Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 202

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

Page types for DYK

Something I noticed, having just joined up to DYK is the weird disorganisation of the page structures. It's not particularly important given it works, but it's just something I've seen. The page structures seem to be made out of earwax glue and redirects. What I mean by this is the odd structures of pages in that it's a total guessing game whether a page is going to be a Wikipedia:, a Wikipedia talk:, or a Template:, or a Template talk:, or a sub-page of any of those. I get that the system has evolved over time with bits being added on as required but it doesn't seem to be a totally efficient method.

To illustrate my point, I'll give an example: Approved nominations are held on Template talk:Did you know/Approved – this isn't a template (the template page redirects back to the template talk page) and why is it a sub-page of the un-approved nominations in Template talk:Did you know? Why not Wikipedia talk:Did you know approved or even just Wikipedia:Approved DYK hooks. And Template talk:Did you know itself doesn't make sense because it's just the talk page of the main-page template. You click on the hook and this is a template. Fair enough, this is a template, but it makes it harder to edit because DiscussionTools doesn't work on template pages and so source mode has to be used, even though the reply buttons appear on the Template talk page.

Or for another example, take the queues. Template:Did you know/Queue is a template (despite not being used as a template) and a sub-page of the template displayed on the main page for whatever reason - Why not just Wikipedia:Did you know queue since nobody actually needs to edit the page, as it's basically all templates?

Not sure if this even needs fixing as it all works, but still it's just something I've noticed. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 10:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is something people have complained above for years and years. The difficulty is that there are so many templates and bots and links that rely on the current page structure that it's not really worth the time and effort to fix. It's the same reason the Main Page is technically in article space despite not being an article—too much effort to fix, and not enough reward. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I think it would not be too hard, but nobody really understands the entire interdependence of all of the bots so some people are afraid to break something. I vote for any change that allows use of the "reply" function in DYK nominations. —Kusma (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, please. Reply FTW! RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Shifting nominations to the Wikipedia space should allow that, and the relevant individuals future-proofed their bots/scripts for such a move a couple of years ago if I recall correctly. It may also be a change that can be made as an isolated step, without figuring out the Approved/Queue template spaces. CMD (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps. But how would this be actioned? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 17:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
We'd need a very small group of people with the relevant tech knowledge to assume full responsibility for implementation, then we'd need a community process to agree specifically to the implementation and to the moment of implementation, and then we'd likely need a minor period of chaos anyway. CMD (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I (very much) don't want to own the process, but I'd be happy to be part of a smallish group that re-engineered all the DYK duct-tape. Having multiple people who knew how all the moving parts worked would be a good thing. RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
CMD, this was attempted a few years ago, see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 179#Namespace transition master plan. Generally, lots of people talk, but there's a lack of action, and a lack of followthrough. Shubinator (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking of! The lack of followthrough is why there needs to be a small group in control. It's not the sort of thing that works on a diffuse community level. CMD (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
While I see that its odd that DYK noms are using the template namespace, I can live with that. There are so many articles placed in userspace rather than articlespace, and same can be said for a draft representing an article. JuniperChill (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
The namespace chaos is a barrier to entry for new recruits. The huge collection of rules makes DYK complicated enough. The namespace issue is just another layer of confusion on top of that. RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Count your blessings and be careful what you wish for. WP:ITN puts all its nominations onto the same page with an unusual top-posting convention. This then has to be archived and the archives are humongous. You can use the reply function but people then tend to use this to add !votes and this disrupts their indentation.
ITN, DYK and other noticeboards and projects all have their own idiosyncrasies. In a few decades, perhaps the WMF will have standardised on a common forum format. Or perhaps everything will be done by AI bots...
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
The robots are coming! But votes aren't used for DYK, as there's only a single reviewer. DYK already has archives (I think) so this could stay as-is. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 10:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
If you make it easier to reply then guess what you're going to get -- more replies! This will tend to generate more hubbub and you may then find that this gets in the way of getting things done. This is ITN's big problem and so they only post a single new blurb every two days or so. DYK currently posts 9+ every day and so we should measure the effect of this change on DYK's productivity. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
That's speculation. There's nothing stopping people from doing that now, other than a slightly different UI. Plus, I think that making something more accessible couldn't possibly be worse for the project.
It would be incredibly difficult to make any measurements about productivity changes as a result and I'm not sure it would be warranted. Perhaps it's because ITN posts less often the posts generate more activity, which wouldn't be the case for DYK DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 18:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
In a few decades, perhaps the WMF will have standardised on a common forum format. They already have. See WP:FLOW. It was not well received on enwiki. RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Prep 5

Pesto (penguin)

Pesto (penguin) now has an image, would it be possible to change his hook into an image hook? I know that Prep 5 already has an image hook, so if necessary, it's ok to move Pesto to later. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Reopened. Will explain myself at Template:Did you know nominations/Pesto (penguin).--Launchballer 15:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Dezik and Tsygan

@Di (they-them): Hi, I just promoted this but made a bold edit of changing "earth" to the uppercase in this edit. I had to inform you here because I forgot I was supposed to ping nominators in the edit summary informing them of changes, however small, on their hooks. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :) Di (they-them) (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, thank you for notifying the nominator! It's really a helpful thing to do and prevents a ton of drama here on this talk. Valereee (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Prep 4

@AirshipJungleman29, you've replaced an existing credit, again, while promoting. BorgQueen (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron This keeps happening. Why is that? BorgQueen (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, there are three different reasons this happened three different times! I've fixed the one that came up here – that one was actually my fault. The bit of code that detects hooks in prep had a bug that prevented detection of hooks with an apostrophe in the piped text. The previous two were the result of the nomination being formatted badly; in one, the hook didn't have a boldlink (how did that get past a reviewer and promoter?) and in the other, the article was moved and the credit wasn't updated to match. Both of these interfere with the script's ability to match hooks to credits, and it currently removes unmatched credits in order to keep the prep tidy (should probably figure out something better to do with them). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I can assure you it wasn't on purpose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Of course it wasn't. WP:AGF. BorgQueen (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
because it was my purpose. hehehehe... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
thesneakycauldron Valereee (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: Manhood

Per nominator: Noting that with Missouri's polls opening October 23 and in accordance with WP:DYKELECT: if approved, this will have to appear no later than September 23 or be held until after the 2024 United States Senate election in Missouri, to November 6.

Should this be left in the current queue, rejected, or put somewhere else? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Viriditas, we usually put hooks that fall under DYKELECT into the special occasion section in an "after X date" header so they won't be promoted while the election is ongoing. In this case, an "After November 7" header makes the most sense, since polls will still be open on November 6 for the first few hours UTC. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
There's already an approved hook at Approved for Allison Reese which mentions Kamala. It should probably go in with that.--Launchballer 01:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
These later election hooks will probably need a lot of scrutiny due to political polarization. This one has a clause that frames Josh Hawley as treasonous. The NYT source there says his publisher dropped him for support of attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, and specifically hedges on the January 6 United States Capitol attack. Criticism of the book is frequently very negative, mocking Hawley for initially supporting the mob before "running for his life" like a "bitch", so any hook will have a hard time balancing WP:NPOV and WP:DYKBLP. Rjjiii (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
To clarify: nominations do not move to the special occasion section until they have been approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what I was asking. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 9. We have a total of 274 nominations, of which 130 have been approved, a gap of 144 nominations that has increased by 4 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) 22:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is it deemed OK to be misleading in DYK hooks?

On the Giorgina Reid DYK nomination, it was approved with "The hook is intended to be misleading/provoking, but I think it's appropriate given that she wrote a book titled How To Hold Up a Bank."

DYK is not buzzfeed or some form of internet tabloid, it's supposed to have interesting hooks that are accurate. 2A0E:CB01:72:B200:189:FFA8:B07A:BB0D (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The last slot in each set is traditionally given greater latitude. See WP:QUIRKY. RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
You can have a humorous or wacky hook that isn't a lie. 2A0E:CB01:72:B200:189:FFA8:B07A:BB0D (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Moved from WP:ERRORS
  • ... that Giorgina Reid patented a technique for holding up banks?

Not according to the article she didn't. Reid originally developed the reed-trench terracing technique to fortify her ocean cottage in Rocky Point following a 1962 nor'easter storm. The system protected her house the following year and then her neighbors' afterwards. Reid patented the system in 1965, and wrote a book titled How To Hold Up a Bank Or are we using "holding up" here in the sense of "fortifying", because if so that's really misleading, even for a quirky. Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The article wasn't clear enough - the name of the book is a play on words, as it's about shoreline protection, ie, "banks" meaning, for example, a sandbank.
I have edited the article to clarify the issue. The hook is actually quite clever IMO as it's both accurate and amusing. Gatoclass (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I also find the hook fine, it's perhaps misleading in the sense that it plays with expectations, but it doesn't do that in a way that's inaccurate. CMD (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree the hook is fine, but the article is a bit misleading because the section ends with "Twenty-six years ago she said it could be done. It's done" in 1996, but according to Montauk Point Light further work was needed in 2006 and $44 million was spent on renewing protection from 2021 to 2023. TSventon (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I like the hook, too. Valereee (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thats a really funny hook, I wish more were like that. If its misleading its in a harmless way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It's misleading in the right way - because it's both 100% accurate, and misleading in the kind of way that will make people laugh when they realize how they've been fooled. And yes, hooks that good are always in short supply :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I would say more playfully ambiguous than misleading, but yeah this is the sort of thing that brings people joy Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a play on words. It's a joke. It got me to click on the article earlier, and I had a great laugh and a more pleasant morning. DYK is a trivia-about-recently-created-or-updated-articles section that exists for the fun of readers and editors. A reader who checks DYK on the regular has an expectation that it'll be silly every now and then, not that it'll be constantly dour and humorless. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hydrangeans: right on. Every time this comes up, I feel like I'm in a conversation that goes like this:
      "Hey, it says 'gullible' on the ceiling."
                          looks up: "No, it says 'gullible on the ceiling' on the ceiling."
      "Aha, gotcha! Hahahaha! See, because it says 'gullible' on the ceiling... get it?"
                          "It doesn't say 'gullible' on the ceiling."
      "Right, it's a play on words! And also on you being gullible."
                          "But it's not funny. It doesn't just say 'gullible', it says something entirely different. Why did you lie to me?"
      "That's the joke."
                          "The joke is that you're lying?"
      "It's not lying, I'm just trying to have fun! Besides, it really does say 'gullible'."
                          "I trust you to tell the truth. I don't see why you're lying. You can be funny without lying."
      "Okay, jeez, guess you're not into jokes."
Tabloids and clickbait have a bad reputation because they promise a good read with lies and then give you boringness or slop or more lies. That's not what's happening here. We're promising a good read and then the conclusion – despite it not being what you expected, which is not the same as it being untrue – is still satisfying! Because wordplay is fun! And if you think it isn't fun, well, you don't have to have fun if you don't want to. But I'm going to keep being fun. Great hook, Legoktm, keep 'em coming :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
It's a great hook, and it's something I can only strive for in the future. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Thirded. Clever hook, really fun. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all, I appreciate the support and am glad y'all also enjoyed the play on words. Will do my best on future quirky hooks :) Legoktm (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Monthly wrap

I've released a (pretty barebones) monthly wrap for DYK September 2024. Feel free to check it out and give me any feedback - thanks! DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Moving namespace to Wikipedia: (v3)

In response to my previous discussion regarding this, I will be carrying out a plan to move namespaces from the disorganised state of the page structures to a more structured approach. The rationale for the plan can be found here but to be brief, the current structure can be very confusing to newcomers. Planned moving of namespaces has taken place before twice, the other two having been in 2021. Second discussion, first discussion, previous plan.

Pages to be moved + destination (feedback welcome!)

  • All active nomination templates moved to Wikipedia from Template
  • All new nomination templates created in Wikipedia, instead of Template

Criteria for success

  • Pages should be moved instead of created new to preserve edit histories
  • Disruption should be minimal, if any at all. DYK should continue to function throughout the namespace moves
  • New pages should follow a logical structure
Detailed changes for bots, etc. Copied from 2021 plan
Most of these bots will have to be updated by a volunteer (possible myself, depending) to make pull requests, or asking the maintainer to do it on-wiki.

ω Awaiting -> Message sent to bot maintainer, awaiting response
Critical

*Template:DYK conditions - simple - add case for wikipedia namespace as well. *Template:DYK tools

Non-critical

Really minor

Please do let me know if you have any feedback. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 10:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

maybe a more consistent approach?
Outside the box, I would argue that Template talk:Did you know and Template talk:Did you know/Approved should both be retired in favor of a single page with no transclusions that simply lists all the nominations and their statuses. Much, much easier to keep track of, much fewer moving parts, much more easily organized. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia:Did you know/Pending nominations and Wikipedia:Did you know/Approved nominations would work, should it be decided that separate pages are required. Perhaps a single page would be easier to maintain, but it might make promotions take just a little longer if promoters have to check whether a nomination has been passed, and then doing all the other promotion checks DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Outside the box
::I was debating whether or not to change the queue, given that it probably would make sense for it to be a sub-page, perhaps requires further thought. Prep areas would probably work as just Prep/x or Prep x given that nobody actually calls them "Preparation areas". DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I was thinking the single page would just be a table with "Nomination page", "Date of expansion", "Nominator", "Status" (one of the Symbols), "Last nominator comment" (timestamp), "Last non-nominator comment" (timestamp), and "Notes" (for date requests and the like) as the headings. Might mockup an example... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
So long as I can still Ctrl+F my username and still be able to toggle between nominations that specifically require my attention.--Launchballer 11:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer: well, no, but you can always search incategory:"Pending DYK nominations" "Launchballer", if that's any help? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps this can be added as a custom search-bar at the top DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
or we can still maintain a transclusion of all the nominations and have a separate list page for at-a-glance stuff. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Search results aren't then in order. The transclusion pages should be kept.--Launchballer 11:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it would be a good idea to have all nominations in one page. There's a reason they were split in the first place: there were just too many nominations that it was causing loading problems. Similar to the current issues the pages have when there are too many transclusions, though I imagine now it would be on a greater scale. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
But on this page nominations wouldn't be transcluded, they'd just be linked DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like a clicking-hellscape for promoters: most of those parameters don't really seem useful at all. At the very least I'd like bio/non-bio, US/non-US, image/non-image marked. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Could we not have this "outside the box" discussion at this point? It seems completely independent of the namespace question. Let us concentrate on one task and not get sidetracked. —Kusma (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I've now begun making inquires with the bot maintainers about possible ways to implement a namespace changeover DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm gonna be honest. I get that there's demand for this change, and it would be for the best, but I really don't know if we're ready for it yet. I get that you're new to DYK and want to make a difference already, and that's admirable, but there's a reason why this change has been attempted multiple times before and it stalled each time. The actual work to be done is non-trivial and given everything that's involved there's a really good chance that something will break. If we are going to do this migration it should not be rushed and should take time. It should only happen when we're really sure nothing is going to break. Sometimes status quos suck, but they still exist for a reason. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: What do you mean "should take time"? Ideally, we should be spending time preparing, agreeing on a plan, and then rolling over the entire system with as few button presses as possible. Only moving one or two parts at a time is a recipe for disaster. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I mean we shouldn't rush things when it comes to the technical aspects. What you said about having a plan in place is actually a good idea, but we have to make sure it will work properly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Yep. I'm considering whether to do it in phases and have seperate plans for each, or to do it all at once in a larger plan. Both ideas have positives and negatives DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 13:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I think the prep/queue system and the nomination/approval system are fairly independent and from each other. Moving the nomination/approved system to Wikipedia space is probably the harder part. —Kusma (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
If that's the case then obviously the prep/queue should be the first to move.
Template:Did you know/Queue is basically just a template page and is not monitored by any bot, so that should be the easiest to move, and the only bot action is DYKUpdateBot, which purges the hooks when an update is made. So really, you'd just need to move the page, update DYKUpdateBot and PSHAW, and presto DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately moving the prep/queue part to the Wikipedia namespace also has fairly negligible benefits. —Kusma (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, but it does allow further changes to be made despite not having innate benefits DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I think the main reason the change hasn't gone through isn't the complexity, it is that people are too afraid of breaking things and do not know how all of the bots work. There is no need to be so afraid: we regularly have bots that stop or break and everything can be done manually. We just need people to be aware and watch out for issues. —Kusma (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

DimensionalFusion If I may be bold, I'm concerned that you're moving too fast. You are fairly new to DYK. While it's awesome that we've got a new enthusiastic recruit, what you're proposing is a major change, and one which has been discussed many times in the past without managing to go anywhere. That should be a signal that it's a thornier problem than it appears. So when I read your statement that I will be carrying out a plan, that worried me. I encourage you to slow down. There's tons of things that need to get done here. There's piles of unreviewed nominations that need attending to. A particularly valuable service would be looking at the noms which have become contentious and help either shepherd them to a successful outcome or reject them as unsalvagable. Another great help would be to look over the preps and queues to see if you can spot any problems that should be fixed before they reach WP:ERRORS. RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The reason it's never been carried through before is because a large number of people in the community have been responsible for enacting it, so there's no clear person as to whom is doing what. If a single person is carrying it out then responsibility is clearly placed with one person. That should be a signal that it's a thornier problem than it appears. At the end of the day, it's just moving a couple of pages and chaning a couple of lines of code. There's piles of unreviewed nominations that need attending to
This is true, but there are also more than enough approved nominations. I'm concerned that you're moving too fast. In my opinion, nothing wrong with getting things moving quickly. Obviously the actual moving would need to be fairly well-thought out, but why wait for getting started? If I came back to this in a month, nothing would have changed in regards to this DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 13:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, I wouldn't be enacting the technical page moves myself as I am unable to move many of them, so it would have to be me and whoever would like to help out in moving. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I've talked with Shub and he has said:

* I would prefer the namespace change is coordinated at least a week ahead of time so I can get the code changes ready → take DYKUpdateBot & DYKHousekeepingBot offline → namespace change implemented on-wiki → DYKUpdateBot & DYKHousekeepingBot back online with updated code.

  • Will historical nominations (was already on the Main Page) & in-flight nominations (closed but not yet on the Main Page) also be updated? Changing historical nominations can get pretty messy, as DYK credits link to the nomination page.
  • Zooming out, I would recommend making another pass on updating the "Bots at DYK" list, just in case new bots have cropped up since the last time this was discussed.
So the namespace change should be coordinated at least a week ahead of time. Historical nominations shouldn't be updated (in my view) to preserve nominations and avoid breaking anything. And if anyone can see any new bots in the list please do let me know, because I can't think of anything new other than PSHAW DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
it's just moving a couple of pages and chaning a couple of lines of code.
I'll be blunt. This is a frighteningly naive statement from somebody who is wearing a software project manager hat. In theory, yes. In practice, we're working with a complex system of software written by many different people. There's no single person who understands it all, and certainly no single person who understands all the interactions. We may get lucky and it may all work the first time. Or something critical may break and we'll all be in a panic because we neither know how to fix it nor have a coherent plan for how to back out the change.
DYKToolsBot will certainly break. I just looked at the code. It's not a huge job to parameterize things to accommodate the change but to have somebody barge into the room, declare that they're in charge, and start shouting orders is just too close to what I've experienced in real life as a software engineer for me to want to be anywhere near this. RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Agreed about the shockingly naive statement. DimensionalFusion, have you ever done software project management or written or updated software of any complexity? This is something that needs to be approached with care and knowledge, and I'm not seeing that here. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset Yes. I started as a software developer about 7 years ago and it's been my job since a year ago DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith I don't know what you want me to say here. All I'd like is for a team of people from across the community to create a detailled plan for the rollout of namespace changes and bot code changes simultaneously. This would be impossible to do without a detailled plan involving logistics, estimated downtime (which should be minimised, if any), and fallbacks. What's the problem here? I'm not declaring myself in charge, I'd much rather it be done with a small team with technical expertise DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
If you are going to have a career in software development, you will undoubtedly be involved in some flavor of task planning. You start with a pile of things you want to do and assign them some kind of score for how much value you will get out of completing each task, how much effort you think each one will take, and how much risk each one introduces. All of these are typically difficult to know, so you take your best guess. My take on this is it's got a medium amount of risk, will probably take a small amount of effort, and yield a small amount of benefit. So when it comes to assigning valuable and limited resources to working on it, it's unlikely to find itself on the top of the pile.
You will also discover that inevitably there will be management changes. Some new person will show up and announce that they're now managing the team you're on. This is an all-volunteer group, so the term "management" doesn't really apply, but since you're apparently trying to act as a manager, I'll go with that analogy. I've seen two kinds of people fill this "new manager" role. One kind gets everybody together, introduces themselves and says, "I may be in charge, but I'm new here. You guys have been doing this for a long time so you're the experts. I'm going to work hard to learn as much from you as I can about what you do before I start doing any managing". The other kind storms into the situation and starts shouting orders. Guess which ones are successful and which ones aren't? RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I know that your analogies are accurate based on my (somewhat limited) experience of it, which is why I'm trying to make it more community-built.
I understand that my proposed changes involve complex systems, and could lead to breakages, especially with bots that help manage DYK nominations. Careful planning is important, so therefore understanding the underlying technical aspects is also important. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
{{DYK conditions}} from the list above has been replaced with {{DYK tools}} which doesn't have the same issue. It has some links that will still function with redirects. Some of the other things can likely be done well in advance like the suggestion for {{DYK top}}.[1] I don't see a clear sets of steps yet. You'll need some admins to help. If you get consensus for this and need a template editor to push changes live, feel free to ping me. I don't plan on doing much/any of the work tbh, Rjjiii (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for pointing that out! I'll switch it over. We don't have any sets of steps yet because there's no point in it going ahead until we're 100% certain that it will, and there's still opposition from some – so maybe it will be a moot point DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that directionality will work. Change will happen if the clear sets of steps are created first, to be presented to gain community consensus. CMD (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
In that case, I've created a phase 1 proposal to gain community consensus DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Wug has responded to my query, so I'll post it here: The hard part is that the job runner changed a few months ago, and I don't feel comfortable enough with the system to push changes right now. If there were a clear consensus and an outline of a migration plan, I could commit to researching that further and making the change when needed. Another option is to have someone take over that task from me, which might be better long term if you or someone else is interested in taking that on.
Would anybody be interested in this? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm on board with this if there is anything I can do to help. BD2412 T 03:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Prep area 4

The hook for Psycho Mantis is a bit vague and could be read as the character playing the video games or the person playing MGS as the person who has played those games. The latter interpretation is the accurate one. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Have changed to "... that the character Psycho Mantis in the video game Metal Gear Solid breaks the fourth wall by identifying the player's other games?", which I think is less ambiguous. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Missing credits

Dear promoters, please double check on any missing credits. Currently Q4 has an empty credit slot (Doesn't it cause problems for the bot, @Theleekycauldron?) and Q5 has a few missing apparently, for the number of the credits and that of the bolded articles do not match. PSHAW removes an existing credit under certain conditions as it has been explained. BorgQueen (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The reasons for the PSHAW's credit removals. BorgQueen (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
This is noted, BorgQueen. For the record, I do make sure the proper credits are filled out whether I prep automatically or manually; those noms with the missing credits did not come from me, nor did I prep any hook raked to Q4. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Phase 1 of DYK namespace change

My proposal to change the DYK namespace in phases. If consensus is found here, 10 days after consensus is gained then my proposal will enter into action and the following will occur:

Please do let me know if you think I've missed anything so it can be added DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This is really well thought out; I wonder if it wouldn't be more efficient to move past this phase and address the nominations instead. If the goal of the namespace change is to make this more accessible to newcomers, I think the preps and queues being in template space is probably the most understandable part of the entire enterprise (and the one usually only touched by people acquainted with the backrooms anyway). I'm not opposed, but it seems like a lot of hassle for not a huge reward, and it might be easier to just skip to trying to reorganize the DYK nominations. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I also just don't see the reason for this big of a lift -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I know that this stage has the least reward, however it is also the easiest to carry out compared to the many moves and changes required for the nominations: at the very least, all active nominations would need to be moved in addition to the holder pages, not to mention the bot dependencies and non-bot dependencies. That's not to say it can't be done, it would just take longer. In my view, this phase would therefore be the easiest and would allow for some momentum DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Given that everyone seems to be pretty meh about it, and the arguments given about hassle versus reward, I think I'll shelve this for now and move on to nominations. This could be revived later down the line to standardise things DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

How will this interact with the plan described below in #Giving queues template instead of full protection? RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it should – based on my understanding, page protection is preserved through page moves DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 06:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

What's Changed?

Hi all,

I got my bit back, and was thinking of helping out with DYK again (similar motivation to #Giving queues template instead of full protection? above). Since I haven't been a DYK admin since 2018, I was wondering if there was anything in the promotion/backend of things to know before starting? I see that we are being more diligent about posting potential issues on WT:DYK, with pings, and that PSHAW has been rolled out.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to help out again! We recently tightened up the rules on QPQ. It used to be OK to submit your hook without a QPQ and then back-fill that later. Now we require that the QPQ be submitted at the same time as the nomination. Not everybody is aware of the rule change yet, so people are mostly just getting gentle reminders, as long as they're not trying to game the system. RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
You might want to read this section as well, I suppose. BorgQueen (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Approaching 12-hour backlog mode?

DYK is currently at 143 approved nominations (manually counted) and 6/7 full prep areas. WP:DYKROTATE says that If we are at one set per day and immediately after the midnight (UTC) update finishes there are more than 120 approved nominations while at least ten prep/queue sets are filled, we rotate to two sets per day..

We're currently at the point that if 2 prep areas were promoted to queues (AND THEN filled with approved nominations) we'd have 10 full queues/prep areas and still have 126 approved nominations. Are we approaching 12 hour backlog mode? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I did wonder that, but the problem is the prep to queue bottleneck.--Launchballer 22:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah definitely. Based on what I've seen from the template, ideally there are 4 or more queues at any one time DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 12:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that it's a lot of work and not enough admins to do it. It takes me a minimum of 20 minutes to process a set. That's for the rare set where I don't find any problems. Every issue I find adds to that, so 30 minutes is probably a better average. And when I write up a problem, I'm signing up to some additional commitment of time over the next few days to track the resolution. What we need is more admins working at DYK, and there just aren't enough admins to go around. I'd love to see some of our more experienced DYK regulars show up at WP:RfA. RoySmith (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, exactly. Nobody can fault the admins for volunteering their time by processing sets, and at the same time there's a record low number of admins. And I can't say that there's any kind of quick fix for this other than getting more admins lol DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 13:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Or reduce the number of hooks per queue. Levivich (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Interesting DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich per your request to be pinged. RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
The automated DYK counter updated to show 121 approved nominations, and I just brought it down to 120 by promoting another one. This could be solved by admins promoting more preps to queues, rather than going to backlog mode. SL93 (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
It appears to not be counting the most recent days. I still vote on updating queues more often and closing older nominations that aren't going anywhere. SL93 (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, exactly. If admins only ever update 1 queue per day then we're permanently stuck on 2 queues and 6 prep areas, and if that's the case then we never meet the threshold for 12-hour mode DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 06:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Maybe this seems crass, but perhaps I could note here that I've not yet understood that both "there is an overabundance of approved DYK nominations" and "we cannot raise the editorial standards for DYK because we wouldn't have enough engagement" are held to be true simultaneously. Remsense ‥ 论 06:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I've not seen the second argument be based on engagement, it's more a matter of debate over subjective standards of quality and nominators feeling hard done by. CMD (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
There's also the case of nominators getting very upset when their nominations are challenged, making reviewers more reluctant to reject nominations outright. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
+1. And some of the worst offenders are our biggest contributors who really should know better. RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Really, we should be willing to reject nominations more forcefully. The issue is that, sometimes, nominators have far more energy than reviewers, leading to reviewers yielding rather than holding their ground. The asking for a second reviewer, while usually done in good faith, sometimes just makes things worse and prolongs the agony. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Maybe we should formalise a role for experienced and trusted DYK reviewers/promoters who are allowed to reject nominations at their editorial discretion? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I am skeptical that such a thing would work. Even when editorial discretion is already baked into the rules, it's not uncommon for nominators to oppose reviews or decisions. I don't think making certain editors "trusted" would solve the problem when the elephant in the room is simply that some nominators are stubborn regarding their nominations and/or hooks. The way I see it, the solution to the problem would be a cultural change, for example being willing to accept rejections, or discouraging things like forum shopping or asking for second opinions over disagreements regarding hook interest (unless of course absolutely necessary or warranted). Of course, that is much easier said than done. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could avoid breaching the template transclusion limits. I am not currently able to offer much help with p2q promotions, so I can't in good conscience suggest to go to 12-hour rotations. The other way to reduce the backlog would be to tighten the timeout rules. —Kusma (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Does someone techy know if PEIS is affected by the use of Template:DYK checklist. If it is, would there be harm in a bot substituting it for direct code on approved nominations? CMD (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
We now have 125 approved nominations and 9 full queues, plus the last queue which we have to leave 4 hooks empty for. Is it time DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
My opinion on this is what it always is: 12 hour turnover is a disaster. It burns people out and increases our error rate. It's never a good idea. I certainly have no plans to participate. RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
If that's your opinion then maybe we should think about modifying the policy. Perhaps there are ways of decreasing the backlog without sacrificing quality DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I would love to see us drop it entirely. And, yes, the way to decrease the backlog is to not be afraid of declining substandard submissions. RoySmith (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I think the switchover should take place when there would be 120 approved hooks if all of the preps and queues were full. DYK has not reached that threshold yet. Z1720 (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I think it's a useful safety valve. One of the reasons there's a minimum requirement to switch to twice-a-day of ten completely filled queues and preps after the midnight promotion along with 120 or more approved noms awaiting promotion is that it's such a high bar, and that by definition you have a backlog that allows running at twice a day for a little while. It's a quick way to reduce the effective backlog by dozens of hooks. We can certainly modify the point at which we switch back if continuing would cause too much stress, though what we have now—reverting back to one a day at any point when after midnight there are fewer than six full queues and preps—would seem to keep us from kneecapping ourselves if prep sets aren't being built with enough frequency. There's a GAN backlog drive starting up next Tuesday, so even though as I write this we're finally not in PEIS-land any more. (Note to CMD: DYK checklist is causing a lot of our PEIS problems; it's a lot of text being expanded, and more and more people have been using it. However, unless the text generated at subst time is less than that generated by the template itself, doing the subst shouldn't help reduce the total character count. Writing out a review in one's own words, making sure to cover what you've looked at, is more efficient when it comes to page size.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
My admittedly not full understanding of PEIS is that any nested template multiplies its impact (somehow), so even with the same characters it would make a difference. CMD (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I will say that when we went from 8 to 9 hooks, we effectively slowed the rate at which the backlog grew by between half and two thirds. I propose that the gap between 60 and 120 also shrinks accordingly, to maybe 75 and 100. 12-hour sets is a quick and very dirty way of running lots of noms and I suggest that one way to make it less painful would be to do them for shorter periods.--Launchballer 01:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
If the aim is a short period and the requirement is "ten completely filled queues and preps", why not have it activate for literally just five days? That would make it a safety valve, would rely on the review quality achieved during normal backlog rates, and provide a simple and clear end date without needing to recalculate the minimum. CMD (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Even better, require seven filled queues (and no specific prep quota) before you start, and go for a fixed three days. That at least guarantees that no matter what happens in the way of promotions (or lack thereof), you know you've got enough material to make it through the sprint. If that turns out not to be enough, you can run another sprint after you've refilled the queues. The important thing is putting the material in the bank ahead of time instead of a frantic scramble to keep up while the clock is running. RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. CMD (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

We could start at any midnight if the seventh queue has just been promoted and there are six filled queues left, and go for three days. Having the post-midnight changeover is best; it will typically give us more time to move special occasion hooks around as needed within the queues or into the queues, though only admins will be able to take care of that particular task; fortunately, anyone can move things around within the already waiting preps. Question: if at the next midnight, the queues were filled again leaving six after promotion, do we automatically extend by a day (restart the three-day countdown), or is it a set three-day thing that must run down (and switch back for at least day?) before starting up again. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's best to have the sprint be a fixed 3 days, if for no other reason than it will lend stability to SOHA scheduling. RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
In any case, it may not be necessary just yet as there are still preps that haven't been moved to Queue. I really don't like these two-sets-a-day thing as it's grossly unfair to most nominators, but if it has to be done it really should be a last resort and not a first one. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
The idea that 12 hours on the main page is "grossly unfair" seems bizarre to me; of course, I came up in the day when 12 hours was a long time, and 8 hours was more common. Sometimes, sacrifices are needed for the greater good, and half a day isn't unreasonable in my view, just like an extra QPQ isn't unreasonable from old DYK hands when we get a problematic surplus of unreviewed nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I remember coming back to DYK and wondering when it moved from six hours to 24. Anyway, any change shouldn't be seen as changing the use case for the 12-hour backlog mode, it will remain a last resort. However, this change may be a way to make that last resort more predictable and palatable. Whenever the option of a 12 hour backlog run has been raised since the last one ended in April, it has received a lot of (quite valid) pushback due to the current implementation. CMD (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
It sounds like we're pretty close to consensus to change WP:DYKROTATE to read:
DYK runs a certain number of sets per day, depending on the backlog size. Currently, we update DYK once every ((some template magic goes here)). If we are at one set per day and immediately after the midnight (UTC) update finishes there are more than 120 approved nominations with six filled queues sets, we rotate to two sets per day, and rotate back to one set per day immediately after the midnight (UTC) update three days later. The approved nominations page has a maximum size limit, so it will sometimes not display or count the latest nominations.
Regarding @BlueMoonset's question ("if at the next midnight, the queues were filled again leaving six after promotion, do we automatically extend by a day"), the algorithm described above does have some strange behavior if at the end of three days we've still got six filled queues and 120 approved hooks. As written, we'd go back to one per day and then immediately go back to two per day, but I think that situation is incredibly unlikely to happen so I'd say we keep the rule simple and rely on intelligent human beings to figure out how to handle exceptional situations when they occur. RoySmith (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I would support a change of WP:DYKROTATE to read as above DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 13:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify the mechanics, the wording seems to suggest the default seems to shift to two sets a day once the criteria are met. I am not opposed given the criteria being met should be definition make that painless, but we should ensure that is an intentional outcome, and perhaps figure out some note about special holding area hooks that need shifting. CMD (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree that we want to keep humans in the loop when deciding to switch. But, the current wording also suggests an automatic cutover and yet we still end up haggling over it each time, so I'm not too worried that the humans will get disenfranchised. Somebody still has to make a manual edit to (um, I forget exactly where) so I imagine the way this would work is some admin would post here, "Hey guys, we've met the WP:DYKROTATE requirements, so if there's no objection, I'm going to switch over right after midnight".
But, that does remind me that we don't seem to have the actual procedure documented anywhere. We should add that to Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions and DYKROTATE should link to that. RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Given you were the last person to make a change, if you've forgotten we do need the documentation! If you are happy the wording keeps humans in the loop, I am happy. CMD (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the reminder :-) I've updated the instructions. How about for the policy statement:
DYK runs a certain number of sets per day, depending on the backlog size. Currently, we update DYK once every ((some template magic goes here)). If we are at one set per day and immediately after the midnight (UTC) update finishes there are more than 120 approved nominations with six filled queues, we rotate to two sets per day, and rotate back to one set per day immediately after the midnight (UTC) update three days later. The approved nominations page has a maximum size limit, so it will sometimes not display or count the latest nominations.
Instructions for effecting the switch are at WP:DYKAI#Switching update interval. Admins planning to make a switch should alert the DYK community by posting their intentions to WT:DYK in advance. RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Please don't get creative indeed. I think this policy change keeps the spirit of the idea while making it easier to implement, I haven't thought of a strong point of caution yet. If there are no objections, let's go ahead. CMD (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, let's try this. I hope the automatic "revert to 1/day" will make us admins a bit less averse to filling the queues out of fear of the 2/day stress. —Kusma (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Adopted

I haven't seen any opposition so I've gone ahead and updated the WP:DYKROTATE policy statement. We're currently at 263 approved hooks, so it'll probably take us 2 or 3 sprints to get back below the 200 hook threshold. Hopefully this new process will be easier on everybody since we'll be attacking it in manageable chunks. RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: pinging to alert admins who haven't been following this long thread. RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Worth giving a chance, I guess. It'll be interesting to see how fast we get right back to the same place, though. I can remember when we were in two-a-days with too little admin help for months at a time. I'm not going to risk burning out again, it was too unpleasant. Valereee (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
We're still around 130 approved hooks, not twice that; 263 would have been the total number of hooks (unapproved and approved combined) when you posted, RoySmith, omitting the seven approved hooks that aren't currently transcluding, so 270 (and now 275). It'll be interesting to see whether we get overloaded once the GAN backlog drive kicks in on Tuesday. Right now, under the just-superseded rules, we'd need to load up eleven of fourteen preps and queues prior to midnight to meet that minimum to switch over to twice a day, and that would take us down to around 100 approved hooks, too few to do the switch. Interestingly, if the six fliled preps were all promoted to queue in the next 23 hours, we'd be heading into twice a day. (I somehow doubt there's going to be a mass promotion, though one or two sets would be nice to allow for more prep building.)BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
We're still around 130 approved hooks. Interesting. Thanks for the correction. I went to Template talk:Did you know/Approved and looked at the bottom line of "Count of DYK Hooks" table. I assumed since I was on the "approved hooks" page, the column labeled "# of Hooks" meant "# of Approved Hooks". I guess what it really means is the sum of the approved and unapproved hooks? And I guess "# Verified" means "# Approved"?
I've always found that table confusing because its not clear what it means. I remember I once asked why one part of the table is highlighted in red and somebody explained it to me, but I've since forgotten because it's not written down anywhere. It would be useful if somebody could add some documentation to that table explaining it all. RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm confused about this discussion. So basically, based on the new rules, around when will we expect the switch to happen? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
If I'm not still mistaken, the only thing holding us back now is that we don't have seven filled queues (looking furtively in @BlueMoonset's direction for confirmation). RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I see. Maybe this is just me being a little selfish, but the reason I was asking is because I have a hook that's going to go up in a few days and I was wondering if it will be caught in the two-sets-a-day thing. Due to timing reasons my hooks often end up being caught in such sprints, so I was hoping to avoid it being the case this time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, yes, we don't have all seven queues filled at the same time, and that it what's holding us back. There doesn't seem to be any immediate urgency or desire by admins to fill queues; we have only one filled at the moment, although there continue to be enough preps available for promotion. And to confirm: "Verified" = "Approved" in that table. The same table is printed on both the Nominations and Approved pages. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I've added an explanatory footnote to WP:DYKROTATE stating how the count is specified. RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Question, I glanced though the discussion so my apologies if I missed it, with this backlog "sprint" structure, would last years "emergency backlog mode double review" policy come into effect, or are we trying to avoid that?--Kevmin § 16:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
They seem to target different issues. The 3-day backlog sprint manages a glut in approved noms, a double review manages a glut in unapproved noms. CMD (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7

Europapa

@DimensionalFusion, Sekundenlang, Nascar9919, and Onceinawhile: The source says a "contestant" was disqualified. The hook says "song". Are those the same thing? RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. --Sekundenlang (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
What makes them such @Sekundenlang:, given that October Rain had been de facto banned earlier in the year?--Launchballer 08:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
For October Rain, only the song was banned/disqualified, for Europapa, both the song and the artist were. --Sekundenlang (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I think you've just proved that "artist" and "song" are different things.--Launchballer 22:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I've swapped this out to prep 6 to give us a bit more time to sort things out. RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Possible alternate hook: "that Joost Klein released an official nightcore version of his song "Europapa"?" https://www.ad.nl/songfestival/joost-brengt-greatest-hits-ep-van-europapa-uit~a04f5557/ - Sekundenlang (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: ^ - Sekundenlang (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Only interesting if you know what nightcore is and don't know that this isn't unusual.--Launchballer 12:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
With one eye on WP:DYKHOOKBLP, "that Europapa was removed from the Eurovision Song Contest following the disqualification of its performer?"--Launchballer 13:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I support that, but reword to "the song Europapa was removed..." - Sekundenlang (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I think context makes it clear what Europapa is, but I'll leave it to either @RoySmith: or @Crisco 1492:, who queued it.--Launchballer 15:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:AfC accept § Pointer to DYK?

 You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:AfC accept § Pointer to DYK?. Sdkb talk 20:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2: 3 October

There was an item posted at Errors about Template:Did you know nominations/Xiphophorus signum shortly before this was to go to the main page. Nobody responded to it during the period before promotion to the main page, so I pulled it and put it back into the unreviewed list. I've replaced it with Template:Did you know nominations/Anders Årfelt from Prep1 after checking that the hook fact was fine and manually protected the image that went with it. I haven't had a chance to deal with the other admin checks.

Note that my initial intention was to use the lead hook from Prep4 (Template:Did you know nominations/Actinote zikani) but could not verify that hook (maybe because I had to work at speed and didn't have time to read the sources properly, or maybe because it simply doesn't check out). And If I'm needed for a follow up (not sure why; just in case it comes up), please ping me. Schwede66 00:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I was the one who nominated Actinote zikani, so I may be impartial, but I can confirm that it is in the text. SirMemeGod  14:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
@Sir MemeGod: Could you quote from the cited sources? Rjjiii (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rjjiii: @Schwede66: Sure. A. zikani was searched for intensively by RBF and AVLF in the type-locality in April-May and November-December, and also in other sites with the same environmental characteristics (Francini 1992), but none were seen. The only new information was from KB who saw a possible male of this species on the wing in April 1981 on the edge of the road from Tapiraí to Sorocaba, in southern São Paulo state, about 1000 m altitude in a very wet forest. Because of the difficulty in finding extant colonies of this species, KB proposed the inclusion of A. zikani on the list of Brazilian species possibly threatened with extinction (Bernardes et al. 1990; Brown 1991), and since then, A. zikani has been classified as critically endangered (SP-SMA 1998, MMA 2003). With intensive searching, finally on 16 March 1991 (1100 h), on a routine trip, RBF and AVLF found a male flying at the summit of the Serra do Mar, 20 km northeast of the city of Santos, São Paulo. for the "Rediscovery of Actinote zikani (D'Almeida) (Nymphalidae, Heliconiinae, Acraeini): natural history, population biology and conservation of an endangered butterfly in SE Brazil" article. The other article doesn't discuss it's rediscovery, so that was an error on my part. REPAD's "The Recently Extinct Plants and Animals Database" lists it as extinct until 1991, matching up with the "last seen 1981". That can be found at [2]. SirMemeGod  00:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5

Blue Mountain Pottery

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, and Sammi Brie: There's an entire paragraph that's almost word-for-word from the source[3]. I'm also a little concerned about the sourcing in general; it looks like most of this is sourced to BMP's own blog and/or a BMP collector's club. RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith My apologies, but I will not be able to address these concerns; if neither can the nominator, then I suggest that you just pull it. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz can you address this? RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Working at moment. Will get to it this evening. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Please don't let it go too long; this is going to be on the main page in 3 days and we really want things nailed down with at least a day to spare. RoySmith (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, and your patience. Started working on it tonight but a family obligation intervened. Will get up early in the morning to attend to it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I've gone through the article and have made some changes, and have the following comments:
  • I've reworked that paragraph in my own words, and changed the cites for it. Not sure how I let that slip by in my re-do of the article; apologies.
  • I agree with the concerns about relying too heavily on the pottery club articles, but in my opinion, the article is based primarily on the bulletin from the Royal Ontario Museum, which is a very well-respected institution in Canada, and the two articles from Mountain Life, which as best as I can tell is a regional newspaper, specialising in the events and history of the area, and also one article from Readers Digest; perhaps not the most scholarly cites, but I think they meet the standard for reliable cites, and do establish the notability of the subject matter.
  • The fact that two different museums in the Toronto area (the ROM and the George R. Gardiner Museum of Ceramic Art) each feature collections of the pottery, plus the fact that Canada Post issued a commemorative stamp, all go to to the notability of the topic, and those facts are sourced by the ROM bulletin and one of the Mountain Life articles.
  • I understand the concern about the Pottery Club cites, but in each case, they are not used alone, but in combination with the other cites to the ROM or Mountain Life articles. I think that usage is acceptable for an article of this sort, discussing a local manufacturing enterprise.
  • The concluding four cites are all to local news and community sources, outlining the retrospective showing in 2022, which I think qualify as reliable sources. They show the ongoing interest in the Blue Mountain Pottery, which again goes to notability.
  • I've deleted one cite to the Pottery Club itself; not sure what it was doing there; again, apologies for not catching that earlier.
Hope this responds to your concerns; thank you for your eagle-eye and comments. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, this is good to go. If you ever want to turn this into a WP:GA, I suspect the reviewers there will push you more on the sourcing, but it's good enough for DYK. RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Prep 5 II

Umehara ga kimeta

The article is orange-tagged. @DimensionalFusion BorgQueen (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Even without the tags, isn't it obvious the article has serious issues? I'm kinda surprised it got promoted to a prep. BorgQueen (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I checked the article, and instantly noticed that the name of the game being commentated over isn't mentioned in the lede. For a commentary video, that strikes me as very odd and not DYK quality quite yet. For comparison, that would be akin to a sports commentary that didn't mention the name of the teams involved. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, yes, and that's only the beginning. I think the whole article will have to be rewritten. BorgQueen (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
The hook has been pulled; discussion can continue at Template:Did you know nominations/Umehara ga kimeta. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, looking at the article again it clearly fails WP:DYKTAG.
Funnily enough, Prep builder instructions doesn't actually require promoters to check that an article is good, just that it has passed the review and that issues in the review have been resolved. I thought it did require promoters to look over whether it meets the guidelines but apparently I'm misremembering DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 10:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Credit help

Hi folks, my credit for Juno (song) from my double article hook on the main page currently has not been processed to my talk page. Would be great if someone could help with that. I had added it to my nomination within the seven-day eligibility period following its creation.--NØ 00:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging AirshipJungleman29, who promoted it to Prep.--NØ 00:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Its credit was never added to the nom page when it was converted to a double. I've added it to Juno's talk page and your talk page; I think I've done everything.--Launchballer 00:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Eced my explanation. (I added the nom to the second article talk page as well, although at this point it's not necessary.) CMD (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination tool

The DYK guidelines says that "There should not be a space before the question mark, but if the text directly preceding it is italicized, the {{-?}} tag can offset it." However, if this template is used in the nomination tool, it says something along the lines of "the nomination must contain a question mark." This message should not appear if that template is used. ―Panamitsu (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

PSHAW bug (minor)

When promoting Template:Did you know nominations/Deep Cut Gardens, PSHAW displayed a false warning that no green or grey check was on the page, Rjjiii (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it was 'cause the check mark was given as [[File:Symbol_confirmed.svg|16px]], with the underscore. Added support for that :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Rjjiii (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2 broken?

Could somebody look at Queue 2. It looks like it's missing the {{DYKbotdo}} line. RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth pinging. BorgQueen (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Uh-oh, bad one got thru

Here's one that got thru that shouldn't have. Hey I know this is a fast-moving operation, we are all volunteers, nobody's perfect and some non-optimal stuff is going to thru on occasion (and the DYK vetting is actually quite vigorous and effective). Still, I feel compelled to point this one out as perhaps the sort of thing to watch for in future.

I'm talking about Masada myth, which appeared as a DYK on 20 September 2024. The lede paragraph at that time (with bolding added for emphasis) said:

The Masada myth is the early Zionist retelling of the Siege of Masada, and an Israeli national myth. The Masada myth is a selectively constructed narrative based on Josephus's account, supplemented with fabrications and omissions. This narrative was socially constructed and promoted by Jews in Mandatory Palestine and later Israel. Despite the modern academic consensus, popular accounts by figures like Yigal Yadin and Moshe Pearlman have perpetuated the myth, influencing public perception.

and to excerpt the rest of the lede (of which some parts are OK, granted):

This narrative selectively emphasized... the defenders' courage and resistance while omitting the details of their murderous campaign against innocent Jews. The Masada myth's central role in Israeli collective memory has puzzled scholars due to its structural differences from other national myths [as it] is not heroic in nature."

POV much? Come on. King Arthur wasn't real, Roland's sword could not cleave stone, and the first emperor of Japan was not a god. We don't describe all the other foundational myths as having "fabrications and omissions" or complain that they "selectively" emphasized the good parts of the mythic founders while leaving out the bad parts ("murderous" etc.) and so forth because of course they do, what would you expect. We just describe the myth. Why make an exception for these particular people in the lede. Not a good look to be honest. Herostratus (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The whole point about the "Masada myth" referenced here is that it's a modern myth invented for political reasons that still has relevance to a current political situation. Legends like King Arthur or those pertaining to the Emperor of Japan simply do not have the same political dimension, which is why they are not subject to the same kind of analysis. Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Note that this was pulled after this discussion at WP:ERRORS. —Kusma (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Okay, but that looks more like a case of a seriously underdone hook rather than an issue with the content of the article per se. Gatoclass (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
No you're mostly wrong about the political dimension I think, national myths tell stories that bond the nation together and make people proud of it. That is political in a broad sense. And some national myths are not so very old or arisen from folk tales -- the Finnish Kavala was written in 1935 for instance. I could say a lot more, and I have at that article's talk page.
But I mean I'm not here to argue about content points. Let's get real here. We all know how the demographic heavily represented here is uh turning and turning hard if you get my drift. But, I don't care what anybody chants at the demonstration, we don't bring that here. But some editors don't get that, so keep a lookout for more of this stuff. And for anybody who doesn't see a problem with that lede, I would ask them to recuse themselves from articles dealing with Israel and the people who live there, and let others do the looking out, thanks.
Again, thanks for your service, carry on and dread nought. Herostratus (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh, it was pulled per a discussion at the main page errors page. This is pointed out on the article talk page, did not see that earlier. Excellent work then! Thank you all.
Ah, I realize how the hook was not good. It says the story was "judged a myth". But that's not true. A myth is certain kind of story. Myths can be true or false or some of each. The Masada Myth was always understood to be a myth. But -- there is another use of the word "myth" in common use, that means falsehood. It's always pejorative and, in context, this was how it was slipped in. As I said be vigilant. Herostratus (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived several hours ago, so I've created a new list of 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 12. We have a total of 243 nominations, of which 106 have been approved, a gap of 137 nominations that has decreased by 7 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverting a timeout on an old nomination

I reverted the timeout on this nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Laurence Patrick Lee. Issues were raised a month ago with the article's only proposed hook, but it seems like the nominator didn't understand the expectation to offer an alternative hook of some type. (The nominator is an experienced editor but new to DYK.) If I'm screwing up here, others are welcome to revert me and time it out. I thought I should explain in case it seems odd to see such an old hook at WP:DYKN. Rjjiii (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Happens. The timeout on Template:Did you know nominations/Liberalism in the Philippines doesn't make sense to me either. Why the core writings underpinning (at that time) liberalism in the Philippines being adopted by opposing groups is not a about liberalism in the Philippines is not something I understand. CMD (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:DYKTIMEOUT states: Unpromoted nominations over two months old may be rejected at the discretion of reviewers and promoters. That's "may be", not "must be". It doesn't have to be automatic, and if significant progress is being made, why not allow an extra few days? (Still, once a nomination has been closed with a timeout, it probably shouldn't be reopened unless a reviewer specifically gave extra time.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I would be less confused about the closure if the argument "the boldlinked article should generally be the main or at least a major factor in the hook" was not being applied to a hook that is possibly as core as you can get to understanding the article topic. CMD (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 October 2024

Could an admin please uncapitalize Head of State (East German Head of State → East German head of state) for the Uwe Holmer hook in Queue 3? I don't think that head of state should be capitalized. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 04:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryTheorist:  Done, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

Making the Bed (nom)

@MaranoFan, Prince of Erebor, and Cwmhiraeth: Raising WP:DYKINT objections always makes me feel terrible, but given that our pop music hooks have been struggling this year, I hope I'm erring on the constructive side by bringing this up. But, like... is this all that unusual? I guess most artists don't tease tours in music videos because it'd be cliche if everyone did it, but it seems like an entirely reasonable and even orthodox PR move for a superstar to do that. I also get a little fidgety given that it is PR – quick-hit music journalism tends to regurgitate that stuff and its social media reactions, but it's not, like, the stuff academia is made of. (I'm also not sure ALTs 1 and 2 are viable replacements, both in the spirit of WP:DYKFICTION, but one thing at a time.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't classify teasing a tour in a lyric video as something that happens extremely commonly. The interesting fact here is that the tour was basically announced through an easter egg that predated the actual announcement. The last Rodrigo DYK did 12k views which is quite decent. Since the article is indisputably DYK-eligible, I would be fine if you could come up with an alternate hook but uncomfortable if the nomination is completely thrown out.--NØ 11:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • No, clearly teasing it in a lyric video isn't routine, but it's not a surprising piece of information that is being teased - I'm sure everyone expected Rodrigo to tour in support of the album (especially as she'd already mentioned touring it in an interview). I wouldn't throw the nom out but a more interesting hook wouldn't go amiss. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)


Prep 2 hook on Jools Lebron

The current hook ends with only for someone else to trademark it? This is problematic for two reasons. The first is that while there were several trademark applications made for "very demure, very mindful" back in late August—it looks like Jools is fourth in line chronologically—no trademark on the phrase has yet been granted, and it's likely to take many months to process the applications. The second is that the antecedent for "trademark it" is unclear: indeed, I couldn't figure out whether it was her gender transition that had been trademarked (which seemed highly unlikely), or the term "demure" from "demure" videos earlier in the hook, which doesn't seem to be what was actually applied for.

Note that the approved ALT1 hook, which was not selected, does not involve this unsupported claim, and it could replace the incorrect ALT0 hook that was promoted.

Pinging nominator Launchballer, article creator Willthacheerleader18, reviewer Lajmmoore, and promoter Rjjiii. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

this issue hadnt crossed my mind, thanks for catching it @BlueMoonset - happy with alt1 Lajmmoore (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: sorry, i found this issue independently and decided to pull! ALT1 works, it's a little less flashy but it checks out. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
alt1 works for me!! -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3/2021 Naperville-Woodridge tornado

I found out my DYK submission had been accepted via the watchlist as the ping didn't go through. Anyway, the DYK article pipe was changed from a 2021 tornado in the Chicago suburbs to a tornado in Chicago. This is factually inaccurate as Chicago itself was not impacted by the tornado directly (although it almost was). I understand the text length concern, so the use of a tornado in Chicagoland or a tornado near Chicago in its place could be used as a compromise. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

A good idea, I'll adjust it. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
How about something like "... in 2021, the windy city got really, really, windy?" RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
This blurb would be perfect for Severe weather sequence of July 13–16, 2024, where six tornadoes hit the city itself in 24 hours. I'm thinking I might expand the article within the month and nominate it again. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
And if and when it does, the entry will be "...that the Windy City was struck by two windstorms and six whirlwinds in only 24 hours?" This is in no way a nomination. I won't start seriously expanding the article until around October 18 or so, when the NCEI storm database releases their report for July 2024 events. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
As someone from outside the US, what's the distinction? Why does it need to be made more obscure DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Chicago is a big city, so saying the tornado hit Chicago makes it sound as if it ran straight into the Loop, which isn't accurate. SirMemeGod  15:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
A city (such as Chicago) has specific geographic boundaries. The term "suburbs" is short for "suburban area" and generally refers to the built-up areas around a city but not technically inside the city boundaries. RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Preceding comment removed in an edit conflict, restored by GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
The boundaries set by government don't necessarily reflect the actual geographic size of a city – e.g. Malta's capital city, Valletta, technically has a population of 5,000 set by the government but an Urban population of 480,000 DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the tornado happened in the Chicago metropolitan area, hence why saying Chicago doesn't really make sense. SirMemeGod  16:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
For most people, Chicago metropolitan area == Chicago unless you really care about that sort of thing. For the same reason London == London metropolitan area and Capital of Malta == Valletta metropolitan area DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
See [4]. Naperville isn't even considered part of Chicago. SirMemeGod  16:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
That link goes to a Page not found – if Naperville isn't part of Chicago, why not just say Naperville? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Because "Chicago suburbs" makes the location of Naperville easier to identify. If someone asked me to point out Naperville on a map, I'd be confused, but if someone told me to point out "Chicago suburbs" on a map, it's a lot easier to understand. That's also a contributing factor to how interesting the hook is, it happened in the Chicago area. SirMemeGod  16:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
So... It's Chicago then DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
No, it's not Chicago. It's 28 miles west of there. Saying it's Chicago without qualification is blatantly inaccurate, and running inaccurate hooks gets them pulled from the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
An example of a clear non-US distinction between "[City]" and "[City] metropolitan area"
Don't say that to people from the West Midlands if they can hear you... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Since the argument is going on, I'll present a bit more context: The initial tornado warning (which I got as the image for the page on tornado warning) did include areas of the city of Chicago, specifically Chicago Lawn and Midway International Airport. The tornado itself reached Chicago's county, Cook County, Illinois, but dissipated after affecting the cities of Willow Springs and Burr Ridge, both of which are in both Cook and DuPage county. The storm did produce wind gusts, rainfall, and (potentially) hail in the aforementioned areas, but as far as I can tell nothing notable came of it (i.e. no injuries, fatalities, or significant damage). Nothing of note happened in The Loop itself, either. No tornado hit Chicago in 2021. The DYK page saying as much is inaccurate. WP:VNT is a non-argument as there are numerous official, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources that clearly state that Burr Ridge, Willow Springs, Darien, Woodridge, and Naperville are not Chicago, and instead suburbs of Chicago. Besides, it's one word changing from "in" to "near", and the DYK was based on the helicity, not the location. The only source stating the tornado hit Chicago is a Geospacial Insurance Consortium article that has the claim that the tornado hit "Southside [sic] of Chicago" in its title and nowhere else. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Nice try but the West Midlands isn't real. It's just bigger Birmingham DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 17:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll speak up for the poster who does not immediately get the difference. They are far from the only one, and from 9000 miles away, it seems kind of so . . ., but there is a precise way to look at it, and not. (If you are from England or know it perhaps think City of London and not.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Things can also get weird in the US. I live in the Bronx which by all legal definitions is part of New York City. But informally if I have to go to Manhattan, I'll say, "I need to go into the city". And don't even try to figure out why New York City (which is part of New York State) consists of five counties, one of which is New York County. RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
And if you have to go the Marble Hill . . .:) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
It's "the Bronx", but just plain "Marble Hill", not "the Marble Hill". Because history. RoySmith (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
And here, we thought it was The Bronx. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Whether it's "the Bronx" or "The Bronx" seems to be a matter of style. I've seen it both ways. Also "Da Bronx" :-) RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Here's a personal one, since RoySmith already went. I live in Gahanna, Ohio, 10-or-so minutes from Columbus, Ohio, a city with almost a million residents. Gahanna is technically part of Columbus, but it is overwhelmingly referred to as either Gahanna or the "Columbus Suburbs". "Columbus" is reserved for downtown Columbus. :) SirMemeGod  17:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Im with the US editors here, and for a local one to me, while Bellevue, Washington and Redmond, Washington are in the greater Seattle metropolitan area; Microsoft, Nintendo, T-Mobile US, and Costco would all raise a fit if you said they were in the Seattle city limits.--Kevmin § 18:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Not all Wikipedia editors are American though DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 18:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
The tornado took place in Chicago, located in the US. With that, we should probably use United States terms, and US editors have overwhelmingly agreed that Chicago and Chicago suburbs are separate places, from what I've gouged from this discussion. SirMemeGod  19:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
If US editors (speaking with a crudely broad brush) think the suburbs of Chicago are not part of Chicago, let's just keep to that fudge, as I'm sure most other editors would think they are part of Chicago and thus get the basic geographical area. CMD (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I anticipate many people outside the US also distinguish between metro areas and cities proper. The 800,000 people in Nova Iguaçu would likely object to being called "Rio", for example, despite being <20 miles away. JoelleJay (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Council is a group that talks about how to organize and support groups of editors who are trying to work together. If you are interested, please put that page on your watchlist and join the discussions there. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

PSHAW failing to promote prep

@Theleekycauldron I'm trying to promote Prep 4 to the queue, but it fails with: 

index.php?title=User:Theleekycauldron/Scripts/PSHAW/dependencies/Hook.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:21
Uncaught (in promise) TypeError: m[1].capitalize is not a function
   at new Hook (index.php?title=User:Theleekycauldron/Scripts/PSHAW/dependencies/Hook.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:21:28)
   at Prep.loadHooks (index.php?title=User:Theleekycauldron/Scripts/PSHAW/dependencies/Prep.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:39:15)
   at Prep.create (index.php?title=User:Theleekycauldron/Scripts/PSHAW/dependencies/Prep.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:26:9)
   at async HTMLLIElement.moveToQueue (index.php?title=User:Theleekycauldron/Scripts/PSHAW/protocols/queuer.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:25:16)

in the javascript console. Any idea what's going on? Is it possible my page protection change broke something? RoySmith (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

nope, that's on me! one moment... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
should work now :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
And indeed it does, thanks for the quick fix! RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Missing credit for rechao

Similar to this section, I noticed that Template:Did you know nominations/Rechao is listed Wikipedia:Recent additions#7 October 2024, but I did not get a talk page message and the article's talk page does not list the DYK nomination. Can someone help with this, and does anyone know why this happened? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cunard: Please see this discussion. BorgQueen (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing the reasons for this not working. One of the reasons is "The bit of code that detects hooks in prep had a bug that prevented detection of hooks with an apostrophe in the piped text." The hook uses italics for rechao, so maybe that's why it didn't work. Cunard (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I believe that one was because the link in the hook wasn't capitalized. It should recognize those now :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing this! Cunard (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron:, another example here, not sure if it's related to an already solved fix. CMD (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
yeah, same thing :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Would someone be able to help with sending the talk page message and updating the article's talk page? Pinging Launchballer (talk · contribs), would you be able to help since you helped in this section? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping with this, Launchballer (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Actinote zikani

@AirshipJungleman29, Sir MemeGod, and Kevmin: The hook fact is only mentioned in the lead (sans citation). Under Protection it says it's on the IUCN list, but doesn't say anything about being "one of two" species. RoySmith (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. :) SirMemeGod  22:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Also adding a note that the source makes it sound like there are 3 butterflies because the grammar is wrong. The third species in that list is a bird, Fatu Hiva monarch. Also, it's a "blog" source, but it's coming from a subject matter expert. Rjjiii (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
As I understand WP:DYKMOS, the italics should be outside the parentheses – i.e., (''specimen pictured'') should be changed to ''(specimen pictured)''. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Italics fixed, Rjjiii (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3

Abdul Ahad Azad

  • "First" claims have had a lot of kickback, and something subjective like "the first poet to introduce revolutionary themes" is definitely not going to fly. The article mitigates it with "considered", which is a bit better, but still not quite main-page worthy. Tagging creator, reviewer, and promoter: Ratekreel, User:Onceinawhile, AirshipJungleman29 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree with this comment. We are allowed superlatives (largest, fastest, most) so long as they are objective / verifiable / falsifiable. In fact we are encouraged to used them, as they go to the heart of what makes a topic interesting. Being the "the first poet to introduce revolutionary themes" is 100% objective, particularly because Kashmiri literature is a modern phenomenon so the evidence is easy to confirm.
    The statements in the hook rely on the published words of Braj Kachru and Ghulam Nabi Gowhar. I cannot think of more appropriate sourcing.
    Onceinawhile (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Two of the three sources are offline, but the one that is online describes him as "the first revolutionary socialist poet" which is much more specific (and credible). So I would have to agree with Chris that the original hook won't fly, and that the article itself probably needs a little further clarification. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Hi Onceinawhile. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong; I'm saying that we shouldn't present this information in Wikipedia's voice. A "first" claim, especially with a) something as subjective as themes, and b) something as multi-interpretable as "revolutionary" (in what, style? politics?) needs to be attributed. As Gatoclass notes above, the descriptor "socialist" certainly helps, as it makes it clear that this is politically revolutionary, and that it is a specific subclass of politics. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    Hi Cris Woodrich, the "first" claim is well referenced in scholarships on Azad. The second "revolutionary" claim is explained in poetic themes section. Azad was revolutionary in the sense that he was wary of exploitation, socioeconomic inequality, injustice, and the likes etc and that he advocated for bringing about a change in social, political and linguistic landscape which would be essentially characterized by humanist, classless and inclusive society. And it's these topics, that became the new "themes" in Kashmiri literature.
    I don't think adding "socialist" would help, it would rather reduce the cause that Azad stood for and translate him as a socialist (in political sense) like any other. Azad's philosophy was broader than the politics of socialists and it's necessary to acknowledge the Kashmiri blend in it. That why I would prefer keeping the present hook. --Ratekreel (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    Hi Ratekreel. The issue is the use of Wikipedia's voice, rather than attributing it to the scholars. We have historically had issues with "first" hooks. Just looking at Archive 201, we have Capital Bicycle Club, Caanaanite shipwreck, Tina and Milo, Zhong Jingwen, and Ajah Pritchard-Lolo. This is compounded by the fact that, as a thematic analysis, there is necessarily a judgment call; what scholars have found in his works may be disputed by other scholars, or what scholars have dismissed by earlier poets may be deemed revolutionary by other scholars. As such, there needs to be attribution, or a non-"first" hook. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    Chris Woodrich, got it. How about we use ALT1 which states "... that Abdul Ahad Azad laid the foundations of literary criticism in Kashmiri literature?" ---Ratekreel (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    Ratekreel, the article uses "credited with". I think, if the ALT uses that similar phrasing, we should be golden.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    Would the ALT, "... that Abdul Ahad Azad is recognised for laying the foundations of literary criticism in Kashmiri literature?", be fine? We could use "credited with" too. --Ratekreel (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    I think that should work. I'm copying the alt over to Prep 1. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    Great! Thank you! --Ratekreel (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi Gatoclass, see Special:Diff/1249592654 on why adding "socialist" won't help. Moreover, I don't think the online reference is more credible than two of the offline books. Kachru's book is a landmark work and so is Gauhar's biography of Azad. --Ratekreel (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The Book of Longings

  • The plot summary is +1000 words in a 1600-word article. Per WP:NOVELPLOT, this should be reduced by about a third. Technically not against DYK rules to run it with a yellow tag, but tagging Orchastrattor and Slgrandson in case this can be dealt with before the prep is promoted.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    Subject easily falls under the "complex and dense" category highlighted by the guideline given both the textual scope of retelling the entire New Testament and the timeframe of covering some 20-30 years of the protagonist's life. I might shave off a hundred words or so but there really wouldn't be that much else to cut from the actual plot, its already missing plenty of details from the book. Orchastrattor (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    I can't say I agree. There are multiple places where extraneous detail is provided, such as the name of the stillborn child. Other sentences could be rewritten: "On her way to meet Nathaniel, with whom she has been forced into a betrothal, Ana meets Jesus." There are also phrases such as "rumors begin to spread of her having been deflowered out of wedlock" that could be simplified by removing euphemisms ("rumors spread that she is no longer a virgin"). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
    Well that's the hundred or so words I'm talking about, the point is that the 700 word mark is unrealistic for the article. like you're describing I can streamline the way some of the existing sentences are written, but I can't actually cut anything from the plot without losing encyclopedically valid information about the subject. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    The unfortunate thing is that, in most instances, information we would like to keep ends up on the cutting room floor. As for the complexity of the novel, it does not appear to be at the same level as The Great Gatsby (726 words), The Red Badge of Courage (638 words), or To Kill a Mockingbird (629 words). I'd be willing to remove the template if the plot were cut down to 800 words or so, longer than the MOS recommends, but not so hefty.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

There are also a couple of sentences in the "themes and analysis" section that are unsourced that need a citation. Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4

Actinote zikani

  • Hook fact failed verification. The source provided, Recently Extinct Species, does not indicate any declaration of extinction in 1981. I am also not certain as to the reliability of the source. Pinging Sir MemeGod, Kevmin, and AirshipJungleman29.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
    Since the Actinote zikani hook has been such a hassle, use the other one if possible that does have solid verification. At this point I'm not even sure where I got the "1981" from. SirMemeGod  21:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
    1981 comes from francini, Freitas, &Brown Jr, and the 10 year gap is from the sentance The only new information was from KB who saw a possible male of this species on the wing in April 1981 on the edge of the road from Tapiraí to Sorocaba, in southern São Paulo state, about 1000 m altitude in a very wet forest. This is indeed different from the Alt0 statement, I would also suggest that the Alt1 hook is the better one to use for the nomination as its more interesting and is verified.--Kevmin § 00:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    I agree. Replaced with ALT1.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Typhoon Nat (1991)

  • The phrase "most unusual" is not in the article (though I have to agree; my reaction was "WTF?"). I see that this was nominated by TheNuggeteer, so it may be affected by other sanctions. Also pinging reviewer Ergo Sum and promoter AirshipJungleman29. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
    I've added the explicit phrase to the article; I promoted the nomination without being aware of the sanctions, and have no opinion on whether it should remain in prep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks Airship. Looks good now.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
    I'll be honest: there's so little detail in the article proper: the only date given there is September 17. The storm's beginning and end dates are only in the infobox. At an absolute minimum, I would expect the date of the storm's naming, the date it first became it typhoon, the date it was downgraded, when it became a typhoon again, made landfall, and dissipated. My opinion is that this fails WP:DYKCOMPLETE, and should not be run without further expansion to better cover what was a storm that lasted 19 days, supposedly September 14 through October 3. There is also a disagreement between the infobox, which lists this as a category 3 typhoon with peak winds of 150km/h, and the body of the article, which lists this as a category 2 typhoon with peak winds of 155km/h. Further, the article is inaccurate in its details; the phrase recorded rainfall of 950.8 hPa seems to be confusing air pressure (hPa) and rainfall amounts (earlier measured in millimetres). Since this is in Prep 4, which is the next prep up for promotion, I'm pulling it. I don't see how we can run this article as it currently exists. Pinging Ergo Sum, AirshipJungleman29, and Chris Woodrich. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    Alrighty. Sounds good to me.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Non-hook

I just realized after starting to examine this prep that I had reviewed two of the hooks. As such, I do not think it wise for me to move them from prep to queue (I know the instructions refer to prep creation only, but I'd rather err on the side of caution). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you tick off the seven you haven't reviewed and leave the other two per WP:DYKPARTIAL? For the record, I see WP:CLOP in Arekia Bennett (pinging @CaptainAngus, Buidhe, BlueMoonset, and AirshipJungleman29:) and not all of Daniela Larreal's Major results section is cited - pinging @Kingsif, Narutolovehinata5, RoySmith, and Nineteen Ninety-Four guy:.--Launchballer 12:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
If the major results aren't cited in the list, they're cited in prose - AFAIK this is pretty standard. That like it's really "only add a cite to the list if there isn't one in prose". Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Responding to @Launchballer:... I did a review of Arekia Bennett and I'm not really seeing the close paraphrasing you're referring to. But... I wrote the original article so maybe it's just going over my head. I even ran Earwig's Copyvio Detector to double check myself and not much jumped out. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks! CaptainAngus (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    I agree about the paraphrasing:

    Bennett is the executive director of Mississippi Votes, a nonprofit organization focused on promoting voter registration, voter registration drives, and energizing young people in the state.

    vs

    Bennett, the 27-year-old Jackson native and executive director of Mississippi Votes, a nonprofit focused on voter registration and engaging young voters in the state

    RoySmith (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

Have I Got News for You (American game show) (nom)

@Launchballer, Onceinawhile, AirshipJungleman29, and Crisco 1492: Seems to me like this hook is inching closer to the BuzzFeed thing of aggressively teasing "this thing you won't believe!", and while I'm sure we could net more clicks this way, I don't love that direction for DYK – we are still an encyclopedia's project. Could the hook be rephrased or reworked? Chris, I'm quite sorry to be grilling you on your first week at DYK. The rest of you, not so much ;)[FBDB] theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to object to this, but it was my understanding that hooks were supposed to leave something out to entice people to read the article. "Dispensed with" does not state the cause so should not fall foul of DYKHOOKBLP.--Launchballer 09:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

2021 Naperville–Woodridge tornado (nom)

@GeorgeMemulous, Piotrus, and AirshipJungleman29: The article looks good, but I gotta raise WP:DYKINT questions on this one. First of all, there's the thing that "helicity" is not something that is easily understood by people with no special knowledge or interest. Second, doesn't that just mean that this was... a reasonably strong tornado? Like, if helicity correlates to strength (among other factors), isn't it worth noting that its helicity wasn't particularly unusual? I'm no expert by any means, but this just seems like an odd thing to highlight. As always, the question is: when I read this hook, what about it makes me want to know more? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron I kind of agree, see my comment in the nomination. I suggest this is to be explained. And I guess it was just a "reasonably strong tornado", but since helicity is an encyclopedic thing (Hydrodynamical_helicity#Meteorology), I think the hook is ok-ish, as it is educational (teaching folks that we refer to tornado stregnth using this word), and through the use of jargon, it made a boring bland hook acceptable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, sure – I mean, a large textbook on particle physics is educational, but I think the average reader would probably find it confusing, get bored, and go watch YouTube instead. That is to say, I'm not sure jargon gives hooks a better educational impact, in my experience :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The hook as promoted was "... that a tornado near Chicago had more than four times the helicity that it reasonably needed?" I nixed the "reasonably" when promoting, as the word isn't in the article and it feels like editorializing, but that may help with INT. There's also the possibility of adding that the debris was brought four miles (six km) up into the air. "... that a tornado near Chicago, having more than four times the helicity it needed, lifted debris approximately 4 miles (6 km) in the air?"" The source indicates that 10,000 feet is normal for EF2+ tornadoes, but I know I for one didn't know that.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about the hook. On the one hand, it's an introduction hook that may teach a new term to readers (personally I wasn't aware of the term helicity before seeing this). On the other hand, it may seem too technical for the average reader to get, and the reliance on a relatively specialist term is not ideal. Are there any other possible options that could be used here, ideally those that are more layperson-friendly? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Can't lie, I really liked how the hook tries to educate readers about a concept which doesn't typically receive Main Page exposure, instead of being another cookie-cutter hook. When I first read that hook, I certainly wanted to know much more, and went down a 30-minute rabbit hole at tornadogenesis and related articles. I can't imagine that anybody would read "that a tornado lifted debris into the sky" and find a rabbit hole out of that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Here's an alternative for the less-informed:
"...that a tornado near Chicago had more than four times the helicity reasonably needed for tornadogenesis?"
I suppose this isn't the easiest article for a DYK, even though it has a fact like this. Next time, when I make an article on 1976 Lemont tornado, I'll give it an easier DYK blurb of "...that a violent tornado reversed direction, missing Chicago but hitting a nuclear facility?" GeorgeMemulous (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
One more comment. Helicity isn't always documented with tornadoes like this, but I know that soundings taken during the 2013 Washington, Illinois tornado returned helicity in the range of 270 m2/s2, and soundings taken during the 2011 and 1974 Super Outbreaks, the most intense tornado outbreaks in history, returned helicity around 450 m2/s2, all at the storm-relative 0-1km range. Naperville had around 600 at the 0-1km layer. Not that it belongs in the hook, but just as a bit of context. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
@GeorgeMemulous, Crisco 1492 mobile, and Theleekycauldron: I've changed it to "... that a tornado near Chicago had more than four times the helicity needed for tornadogenesis?" This is the alt hook above minus "reasonably". Rjjiii (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that really solves the WP:DYKINT problem, but if people disagree, I'm happy to let it run and we can review after. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
One more and final objection: tornadogenesis doesn't have a helicity threshold as much as a gradient. Change "needed" to "reasonable" and there will be no issues on length.
"...that a tornado near Chicago had more than four times the helicity reasonable for tornadogenesis?" works fine, but I'd prefer if we did not imply tornadogenesis has a floor of helicity set at 150m/s^2. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Pinging Crisco 1492 for input, Rjjiii (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6

1961 Pittsburg State Gorillas football team

@Cbl62, Crisco 1492, and DimensionalFusion: Could you walk me through where 'undefeated' has an end-of-sentence citation? I'm sure it's there, but I'm not seeing it.--Launchballer 10:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Okay, and I see sourcing for the last match. I'd feel a lot happier if that WP:CLUMP was resolved, but that isn't a DYK issue, so this should be good to go.--Launchballer 11:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
@Cbl62: The hook states that the team featured four All-Americans, but the article states Three of the team's linemen received first-team honors on the 1961 NAIA All-America team and only includes images for the three of them (I also checked the source for the table, which names exactly the same three players). The hook also states that the team won three championships but four titles are presented in the infobox. Am I misreading the article or were the numbers perhaps swapped in the hook? Complex/Rational 15:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • As set forth in the "Awards and honors" section, four players received All-America honros: Snadon on the 1961 Little All-America team (the AP's All-America team for small college players), and three (Archer, Beal, and Hess) on the NAIA All-America team. Also, there were three national championships: NAIA, AP, and UPI. Cbl62 (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (ec) As I read it (being a non-football person), Snadon was also all-American; he's not included with the linemen because he was a fullback. I do not know why the all-American was excluded from his image caption.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I too would suggest, though, that Snadon be mentioned as all-American in his caption. Complex/Rational 16:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Cathy Merrick

  • Neutrality seems questionable. "Made history", "heartfelt responses", "much-needed healthcare to Northern First Nations" (also uncited), etc. Pinging Ornithoptera, Cielquiparle, and AirshipJungleman29. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Crisco 1492 Good flags. Changed "made history" to "became"; changed "heartfelt responses" to "responses"; changed "passing" to "death"...but left "much-needed healthcare" alone because maybe there's no other way to say it. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    It still needs to be cited; in the lede we've got " As Chief, Merrick successfully lobbied for and secured $40 million to construct the Cross Lake Health Complex, the first of its kind in Northern Manitoba, bringing much-needed healthcare to Northern First Nations." All the article provides is "... negotiated with the federal government to advocate for the construction of a $55-million healthcare centre." (I note that the cost of the centre is also different). I don't think many would dispute that the healthcare available to Northern First Nations has been lacking; however, per WP:V and WP:LEDE, we should have it referenced and in the body of the article.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    I do believe that was added in after the nomination by another editor. When I had nominated it, the line was "Among her activities as chief, Merrick was able to support the development of a healthcare centre within the community," which was cited within the article per Sinclair and Ward: "and negotiated with the federal government to advocate for the construction of a $55 million healthcare centre." I can restore the original wording if that is fine by you. Ornithoptera (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    Hi Ornithoptera. It sounds like the original wording is better supported by the sources. I'll reread for neutrality after posting this. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    Sounds good. After nomination, especially with the attention an article receives, well meaning editors can swoop in and change some stuff up. Happens but thank you for doing your diligence and noticing them before it was too late. Ornithoptera (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. The article looks good; this resolves my concerns.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Sainsbury's, Greenwich

  • Hook fact is cited (in the article at least) to a press release by Sainsbury's; given the advertising value of claiming a head of state requested a visit to one's supermarkets, a secondary source would be needed if we are to keep the "requested" phrasing. The nomination used this source, though I am paywalled from seeing if Zola requested the tour. Tagging Gazamp, Dumelow, and DimensionalFusion (who promoted the hook to Prep 1)  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I verified it from the Times article (which is cited at the end of the sentence). The first three sentences of the article are "Jacob Zuma visits a branch of Sainsbury’s in southeast London, yesterday, where not even his entourage could distract everyone. The President of South Africa was shown around the store in Greenwich by Justin King, the Sainbury’s chief executive, and Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary. He had requested the tour on his three-day state visit because of the amount of trade the company does with South Africa." - Dumelow (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Prep 7

Chesmac (nom)

@JIP, BeanieFan11, and AirshipJungleman29: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  • @Launchballer: It was easy to find citations that the Telmac 1800 could not show a chessboard, but a bit more difficult to find a citation that a physical chessboard was needed. In the end I found one that was already used in the article, it mentions that in practice, players had to use a physical chessboard to keep track of the game. It has been added to the end of the sentence shown in the hook. JIP | Talk 09:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I can't read Finnish, so I'll take your word for it.--Launchballer 09:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Piano Sonata (Barber) (nom)

@Zingarese, Jaguarnik, and AirshipJungleman29: Article has many {{cn}} tags. I also don't see where "conservatory-trained" appears in the article, so I took it out (it came under WP:DYKTRIM anyway). Also noting that https://christopheraxworthymusiccommentary.com/2024/09/19/jeremy-chan-at-st-olaves-tower-hill-with-playing-of-commanding-authority-and-towering-musicianship/ almost certainly copied us.--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Launchballer, the one citation needed tag you added to the article was not accurate since the Heyman inline in the second paragraph was referring to all of that text before it. So I just added a duplicate. About the trim, that's fine, one of the sources (Heyman as well, I think) mentioned it, though. And the full citation needed tags were from recordings I removed from the article when I nom'ed the article, but someone added them back and changed the section back to a bulleted list, which I disliked. And I'm flattered about Christopher Axworthy copying us :) Zingarese talk · contribs (please Reply to icon mention me on reply; thanks!) 11:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
My concern has been resolved.--Launchballer 09:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Abramo Colorni (nom)

@Andrevan, Buidhe, and AirshipJungleman29: Got anything more definite than 'might'?--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That one should probably be attributed inline. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
This is not the type of "indefinite fact that is likely to change" the guidelines are designed to prohibit—those are stuff like "...that Hurrican Milton has killed [X] people in Florida" (you can check the original discussion). If the word "might" is now prohibited, no amount of attribution will change anything. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I can try to come up with another hook. The text is not definitive. The attribution would be to historian Daniel Jutte[5] but he doesn't have an article. Andre🚐 18:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the hook for Abramo Colorni. It quotes an unknown individual, whose expertise is unknown because we have no article on him. More importantly, it states that Colorni's work might have inspired Joyce's Ulysses, but neither this theory nor his name is mentioned in the article Ulysses (novel). Colorni had a fascinating life and I think we could easily find a better hook. I suggest that the nomination is reopened and an alternative found. @Andrevan: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, let me try to come up with another one, although Daniel Jutte is a real historian[6] Andre🚐 18:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

How about, ALT: Abramo Colorni was a Renaissance-era weapons designer who also performed magical illusions and card tricks for his patrons? Or something like that. Andre🚐 09:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're happy with "that the Renaissance-era weapons designer Abramo Colorni performed magical illusions and card tricks for his patrons?, I can tick it, but it should probably get at least one further review, so I've swapped it with a hook in prep 4.--Launchballer 18:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm happy with that, so I'll swap it in. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Great Andre🚐 22:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Rose Betts (nom)

@Chaiten1, MaranoFan, and AirshipJungleman29: As written, this would deserve {{unreliable sources}}; using Gov.uk for anything is a WP:BLPPRIMARY violation, WP:BROADWAYWORLD is red on WP:UPSD, and there are numerous user-generated databases on here. I'm tempted to pull this.--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I can never tell with these types of sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
@Chaiten1: What about the user-generated databases, i.e. MusicBrainz, Discogs, AllMusic (their reviews are useful for attributed opinion, but everything else is user-generated)?--Launchballer 09:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks - is there a listing somewhere of authoritative sources for music releases? Chaiten1 (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and the more general WP:RSP and WP:UPSD all have their uses, though you should probably check each source as you add it.--Launchballer 15:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! user-generated sources removed Chaiten1 (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Beata Olsson (nom)

@Hameltion, Narutolovehinata5, and SL93: Article has a citation needed tag and the "Style of play" section would surely deserve {{expand section}}.--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure all of the sources in this one are reliable, either... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Which ones did you have in mind? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
whoopsie! wrong section, I was looking at Rose Betts. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
If it's for relatively uncontroversial or uncontentious information, as long as the article isn't solely or primarily reliant on them I don't see that as an issue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Are there sources out there which describe her style of play in more detail? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Added citation. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 13:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
My concern has been resolved. I'm still not happy about that section being that short, but that's arguably backing away from the DYK criteria.--Launchballer 09:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Pell v The Queen (nom)

@MaxnaCarta, Cunard, and AirshipJungleman29: Sorry, but I don't agree with the explanation given on the nomination page; WP:BLP states that "the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death, [...] particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends" and I would argue that child sex abuse clearly qualifies. I'm looking for a very good reason why I shouldn't pull this.--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I have pulled this, it's just such a blatant violation.--Launchballer 09:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
This quote from WP:BLP leaves out the part of the policy that was pivotal to why I approved the nomination. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Recently dead or probably dead (WP:BDP) says:

Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime.

The policy says "two years at the outside". Two years is 24 months. It has been over 21 months since the subject's death (three months short of the 24 months specified in the policy). I consider over 21 months to be close enough to "two years at the outside" for BDP to no longer apply. We could wait another three months so it reaches exactly two years after his death, but I consider that unnecessary and don't think it would make a meaningful difference. Cunard (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
And I consider child sex abuse allegations to be as contentious as it gets, meaning two years applies in my book. Especially given that there are many other hooks in the article...--Launchballer 09:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
21 months is close enough to 24 months that I do not see a meaningful difference on "implications for their living relatives and friends". I am fine with other hooks though. What non-contentious hooks does this article about a child sex abuse court case have? Cunard (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I was thinking in terms of "that the verdict of Pell v The Queen could not be reported on properly for two months". You'll need an end-of-sentence citation for it though.--Launchballer 10:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
thank you for the suggestion. I've added italics to the court case name in the proposed hook. I've added two sources to the end of that sentence. I'll defer to the other editors on which hook to use. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
@Cunard, thank you so much. @Launchballer, I appreciate the proposed new hook about the reporting timeline of Pell’s verdict. I still believe the original hook is perfectly fine. I interpret Leeky as agreeing the original doesn’t place undue weight on negative aspects, and also consider Kusma's comment to mean they think it wouldn’t violate BLP standards. If my interpretations are correct, their positions supports my view. Ultimately, my preferred outcome would be the original hook is found to be appropriate and published as planned.
That said, if the alternative hook is acceptable, I’m willing to go along with it. I feel if I were to argue about the original hook when you’ve proposed a valid alternative, that would be wasting time on my part. I concede to the alternative hook not because I believe the original is in violation, but rather to progress the discussion with a valid alternative in the spirit of cooperation and preventing a stalemate at DYK, an area which struggles already with a high workload.
While this discussion was unforeseen, and in the event my original hook is not published then the outcome of my DYK is not the one which I would prefer, I nonetheless thank you Launchballer for the work you do in this area. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer would we be ready to go again now and move back to confirmed for prep? — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
It's currently in prep 7. There's a slim chance it might move if I decide to queue that set, but I will ping you if that happens.--Launchballer 00:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
No worries @Launchballer, as long as we are done from my end. Thanks heaps. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
The policy on emphasises the importance of neutrality in hooks and discourages undue focus on negative aspects of living persons. My proposed hook adheres to this policy for several reasons.
First, the hook highlights a significant judicial decision made by the High Court of Australia, which is an important fact in the context of the legal proceedings against Pell. It does not dwell on the negative aspects of his life or past allegations but instead focuses on the outcome of a major legal case. I see slight merit in an assertion that mentioning his conviction on the main page of Wikipedia unduly focuses on a negative aspect, however the emphasis is on the court's decision rather than the allegations.
Second, the hook presents an objective fact: the court’s unanimous decision to overturn the conviction. This fact is crucial to understanding the legal narrative surrounding Pell and the decision and the fact mentioned in the hook was reported internationally, which further emphasises its relevance.
Lastly, the hook does not misrepresent or sensationalise the situation; it simply states a pivotal moment in the legal process. It provides necessary context without unduly emphasising negative elements of Pell's life, thus maintaining a neutral perspective in line with the WP:DYKBLP.
Therefore, I humbly contend that the hook reflects a balanced and factual presentation of a significant legal judgment, making it neutral and guideline compliant.
P.S
I foresaw no controversy at all in submitting this. Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes! — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
This is a bit of an out-there position, but I tend to feel that if the hook is DUE relative to the article (which it is), and the article is DUE relative to splitting policy (no one's nommed the article for merge), then the hook is unlikely to be UNDUE? Like, it seems rather awkward to be okay with an entire article devoted to a negative aspect of a living person, but not the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Without comment on this specific situation, an article existing is not the same as promoting the article on the main page, and articles can be edited while hooks are preserved and presented prominently on a talkpage forever. CMD (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it is a BLP violation at all to tell us that Pell (most famous for being a convicted sex offender) was no longer a convicted sex offender at the time of his death. —Kusma (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I thought he was most famous for being a cardinal, given that that's what most of his article is dedicated to.--Launchballer 10:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
"I'm looking for a very good reason why I shouldn't pull this. Perhaps that you manipulated the quote to deliberately exclude the possible ending dates of the "indeterminate period" and replace if with your own analysis. I'm looking for a very good reason on how this could be done in good faith, Launchballer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I kept rewording my comment and had moved that part of it to outside the quotes.--Launchballer 10:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hymenophyllum axsmithii (nom)

@Kevmin, PrimalMustelid, and AirshipJungleman29: Not seeing where this is in the article.--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe the final sentence of "Paleoecology". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Correct, the last sentence of "Paleoecology" the possibility Hymenophyllum axsmithii was an epiphyte or not will depend on more fossils being found and described; in particular the rhizome and root structure will be key to determining where in the Republic paleoforest it lived keeping in mind that epiphyte is tree and ledge dwelling plants.--Kevmin § 17:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
My concern has been resolved.--Launchballer 09:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_202&oldid=1251426321"