section): Estelle Caswell of Vox praised the covers as iconic and described them to be "the 'look' of jazz"... Would this validate the hook's original phrasing? joeyquism (talk) 03:06, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
I think this addition to the article text satisfies this issue. Some at ERRORS might note that we are not specifying who said this, but I don't think its necessary. Z1720 (talk) 16:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 3 12 July 2024

(resolved) List of individual body parts (nom)

  • ... that a human toe used for cocktails (pictured) is one of many body parts that are tourist attractions?

Not familiar with our rules for lists, but there are three paragraphs that don't end with a citation that I've marked. Gobonobo Crisco 1492 Schwede66 Rjjiii Valereee (talk) 12:38, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: Inline refs added to lead Rjjiii (talk) 18:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Valereee (talk) 19:21, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't know where to post this and will probably be told that this isn't the place and it's too late anyway, but I was appalled when I saw this article was in the 'did you know?' section, even highlighted with a photo. The article is unencyclopedic, full of inconsistencies and plain silly! I assumed it's meant to be a 'joke' to 'lighten up' Wikipedia, making it a 'fun' read. To me, however, it's not funny but banal trivia, just dumbing down and, surely, the the worst possible sort of advert if you are trying to be a serious sort of encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OscarFred1952 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

(resolved) L'Aube rouge (novel) (nom)

The article only says that Rabearivelo "was aware that his anti-colonial historical fiction...could not be published". It doesn't say it couldn't be published until decades after his death, only that it was published decades after his death? Zanahary Sigrandson Rjjiii Valereee (talk) 12:51, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Fix ping Slgrandson Valereee (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I think it works—he was aware that it couldn’t be published because Madagascar was still under French rule. Decades pass; Madagascar is independent; it is published. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 13:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I think that needs to be made clearer in the article. Right now the article doesn't say it couldn't be published until decades after his death. We could change the hook to 'wasn't published', but IMO that loses some of the hookiness. Valereee (talk) 13:56, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
How’s the edit I just made?꧁Zanahary꧂ 17:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
@Zanahary and Valereee: Could the wording of the hook be used and cited in the article? (Maybe in the lead?) Or could the wording of the article be made into a hook?[28] (Something like, "... that a novel about Madagascar's colonization could not be published under colonial rule?") Rjjiii (talk) 18:16, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
How about "… that a novel about Madagascar’s colonization, impossible to publish under colonial rule, was finally published decades after its authors suicide?" I believe the article supports that. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 18:19, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The article says Rabearivelo "was aware" it couldn't be published. It doesn't say it was impossible to publish. It doesn't even say it couldn't be published. In order to put it into a hook, we need to say, in WikiVoice, in the article, with a source, that it was impossible to publish. Sorry, I'm not trying to be difficult, just trying to make sure we're not saying something in the hook that the article and the sources don't say.
We could say 'that a novel about Madagascar's colonization, which the author was aware was impossible to publish under colonial rule, was finally published decades after his death?' if that would work? Valereee (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Valereee, I see that you've checked all the hooks in prep3 apart from the last one. I've just done a special occasion hook swap and that means that the last hook has now been checked as well (it came from Q2, which Z1720 had signed off). I'll thus promote this to queue, trusting that you'll sort this hook out or pull it before it goes live in 26 hours. Schwede66 21:33, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
@Zanahary, just making sure you've seen the latest suggestion, as I will be travelling most of tomorrow and would like to settle this sooner rather than later. Do we need to pull and replace rather than reword? Valereee (talk) 21:45, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Good with me ꧁Zanahary꧂ 21:46, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Valereee (talk) 21:48, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh, but @Valereee, could we refer to his suicide rather than to his death? I think it’s more interesting and quite an essential aspect of Rabearivelo as a figure in Malagasy consciousness. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:39, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
His suicide is also more than the nature of the death that preceded publication—L’Aube rouge was one of the deliberately preserved documents that survived his suicidal destruction of his manuscripts. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 04:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
 Done Valereee (talk) 10:24, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

(resolved) Titan: The Life of John D. Rockefeller, Sr. (nom)

This needs a rewording. It wasn't a three-year-long interview, it was a series of interviews conducted over three years. DrOrinScrivello Kimikel Rjjiii Valereee (talk) 15:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

How about ALT1: ... that author Ron Chernow was reluctant to write a biography of John D. Rockefeller until being shown a 1,700-page transcript of three years' worth of private interviews with him? DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:23, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Or the same as above but without the 'worth', if that wording sounds awkward. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 15:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
That works for me! I'll make that change. Thanks! Valereee (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 5 (Week 1 July)

Mindustry

@JPxG: (the nom) @Sohom Datta: (the promoter) do you want the image in the hook? If so, this can be moved to prep 6. This hook had an image and was promoted to a prep 5 without one. I was the one who reviewed it. JuniperChill (talk) 17:04, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Images are included at the promoter's discretion JuniperChill, seeing as we receive between two and three times as many image hooks as we can fit into sets. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:28, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh I see. I am new to Wikipedia/DYK so that might be why. I'm fine with not having an image then. JuniperChill (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

Bulloak jewel

Hook needs in-text attribution to The Guardian source due to the presence of "arguably". Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:33, 6 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging nominator Ornithoptera and reviewer Htanaungg. SL93 (talk) 02:29, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
@Ornithoptera: Please note that I'm citing MOS:EDITORIAL here, where it states: "Use of adverbs such as notably and interestingly, and phrases such as it should be noted, to highlight something as particularly significant or certain without attributing that opinion, should usually be avoided so as to maintain an impartial tone; arguably is no exception. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Nineteen Ninety-Four guy I went ahead and added in-text attribution to the hook. The nominator has had plenty of time to respond here. SL93 (talk) 19:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I was a bit unsure as to how to best tackle this. There is an ALT hook as well that could be used if that is more ideal. If not, would something like " that according to The Guardian, the bulloak jewel is "arguably" Australia's rarest butterfly?" Ornithoptera (talk) 19:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I would be fine with that, but the source is Guardian Australia. ... that according to Guardian Australia, the bulloak jewel is "arguably" Australia's rarest butterfly? SL93 (talk) 19:30, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
That should be fine. If it's too much, we can always choose ALT1 "... that the Australia’s most threatened butterfly is confined to a native range of under 10 square kilometres (3.9 sq mi)?" Whichever is more hooky is most ideal, but yes, you are correct that was my bad! Ornithoptera (talk) 19:33, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I will ping the promoter Premeditated Chaos. I like ALT1 best because it isn't just one writer's opinion. SL93 (talk) 19:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
No objection to ALT1 from me. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I have changed it to ALT1. SL93 (talk) 20:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Whoops (song)

Courtesy pings to MaranoFan (nom) and Hey man im josh (promoter). I was trying to help out on the admin angle of DYK but I'm concerned about this hook from a WP:DYKBLP perspective. I think that the connection between a song about infidelity and another living person is undue in a hook like this. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I hadn't considered how some may possibly read the hook as inflammatory when I moved it to prep area, so I'm sorry about that. I just got a kick out of it and verified it. As discussed, I'm not at all bothered if it needs to be pulled or a new hook needs to be chosen. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I've removed it for now but I have no idea how to replace it. I also think the hook about Oen Boen Ing should be swapped out for ALT0 given the phrasing of "popular" (WP:PEACOCK). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 19:09, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I've decided that the current hook actually is okay. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Clovermoss, thanks for notifying. How about removing the infidelity part from the hook, then?
I believe it would be a bit of a stretch if this considered problematic too. Cheers, NØ 19:10, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@MaranoFan: I moved your hook here [29] for now. I don't have concerns about this alt hook from a BLP perspective but as someone who doesn't listen to Trainor's music it might be more interesting to say "that Meghan Trainor wrote a song about infidelity?" I'm willing to listen to other perspectives here. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:22, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
So the prep that delays the appearance by 9 days...? I find both the proposed uncontroversial hooks acceptable but would prefer the earlier run if possible. I will leave the preference of hook to your and other people's good judgement. If it's relevant, though, she has made songs about infidelity before. It's kind of a recurring thing, lol.--NØ 20:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll see what theleekycauldron says. I'm very new to this, which is why there was a delay of an hour when responding to you. I was trying to make sure I was doing things right. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:57, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Or Hey man im josh? Since you promoted the original hook? I don't want to cause the nominator more of a delay than nessecary. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 18:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you want my opinion on – the hooks, the timing? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Both, if possible. I'm at a loss for what to do. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:07, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Hey @Theleekycauldron and Hey man im josh:, Clovermoss has removed the hook from the prep and not replied here. Can I suggest an alternate hook at the nomination page (after unarchiving) or is this the end for this? 'preciate any help and thanks a lot for the work you are doing here.--NØ 20:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
the hook is in Prep 4 :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:21, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Clovermoss I promoted the hook for Template:Did you know nominations/Oen Boen Ing, and I agree with your original reasoning about switching the hook to the first one. I think we should stay on the safe side. SL93 (talk) 20:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I talked to someone else about this yesterday and they said that while "popular" is a word to watch, it doesn't mean it's banned and that the source does support such phrasing. I'm not sure I want to be messing with things now but any other admin is free to do so if they think this should be changed! I did not expect this to be so complicated and I think I might wait a while before promoting another queue. It might be easier to work my way up to that and participate in other DYK areas first. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Ok. That makes sense. SL93 (talk) 20:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
@Clovermoss, MaranoFan, Rjjiii, and Hey man im josh: this isn't the answer anyone asked for, but I have significant concerns about whether the article passes WP:NOPAGE. Every single section of this article, with the exception of the last two paragraphs of "Composition", is built almost entirely off of non-independent sources or sources that do not provide significant coverage to the topic at hand. Only one source would count towards GNG (Meir 2024), and while this could conceivably survive on AfD on WP:NSONG, that still suggests to me that this article might do better merged into Timeless. Unless there's something significant I'm missing here, I'd be inclined to pull the nomination pending a merge discussion. Let me know your thoughts, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:59, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
as for the hooks, I'm not sure either of the replacements are likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing, but that's much more subjective. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:01, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the tag, theleekycauldron. I don't think a merge discussion is required since I am the only editor who has contributed to the article so far. I trust your judgement and have redirected it. Thanks to everyone for the help with this.--NØ 21:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
@MaranoFan: That's incredibly gracious of you, thank you :) onwards and upwards. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Infested

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: There are no issues with your current hook but I was wondering if maybe you would be alright with changing it to "... that 200 spiders were used on the set of Infested"? [30] I think that would be more interesting. If you don't like it, I'll keep the current hook. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

It's in the queue so if you don't like it'll just be promoted like normal (with your current hook). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Clovermoss: Fine by me. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 02:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Okay, I did so here [31]. Let me know if you change your mind. I don't want to overstep. Thank you expanding such an interesting article. :) Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 11:51, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Request for expedited review for an anniversary

I recently finished developing 2022 Brink's theft and nominated it. I am hoping we can run it in a week, on July 11, the two-year anniversary of the event. I see P2 and P3 are all filled, but couldn't it be possible to bump one of those hooks back? Daniel Case (talk) 17:42, 4 July 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I will work on this today. I will review it, so it will need another editor to insert it in the desired prep. Lightburst (talk) 23:03, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
 Done ALT0 is a winner! Human error personified. Lightburst (talk) 23:48, 4 July 2024 (UTC)
If we are going to run this on the 11th we need an uninvolved promotor to promote. Lightburst (talk) 19:29, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@DYK admins: I have promoted this to prep 3, as I am not an admin. Could someone swap this with the bottom hook in prep 2?--Launchballer 18:44, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 1 (Week 2 July)

Pure Japanese

This nom (currently at SOHA) should be included in this prep set, as it is scheduled for a July 17 run. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 19:30, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I've promoted it. I don't know the first thing about film articles but it's surprising that the cast section is unreferenced. I presume it should have references. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, could you please do so or provide evidence that it's not necessary? Schwede66 22:02, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
The same would go for Infested in prep 6. I promoted it, but now I'm thinking that the cast should be referenced. SL93 (talk) 01:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I checked MOS:FILMCAST and it appears that the cast list should follow the credits and provide citations where it differs from the credits. TSventon (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66 and SL93:  Done Citations have been included on both nominations. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:50, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting it, Nineteen Ninety-Four guy. Tbhotch, just a heads up to look out for citation requirements when you do GA reviews. Schwede66 06:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 2 18 July 2024

List of historic places in Kaikōura District

List of historic places in Kaikōura District (nom)

I removed the nickname of the carpenter, which seemed like unneeded trivia and has a different meaning in AmEng, and it occurred to me the name of the carpenter isn't linked, doesn't seem to be a notable person...is there a reason we're including the name here? We usually don't include names of non-notable people. Ping Generalissima Peacemaker67 Premeditated Chaos. Valereee (talk) 22:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

I can't speak for Generalissima but to me just saying "a carpenter built a villa that was later described as X" sounds odd. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:47, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
To me, too. And not very interesting. But the person isn't notable, so their name can't really make it more interesting either. Maybe we need a different hook? Valereee (talk) 10:27, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Reading the article, frankly nothing really seems to stand out as a possible hook (except maybe a hook about the Collins' Bakery Complex now containing a hair salon?) Maybe the article as it currently stands is just a bad fit for DYK since the material is rather limited and none seem to be that eye-catching or hooky. Unfortunately, unless another editor can come up with another hook, I would suggest pulling and rejecting the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Maybe:
ALT1: ...that the coastal area surrounding Fyffe House, a listed building, includes listed Māori archaeological sites and graves (pictured)?
Might be nice to ue a Maori hook. Valereee (talk) 10:42, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Doesn't that hook seem EGGy? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:53, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I didn't think so...the article is a list. The original hook was to the article rather than the entry, I think. We could change the link to the specific entry, maybe? Valereee (talk) 13:13, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean the article is "List of historic places in Kaikōura District" but the bolded link is about Maori sites, which isn't exactly the same. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:32, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
But it's one entry in the list...I'm sorry, not following. It's a list article. Is it that you think we should be talking about the list rather than about any one entry on the list? Valereee (talk) 18:16, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean, the bolded link suggests it's talking about an article on Maori archaeological sites (pointing on an entry in the broader Kaikōura District list) rather than a an article on Kaikōura District sites in general. I'm not necessarily saying the hook is unsuitable, it just seems to be weird and I remember similar cases being challenged before for being EGGy. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Aoi Koga

This was requested to be a special occasion hook for next month but was promoted early. Is it okay for it to run as a regular hook or should it be pulled for now and re-promoted later? Pinging Hey man im josh. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:46, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I'm so sorry I missed that. Absolutely feel free to pull. Hey man im josh (talk) 01:29, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I made it to a PC now and I've unpromoted the hook. Thank you for pointing this out. That's a reminder to read more thoroughly and not just verify and move interesting hooks... Hey man im josh (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5

There is a "the" in the second hook that needs to be removed. SL93 (talk) 23:19, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed – Schwede66 03:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Ludwig Krug

@Premeditated Chaos, SL93, and Ogress: In what way does this meet WP:DYKINT? It's basically "Sculptor sculpts an example of one of the most popular art motifs in the world".

RoySmith I was concerned about this happening, so I brought up ALT1 about the work featuring an ape which is different from usual Adam and Eve works. The reviewer said that my ALT1 was too wordy. I guess I could try shortening it to ... that German sculptor Ludwig Krug created a limestone relief depicting Adam and Eve with an ape (pictured)? SL93 (talk) 18:37, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
ALT2 ... that German sculptor Ludwig Krug created a limestone relief depicting Adam and Eve with an ape mimicking Adam (pictured)? SL93 (talk) 18:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
How about:
ALT3: that in Ludwig Krug's rendition of Adam and Eve (pictured), an ape mimics Adam eating the apple?
Also, it looks like the title of the work is "Adam and Eve (The Fall)", so that's what the image caption should say.
RoySmith (talk) 19:08, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
That sounds better. I admit that my hooks can sometimes be wordy, so the reviewer was right. I have been trying to work on that. SL93 (talk) 19:11, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Done. RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Updating nom talk page on image change?

We've got a bot that updates the nom talk page when a hook is changed after promotion. Would it be possible to make it also notice if the lead image changed? There's currently a bit of contretemps at WP:ERRORS because I failed to ping somebody when I updated an image. If we could automate that, it would be nice :-) RoySmith (talk) 21:01, 5 July 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron:, for obvious reasons. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
That bot isn't even currently running, and will probably remain offline for the foreseeable future. So, another good idea for the pile- apologies that I'm only one person :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:35, 5 July 2024 (UTC)
Please add to the pile "clone self". Valereee (talk) 11:04, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list is badly out of date, 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 27. We have a total of 240 nominations, of which 110 have been approved, a gap of 130 nominations that has decreased by 39 over the past 13 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) 04:26, 10 July 2024 (UTC)

Aoi Koga special occasion request for August 24

I recently nominated this article for GA status and it's currently under review. I'm planning to nominate it for DYK once it passes. However, if the GAN passes before July 13, that would be just outside the six-week requirement for SOHA. My plan was to request a special occasion hook for August 24 (her birthday). If for example, the GAN finishes before the 13th, would it be okay to ask for an IAR exemption for August 24? Of course, this IAR exemption request would be moot if the review is completed after the 13th, I just wanted to make sure. I'm just asking ahead of time if an IAR exemption can be requested because, if it can't, I'm okay with it running as a regular hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:57, 8 July 2024 (UTC)

No objection to IAR. We should encourage people to ask for that (rather than encouraging them to slow the roll on the GA review.) Valereee (talk) 11:03, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Valereee's rationale and support the request. Schwede66 21:19, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
It's six weeks from nomination date, not six weeks from qualification date. If the GAN were to finish today, so long as the nomination is not submitted until the 13th (which would be less than seven days after obtaining GA status and thus still within DYK rules), it would qualify for SOHA. No need for an IAR at all in that case. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:49, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
That loophole should probably be closed, I think.--Launchballer 13:27, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not a loophole at all; it's how it was designed: nomination date was always the key. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:07, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
In any case, the article has now passed its GAN and I have nominated it for DYK; I will leave it to consensus if the IAR exemption request will be granted or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
You easily could have waited 24 hours to nominate so the article automatically qualified but didn't. Why waste people's valuable time by forcing a truly unnecessary IAR request? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:35, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, I guess it's moot now given how the nomination has been reviewed and approved, along with how two other editors gave their approval. I guess this means it should be okay to move to SOHA now? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:25, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

I need a mentor for building preps.

hi. I need a mentor for building preps. Jumpy542 (talk) 23:18, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

I see you've got a couple of experienced prep builders at your talk recommending you get a little more experience. I think that's good advice. Here are some things you can do to get that experience:
  1. Review hooks, and then pay attention to what happens to those hooks as they're promoted, moved to queue, and appear on the main page.
  2. Read this talk page regularly. Subscribe to any new threads, especially any that deal with questions about hooks.
  3. Read the DYK portion of WP:ERRORS daily and see what kinds of things are questioned there.
Valereee (talk) 14:09, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, ping @Jumpy542. Valereee (talk) 19:43, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
Valereee Jumpy52 just promoted another nomination without closing the nomination. I undid their work. Not sure how to get them to stop promoting. SL93 (talk) 00:49, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Jumpy542, please stop promoting, and please respond to this so we'll know you've seen it. Valereee (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Maintenance tag

One of our main page articles has a maintenance tag right now, 2022 Brink's theft Bruxton (talk) 02:59, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

@Lightburst, AirshipJungleman29, Launchballer, and Daniel Case: Bruxton (talk) 03:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I have addressed the issues behind the two inline tags and asked the editor to come to the talk page and explain their reasoning for the tag. Daniel Case (talk) 03:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Cool, I am going to be signing off the project, but glad you fixed it. It was great working with you all. Lightburst (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Apologies Daniel Case Someone reverted me after I removed the tone tag. I left a message on their talk page telling them they needed to go to errors with it, but they did not. @DYK admins: are likely needed to sort this. Lightburst (talk) 05:26, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I've weighed in in that discussion too. In short, I do not think the addition of a tag by itself requires pulling an article already in a DYK set; otherwise there's a huge opportunity for bad-faith disruptive types. Daniel Case (talk) 05:30, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Especially one that is apparently unexplained. @BalinKingOfMoria, you've edited since being asked about this tag...maybe give us a clue? Valereee (talk) 10:55, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
One reason for the tone tag could be the opening paragraph. @AirshipJungleman29 commented at the nomination "I suggest that the first lead paragraph be rewritten; at the moment it reads like a story. See MOS:OPEN for recommendations." TSventon (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't too impressed that this article was rushed through in the first place, to be honest, bypassing several of the usual processes - I guess because it was delayed in nomination and wanted to be run today? I saw the call to promote it last night but thought maybe it had a few issues. e.g. The lead seems to have several uncited statements that aren't clearly backed up by anythingin the body, such as "several experts have stated that it is unlikely that any of the stolen jewelry will be recovered" and "Police and the FBI continue to investigate but no suspects have been named".  — Amakuru (talk) 14:06, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree about the rushing. I haven't been able to fully follow the history yet, but it looks like it got promoted to prep-3, then a couple of hours later swapped into the next-up queue. The whole idea of the prep and queue mechanism is to give people a chance to see what's coming up and provide additional reviews. RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 3

WUEC

@JuniperChill, Sammi Brie, and BeanieFan11: May I suggest shortening this to that the radio station at the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire would close in the middle of the day? Leave a little mystery. Get people wondering "Why did they do that?" so they'll click through to learn why. RoySmith (talk) 01:06, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

  • No objection from me. BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:14, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
    Actually, even better would be That the radio station at the University of Wisconsin–Eau Claire would go off the air in the middle of the day. That's more accurate to the wording in the article. "Closing" for a radio station could mean they close the doors and stop conducting business, but they're still broadcasting. Most listeners would never know. Off the air is more significant, and as a bonus, more correct. RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
That's fine. The Roy version is also passable too. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
That's also fine by me. JuniperChill (talk) 08:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Since I'm the promoter, I decided to change it myself. JuniperChill (talk) 08:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Israel–Palestine hook

I took a stab at promoting my first prep to queue today in light of the backlog. In doing so, I swapped out the hook for Three-phase Israel–Hamas war ceasefire proposal with one from another prep area:

My first thought is that the article is subject to substantial editing as the situation evolves, especially if the original proposal ultimately falls through. Indeed, the article has changed considerably between the original nomination on 18 May and promotion to prep on 5 July: [32]. Additionally, I feel that the hook is not very catchy, merely stating that the proposal has three phases (at face value, splitting a major project or plan into phases is nothing out of the ordinary). It's in prep area 7 now (from which I "borrowed" a replacement hook), but I'm unsure whether these concerns are fixable or whether the hook has to be pulled entirely. Especially since this is my first time doing this, any feedback would be appreciated. Complex/Rational 20:04, 11 July 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for helping out. That's absolutely fine pulling a hook out of the set if you've got concerns, and absolutely the right thing to bring this here for further discussion, ComplexRational. As for feedback:
  • It's good to provide a link to the queue number, but that's not relevant here as the hook is no longer in the queue. As the hook is now in prep 7, say so and provide a link.
  • Looking at the edit history, I see that you made the change while the hook was still in prep. Just so you know, almost all admins promote first and then do the checks, just so that you avoid edit conflicts.
  • A link to the hook's nom page should always be provided in a discussion as that makes it easier for others to chip in.
You've made a fabulous start. All of the above is just minor fine-tuning. Schwede66 22:18, 11 July 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Thanks for your feedback. I'll keep these pointers in mind for next time. In addition, I marked the hook in prep area 7 as under discussion with a link to this thread. Complex/Rational 03:00, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Pinging nominator Vice regent and reviewer Launchballer. SL93 (talk) 20:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
@ComplexRational why is it relevant that "article has changed considerably between the original nomination on 18 May and promotion to prep on 5 July"? @User:Launchballer reviewed it on 09:20, 5 July 2024 and presumably did not find any issues with it. As for catchiness, I guess that's subjective. Do you suggest re-opening the discussion on that basis? VR (Please ping on reply) 23:22, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
This was moved backwards to give more time to sort this out. It's now in the prep set to be promoted to queue next. I'll pull it so that the prep can be promoted and reopen the nomination, where further discussion should be had. Schwede66 01:19, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Too negative of a hook

I feel like Template:Did you know nominations/Timeline of Partygate has too negative of a hook for a living person. Pinging nominator A Thousand Doors and reviewer Sammi Brie. SL93 (talk) 20:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I feel like the historical value—amply noted in sourcing, thus this big old list—outweighs the negativity question. This was so widely reported that it's not like a typical BLP where the figure may not be well known. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 20:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to reply on the nom page (and suggest that everybody else do the same) RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Obviously I'm inclined to agree with User:Sammi Brie, but I'm also willing to go with the community on this. I just felt that this was the most interesting and "hook"-y fact from the article. But if the community feels that it's too negative, then I'll come up with something else. Thanks, A Thousand Doors (talk | contribs) 22:53, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with the hook and I don't view it as "too negative". This was widely reported and is part of the historical record. I honestly think people are misunderstanding WP:DYKBLP. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Zhang Ziyu

I'd like some others to comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Zhang Ziyu. Not sure what the best way to handle this is. The issue is this particular athlete in known for being tall, but there are discrepancies about what her true height is, and the nominator put forward a specific height for the hook. Not sure what the best way to handle this is both within the article's prose and in the hook. Best.4meter4 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2024 (UTC)

Not sure why this couldn't be worked out at the nomination... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29It absolutely can be, I was wanting someone else's input. I've never had a case with conflicting reports over a particular hook fact before. Not sure what we should allow in a case like this. I want to avoid ending up at WP:ERRORS. I wouldn't be comfortable giving it a tick without getting more than one opinion at the nom. That's why I asked for people to comment. Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2024 (UTC)
It seems that the reviewer is still awaiting comment from other DYK regulators on the nom page. I suggest that the issue is resolved and all it needs is others to confirm that. Schwede66 17:13, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Sam Salz (American football)

I just approved this nomination, choosing a hook fact that seemed rock solid according to the sourcing, rather than the subject's main claim to fame of being the first (or only?) Orthodox Jewish college football player. However, given that his main claim to fame is his Orthodox Jewish beliefs, I was wondering if either of these options, which have qualifiers, could be acceptable:

  • ... that in 2023, the Atlanta Jewish Times suggested that Sam Salz is the only Orthodox Jewish player in NCAA Division I college football?
  • ... that The Times of Israel suggests that Sam Salz may be college football's first known Orthodox Jewish player? (note: this fact is currently not in the article, but is mentioned in one of the sources)

Given the whole brouhaha about "first" hooks recently, and the possibility of either claim being wrong, I understand if this isn't the fact that ultimately runs. I just wanted to bring both options here for a wider hearing to see if either could meet the higher scrutiny we now have for "first" hooks, or if it's for the best to go with alternatives. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Since the nom is still open, I'll respond there, so we keep the discussion in one place. RoySmith (talk) 13:05, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
"Suggests" and "known" and "may be" are really vague though, aren't they? You would have thought that given the ridiculous amount of statistical trivia about the game, there would be a definitive source. Black Kite (talk) 19:00, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
@Black Kite can we keep this conversation in one place? RoySmith (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Orca Shipwreck

This is in okay shape, but the nominator was indef blocked for copyvio. Earwig turned up fine to existing sources, but there is a Hebrew-language source I can't check. I would like a second set of eyes on this one. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:57, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 7

@AirshipJungleman29, A Thousand Doors, and Sammi Brie: I raised this issue on the nom page, but now that it's been promoted, it needs wider attention. The problem is not just the "first" aspect, but the vagueness of "broken the law". There's lots of laws. What does it mean to "break the law"? If you drop a candy wrapper on the street, you've almost certainly broken some law about littering. This is just begging to be dragged to WP:ERRORS. RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith, on the nomination page you missed the word "serving", now you have missed the word "found". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 6

Fu Wuji is tagged for the lead being too short. Pinging nominator Kzyx and reviewer TheNuggeteer. SL93 (talk) 02:27, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@SL93 Tried to fix the lead problem, can you check it out? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 02:44, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
It looks fine to me. I removed the tag that another editor placed. SL93 (talk) 03:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hello, not sure where to ask this, so this is a bit of a two-parter because of that. Where can I ask questions pertaining to DYK, would this be the correct venue to do so? Secondly, I had a nomination that was never posted due to me being unable to complete the QPQ, if I was able to get it DYK eligible again, would I be able to renominate or does the 5 year renomination deadline apply? Ornithoptera (talk) 02:40, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Answer to 1: yes
Answer to 2: if it was never on the main page, there is no 5-year standdown period. Schwede66 03:43, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Splendid! Thank you for letting me know Schwede66! Ornithoptera (talk) 06:03, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Wording issue in P5

The hook for 1969 Progressive Conservative Party of New Brunswick leadership election currently reads:

... that the 1969 leadership election for the Progressive Conservative Party of New Brunswick was blacklisted by the American Federation of Musicians because one of the candidates was indebted to them?

This should be reworded to make clear what the article itself says: "... Van Horne was described as being a 'free spender' who substantially indebted the party during his 1967 provincial campaign; the upcoming convention was blacklisted by the American Federation of Musicians from allowing for work to be serviced by its members, claiming that 'the party hasn't paid its bill for Don Messer and His Islanders, who played for Van Horne affairs in the 1967 campaign.' So while Van Horne was responsible for the debt being incurred, it was the party itself that actually owed the money, not Van Horne. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Also, again to be clear, it was DM and His Islanders who the party owed, not the union. Daniel Case (talk) 02:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @B3251: (nominator}} and @Kimikel: (reviewer) Daniel Case (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@Daniel Case I recommend rewording it to "... because one of the candidates indebted the party to them?" or simply "... because the party was indebted to them?" (missing further clarification that this is DM and His Islanders, but it's a start). B3251(talk) 02:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, it's kind of a long hook and there's not too much more we can do with it. Daniel Case (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
... that a Progressive Conservative Party of New Brunswick election was blacklisted by a musician's union because the party was indebted to a band? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Nice one! B3251(talk) 03:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

A9 dualling project problems

Seeing as that article has been pulled from the main page with this error, could the article be renominated again if I would be able to choose a different hook, or the fact that the other issues to the article already prevent it? I was just thinking that if a construction project is expected to be delayed by 10 years, then its definitely interesting to see (like the delays to the Crossrail project by 4 years, or Berlin Brandenburg Airport by 8-9 years)? Or is it that articles about projects that are currently under construction, such as HS2 (which is also delayed), that a DYK is difficult?

It's ironic both the article and the project is under construction form that error. JuniperChill (talk) 11:04, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

If it's such an obviously "stupid" objection, why mention it at all? There are some people who see the guidelines/requirements as an agreed upon (i.e. consensus) way to present things in the best way possible. It's understandable that those of you working hard to put DYK out every day sometimes see ERRORS reports as frivolous or pedantic but please remember that we are using the standards given to us to measure these hooks, not our own particular preferences. Primergrey (talk) 02:42, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
@Primergrey: Well, perhaps we disagree on whether the guideline implies what some people at ERRORS think it implies. People can always look at the word "newly" in the archives and understand that it meant "newly" at the time it was run, so the fact does not change. If there's not any further objection to the wording change here, I'm making it and stamping this. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:03, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
There's no "further" objection to the wording, because there was no original objection. I don't give a hot shit about it. But if I did disagree, I could look forward to you telling me, at ERRORS, that the objection is "stupid". And if I wasn't lucky enough to get the message directly from you, you'd have deputized any one here to go ahead and let me (or whoever) know it. What a collegial attitude. Primergrey (talk) 20:21, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
@Primergrey: I wasn't referring to the "newly", I was referring to my suggestion to change "can only" to "has only". And yeah, I have opinion on a specific thing that comes up from time to time at ERRORS. that doesn't mean I don't think you're a good and diligent editor :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:30, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
Forget it. Primergrey (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2024 (UTC)
  • As for the reliability of the source: AMINEF is a foundation established by the US Embassy in Indonesia to administer the Fulbright Scholarship program in Indonesia. It is a primary source, in that it is published by the foundation itself, but it does meet the RS guidelines.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:40, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

Great work, all! Hopefully we can get all of these in ship-shape before showtime :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:21, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 3. We have a total of 246 nominations, of which 105 have been approved, a gap of 141 nominations that has increased by 11 over the past 7 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) 19:33, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Chicken of Tomorrow Contest not new enough?

I pulled this hook from prep 4 (now promoted to queue 4), because as far as I can ascertain, Chicken of Tomorrow Contest was moved to mainspace on 13 June and was nominated for DYK eleven days later on 24 June, longer than the period allowed per WP:DYKNEW. Although it states that sometimes a 1–2 day extension may be granted, this is four days over the seven-day newness limit described in the guidelines; I cannot find neither evidence of a discussion or special occasion prompting such an extension and this does not satisfy another aspect of DYKNEW. Pinging the nominator and reviewer, Thriley and Hassocks5489, in case I missed something – hopefully this was just a misunderstanding. And if no guidelines have been violated, this hook may be restored to another prep area. Complex/Rational 16:37, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Definitely ineligible given that it was nominated 11 days after the nomination. Had the nominator been a newcomer perhaps IAR could have been granted here, but Thriley is one of our more experienced contributors, so an IAR exemption is probably not warranted here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:47, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
My apologies. I meant to nominate this within the time frame, but forgot to. This has happened before. I'm sometimes overwhelmed with other projects which can cause me to forget to nominate in a timely manner. It was a great hook that I couldn't pass up! Thriley (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@Thriley bring it up to GA status and then renominate it with the same hook :D ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:32, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I definitely plan expand it significantly at some point. GA status would be the goal. Maybe Featured Article someday with Miss Chicken of Tomorrow as the image: [33] Thriley (talk) 18:16, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry all - I checked the date of nomination but must have got my dates mixed up, thinking it was still within 7 days. Hassocks5489 (Floreat Hova!) 18:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I have edited the nomination page to reflect it being rejected rather than promoted. SL93 (talk) 19:34, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 1

Georg Kareski needs to be unorphaned and have a lead added. Pinging Buidhe. SL93 (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

I heard from Buidhe that leads aren’t required. SL93 (talk) 03:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
@SL93: I passed on promoting this one because it is an orphan, and it looks like a stub. I feel like WP:DYKCOMPLETE is a relevant guide here. Bruxton (talk) 03:29, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
To be fair, orphan tags are specifically exempted from WP:DYKCOMPLETE. This definitely deserves {{no lead}} though.--Launchballer 08:05, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Hi Launchballer, can you show me where in MOS it says that articles are required to have a lead? In MOS:LAYOUT it seems to suggest the opposite, since it states that the article elements are optional.
There are millions of Wikipedia articles that do not have leads, should they all be tagged? (t · c) buidhe 14:33, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
Stubs, permastubs, and stub-like articles are routinely featured at DYK, if they are over the 1,500 character limit. Lead sections at permastubs like Georg Kareski have no purpose because they either just duplicate what is said one or two paragraphs later, or encourage the use of MOS:OVERSECTION. {{no lead}} needs to be used with consideration; here, it is useless. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:41, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
WP:MOS (more specifically, MOS:SO) says you should have a lead section, but DYK does not require compliance with the MOS. RoySmith (talk) 23:24, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not required, but in practice, an article can be delayed if it's clearly not MOS compliant or is full of writing issues like requiring copyediting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:02, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I took the no lead tag off. I do think that if we're going to have a rule that says 'no stubs', we should spell out what one is and I would argue that if an article is too short to need a lede, then it's a stub. WP:STUBDEF says that there is no set size at which an article stops being a stub, which is not helpful.--Launchballer 09:44, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: per WP:DYKSTUB, The article ... should not deserve stub or dispute tags. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:52, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
It's always going to be a judgement call what makes something a stub. Amusingly, WP:STUBDEF says [other editors] follow the Did you know? standard of 1,500 characters in the main text. Talk about finger-pointing! Even odder, that kind of implies that the lead doesn't count towards the 1500 quota since it's not part of the "main text", but I've never seen that enforced at DYK. As far as I can tell, articles get called stub, start, or c-class more or less at random. RoySmith (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Precisely. Most people seem to think that being above 1500 characters is enough to take an article out of stub status. But does a 1499 character article "deserve" a stub tag, and a 1501 character article not? An article may be "too short and incomplete to provide encyclopedic coverage of a subject", but if no RS can be accessed to expand it, what can you do? At the end of the day, it's a matter of editorial discretion.
On article ratings, I use "stub" for articles that feel short, "start" for articles that miss two B-class criteria (I use MILHIST as an example), and "C-class" for articles that miss one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
María Sara Grippoli has 1581 characters. Andy Barat has 1587. Gaku Akazawa has 1657. Alyssa Mendoza has 1690. All are short enough you could reasonably say they "deserve" stub tags. But I think they're quite encyclopedic, and can run perfectly well at DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5

As a general comment, this set has a lot of long/wordy hooks. It would be good if we could trim things down here and there. RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Breaking Through (2022 film)

@SL93, Toadboy123, and Narutolovehinata5: There's some minor copy-paste from two sources which needs some attention. See earwig RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I will take care of it later today if no one else does before then. SL93 (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Done. SL93 (talk) 22:22, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Also, maybe reshuffle the order so there's not two women's sports hooks right next to each other. RoySmith (talk) 16:58, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Tagging @DYK admins: because now only an admin can reshuffle the order. SL93 (talk) 18:28, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
 Done the shuffling. Schwede66 18:36, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Anna Smith Spark

@SL93, Storye book, and ResonantDistortion: There's some minor copy-paste from grimdarkmagazine.com/anna-smith-spark-where-to-start-reading which needs to be addressed. RoySmith (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for the alert, RoySmith. I'm not sure what you mean, but I'm guessing that you have spotted some copyvio. I have tried to check with Earwig, but the system is overloaded a the moment, and cannot respond to me in the UK. I shall try again later - unless someone in the US might have faster success? Storye book (talk) 17:20, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Uncheck the "Use search engine" box on the earwig form, and it'll just run against the references in the article. In any case, you're looking for
  • "is the author of the Empires of Dust trilogy"
  • "Spark's debut novel"
  • "and the struggles of motherhood."
I suspect the last one could be resolved by quoting it, but the others should be rephrased. RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Done. SL93 (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. Storye book (talk) 19:21, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Thank you @SL93; I have done a little tidying up too. @RoySmith, as the main contributor I can confidently state I read the sources and then put the article into my own words. The text in clash#1, for example, came about after I rewrote the lead following the DYK review (without going back to sources). These are such minor (almost generic) overlaps that I really don't see why your comment needed the aspersion of copy and pasting to be thrown. ResonantDistortion 23:05, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@ResonantDistortion Please don't take my comments personally. My job when promoting a set is to look for problems. I'm working my way through 9 hooks at once, so I don't have time to do any more than list what I find and assume the people who have been shepherding the nomination will do a deeper dive.
The earlier problems get found, the easier it is to fix them. It's best if they're found during the initial review, or at least when they're in prep. By the time they get to a queue, there's a ticking clock to correct things, and you need to get an admin involved to make any changes to the hook itself. But the worst of all is if we publish something with problems and they get brought up at WP:ERRORS. Nobody is happy when that happens.
And, yes, if I see a hunk of text that's word-for-word from the source, I'm going to assume it was copied. RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Steve Elcock

@Premeditated Chaos, Smerus, and Kimikel: rewrite "This was the first professional performance of any of" so it's not word-for-word from the source RoySmith (talk) 16:57, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith:I have rewritten - Smerus (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Croton alabamensis

I believe this nomination should be reopened. The only issue it had was with citations in the hook, which are resolved when the following hook is used: ... that the two varieties of Alabama croton are separated by more than 1,000 kilometres (620 mi)? Sources: "Germination Requirements and Genetic Diversity in Croton alabamensis var. texensis", Southwestern Rare and Endangered Plants Proceedings of the Second Conference September 11–14, 1995, Flagstaff, Arizona, page 147, Quote: "The Texas and Alabama populations of C. alabamensis are separated by more than 1000 km" https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/178532#page/157/mode/1up, "Phylogeny and biogeography of Croton alabamensis (Euphorbiaceae), a rare shrub from Texas and Alabama, using DNA sequence and AFLP data", Molecular Ecology, 2006 https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-294X.2006.02970.x, Quote: "Croton alabamensis (Euphorbiaceae s.s.) is a rare plant species known from several populations in Texas and Alabama that have been assigned to var. texensis and var. alabamensis, respectively TDogg310 (talk) 01:48, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

To be fair, you definitely should have been pinged when @Suntooooth: carried out the review.--Launchballer 07:42, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I posted the notice to close the review because the nominator had not edited Wikipedia since June 12, and had not addressed the concerns in the nomination. While it is unfortunate that the editor was not pinged, it is also the editor's responsibility to check their nominations and address the concerns: I suggest doing this by using their watchlist. I don't mind if this is reopened, and I would like Suntooooth to comment if the concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Reopened. I don't plan on readding it to either of the piles as I will promote it myself when it is approved.--Launchballer 17:54, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I've replied on the nomination to pass it, as my concerns have been resolved, although I do think it was fair enough to close the nomination after zero edits on any page from the nominator in almost a month. I'll try to remember to ping people when I review nominations in the future. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 21:13, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

How to handle an overloaded Earwig

Lately, Earwig has been giving lots of errors of the form Google Error: HTTP Error 429: Too Many Requests. I'm guessing that's related to the ongoing GA backlog drive. If you get that error, you can still use Earwig in degraded mode. Uncheck the "Use search engine" box near the bottom of the form and resubmit your request. It won't do the full Google search for duplicated text, but it will at least check the references, which picks up a lot of problems.

There's also a box you can check for "Use Turnitin", which I haven't explored much. I assume it runs a query at Turnitin, which is very popular with college professors checking student papers. It's probably worth trying. I don't know if we also have a quota there. RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Thank you, that is good intel. Bruxton (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
I just got a 502 bad gateway on Earwig (for the above promotion). I've AGF'd for now but if it pops back online before I wake up, feel free to check it for me.--Launchballer 22:16, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 6

Scybalium fungiforme

The flower of Scybalium fungiforme
The flower of Scybalium fungiforme

@Premeditated Chaos, Kevmin, and Ornithoptera: the image is so dark, it's pretty much unrecognizable. I've uploaded an adjusted version, but I'm hesitant to just drop it into place because as a scientific image, the exact coloring needs to be correct. So, just offering it here as a possible replacement. RoySmith (talk) 22:10, 19 July 2024 (UTC)

Looking at that images and comparing to others of the same species, I think this will work fine.--Kevmin § 23:14, 19 July 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good! Thanks for the colour adjustment, should be fine with me! Ornithoptera (talk) 01:23, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
OK, I've replaced the image in both the article and the prep set. RoySmith (talk) 01:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

Filmography lists

Are newly created or moved lists eligible for DYK? Specifically, A. Sreekar Prasad filmography, which I am trying to get to FL status. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 06:05, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

The rules are here and the filmography itself isn't new content, so bad luck on that front. FL is also not something that's recognised by DYK, so no luck there either (but you can always nominate at FL, of course). What is new is the prose that you've written. That could be eligible, but you have to nominate within seven days of having started creating that content. For DYK, everything needs to be referenced, and that includes every single item in a list. You are a long way off from that, but you can nominate regardless and then keep working on it, with an understanding that you finish work on the referencing soon. I hope that helps, Jeraxmoira. Schwede66 06:22, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Schwede66 to clarify, my intention was to nominate the prose section and not the list itself. Do wikilinks count as references where the BLP's involvement can be verified in the respective film's article? I thought inline citations were only needed for FL and for the statements that are nominated in DYK, and not for the whole article. The prose section is completely sourced though. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:06, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
You don't nominate a "prose section"; you nominate an article. With regards to whether you can rely on Wikilinks as a reference, that gets a big, fat NO. You might want to read WP:WPNOTRS. Schwede66 07:19, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Understood, thank you. As you previously mentioned, if I nominate it for DYK, how long will I have approximately to make the full list completely sourced? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think anyone would mind if it takes you a week or ten days. Three weeks would probably be pushing it. Schwede66 11:02, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

All queues are empty—admins needed

With the recent midnight promotion, all queues are now empty. Pinging @DYK admins: please promote some preps to queue. At the moment, the Approved page has so many noms on it that all of them can't transclude: 144 in total, 19 of which are in the special occasion section (all but one of which are for the Olympics), 111 transcluding normally, and 14 that aren't transcluding because the size limit has been reached. As preps are promoted to queue, approved hooks can be promoted from the Approved page. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:16, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I cannot promote prep 6 because I did a QPQ for one of the hooks there. Would it be against the rules to promote prep 7 to queue 6? Complex/Rational 01:59, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
If it were me and there were no date requests in the way, I'd swap it with another hook; you don't appear to have had anything to do with Monumite, for example.--Launchballer 02:17, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
I'd have to swap with a later prep for that to work out – as much as I love New York, 181 Montague Street and 185 Montague Street can't run in the same set. But it's good to know that swapping under such circumstances is permitted. Complex/Rational 02:21, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough. I see you got my ping so I'll let you deal with the rest of them.--Launchballer 02:29, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
 Done I had seen your ping late, but thanks for approving that hook; queue 6 is good to go now. I'll go through another prep tomorrow unless someone else beats me to it. Complex/Rational 03:12, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 5

Two biography hooks are beside each other in prep 5. I would fix the issue, but one of those hooks is my nomination. SL93 (talk) 02:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

SL93, those two bio hooks were the fourth and fifth bios in a nine-hook set, and there should never be more than 50% bios in one set, so I moved the fifth bio into Prep 6. I hadn't seen your post at the point that I made the move; I also moved the fifth bio from Prep 7 to Prep 1; in this case, the first two hooks were both bios, which have now been separated. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 7 23 July

181 Montague Street

I was doing some admin checks to expedite the promotion of Prep7 but with the 181 Montague Street article, I didn't get further than reading the first bit. It says: Each column measures 27 ft (8.2 m) tall and has a diameter 10 feet 3 inches (3.12 m). That is obviously not true as that wouldn't like like a column. I cannot get to the source, even through my Wikipedia Library login. If 3.12 m is the circumference (as opposed to the diameter) of the columns, and further assuming that they are made of granite (which has a mass of about 2.7 g/cm3), then the columns weigh about 17 metric tons, which is at the lower end of the various weight estimates given in the article. Epicgenius, this is your nomination; it either needs sorting out pretty quick or we'll have to pull the item for the time being. Schwede66 12:19, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

@Schwede66, I made a mistake when writing down the calculation. The source actually says that the columns measure 3 feet 10 inches (3.83 feet) across, which would be the diameter; it says nothing about the circumference. Assuming that granite has a mass of 168 pounds per cubic foot, the columns weigh about 26 short tons, which is well within the ranges cited in the article (20 to 40 short tons). – Epicgenius (talk) 15:44, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7

Yang Jingru (speed skater)

@SL93, Toadboy123, and Sammi Brie: there's substantial text duplication from http://english.news.cn/20240204/fcc52953d4e6415d92b1d1298a852c94/c.html. This has to get fixed quickly because this is set to run tomorrow. RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I took care of it, minus what cannot be rephrased. SL93 (talk) 17:48, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Looks good, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 17:50, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Empire of Death (Doctor Who episode)

@AirshipJungleman29, OlifanofmrTennant, and Theleekycauldron: Earwig went apoplectic over http://tragicalhistorytour.com/d16/15p. I'm pretty sure they copied from us (archive.org has no history of that page), but another set of eyes confirming that would be appreciated. RoySmith (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

This is the earliest diff of the article containing a substantial plot section. The wording has been somewhat tweaked since then (including copy editing), and indeed that version scores much lower on Earwig. As such, I also believe that the content in question was on Wikipedia first and subsequently copied to the other site. Complex/Rational 00:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Israel

Anything that's related to Israel is potentially controversial. We have List of petitions calling for Israel ban from Sports (nom) up for review. I'd like to run this as part of the Olympics set (currently scheduled for 26 July). Could I interest someone to review the nomination, please? Schwede66 00:48, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I am away and unable to review, but I would definitey advise against running it on the day of the opening ceremony. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I will give this a review. Sort of agree with AirshipJungleman29 in that it will raise eyebrows. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
I started a review Schwede66 and gave the nominator some direction. I think it may be some work to copy edit the article and add a view, but we will see. Lightburst (talk) 16:11, 12 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, team. If you've got thoughts on a more suitable date, please share those. Anytime during the Olympics? Before the Olympics start? Mind you, if there's more work to do, the latter may not work logistically anyway. Schwede66 01:30, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Would simply not running during the Olympics not be an option? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:56, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Anything is an option. Whatever the community decides is what will happen. Schwede66 02:09, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Hey @AirshipJungleman29: maybe you or another editor can take over the review? I have to take a break from editing for a bit. I am getting batty. I just checked and the editor has not started doing the two things I suggested. Have a great weekend! Lightburst (talk) 07:20, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
There are fundamental issues with this article.
1) One can't equate whats happened with Russia with Israel. Completely apples and oranges. Russia invaded another country. Israel was invaded. Hamas were the ones who declared war.
2) The line those oppose to Israel's ban argue that politics should not interfere in sports is a complete non sequitur.
3) And let's be honest - this has nothing to do with what is happening now as there were always call to ban Israel/not compete against Israel.
This page should just be merged with Boycotts of Israel in sports. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:22, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
And to run this as DYK on the day of the Opening Ceremony...When people are concerned about another Munich massacre happening, maybe we should be a bit more circumspect. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:56, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
While Russia has been sanctioned for its illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory,[1] Israel's occupation of Palestine for more than 75 years has never led to a ban.[2]Ghazaalch (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Another hook for an Israeli is Did you know nominations/Shachar Sagiv. It's a double-nomination, it would logically run on 30 July (when the triathlon is on), and an interesting hook fact (father and two sons are all Olympians). It just needs a reviewer, and swiftly at that, as it's supposed to go into Prep 7. Schwede66 09:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Zidan, Karim (18 January 2024). "The case for sports sanctions against Israel". The Guardian.
  2. ^ Abed, Abubaker (24 November 2023). "How FIFA's red card for Palestine has revealed the hypocrisy of football". New Arab.

Queue 2

Horton Davies

@AirshipJungleman29, Hydrangeans, and Kimikel: The article says "churches and synagogues" which got turned into just "churches" in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

"Churches" are included in "churches and synagogues". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but leaving out "Synagogues" from the hook changes the meaning significantly. RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree—why would the synagogues be left out? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
 Fixed I've added "and synagogues" to the hook. Schwede66 00:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66: The reason it wasn't included in the hook was because the book Davies wrote that is mentioned in the first clause of the hook was Great South African Christians, not Great South African Christians and Jews, making synagogues non-sequitur for the hook. In the article itself, both churches and synagogues are mentioned in the description of Davies's speech. For concision and hookiness I'd encourage restoring the earlier version. I acknowledge that if this "fixed" version is kept it's not an error of fact; it does, however, make the hook less concise, less hooky, and more 'random' seeming, as it disrupts what would otherwise be a through line of different ways Davies has expressed/thought about Christianity in South Africa. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm happy with that explanation, however, would like to hear from others involved in this discussion, too. I won't be around much over the next few days. If consensus is to restore the original hook, please go ahead. Schwede66 23:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
@Hydrangeans WP:DYKCRIT requires that Hooks should be definite facts that are verified by citations in the article. What you're saying above doesn't meet that requirement. RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
All the facts in the hook are definite and are verified by citations in the article. Great South African Christians was published in 1951 (verified by Gale Literature citation); the speech about apartheid was given in 1961 (verified by the Morning Call newspaper citation). Summarizing the time difference as "ten years after" isn't an unverifiable fact, it's just WP:CALC: [r]outine calculations do not count as original research—unless there is some reason there isn't a consensus that 1961 is ten years after 1951? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 23:30, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
The article says Davies spoke ... in an address criticizing "churches and synagogues" I don't see how you can summarize that in the hook as ... gave a speech criticizing South African churches. That's like me saying "Men and women commit crimes" and you turning that into "Women commit crimes". It may be technically true, but surely it's a carefully crafted subset of the truth which does not fairly represent the original statement. RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
This would be a good criticism of article content, i. e. if the article cited the Morning Call but left out the synagogues in the article prose—and, appropriately, the article prose does no such thing. I'm less persuaded by your application of this reasoning to a DYK hook; the expectation that a hook should be short and to the point (WP:DYKINT) means that a hook not only can't but sometimes shouldn't include everything possible. Your example involves much broader categories than the hook (the nearly universal 'men and women' rather than the much narrower 'Christianity specifically in South Africa'). I'd compare the earlier version of the hook to a hook like (to draw on my own DYK experience I have, for the convenience of it being familiar to me) this one for the article Frank O'Connor (actor, born 1897): that California rancher Frank O'Connor could grow Lipstick and Halloween (these being flower hybrids). O'Connor also grew alfalfa, bamboo, and blackberries, which the article states, but the hook focuses on 'crafted subset'—not because it misrepresents the article content, but because it keeps the hook focused and interesting (focusing on the interestingness of the two most interestingly named plants). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:02, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Tim Hughes (soldier)

@Bruxton, Peacemaker67, and Kimikel: The article says conspicuous gallantry and bravery, coolness, initiative and disregard for his own safety was described as “remarkable” but that got turned into remarkable bravery, exceptional coolness and initiative in the hook which doesn't seem like a correct rendition of what I assume is a direct quote from the citation. RoySmith (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith This is in the next set. Maybe it should be pulled. SL93 (talk) 21:16, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Seems you can swap a few words @RoySmith: and it will be no less impressive. Bruxton (talk) 21:55, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Doreen Lofthouse

@Bruxton, Dumelow, and Whispyhistory: This needs copyediting to remove duplicated text from mutliple sources (see the earwig report). It's little bits and pieces, but it adds up to a significant amount of text copied directly from sources. RoySmith (talk) 16:58, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Hi RoySmith, I've tried to creatively reword where I can and the Earwig report is now much lower. Some instances are difficult to write in a natural and unique way eg. I reworded "appointed a freeman of the Borough of Wyre" to "granted the freedom of the borough" only to find that is now the same as another source! - Dumelow (talk) 10:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for looking at it. RoySmith (talk) 12:06, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 3

SiegedSec has a tag that says, "This section is in list format but may read better as prose." I'm not sure if such a thing would prevent a main page appearance. SL93 (talk) 02:09, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

WP:DYKTAG says that articles cannot be promoted if they have a dispute tag, which usually means orange tags as well as a few yellow tags. "Better as prose" is not listed at Wikipedia:Template index/Disputes and is also a yellow tag rather than orange, so the article might be okay, but perhaps another editor can also chime in here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:41, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 5

... that some estimate that maintenance of existing software comprises up to nine times as much as creating it in the first place?

This hook does not make sense. What does it mean for maintenance to “comprise … as much as” creation? ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Ping @Theleekycauldron @Buidhe ꧁Zanahary꧂ 15:06, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
sorry, that should be "costs". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron @Buidhe This hook doesn't work. Even if we assume that the book source is correct (which I can't check), it says "maintenance is the last and typically the longest phase of the cycle, comprising 80 to 90 percent of the lifecycle cost". Which is sort of fine, except that actually creating the code and maintaining it are only two stages of the standard systems life cycle, which can also include planning, analysis, design, testing and implementation. So on that basis, if maintenance comprises 90% of the lifecycle cost, it costs far, far, more than nine times the actual development. Also, "some say..." appears to be "one book says", which I'm not convinced about either. Black Kite (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Good points. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 00:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't the one who proposed this hook, but planning, design, testing, etc. before release is counted as part of software development. testing and other stuff that happens after release is considered maintenance. (t · c) buidhe 03:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Reopening for Template:Did you know nominations/Praetorium of Constantinople

Hello, I would like to reopen the discussion regarding the hook proposed for the article above in DYK. The reason for the reopening is that I asked for a second reviewer (for the hook only) one day before the two month period expired, but my request went unnoticed. The reason for a second reviewer is that I think that the hook is perfectly acceptable, but the discussion went nowhere. Today I also asked for the opinion of another very experienced Wikipedian about this hook and he also doesn't see any problem. So a reopening and a third opinion would be welcome. Thanks, Alex2006 (talk) 18:46, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

We've got more nominations than we can handle. Spending this much time on any one nomination and asking for a third review just doesn't make sense. RoySmith (talk) 19:49, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 7

Embassy of the Philippines, Amman

Let's continue this on the nom page

The hook from Template:Did you know nominations/Embassy of the Philippines, Amman appears to fail WP:DYKBLP, but I could be wrong. Pinging nominator Sky Harbor and reviewer TheNuggeteer. SL93 (talk) 23:12, 23 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't see that many problems regarding the Wikipedia:DYKBLP guideline, can you point them out? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 00:46, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
It definitely violates DYKBLP IMHO, good spot. I've reopened the nom and a new hook is required. And probably some work on the article to make it compliant with WP:BLPCRIME.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:58, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree, Amakuru and SL93? The article and hook don't unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons because no living persons are named. There's the diplomat, but they're anonymous in hook, article, and source, so there's no possible BLP-related damage to do. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:08, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Is the individual concerned not a living person? Even if they're not named, the hook refers to a specific individual and their identity is likely to be known to many. This is also clearly undue, as it isn't the only thing to say or the most notable aspect of the Philippines embassy in Jordan. On a precautionary principle only, the hook cannot run as it stands.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:34, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn't anyone who already knows the identity of the officer not be receiving any new information? There's no way for us to damage anyone's reputation. The hook might be unduly negative where it concerns the embassy, sure, but we don't have BLP protections for diplomatic corps. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with theleekycauldron. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 09:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The rule is clear and unambiguous. Hooks which focus on negative aspects of a living person are to be avoided. This clearly and unambiguously does exactly that. The hook cannot run.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The full rule is actually "unduly" focus. There have been exceptions to this in the past (see the infamous Andrew Tate nomination from a while back) but technically there's a qualifier that gives us some leeway. In practice, well, that's for consensus to decide. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I promoted the Andrew Tate hook and would do so again. I wouldn't promote this per WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE, as it is not about the embassy (it's about one of its employees, which violates "The boldlinked article should generally be the main or at least a major factor in the hook; avoid hooks that are primarily about an incident the subject is only tangentially related to.") I suggest "that although diplomatic relations between the Philippines and Jordan were established in 1976, the Philippines would not open an embassy there until 1980?".--Launchballer 11:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Seems good too. 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗 11:48, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
There's so many reasons not to want to run this hook. Launchballer's argument about only being tangentially related to the main topic is one. But more importantly, the whole idea of publishing a sensationalistic and unsubstantiated rumor about an unidentified person should make people run in the opposite direction. If WP:DYKNOTTABLOID isn't a blue link, it should be. I'm fine with running LB's suggested alternate. RoySmith (talk) 12:14, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the proposed hook is a good idea. For one thing, it's not actually uncommon for countries that have diplomatic relations to not have embassies. Taking four years to establish an embassy is not that unusual when even longer gaps have occurred. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:31, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Adding comments in-line with hooks in preps

@Schwede66 I see you've recently taken to adding comments to hooks, as in Special:Diff/1235827214. I mentioned this earlier but that conversation got buried in the olympic mega-thread. So I'm bringing it up here for greater visibility.

I think this is a bad idea. And given that multiple other people (@Pamzeis @Art LaPella) have reverted these as either presumed accidents or vandalism, it would seem I'm not the only one. Can you please stop doing this? RoySmith (talk) 16:27, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith, I don't understand. This was previously discussed on two occasions. Gatoclass first brought this up in January by suggesting this: Guys, here's one possible approach; if you find a set with a problematic hook but don't have time to fix it, add a tick to the end of every hook you were able to verify, which will allow another admin to see which hooks have already been verified, saving time for everyone. You can find this in Archive 197. Later that month, Valereee started a separate discussion on this topic. You didn't object at those occasions, and it's been done every now and then by various admins. Why is this suddenly a problem? Why would it possibly not be helpful if you want to move a set to queue, knowing that you don't have to review nine articles, but some are already done? Schwede66 01:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
It's suddenly a problem because this is the first time I've ever seen it used. And, as I said, if I'm going to promote something, I'm going to check it, because it's going to have my signature on it. RoySmith (talk) 01:49, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
As a non-admin (with next to no chance at RfA), I sometimes do 'third' reviews on an emergency basis. Where do I put my ticks?--Launchballer 06:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Over the last few months, DYK queues have often been rather low, resulting in a bit of a panic going on. I see that as a fundamental problem and unless we do something about it, I don't see it changing. For example, archive set 198 is full of "all queues are empty" alerts.
I thought about how to fix that and back in April put a proposal forward. Only Valereee took the time to respond to it; nobody else bothered to engage with it. The proposal was based on signing off on hooks individually, but formalising that process so that an admin's signature goes against an individual hook, rather than the whole hook set as it happens at the moment. I gather that is your main objection, RoySmith; a shame that you (or nobody else other than Valereee) engaged with that proposal. I actually had worked out a two-step proposal but wanted to keep it simple and held the second step back; I thought it would be better to agree on the broader principles first. Posting that second step wasn't necessary as there was no engagement with the first step. To say that I found that experience somewhat frustrating is an understatement.
I suggest that if we aren't willing to discuss what needs to change to overcome structural problems, then the problems will probably stay with us. Schwede66 08:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I get being bold, but if there's no consensus to do it, especially if other editors see it as problematic, it might not be a good idea to do it in the meantime. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
How can I know that there's a problem prior to being told that there's a problem? Schwede66 08:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
If there was little discussion about doing such a thing and only one or very few other editors responded, that's arguably a lack of consensus due to a lack of quorum. Either way there was clearly no consensus to do such an action, even if it was done with good intentions. If there was no activity back then, perhaps a second discussion could have been launched, even an RfC, to gain more eyes. Going "Are we really doing this without consensus or barely any discussion?" has rarely gone well over on Wikipedia and on DYK contributed to earlier problems like that one James religious occasion special set. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
You are misrepresenting the facts, Narutolovehinata5, and I'm not sure whether you do so deliberately. Several admins have been doing that over the last few months and that absolutely rejects your notion that there was a lack of consensus. What I tried to do in April was to formalise this and that there was no engagement with the proposal did not indicate to me that this practice is somehow problematic. Schwede66 09:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I did not suggest it's not a good idea, or that I don't support it. I'm just saying I understand why others could be bothered with it, and how a proposal that lacked proper consensus can lead to problems down the road. Having said that I've never been that active in prep building anyway so I wasn't even aware this was taking place other than the occasional "why does this hook have a comment?" thought which at the time I thought was some kind of mistake. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
The structural problem we need to solve is that there are too many articles/hooks where the admin review is the first time someone who is willing to be critical and say "no" if needed looks at the article/hook. Making it easier to comment on questionable hooks is not attacking the root problem. Promoting hooks to prep/queue without checking in depth is too easy, pulling hooks to fix these issues is too bothersome. —Kusma (talk) 09:08, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
One issue with pulling hooks is that it does require some work, editing multiple pages, which can be tiresome. PSHAW already has the option to promote hooks and even to put hooks in specific slots, yet surprisingly it doesn't have a pull feature yet. Perhaps if Theleekycauldron could code in a pull function, that would make pulling much easier and thus more common. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:10, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I agree with that. Pulling with PSHAW would help. And if the tool gets amended, I'd also like to be able to shuffle individual hooks around, even within queues or from queue to prep. Schwede66 09:19, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 and Schwede66: by sheer coincidence, I was actually just working on a puller yesterday :) funny, 'cause I haven't touched this in months... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:39, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Nice one. Schwede66 19:18, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Making it easier to comment on questionable hooks is not attacking the root problem – that's not what I was trying to get at with my proposal. I suggest that we don't have enough admins promoting to queue because the task is too time-consuming. I need a two-hour block for that and for me, that is a show stopper. My thinking was that if you have time to check one, or several hooks, but not the whole set, that makes the task easier to spread over more editors, and the admin shortage may well diminish.
Sure, ideally the poor quality stuff gets weeded out before it gets to queue promotion, but I can't think of an effective way of achieving that. Schwede66 09:17, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
We would need prep builders to (a) do checks and (b) explicitly reject nominations that have failed their checks (so a dodgy nom isn't picked up by the next prep builder instead). Or at least (c) allow dodgy noms to sit in /Approved and fail them automatically by time out. —Kusma (talk) 12:04, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
We could also be harder in rejecting noms outright, especially for interest reasons or unresponsiveness, but in practice both are easier said than done since us reviewers tend to be too forgiving. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:32, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
That is why I have been arguing for letting old nominations time out; it would allow us to reject noms without explicitly rejecting noms. —Kusma (talk) 16:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
That is being put into practice Kusma: see e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Lillie Shockney. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
That's good to see. We might need to codify the practice at some point. —Kusma (talk) 05:42, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Roy, I've done it several times over the past few months since Gato/Schwede suggested it. And it really didn't occur to me that it would need consensus for me to mark that I'd done the admin check on a hook. Any other admin who wanted to move that set could decide unilaterally not to trust my work. Valereee (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I don't support this. As RoySmith says, it's the promoting admin whose job it is to check the hooks and they're responsible for those hooks with their signature going on the hook. It's great if additional people are checking and spotting errors before go-live, we need to keep Errors down, but that should be as well as the standard admin set check, not instead of it.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:22, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • If consensus is that this is not a good idea, I'll of course stop doing it. But just FTR, I'm not likely to do full check/moves. The burden on too few is too heavy, and it seems like whenever someone comes up with even a partial solution, it doesn't get support. I liked this system because it removed the amount of burden I didn't want to or didn't have time to shoulder, and I trust the other regular admins here. But if we are deciding we only want admins who are willing to do an entire set and don't want to rely on trusting my work to risk putting their name on it, that's fine. Valereee (talk) 11:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    Same here. If my attempts at lightening the review load for other admins are not wanted and even seen as annoying, I have zero problem with not doing that. Schwede66 12:47, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    FWIW, I cannot see why anyone would object to this. Roy and others are (obviously?) free to check all the hooks again, but even if it's just the two of you, each doing half-sets when you have the time, that's spreading the load. Perhaps if others find it annoying you could agree to share sets (?) for admin checks so you're not in anyone else's way. Though I appreciate that would take logistical effort that could negate any time-saving. Kingsif (talk) 13:27, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    OK, I'm going to have to take some time to think on this. I was previously unaware of the earlier discussions about this, so thank you for the pointers to those. I'm still not sure I like this idea, but I've often railed against reflexively shooting down new ideas, so it would be disingenuous of me to do that.
    From what I could see, somebody was doing something that I'd never seen before that appeared to be a simple copy-paste error, so I was surprised when it was restored without an explanation that made much sense. I was even more surprised when two other people reverted it (one of whom thought it was vandalism) and it was restored after each of those without explanation. How about write up a summary of the process somewhere, give it a easy to remember WP:DYKWHATEVER shortcut, and cite that in future comments. At least that way, people will know what's going on. RoySmith (talk) 13:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
    PS, I still don't trust any of you, so I'll continue to check anything I put my signature on :-) RoySmith (talk) 13:30, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
  • I do not mind editors adding notes that they've checked hooks, as it makes me more confident that the check will be quicker. However, since my name is at the top of the promotion, stating that I have checked the queue, I will also be checking every hook regardless. Z1720 (talk) 17:21, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Not sure why any experienced editor would think an edit made by an experienced, trusted, regular DYK admin was vandalism. That's just...who thought one of these edits was vandalism? Have we asked them why? Valereee (talk) 23:28, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I was referring to Special:Diff/1235392971 by @Pamzeis. I assumed "Rmv" in the edit summary was short for "Remove vandalism"; did I interpret that incorrectly? RoySmith (talk) 23:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm also intrigued to see in WT:DYK#Olympic hooks table for Dylan Travis, At SOHA; this hook has already had its admin checks done (by RoySmith) When did I do that? RoySmith (talk) 23:45, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
When you search this page for "Travis", you'll find that the hook once was in queue 6; you had promoted that set. If you happen to be the admin who promotes this hook once more to queue, you have the interesting dilemma whether you trust your previous admin check, I suppose. Schwede66 23:53, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Along those lines, today I was pinged to WP:ERRORS over a set I promoted. So, let's look at the Dylan Travis example. Let's assume I botched the review and let some drastic mistake through. And then you picked it out of the SOHA list and published it a set that you promoted. If somebody brought it to WP:ERRORS to complain about my mistake, they would blame it on you. There's two possible bad outcomes to that. One is that you would say, "Not my fault, I didn't review it" which would be kind a "dog ate my homework" excuse. Another is that the history would at that point be so tangled, nobody would be able to figure out who did the final review, or at least it would take a major archeology expedition to sort it out. RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Roy -- and please know I'm not being facetious or flippant -- what I would say is that I, Val, believing from extensive past experience RoySmith to be a careful and skilled reviewer, I accepted Roy's admin check as being as good and careful as one I would have done myself. That acceptance is on me, and if other admins don't want to take that risk, I understand. I would take full responsibility for the fact I accepted Roy's check as sufficient, and I'd take that into account for future similar situations. For me it would only take being burned once by you to readjust my willingness to accept your checks. Note: I do not ever expect this to occur, as I've seen many multiples of your admin checks and I believe you are as skilled and careful as I am. Anyone can make a mistake, but I do not believe you are any more likely to make a mistake than I am. We may have different skill sets, but do you check hooks against sources? Yes. Do you check copyvio? Yes. Are you careful about BLP? Yes. Valereee (talk) 20:47, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I see. If I'm going to win this argument, I need to start getting sloppier with my reviews? OK, I'll work on that :-) RoySmith (talk) 20:52, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll watch for it. :D Valereee (talk) 20:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify, the "rmv" edit summary was short for just "remove"—I had assumed it was a mistake when promoting with PSHAW or something like that. I have not been DYK for quite a while so I was not aware of these practices. Pamzeis (talk) 09:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
My apologies for misinterpreting it. RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I've created Wikipedia:DYK partial checks. Valereee (talk) 12:59, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Count me in favor. For everyone worrying "it's my name at the top of the set, I need to be the one guaranteeing the set": you can have two, three, many names at the top of the set! I've done it before, it works fine. This is a bit of a clunky way of doing it, to be sure, but Wikipedia is supposed to be collaborative. We don't do collaborative work enough. If you don't like it, fine, do rechecks and do whole queues on your own. But I see this as a win-win for people who want more admins doing more work around here. Even for admins who just want to dip their feet in, give it a try! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:55, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, for those of us technically impaired, how do you add extra names? Valereee (talk) 13:23, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm also curious. I got as far as looking at the source for {{DYKbotdo}} and my brain started to hurt. RoySmith (talk) 13:26, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Same. I was looking for a list of parameters or something. Valereee (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I can only see one parameter on the page. Adding {{DYKbotdo|RoySmith (talk) and Valereee (talk)}} produces:
--Launchballer 19:35, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
whoa...so the template understands 'and'? I'm not used to that lol... Valereee (talk) 22:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer, I tried to add this at WP:DYKPARTIAL and OF COURSE broke it. No links. Can you take a look? Valereee (talk) 23:05, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I see there's a tlx...no idea what that means or how to translate it into instructions. Valereee (talk) 23:11, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Template:Tlx displays what you would type if you wanted to display the template. The trick is to copy code as it appears in the source editing window.--Launchballer 23:22, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, one of the issues was really more about how the practice just sort of happened without consensus or advertising. Several editors, including our regulars, weren't even aware of it being done. Had there been more discussion about doing it and perhaps there been an effort to make people aware of it, maybe we wouldn't be having this discussion in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
It didn't occur to me that it needed consensus for an admin to check one or several hooks in a given prep set and mark them as having had an admin check. I just thought I was helping some other admin not have to do nine full re-reviews, which in turn would help DYK not be in backlog. Valereee (talk) 10:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 5

Soviet Red Army Monument, Harbin

The hook is 212 prose characters long, well above the 200 character maximum. It needs to be shortened or a new hook proposed and checked. Pinging nominator Toadboy123, reviewer Soman, and promoter AirshipJungleman29. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:36, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

My bad, I meant to trim it in prep but forgot. Done so now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived several minutes 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 July 7. We have a total of 253 nominations, of which 122 have been approved, a gap of 131 nominations that has decreased by 10 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) 14:50, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Better Off Dead? ALT0

Hello, this is regarding Template:Did you know nominations/Better Off Dead?, which I nominated on 7 June.

Long story short: the reviewer objected to ALT0 and ALT0a as bad, taking a quote out of context. I requested a new review of the hooks; theleekycauldron responded to the call but said that while she supports it running, I should ask here instead as the reviewer did not drop their objection. I'm therefore here in hopes of garnering a consensus for the hooks running . Thanks, Sdrqaz (talk) 23:55, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

Personally, I can't quite see out of which (different) context ltbdl feels the quote has been taken, so if they could expand on that, that would be ideal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:58, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
I can see where the bad taste issues might come from, but the angle itself does seem fine. As a possible compromise, however, ALT0c could still work to allay any possible concerns about bad taste. It adds more detail, yes, but the hook is more about presenting the fact as it rather than being sensational. I don't think the hook fails the "avoid sensationalist" rule either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:16, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 1

Ravenpuff made the following modifications: ... that Cameroonian-born Joel Embiid opted to play for the the2024 U.S. Olympic basketball team instead of France in part because his son is American?[34] As the 2024 Olympics is ongoing, does "2024" need to be explicit, or can it be reasonably implied by the in "the U.S. Olympic basketball team"?—Bagumba (talk) 04:47, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's any real downside to including "2024"; if anything, it helps to emphasize that this hook relates to the ongoing Olympics. Many other Olympics-related DYK submissions include the current year as well. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 14:18, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep area 3

has .. ... that at age 12, Emily Ausmus participated in an international water polo tournament against players seven years older than her?

I believe that "her" should be "she" or "she is." 2603:7000:2101:AA00:45CF:48FA:4F1F:A7EF (talk) 06:17, 26 July 2024 (UTC)

I googled "I or me after than" and the numerous hits suggest that both I and me are acceptable, so I would stick with the current version. TSventon (talk) 16:03, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Special occasion request

Please see Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher Columbus (Zador). When I originally worked on this the special occasion date hadn't occurred to me. It wasn't until I got around to nominating it that I realized that the 85th anniversary of the opera was this year, and that it would also work for a Columbus Day hook. We are currently 10 to 11 weeks away from those dates. Any objections to running this for a special occasion even though it is about a month early for the 6 week window period?4meter4 (talk) 17:25, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't think extending the usual six-week maximum by so long is appropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:13, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Queue 6

Stefano Manetti

@Bruxton, Ergo Sum, and Sohom: substantial copying from press.vatican.va (earwig report). It's not just the stuff that shows up in red in the report, but as you read through the text, it's obvious that this was just copied with a few words changed here and there. Needs a substantial rewrite, not just more minor sentence tweaks. RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

I did not copy and paste from the Vatican's website. The reality is that there are only so many ways to phrase basic, factual information. I wouldn't even know how else to convey the titles and years differently without adding needless extra verbiage. Ergo Sum 14:54, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

Sophienburg Museum and Archives

@SL93, Kimikel, and Lajmmoore: there's nothing wrong per-se, but the blow-my-socks-off story is that there was a German colony in Texas. As an American (albeit a neoyorquino), when I think of Texas history I think Mexican, and by extension Spanish. I was schocked to discover there was a German colony. If that could be emphasized more, it would make a much stronger hook. RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I definitely don't disagree, but how would you suggest emphasizing that fact more? Kimikel (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
"...that while a royal German castle in Texas was left abandoned for decades after the Prussian colony failed, it now houses the Sophienburg Museum and Archives?" Kingsif (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

Sport in Vatican City

@SL93, Arconning, and Flemmish Nietzsche: a particularly troublesome "first" hook. I'm willing to accept that the NFL or MLB keep detailed records which can back up these kinds of hooks, but a game played in the 1500s? The source, while nominally the Vatican newspaper, really looks like more of a blog, written in the first person ("He introduced me to many friends with whom I shared a passion for football"). I see lots of other mentions of this, but most don't give their source and those that do all point back to this one. RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

fix ping RoySmith (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Also, "the first-ever match of calcio fiorentino" from the hook was in 1521 according to the article, but Calcio storico fiorentino tells us that "a match was organized on the Arno River in 1490" for something believed to be at least a close variant. Perhaps the "first-ever match" was the first ever match using Vatican City's particular version of calcio storico rules. Unsurprisingly it was played in the Vatican.
I wanted to suggest to use the Popes who played calcio storico as a hook, but the source actually says they played calcio storico in their youth, before they became popes. —Kusma (talk) 19:56, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I mean, I would believe the Vatican keeps watertight records from the 1500s. To the point, is it perhaps referring to the first game of calcio played in the Vatican? Kingsif (talk) 21:30, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The catholic church kept great records about a lot of things. Marriages, births, deaths, who was a pope. I'd trust those things. Not ballgames. RoySmith (talk) 02:25, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith The article is about an interview conducted to Sergio Valci, a prominent figure in Vatican football, that's why it's written in the first person. It was also conducted by Giampaolo Mattei, a prominent journalist in Vatican City. The hook is probably worded incorrectly, I'd say it should be worded as "with a match of calcio..." Arconning (talk) 04:10, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
There are books with snippet view in Google books that mention the match. The source is apparently Benedetto Fantini, a diplomat who wrote about the match to his employer. Both teams came from Florence and Leo X, a Medici, watched for four hours. TSventon (talk) 18:01, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
OK. So how does any of that give us confidence that this was "the first-ever match of calcio fiorentino"? RoySmith (talk) 22:38, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
It doesn't. Arconning suggested replacing "the first-ever match of calcio fiorentino" with "a match of calcio fiorentino". I am also dubious about "that sport in Vatican City officially began in the 16th century", which is another way of saying "first". TSventon (talk) 23:41, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith, can you make the suggested amendment, or should this be pulled for further discussion? TSventon (talk) 11:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
What would people think about:
ALT3: ... that Sport in Vatican City has included chariot racing, calcio fiorentino, and taekwondo?
RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
ALT4: ... that Sport in Vatican City has been seen as a way to express Catholic spirituality and principles? CMD (talk) 13:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Or, looking one sentence beyond that in the article, we could do:
ALT5: ... that although Sport in Vatican City has been seen as a way to express Catholic spirituality and principles, the church opposed the participation of women?
The article doesn't quite say this, but it's based on a footnote in the cited source: "28 ... the intransigent hostility of the Church to women's participation in sport" so would require a little adjustment of the article text. Including the anti-woman sentiment would make this a much stronger hook. RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith I think rewriting the article to enable a controversial hook to go live tomorrow is a bad idea. TSventon (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
It's not really rewriting. The article already says seemingly negative opinions towards the advancement of sport involving women, especially women's gymnastics. It just needs a little tweaking to better tie that to the source. RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith I'm good with ALT3, just uncapitalize the "sport" Arconning (talk) 13:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I prefer Alt3 as I would expect many things in Vatican City to (aim to) express Catholic spirituality and principles. TSventon (talk) 13:37, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
The main issue with ALT3 is it being based upon two events that occurred centuries before Vatican City was created, one almost two millennia before. CMD (talk) 13:47, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
This hits the main page in 3 hours. SL93 (talk) 21:01, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
@DYK admins: Please pull this. I recommend replacing it with Prep 6's Solomon Islands at the 2020 Summer Olympics, which I've reviewed and see no issues with. (For the record, ALT5 is my favourite of the ones above, assuming it checks out.)--Launchballer 21:29, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm on it. I think we can still find a good hook, but let's worry about that off the clock. RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Done RoySmith (talk) 22:04, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Requesting an WP:IAR exemption for a nomination being older than 7 days

I am here to request that Template:Did you know nominations/Babydog be given an exemption to the rule on being new enough, as the page was undergoing an AFD discussion after it was created. The nominator, User:Thriley, still needs to do a Quid Pro Quo review, but once that's done I would like the page to have a chance. I think that this is a case where WP:IAR is probably safe to invoke. Di (they-them) (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)

Fine by me. To be honest, I'm listening for a good reason why time at AfD should count as part of the seven days, given that nominations have to go on hold during that period anyway.--Launchballer 10:50, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
The page existed for one day before the AfD, and was nominated in the second day post AfD-closure. I also do not feel AfD time should count towards the limit, forcing nominations for pages that end up getting deleted is a potential waste of reviewer time. CMD (talk) 13:33, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
We explicitly allow an extra day or two beyond the seven on request; this is a third day, so no big stretch especially given the confusion around AfDs. It's best to nominate anyway, so there isn't a question; not all AfDs are settled so expeditiously, and I'd be reluctant to accept a three-week-old nomination. We automatically put nominations on hold when we know they're at AfD (usually with the "/" icon) so they aren't reviewed during the wait, which renders the "potential waste of reviewer time" argument moot. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but there's having to put it on hold in the first place. I say let's cut out the middle man.--Launchballer 18:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I do kind of agree that there should be an explicit rule that time during an AfD is not counted toward the "newness" counter. SilverserenC 18:44, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense to me as well, it fits with my understanding of the spirit of the limitation Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:30, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
It also prevents someone from trying to spuriously game the system against another editor by nominating their new article for AfD even if there's little chance for it being deleted. Since they could still delay things long enough with the AfD (especially with low participation rates in AfDs nowadays) that it goes past the time limit, particularly if the creator was nearer to the end of the 7 day period for nomination. SilverserenC 19:35, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think your scenario is much of an issue (I've never heard of such a case of gaming the system ever happening), the issue is really more of articles currently at AfD being nominated while at AfD to meet the requirement. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:31, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7

Congenital anosmia

@AbhiSuryawanshi, Awkwafaba, and JuniperChill: There is a sentence that needs a citation, which I have indicated with a cn tag. Z1720 (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Fixed it. Thanks. --AbhiSuryawanshi (talk) 16:42, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
للبيييب 188.209.238.75 (talk) 02:19, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Easter Egg

hie thee to the nom page RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2024 (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: "... that though Donatello was a Bardi, he wasn't a Bardi?"

I have no idea where the links are going to go before I click them.

Rollinginhisgrave (talk) 09:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't disagree, but I think this is best taken up at the nom page.--Launchballer 09:54, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
The nom page is Template:Did you know nominations/Bardi (surname), please pick it up there, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 13:34, 29 July 2024 (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.

Queue 1

@DYK admins: Queue 1 is missing the {{DYKbotdo}}. Rather than attempt to fix it myself and possibly make it worse, could somebody who understands these page formats better than I do please take a look? Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I think all that's needed is a {{DYKbotdo}} in the following format:
as an inserted first line of file. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
 Fixed I’ve also looked why it was missing and it’s step 2 of the admin instructions (Moving a prep to queue) that wasn’t done when manually moving a prep to queue. Cwmhiraeth, do you always promote manually? Using PSHAW prevents this from happening. Schwede66 18:14, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of days early, so I've created a new list of 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 14. We have a total of 303 nominations, of which 137 have been approved, a gap of 166 nominations that has increased by 35 over the past 6 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) 20:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Prep 3

Tobey (song)

  • ... that the music video for "Tobey", in which Eminem carves into his own alter ego with a chainsaw, was delayed by three days?

@Launchballer, @Dxneo, @Arconning, @AirshipJungleman29: The three-day delay does not seem all that interesting or hooky to me, and distracts from the main point of interest, which is Eminiem killing off Slim Shady. I see from the nom that there were DYKFICTION concerns, but I don't think adding an unrelated fact about a short delay as a fig leaf makes a difference in that respect, as the Slim Shady element is still the part of the hook that anybody cares about. (If the hook was "that the music video for "Tobey" was delayed by three days", are you interested? No.)

Personally, I'm inclined to say that there's not a DYKFICTION issue. Eminem is a real person, and Slim Shady is an alter ego that he uses in real life, so we're clearly tied into "the real world in some way". The point isn't that a fictional character got killed, the point is that Eminem is metaphorically leaving his childish persona behind to (theoretically) mature as an artist.

Would anybody object to a reword to something like:

  • ... that the music video for "Tobey" features Eminem killing his alter ego Slim Shady with a chainsaw?

♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:24, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Excellent idea.--Launchballer 08:15, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. As I understand it, Slim Shady is an entirely fictional alter ego that Eminem uses within the context of songs to emphasise dark themes. He is entirely at liberty to do whatever he likes with the character, as explained in WP:DYKFICTION. The music video could equally hypothetically feature Slim Shady travelling to the Hundred Acre Wood and meeting Winnie the Pooh, or preventing World War One, or getting married to Barack Obama, or ... you get the point. It's fiction. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:11, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I disagree as well. That is like saying something similar from a work such as Abraham Lincoln: Vampire Hunter wouldn't count as a DYK fiction hook, although it surely would.SL93 (talk) 10:14, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
If you're that opposed, Airship, I don't understand why you would promote the hook in that form. Is it your position that the unrelated factoid about a real-life three-day delay makes the Slim Shady element somehow acceptable, even though on its own you feel it would be unacceptable? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
How about either "that the music video for "Tobey", which had been delayed by three days, saw Eminem carve into his own alter ego with a chainsaw" or "that the belated music video for "Tobey" saw Eminem carve into his own alter ego with a chainsaw?".--Launchballer 10:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
My point is that it makes no sense to note the three-day delay at all. If the mention of Eminem "killing" Slim Shady is in violation of DKYFICTION, why is it suddenly not in violation as long as we say the video was delayed? What does that have to do with the rest of it? It would be different if the video was delayed because of the chainsaw imagery for some reason, but it wasn't, so as it stands, we've strapped this unrelated and boring little factoid to the interesting part of the hook as a nonsensical fig leaf to protect against DYKFICTION. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:13, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
That's a good point. I agree that the hook is unsuitable with or without the addition of the delay mention, and agree with NLH5's pull. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Given the concerns about DYKFICTION I've pulled the hook for now. Discussion about a new hook fact can continue on the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:22, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

Highest averages method

Pinging @Closed Limelike Curves, Sawyer777, and AirshipJungleman29: Unless I am missing something obvious, there is no explanation, either in the target article or in the 1876 election article (in which the word "rounding" isn't mentioned at all), as to why a faulty rounding procedure led to the result of the election. There's a source, but there's no explanation. Black Kite (talk) 12:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)

The explanation seems to be that "a pretext was found" to add 9 extra seats in addition to the numbers calculated and that was enough to change the result of the election. See page 37 of Fair representation. TSventon (talk) 13:29, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, indeed, but again (a) that isn't explained in either article, and (b) if I'm clicking on that hook I want to know why a rounding issue changed the result, and I would be disappointed. Black Kite (talk) 14:45, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
@Closed Limelike Curves: can you add some more detail to the article? TSventon (talk) 14:52, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Done. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 14:58, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry to be a pain here, but unless I'm really missing something, the reference doesn't explain why the nine additional seats - which appear to be the cause of the problem - were produced by a rounding error. Black Kite (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Is the newest version clear enough? Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's better. Black Kite (talk) 19:05, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I don't think the sourcing in our present article is in any way adequate for its heavy editorialization present in the article. The single line of text about this material in the source given in the article is "the malapportionment of the 1870s was directly responsible for the 1876 election of Rutherford B. Hayes, although his opponent enjoyed 51.6 percent of the vote". This is used to support claims that (1) the apportionment happened in 1870, (2) that it tilted the electors by 9 votes, (3) that these seats were given out in an arbitrary manner (rather than, say, by following a standard rule of apportionment and choosing the number of seats to be apportioned in an advantageous way, which might be unfair but is not arbitrary, (4) that the Webster method is unbiased, and (5) that the Webster method would have given 9 fewer votes to the Republicans. None of these article claims are present in the source. As for the hook, it claims that (1) the highest averages method is "correct" in some sense that other standard methods are not, (2) that the apportionment was made by Congress, (3) that the malapportionment was caused by Congress not rounding correctly (rather than, say, by rounding correctly but choosing numbers that caused the rounding to come out in favor of one party), and that (4) this determined the outcome of the presidential election; only (4) is supported by the source. We need much better sourcing before this hook can run. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
David Eppstein, I have added a reference to page 37, which has most of the information you are querying. Can you check again? TSventon (talk) 21:49, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I think I agree with you on the implication/phrasing of this hook being a bit off, although really my comment on failing to use the correct rounding procedure is driven by the fact that, at the time, the law actually specified Hamilton's method, while convention suggested Webster's (used from 1840-1860). How about:
...that the results of the 1876 presidential race were swayed by the use of an unusual rounding procedure?
But this might have the opposite suggestion, that highest averages are "unusual". Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:09, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
The fun fact I want this to be about is something like "the 1876 election was decided by a literal rounding error", but I'm not 100% sure where I'd link to the page. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 22:20, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
[dubious]. The source does not say they made a rounding error, which to me can only mean that they attempted a specific calculation but produced the incorrect result of the calculation. Instead your added page 37 states that they duly enacted into law Hamilton's method in 1850, rather than Webster's method, and then followed the enacted method for years afterward. There are strong arguments why Webster's method would have been more a more fair method, but enacting a method and then following it is not an error at all. So without much better sourcing we cannot use a hook calling this method or their calculations incorrect (rather than what it appears to be to me, merely a different opinion on how to prioritize the inevitable imprecisions that result from all rounding methods).
Look, some allocation methods prioritize smaller groups, making sure that all get a seat at the table. Some prioritize getting all allocations as accurate as possible, or as fair as possible, both of which can be measured in different ways. Some penalize smaller groups and favor the larger groups, maybe to streamline the process by keeping fewer parties or maybe because the larger groups are the ones that set the policies. These are political decisions. They are not matters of mathematical correctness. Different methods have different advantages and disadvantages and different people at different times can reasonably disagree over which of those are most salient to their situation. We should not, in Wikipedia's voice, designate one of these methods as correct and the rest incorrect.
Had Congress actually enacted a method, miscalculated the results of that same method, and then used their miscalculation in place of what the method said to do, then something like the present hook might be ok. But we do not have sourcing for that, not even after recent improvements to sourcing. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:26, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
@Closed Limelike Curves: et al there is a more detailed account of the 1876 allocation on pages 71 and 72 of a US Government report here. TSventon (talk) 00:00, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I'll be sure to check it out in the morning. Thanks! Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
The source does not say they made a rounding error, which to me can only mean that they attempted a specific calculation but produced the incorrect result of the calculation.
Rounding error as in the error caused by approximating a real number (the seat entitlement) as an integer. Had the exact entitlement been used in allocating electoral votes, the result would have switched.
The definite article "a" can be dropped to clarify this. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 06:11, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
By your definition, the error caused by approximating a real number by a low-denominator rational, every method other than direct democracy, including the highest-averages method, involves rounding errors. We cannot use that argument to say that one method is correct and others incorrect. If that is what you mean, your hook is extremely misleading. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm not saying any method is correct or incorrect (right now), although I agree the original hook should be rewritten for clarification. My point is just that if the electoral college had used exact, rather than rounded, seat entitlements (or had used a different rounding method) the result would be different, which is interesting. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 14:57, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
The only possible meaning of "exact, rather than rounded, seat entitlements" is direct democracy: every citizen gets a seat. Is that what you mean? Everything else involves rounding somehow. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
No, I mean the state's entitlement or seat quota. The correct number of seats for California in the House of Representatives, which would be exactly proportional to its population, is (so its electoral vote total would be that, plus 2 senators, to get 53.97). Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
pulled – further discussion can continue at the nomination page :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:37, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
since i've been pinged twice: no comment on the issue David Eppstein raises, as this is not my area of expertise or interest and not something i did catch or would've caught. seems like it will be resolved ... sawyer * he/they * talk 08:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Accessibility of transport in London

@Turini2, JuniperChill, and AirshipJungleman29:

There are several uncited statements, which I have marked with citation needed tags. These will need to be resovled before this appears on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 18:55, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Believe that is all resolved - one CN tag removed because it is backed up by (cited) information in a table, 4 references for one summary sentence would feel like overkill. Turini2 (talk) 09:09, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Data about DYK article creation/expansion

I am looking to generate reports about articles created and expanded by specific users that were featured on Did You Know. While there are tables listing this data, the minimum cutoff seems to be 25, and I would like data on users that have fewer than 25 articles credited to them. Is there a database I could access with this information? Harej (talk) 20:12, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Withdraw DYK nomination

I have withdrawn my nomination of Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of Peace in Berlin. The creator was blocked for spamming a website in many articles, including the nominated article. I can replace the spammed link, but I don't feel like rewarding the editor. SL93 (talk) 23:10, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Good call, SL93. Before I close this, you might want to remove your QPQ from this article to use it elsewhere. Given that nobody has started reviewing this, that would be a fair and reasonable thing to do. I say "remove" because I for one check whether a review has been used before... Schwede66 23:15, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron already closed it, but I have since then removed my QPQ per your suggestion. SL93 (talk) 23:17, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Mariesa Crow (nom)

I just pulled this out of Q6 (see the nompage for reason) – we might need to clarify whether DYK incorporates the WP:V requirement that articles be based on independent sources, depending on how this discussion goes. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

Potential Issues with DYK Image Process

Hi all, I am not closely involved with DYK, but I spoke to Sdkb who suggested this was worth bringing up. A few months ago a doctored image of Chopin was featured, see Wikipedia:Recent additions/2024/January#9 January 2024. This image has been floating around the internet as a rare photograph of Chopin, but is instead an edited portion of a painting made in the 20th century (see The Chopin Institute).

While not a major issue, it is certainly not ideal, and I highly doubt the image would have been featured if this context was known ahead of time. In any case, the image's source even said that the "original daguerreotype needs to be found to allow experts to confirm whether it is an image of Chopin"; so I'm not sure we should be using "possible likenesses" anyways (although now understood to be an incorrect likeness). I understand there was a major image misidentification in 2021 as well.

This leads me to wonder: are more stringent requirements for the DYK image necessary? Perhaps the image link can be featured and reviewed in the nomination (like how the hook link is done?) Aza24 (talk) 03:29, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7: 6 Aug

McVey Fire

@SL93, TCMemoire, and B3251: the hook says "thousands of ... trees?" Shouldn't that be "thousand of acres of trees?" RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I guess. It would still be thousands either way so I'm fine with it being changed. SL93 (talk) 21:25, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I suggest that the hook as written is wrong. Looking at Our world in data, the mid-point of tree density in the United States is 17,500 per square kilometre. As 84 square kilometre of forest burned, this equates to some 1.5 million trees. To call that "thousands of ... trees" is an underestimate to such an extent that it's wrong. Schwede66 22:23, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
And having now looked more closely, they did not replant the whole area burned, but just 16 square kilometres. Still, that's an estimated 280,000 trees at the above density. Schwede66 22:27, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Would someone need to find a source or sources specifying all of that, or would it not be considered synthesis to reword the hook and article with that information? The current source for the hook says thousands of acres. SL93 (talk) 23:34, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
...mid-point of tree density in the United States, this doesn't work though, given the placement of the Dakotas in the Rocky Mountain Rain shadow#North American mainland. The Black hills are fire-climax Ponderosa forest land, which in 1939 whould have still been reflective of centuries of fire regime. Thus open forestland with wide spacing between trees rather then dense east coast or northwest coastal forests. Additionally areas of the Black Hills transition to open Savannah-land with limited scattered trees where the rain-shadow has full influence. This hook need to be sorted with the sources, which are all referencing thousands of acres, not trees.(The sources are also seemingly contradictory as reported in the article now. Source 10 (1940 news article) states the seeds were collected within the Black Hills, source 11 (2022 KOTA article) asserts they are NOT Black Hills Ponderosa, but doesnt really go into detail. I'd suggest updating with information from the Artemis Project page here that genetic testing at USDA laboratories determined the seeds were not of Black Hills Ponderosa.--Kevmin § 00:47, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
I've updated the hook to add "of acres". RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Moving hooks between preps

I recently moved the hook for Ahhotep I from Prep 2 to Prep 3 with the intention of promoting Jamal Valizadeh to fill the gap in line with the special occasion request. I'm finding though that when promoting the latter using PSHAW though that the task is failing to complete. I can promote the hook manually if needed, but would appreciate someone checking if I may have left something behind in prep 2 which might cause other issues down the road. CSJJ104 (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

CSJJ104, notice the format used in e.g. prep area 7 for unused slots? "... that ...", not simply "..." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:28, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
You also used the improper credit template. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
@CSJJ104: Welcome to prep building and thank you for your work here! It can get complicated at times so ask questions. Bruxton (talk) 15:05, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Thanks AirshipJungleman29, that is working now :) CSJJ104 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5

Vann Molyvann

@Arcahaeoindris, CanonNi, and Hey man im josh:

There is an uncited sentence in the article, which I have indicated with a cn tag. This should be resolved before it goes on the Main Page. Z1720 (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

Z1720 It is still uncited, and this queue is next up. SL93 (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't have a WSJ subscription so I can't get to the full text, but the google search results suggest it should have been Vater, Tom (27 May 2010). "Modern Masterpieces". The Wall Street Journal, which is currently ref #6. RoySmith (talk) 18:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

Kaur (short film)

@Whispyhistory, Philafrenzy, Launchballer, and SL93:

  • ... that after British Sikh physician Parvinder Shergill could not find a recent mainstream English film led by a woman that resembled her, she co-wrote and co-produced her own?

The article says, "According to British Sikh physician Parvinder Shergill, after Bend It Like Beckham, she could not find another mainstream English film led by a woman that looked like her so she made her own and titled it Kaur." If Shergill said that she found someone who looked like her in BILB, then the hook used for DYK needs to be modified. If the hook is referring to a struggle to find a depiction of a woman in a turban, then this should be specified in the article. Z1720 (talk) 19:35, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the key word might be "recent". Bend It Like Beckham is from 22 years ago. SL93 (talk) 20:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Z1720 Would rewording the article to say "after Bend It Like Beckham in 2002" fix the issue? SL93 (talk) 23:37, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

PEIS limit at WP:DYKN

The latest nominations at WP:DYKN are no longer transcluding because it has reached its WP:PEIS limit. I have sent some pings to editors to try to get some nominations moving. Last time this happened, we activated the backlog mode where editors with over 20 noms had to QPQ an extra hook. Here's a link to that discussion.

Is it time to activate the backlog mode for DYKN? Z1720 (talk) 20:27, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

I think so. SL93 (talk) 20:42, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) We're in the unusual position of having reached the PEIS limit on both the Nominations and the Approved pages: two nominations aren't transcluding on Nominations, and five on Approved. We also have three and a half unfilled preps and three unfilled queues. If we can get a couple of additional preps filled, and some reviews completed, both pages would be under the PEIS limit. There's been an unusual spike in nominations over the past six days: we've gone from 253 to 303 total nominations, and 122 to 137 approved nominations (both numbers including the noms that aren't transcluding). Some of this is almost certainly due to the current GAN backlog drive and the increased number of new GAs eligible for nomination; the drive ends in a few hours, and as the last of the reviews are completed over the next week or so, the stream of DYK noms will slow. If things aren't better in a week or so—if the number of unapproved DYKs goes much higher than 166—then we might want to look into reactivating backlog mode. I think today is too soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
Hopefully more editors can chip in on promoting to bring it down. SL93 (talk) 20:46, 31 July 2024 (UTC)
And now we have only one full prep. SL93 (talk) 03:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
To inject a bit of mathematical reality here, WP:DYKN, WP:DYKNA and WP:DYK/Q collectively constitute a closed system with a finite capacity. Things like backlog mode only serve to shuffle the deck chairs around a bit faster, but don't change the fundamental capacity of the system. Noms come in at whatever rate they come in at. Noms go out by one of two routes; the main page or rejection.
If the input rate exceeds the output rate long enough, we exhaust our storage capacity of ((2 x PIES) + (14 queues and preps x 9 hooks each) + whatever PIES overload we're willing to put up with). Rearranging deck chairs doesn't change that. We seem to have consensus that we don't want to go to a 12 hour cycle, so the only thing left is to get more ruthless about rejections per WP:DYKTIMEOUT. RoySmith (talk) 23:08, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm still hoping for more promoters. There are nominations that likely sit around not because they are problematic, but because we have barely any editors promoting. That work can be spread out, but I kept on hearing from editors that they are afraid of being called out for making mistakes. I see no problem in being called out. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Speaking of deck chairs, I was going to promote a prep area just now, but the next one is Prep 2 and it's not complete. Oddly enough Prep 3 is full, but I don't think it's possible to promote preps out of order. RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
It appears to be because of the problematic special occasion hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Gibson (composer). I'm thinking of skipping over it. SL93 (talk) 23:29, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
On the topic of being called out, I've been known to get grumpy once in a while, but mostly at old-timers who should know better. Folks who are thinking about getting involved at DYK should know what we expect that new folks will make mistakes. That's how you learn and it shouldn't be something to fear. Anybody who bites a DYK newbie can expect to get trouted. RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith The prep is now filled. SL93 (talk) 00:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

I am not concerned about the PEIS limit on the approved list: as I write this, there are two hooks that are not showing, but 4 queues and 3 preps are mostly empty. If all of them were filled, we would have roughly 80 approved noms left over, so nowhere near hitting the 120 criteria previously used to switch to 2-a-day. Also, as hooks are promoted the hidden hooks will soon appear. On the awaiting approval list, it is more problematic if reviews aren't showing because it means someone might not review them. Also, AFAIK the community did not establish clear criteria for when DYKN switches to backlog mode, which is why I bring up the issue here. Z1720 (talk) 00:34, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Queue 6: 5 Aug

Aniya Holder (nom)

Theleekycauldron, I see you pulled this hook out of Q6 and placed it into Prep3 instead. As it's a special occasion hook, don't you think it would be a good idea to start a discussion on this? For the record, I think it's a rather bad idea to not run Holder on 5 August, the day that she is going to compete in the Olympics. And yes, we've had two speed climbers in Q6, but as I say, should you not at least start a discussion instead of unilaterally undermining the efforts of running Olympic hooks on the day that competitions are held? Schwede66 22:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

I noticed that two other hooks were pulled with no discussion. Why no discussion? SL93 (talk) 22:49, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
What? Which ones? Schwede66 22:56, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Mariesa Crow and Template:Did you know nominations/National Coordination Committee Against Corruption and Crime from the same queue. SL93 (talk) 22:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see. There is discussion about those at their nom pages, so that's perfectly in order. Schwede66 23:01, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I meant discussion prior to removing them. If that is acceptable, fine, but I haven't seen anyone else do it that way. SL93 (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm happy to list them here beforehand – I just thought they might take a while to fix and didn't want to clutter up the noticeboard under time pressure, so I experimented with something else. Really, either way works for me :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:03, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Either way works for me too. I was just surprised. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
To check a full hook set is a huge job; there's no perfect way to go about it. I think this way of doing it is just fine; it reaches everyone who's had prior involvement (apart from the promoter to prep maybe). Schwede66 23:05, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
I ping the promoter whenever there's an issue with the hook itself – article issues are things the promoter usually isn't responsible for checking, but if there's something they should've caught, I'll ping them. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:21, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66: my bad, i checked for a special occasion marker on the nompage and didn't find one. I'm not the most comfortable with there being three Olympic athlete hooks in one set, it's contrary to guideline – is there another date it can go in? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:57, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
No, there isn't. We've had three per set on most days. It's simply a function of there being so many Olympic hooks. Please refer to the extensive discussions above. Schwede66 22:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:DYKVAR says No topic should comprise more than two of the hooks in a given update, but honestly, I'll just move it back. Thanks for letting me know :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:19, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Happened to check in on the Aniya Holder DYK just now – totally get why it might have been moved, but if it could be returned to Queue 6 I would be a very happy camper :) SunTunnels (talk) 00:17, 2 August 2024 (UTC)

Upcoming Jack White hook

The hook in Queue 6 regarding a Jack White album needs to have its main link updated, as the article was recently moved from "Untitled Jack White album" to "No Name (album)". Aria1561 (talk) 04:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed – Schwede66 05:35, 4 August 2024 (UTC)

Software maintenance

This hook was run yesterday. I logged a bunch of issues at WP:ERRORS but it scrolled off before they were resolved. They included:

  1. The hook is not a definite fact which is unlikely to change
  2. It is introduced by a weasel
  3. The hook was not clearly stated in the article
  4. The source which supposedly supported the hook did not pass verification
  5. The first hook suggested in the nomination didn't pass verification either

My impression is that this didn't go well because the source wasn't clearly identified, was behind a paywall and wasn't quoted. Note that the nomination was professional paid work and so one would expect a high standard. So it goes...

WP:ERRORS discussion

This is another blatant weasel – who estimates this? And it's obviously not a "definite fact which is unlikely to change" as there are a range of estimates. The hook discussion started with the figure of "three times" and it appears that such estimates are unreliable because the article repeatedly says that the topic has not been well-studied. Other issues include:

  1. The ceiling is obviously a lot higher than 9 and I reckon the sky's the limit. Consider the case of Wikipedia. This was developed on a shoestring using open source software. But now the WMF has a large staff and a huge budget. As I understand it, the staff headcount has gone from half a person to over 700 – that's a factor of about 1,400. And much of the code is still the same legacy stack.
  2. Deciding what is development and what is maintenance is often an arbitrary accounting decision. For example, consider Vector 2022. Is that new development or maintenance of the existing system? The article indicates that it would be considered "enhancement" and so classified as maintenance but it's all still a matter of subjective definition.
  3. Changes are often incremental and so there's the Ship of Theseus problem. At what point is a system a new creation?
  4. The supposed hook fact does not seem to be clearly stated in the article. I've searched for "nine" and "9" and can't find it.
  5. The idea that you can generalise in a definite way about such varied activity and systems is inherently suspect. See all models are wrong.

Andrew🐉(talk) 06:28, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

0. "Who estimates this?" Ulziit, Bayarbuyan; Warraich, Zeeshan Akhtar; Gencel, Cigdem; Petersen, Kai. If you look closely, you'll realise that the definite fact is the estimation, not the costs.
  1. "I reckon the sky's the limit. Consider the case of Wikipedia." Well, if you happen to note these considerations of yours in a reliable source, we can take them into account. Until then, we prefer to avoid original research.
  2. "it's all still a matter of subjective definition" Yes, that's why we leave it to reliable sources to do the research.
  3. See above notes on reliable sources and original research.
  4. I would suggest reading the article, not just using ctrl-F. You may find the hook fact in the "Software life cycle" section. WP:2+2=4 may be useful.
  5. See 3). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:16, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
    AirshipJungleman29 seems to be referring to this source:
    Ulziit, Bayarbuyan; Warraich, Zeeshan Akhtar; Gencel, Cigdem; Petersen, Kai (2015). "A conceptual framework of challenges and solutions for managing global software maintenance". Journal of Software: Evolution and Process. 27 (10): 763–792. doi:10.1002/smr.1720..
    On the cited page 764, this states

    The maintenance phase is the longest part of software lifecycle and, in most cases, also the most expensive. For the last several decades, the cost of software maintenance is continuously growing. In the 1970s, the costs were around 60%, while in the 1990s and 2000s, the reported costs increased to about 90% and more.

    Note that this says "90% and more" and so the hook is clearly inconsistent by stating "up to nine times". This hook should be pulled as the source does not verify it but instead contradicts it. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:40, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
    i tried to fix this hook in a hurry (the previous one didn't verify at all) and came out with this one, my bad :) how about we change the wording so that the hook matches the source? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:19, 28 July 2024 (UTC)
    I noticed that theleekycauldron correctly challenged the original hook which was "... that maintenance of existing software is estimated to cost more than three times as much as its development? ". The source for that wasn't quoted in the nomination and failed verification and we have the same problem with the version that's now on the main page. As I noted above, these generalisations are too fuzzy to be presented as definite facts and they are very subject to change as the technology and techniques move fast. Just pull it, please, and we should then start a post mortem. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:14, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

Andrew🐉(talk) 14:10, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

It's not clear what you expect to happen here. If there's problems with the article, go fix them, or discuss them on the article's talk page. If you have a problem with the nom accepting money, take it up with them. They were totally up-front about it (which puts them ahead of like 99.9% of our paid editors) and sounds like it more or less falls under WP:GLAM. If you just want to complain about the fact that DYK's quality control isn't as good as it should be, I agree, but our energy would be better spent working on upcoming noms than wringing our hands about yesterday's. RoySmith (talk) 14:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I have considerable experience of software maintenance and, when this is done professionally, issues are normally logged when they arise. This provides an audit trail and record which then enables further action, lessons-learned and so forth. I gather there's some sort of DYK reform process underway per Wikipedia:Did you know/Removed/2023–24. And, in any case, there's an implicit continual improvement process and the first requirement for that is feedback. Such feedback is best done here because WP:ERRORS is ephemeral and keeps no records.
As for the article in question, I was thinking of starting a good article reassessment but first I'll have to read through it again and mull over its issues. I can already see that it has some but it will take time and effort and nobody is paying me to do this.
As for upcoming noms, I have one myself and there's no shortage of other things to do. "Excelsior!"
Andrew🐉(talk) 17:32, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Browsing this talk page now I'm here, I notice that problems with this hook were noticed 6 days ago – see Prep_5 above. In that discussion, Black Kite says "This hook doesn't work. Even if we assume that the book source is correct (which I can't check)..." So, right there we see the problem of being unable to access the source upon which the hook depended. You can't conduct a sensible discussion if you can't see the details. Relevant quotations should be mandatory in such cases.
Another structural problem is the habit of naming such sections with names like "Prep 5" rather than with an article name. There are currently two sections on this page called "Prep 5" and this is both confusing and lacking in context about the actual topic(s). I named this current section "Software maintenance" because that is the name of the topic. How hard is that?
Andrew🐉(talk) 19:41, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
Andrew Davidson, you reported somewhere a while back that every morning, you read the main page and dive into some of the topics to see what's written is actually correct. And you unearth numerous problems by doing so. I very much appreciate your efforts and applaud you for doing this good work.
The only downside is that when you go through your breakfast routine, items are already live. How much more useful would it be if you offered your wonderful service before things appear on the main page? Are you aware that Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow offers you the main page a day in advance? I wonder whether if you could slightly adjust your routine and read that page instead? Your work is much appreciate, and having your feedback and thoughts 24 hours earlier would be immensely valuable. Schwede66 20:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't aware of the Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow link and might give it a try, thanks. I'm not sure how accurate it is though. Most of my main page activity currently is for the WP:ITN section and that is updated continuously rather than on a daily schedule. And how does the tomorrow view deal with DYK when the hook sets only last for 12 hours?
The actual main page is always likely to get the lion's share of attention because it's the default view when I go to the Wikipedia site or load the Wikipedia app. If one starts looking at other pages then one is literally not on the same page and that seems quite lonely. Is there a talk page or noticeboard associated with the tomorrow view? That might help in building a community of forward-looking reviewers.
Andrew🐉(talk) 20:52, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
how does the tomorrow view deal with DYK when the hook sets only last for 12 hours? If I had my druthers, we would take the whole idea of 12-hour updates and nuke it from orbit. It is antithetical to improving quality. Anybody can shovel manure twice as fast, but I'm not willing to play that game.
I also come from a software engineering background; bug trackers, post-mortems, standup meetings, OKRs, pagers, the whole smash. The advantage of my "job" at wikipedia is if I don't feel like working, I just don't, and I don't have to tell anybody why, nor do I have to justify that I didn't get done what I thought I would get done this quarter. RoySmith (talk) 22:22, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
If I recall, at one time, it was set-times of six hours. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:37, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
It was before my time, but yes I remember back when DYK used to do four sets a day (and also had the "from Wikipedia's newest content" flavor text). Do we have the discussions that led to the retirement of both? By the time I started my DYK career in 2016 it was already down to two sets a day at most. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:03, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
on WP:ERRORS, there are links to the current, next, and next-but-one DYK, regardless of cycle length :) also, yes, let's not do 12-hour sets anymore. Instead, we should do one set per day of eight to nine hooks and they should all be bangers. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:38, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
I think I've said this before, but I'd be in favour of going back to a standard eight-hook, 24-hour set. If WP:PEIS limits at WP:DYKNA become an issue, we can just reject some older nominations. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:31, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply, Andrew Davidson. You asked two questions:
  • I'm not sure how accurate it is though. Most of my main page activity currently is for the WP:ITN section and that is updated continuously rather than on a daily schedule. Tomorrow's view displays the current status of ITN, hence it's as "accurate" as browsing the live main page.
  • And how does the tomorrow view deal with DYK when the hook sets only last for 12 hours? It doesn't, but neither do you capture the other hook set during 12-hour modes when you are doing your review over breakfast.
I hope that's helpful. Schwede66 03:39, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
The way DYK works is sets are put together in the prep areas and then promoted to the queues as a group, at least a few days before it's scheduled to hit the main page. In theory, once a set hits a queue, it's done. In practice, hooks do occasionally get shuffled around in the queues, but that's relatively rare. Hooks also occasionally get pulled after they hit the main page, but that's extremely rare and an indication that we screwed up big time.
TLDR: DYK scheduling is less chaotic than ITN, but still not carved in stone. RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_200&oldid=1239478564"