Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.

Date request[edit]

A beer for Schwede66

I have a strange date request. There's no special occasion but a journalist is wanting to feature the article Mussel Inn in his weekly newspaper when it's about to appear on Wikipedia's homepage in the DYK section. I promised him that I would keep an eye on the nomination and would tell him when it's about to run. Problem is that the hook was just promoted to fill a gap in Prep 3, it would therefore appear on the homepage on Wednesday, with the next edition of the GB Weekly not due until Friday. Bummer! Any chance we could move this to Prep 6 so that it appears on Saturday?

I shall also say that videos make for hugely high hook counts. By way of full disclosure, I'm the customer in the video who is being poured a beer. Schwede66 19:09, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Schwede66: There were already three broadly performance-related hooks in prep 6 already (the opera singer Cecelia Hall, the theatre group Jumalan teatteri, and the opera Grounded), so one of them had to move anyway, so I moved Mussel Inn while I was at it. I will warn you that with 144 approved hooks and about 7 and a half preps/queues filled, we could go to 2-a-day at any moment (hopefully after my Porij hook runs) so this may need to move again. Could you please a) check I haven't made any errors, and b) promote prep 1 as I've filled out the top and bottom hooks of the last set?--Launchballer 20:10, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Launchballer; that's excellent. Much appreciated! And thanks for including the video, too. I'll go ahead and let the journalist know that it'll run from Saturday lunchtime (our time). If it has to move again because we've gone to 12-hour hook sets by then, so be it. I'm happy to do the moving (if needed) as long as there's consensus for it to do so.
Unfortunately, I can't help with queue promotion at the moment. I'm in an all-day workshop (yes, I know - it's Sunday). Then off to a convention tonight and after that, I have to entertain my wife (who's travelling with me). Mon and Tue, I'm at a conference; conference dinner on Mon night. Travelling with a colleague for the rest of the week. And all that followed by a Wikicon next weekend. I have 20 min now and will do some admin checks on some of the hooks in Prep 1. Schwede66 00:36, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed Walker Keith Baylor, but I can do the rest.--Launchballer 00:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just realized something about this request: doesn't this technically violate the rule about not focusing on a commercial release? Or not really? I'm not sure, which is why I'm asking for clarification as I just find it weird. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing is being released, though. What am I missing? Schwede66 12:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for meeting the request. The newspaper article was published yesterday and is listed as a press mention on the target article's talk page. Schwede66 18:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Schwede66 presenting on the homepage, pointing to the video that was on the homepage on Saturday

Holy smokes. I had a video on the homepage before and that got some decent views at 411k. But this one nearly broke the servers at 2.27m views. That is phenomenal! I suggest that we encourage DYK editors to nominate videos whenever they can, and preppers to really favour those nominations for the lead hook. The target article (written by Pakoire) got just under 8,000 views; I thought it would do a bit better than that. But well over 2 million views for the video is just stunning.

What made this really fun for me was that we had a WikiCon in Auckland over the weekend. I gave a presentation about the homepage. When we rearranged the date for this item, that WikiCon wasn't on my mind at all but it coincided nicely with this homepage exposure. Great hilarity was caused me pointing to the video, and by another coincidence, I was even wearing the same T-shirt as in the video. Too funny! Thanks all for accommodating this. Schwede66 19:19, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

QPQ backlog mode being selectively enforced[edit]

A quick look at Template talk:Did you know/Approved shows that little is being done to enforce the WP:QPQ backlog mode. Shouldn't either the DYK admins or the DYK promoters be doing some sort of double check? I don't think I should have to do double QPQs if almost no one else does. I have a triple nom that I have to nominate by EOD on the 18th.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like the current method of operation for this is simply to not have any information at all on the nomination template or in the unreviewed nominations page about "backlog mode" at all, and then surprising random nominations with a demand for double (or quadruple!) reviews out of nowhere. That is actively poor judgement on the part of those that feel backlog mode should be a thing. If its to be enforced it needs a call out and explicit instructions as to what is expected out of all participants before its enforced. As it stands I don't feel it can be enforced.--Kevmin § 20:19, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why don't you go through that list and post at the nompages of those owing? (Someone should really edit MediaWiki:DYK-nomination-wizard.js and User:SD0001/DYK-helper.js to state that we're in backlog mode though.)--Launchballer 20:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please state what you are meaning with that statement? (Rather making an obtuse remark that did not address the issue of nominators not having any notice an obscure process that was never invoked before has been "activated" forcing extra work onto the group of people least responsible for the situation). To be clear this process actively penalizes the group of participants that are least resposible for the backlog situation existing in the first place, as the group being told to do more are already doing a 1-1 while "new" people get to do a 4-0 before even taking any part in providing any balance. Before you say I'm part of the process I actively review noms before I even need them, so I am more often reducing the backlog then I adding a nom at 1to1 balance.--Kevmin § 20:48, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll make an edit for notification today, this should've been an obvious part of procedure. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:03, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And I had directed my 'obtuse remark' at TonyTheTiger...--Launchballer 21:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
update: done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FTR, the wizards have now been updated to indicate the count of QPQs required. – SD0001 (talk) 14:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron and SD0001: Template:Did you know/Backlog mode? was updated at 23:41, 16 March 2024. Will it be possible to run reports on how many nominations are made in backlog mode and how many of those require a second QPQ? I can see 20 nominations automatically tagged as requiring an additional QPQ on the approved and unapproved lists. TSventon (talk) 15:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TSventon: there will this time through a simple search, but next time will be more of a challenge. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Is it really that hard to do multiple QPQs in good faith? I don't get the whole "I don't think I should have to do x if almost no one else does it." This is the second time I've seen this attitude expressed here. You're doing it to help out, not for some kind of accumulated merit or future reward. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, Viriditas given the commentary that is regularly posted from the prep-builders and queue builders about the amount of work they do on each set, that actually should be a rather obvious answer. Yes, doing reviews (especially of topics one is not familiar with) is hard, and actively dumping on people that are regularly writing article for the encyclopedia as part of that process is the best way to kill DYK.--Kevmin § 21:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Check your attitude at the door. Look at all your replies here. You just accused Launchballer, who made a reply in good faith of making an "obtuse remark", and you accused me of "actively dumping on people". If you're worried about "killing DYK", keep it up. Viriditas (talk) 21:22, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Attitude is not the same as noting that the backlog process has inherent flaws.--Kevmin § 21:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is classic black and white thinking. How about instead of incessantly complaining and making accusations you propose am immediate, actionable solution to the problem without involving personal attacks? Viriditas (talk) 21:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If a nomination does not have the requisite QPQs, it will not be promoted. If you find any at WP:DYKNA that do not meet the requirements, I would suggest making a note on the respective nominations, as you are fully equipped to do per WP:BOLD. That seems a better use of time than coming to complain here and asking that others do that work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:07, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If the nominators didn't know the process even existed or was active, that is directly the fault of the group admins that chose to enact the process. Nominators are not psychic, there's no information anywhere except on this talk page in one section about activating it, and no information about what activation actually would explicitly mean for the nominators, etc. How specifically is a nomination supposed to comply with invisible rules that no one tells them about. This is not the nominators fault.--Kevmin § 21:17, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just looks and the actual thread regarding activation of the backlog mode has already been archived, so its not present on this page anymore to refer to. What other main page projects have a "free pass" structure like we do here? It feels that the better solution for excessive backlogs (Which only EEng ever though was a problem) would be to reduce or remove the amount of freebies given. The rules for nomination and for qpq are linked in multiple places though the nom process.--Kevmin § 21:23, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is precisely why I will be ignoring User:Launchballer's frankly fucking patronising "not so fast" message at my nomimation. As pointed out above, if you change the rules, fine. But the onus is then on those who made that choice to inform editors in advance. Change must be promulgated. A page notice in the edit box suggests itself. But imposing conditions post facto is not conducive to either good faith or collegiality. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 21:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, but it does make you look selfish, petty, and focused more on rules (authoritarian even) rather than helping the site function. Never knew there were so many selfish people on this site, so thanks for clearing this up. It's enlightening. Viriditas (talk) 21:46, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, it makes me look none of those things (and mindful of aspersions, please); after all, you've got a backlog. That means you already bear enough weight upon those narrow shoulders.
In the meantime, I repeat: why not a edit box notice informing nominators of the change? It would be a piece of cake to have a notice that can be commented out whenever there is no backlog, and restored when there is. Link it to WP:DYKRI, which naturally experienced folk don't have to expect to reread everyone to find out if there's a backlog. Bob's your uncle. ——Serial Number 54129 22:04, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to add the following notice to the top of WP:DYKCNN, WP:DYKN and WP:DYKCRIT. The notice can be removed when DYK is no longer in a backlog.

Thoughts and suggestions are welcome. Z1720 (talk) 23:29, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, let's do it. For future implementation, let's do it in a way where we can leave the template up and toggle them all visible and invisible.
Also, I do hope no one has made the mistake of requiring double QPQs ex post facto the nomination. Backlog mode only applies to nominations created after it is activated. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To quote Gustavo Fring: Do. It. RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Good idea, except that "click here" should probably link to Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Backlog at WP:DYKN instead, and that someone should probably annotate User:SD0001/DYK-helper.js also.--Launchballer 23:41, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Linked to Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Backlog at WP:DYKN, though that might have to be updated when the conversation is archived. I do not know how to edit code so @SD0001:. Z1720 (talk) 23:44, 16 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm surprised this wasn't done sooner. I wouldn't have even known that backlog mode was already activated if I didn't see it being brought up in the new nominations since the discussion that activated it went rather quickly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:15, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have placed the proposed notice at the top of WP:DYKN, replacing the backlog template that has been in place since who-knows-when. If there are other suggestions on where to put it, please respond below. Z1720 (talk) 20:18, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just checking back in. It looks like I have stirred the pot well enough to get a lot of people to think more clearly about effecting this new QPQ element. I believe the majority of approved noms skated by this new requirement. I am hoping people figure out how to get all post March 8 nominators to carry their weight. I encourage you to look in the approved pages and maybe some are even in the preps and queues already. Has anyone done this. Collect the toll from everyone. If I am going to have to do 6 for a triple nom, I want everyone else to have to do double too. Worse case someone could take a run through the approved pages and tag with "{{DYK?again}} we are in WP:QPQ backlog mode"-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I went through all the noms I could see in the Approved section, I should probably look in the other section.--Launchballer 09:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have edited Module:NewDYKnomination to actually show the number of QPQs required based on the user's count of past nominations. The message will also be visible during previews before saving the nomination. Please don't add this banner on WP:DYKCNN - that page is kept minimalist to be newcomer-friendly, and the backlog mode anyway doesn't affect newcomers. – SD0001 (talk) 09:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What has happened is that TonyTheTiger has not bothered to read WP:DYKQPQ and thinks that every single nomination requires a double QPQ. This is not correct; it is only for nominators of more than twenty articles. Fortunately, as at Template:Did you know nominations/Al-Rushati, some have bothered to read the instructions. I ask that Tony goes back and removes all his incorrect notifications. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am just seeing that I have been called obtuse. this set of edits is what I was talking about. I am aware of the 20 nomination requirement. I don't know of a reliable way to check review counts. I saw some sort of checker link. But It revealed I have about 400 DYKs and I have about 900, so there isn't really a good way to check nomination counts.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I.E. a full 11 hours after I brought the issue up it seemed that 18 still seemed to remain in need of double QPQs. I don't know what the count was at the time I made the statement.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:53, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Nobody called you obtuse, so read it again. Viriditas (talk) 11:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do a page find on obtuse and you will see I have been called obtuse in this thread.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My friend, if I may call you that, nobody called you obtuse. You have misread the discussion. Viriditas (talk) 11:10, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the currently endorsed nominator count determiner?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Check if listed at WP:DYKNC, if not, count on nominator's talk page. "a full 11 hours after I brought the issue up it seemed that 18 still seemed to remain in need of double QPQs" well, you were wrong. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:47, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • As is so often the case, I am shown to be correct. It is good to see that my advice has been taken so promptly and efficiently by some of the cooler heads that prevail here; long may that last. I also note that, not only was the 'backlog mode' not promulgated sufficiently to your nominators... but it wasn't shared even among your own people. I admit to allowing myself a chuckle when I saw Launchballer scrambling around tidying up after TheTiger  :) on that, I suppose 'obtuse' fits neatly next to 'petty' and 'selfish'! In the spirit of maintaining this collegial atmosphere, though, I might even take a stroll and chuck out another QPQ. Now that sanity and good humor are again the order of the day, let there be joy and celebration; let jubilation reign! ——Serial Number 54129 14:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am just waking up and will try to catch up on what is going on with fresh eyes soon (but maybe after some pancakes).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:13, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Feels a bit, er, ridiculous, that this became a new rule based on a quick discussion between three users(?), that a large portion of DYK editors don't even seem to be aware of (I only first heard of a requirement when someone said it was necessary for my noms and thought, "huh?" – it took even longer for me to be able to find where that decision was made, which seems to have barely gotten much input and wasn't really a formal proposal). Additionally, how long is this going to last? BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The rule was agree but not implemented in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 182 in 2021. There was then a discussion about implementing the rule this month, involving about ten users. According to the recent discussion, backlog mode is supposed to last until there is agreement to remove it. TSventon (talk) 17:05, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am not sure how to check QPQs. This QPQ tool says a have 359 nominations. My Year-end 2023 list shows that I had 874 DYKs. Should I use a 874/359 multiplier and assume if you have over 8 showing on the QPQ tool you have done over 20?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:08, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In the face of ambiguity, do something reasonable. For people who have a metric boatload of DYK's, they're obviously in the "You need to do two QPQs" pile. For newbies, they obviously need to do one. If it's really right on the edge and you can't figure it out, I suggest the amount of effort put into over-analyzing the requirement could be more profitably spent just doing an extra review that you may not technically be required to do. RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Of my list of 18 I think only 3 are over 20 on the tool. Another 4 have between 14 and 19, which could indicate they have really done over 20, but who knows. 5 more have 9 or 10, which by my multiplier would have 20.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:29, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My take on this is that if the tool shows more than 20 nominations (and if they have hundreds of nominations, it doesn't matter how many hundreds), then the user in question should do two reviews. It would be unnecessary effort to go through their talk page archives to see if they already had more than 20 credits. In addition, the tool only lists nominations made after the DYK project started using subpages of Template:Did you know nominations/—I think prior to about 2010-2011, articles were nominated by editing WP:DYKN directly. But like Roy says, it may be worth asking the editor to do a second review if you think they might have more than 20 nominations already, even if they haven't. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:20, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked TonyTheTiger's archive and there are just over four hundred nominations before the first nomination included on the tool in September 2011. In most cases it will be easiest to believe the tool. TSventon (talk) 18:37, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    O.K.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:30, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Garrett Jr.[edit]

@TonyTheTiger, Sims2aholic8, and AirshipJungleman29: In this hook (Prep 2), I have replaced "the affliction" with "a crisis", which is more precise as regards the event being referred to. I'm also a bit hesitant at referring to sickle cell anemia as an "affliction" (it's a bit informal and has a hint of WP:ELEVAR). The replacement wording doesn't have quite the same nuance, but I've added a link which will help readers understand the context. If this isn't regarded as an improvement, I'm happy to revert. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 17:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2:

...that the only NBA player with sickle cell disease (pictured) nearly died of a crisis while on a flight to a game?

@TonyTheTiger, Sims2aholic8, AirshipJungleman29, and Ravenpuff:

  • that the only NBA player with sickle cell disease: The source says "As the only known person to have played in the NBA with sickle cell disease".[1] "known" or similar is missing from the hook (and article). It's also unsourced that he remains the "only NBA player" still. The source was from 2019.
  • nearly died of a crisis while on a flight to a game: The source says "After last January’s near-death experience in a Newark, N.J., hospital, where DePaul trainers took Billy Jr. as soon as the team landed, the Garretts never again will underestimate the affliction."[2] It seems the flight perhaps spurred the episode.[3] It's unsourced for the hook and article to say it was during the flight.
  • The hook seems to misleadingly imply that the flight was during his NBA career, while it was years earlier in college.

Bagumba (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Regarding points 1 and 2, I am open to rephrasing, feel free to add known before the word NBA. Also feel free to change only to first. Feel free to change while on a flight to from a flight. Regarding the final point, hooks are often a bit of a WP:EGG. You could add the word once to handle the EGG issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bagumba:

Former: * ... that the only NBA player with sickle cell disease (pictured) nearly died of a crisis while on a flight to a game?
Modified: * ... that the first known NBA player with sickle cell disease (pictured) once nearly died of a crisis from a flight to a game?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:31, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Modified2: * ... that the first known NBA player with sickle cell disease (pictured) once nearly died of a crisis after a flight to a game?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:35, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger, Sims2aholic8, AirshipJungleman29, Ravenpuff, and Bagumba: can someone comment on the proposed responsorial modifications.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@TonyTheTiger: The article first needs updating regarding "first known" and timing of crisis relative to the flight. Hooks must reflect actual cited content of the article. —Bagumba (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Bagumba, I have rephrased with both inflight and post flight elements of the situation.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:21, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Updated the prep area to your modified2 version.—Bagumba (talk) 07:56, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Are we really not on mobile?[edit]

According to WP:VPR#There is already a different Main Page on the app, DYK isn't on the mobile app main page. I don't use the mobile app, so I have no clue if this is true or not, but @JPxG felt "someone" should let DYK know, so I'm doing that. RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can confirm that there is no DYK on the Android app. From the top, the order of Main Page sections is:
  • TFA
  • "Today on Wikipedia" (small body text hyperlink to the normal Main Page)
  • "Top Read" (presumably the articles with the most pageviews in the last day or couple days)
  • PoTD
  • "Because you read" (related articles to one that I was looking at last time I had the app open)
  • ITN
  • OTD
  • "Random article"
  • "Suggested edits"
  • then it loops back to the previous day's TFA.
jp×g🗯️ 17:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Similar on Apple devices. If I had to guess, our occasional twelve-hour periods are rather annoying to deal with for a page that is structured on a day-by-day basis. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@The wub told me a while ago not to worry because mobile app uptake is so poor anyway. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The mobile apps (iOS and Android combined) made up 2.3% of pageviews on English Wikipedia last year [4]. Mobile web was 65.5%, and desktop was 32.2%. That said, the app audiences are slowly growing, and it would be nice to have DYK shown to them as well. the wub "?!" 00:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Filosofova

  • ... that after a nihilist criticized her for dressing "like a doll" at an important meeting, pioneering Russian feminist Anna Filosofova (pictured) replied that "clothes do not make the woman"?

Ganesha811, I always kind of hate to see a link before the target article link (unless they're needed for some reason) because they typically distract from the target article. Is it important that this was a nihilist making this comment? How would you feel about:

  • ... that after being criticized for dressing "like a doll" at an important meeting, pioneering Russian feminist Anna Filosofova (pictured) replied that "clothes do not make the woman"?

Valereee (talk) 20:02, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't mind the switch; while the nihilist article is both interesting and good, I agree that it might take away focus on the main article. Good suggestion! —Ganesha811 (talk) 20:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Texas Hold 'Em (song) and 16 Carriages[edit]

@ModulationBend, MaranoFan, TonyTheTiger, and Cielquiparle:

Texas Hold 'Em has a citation needed tag that needs to be resolved. Also, the hook has two songs bolded, but the information seems to be only about the Texas Hold 'Em song, and the Oklahoma station is not mentioned in the 16 Carriages article. Is there a hook that applies to both more equally? Z1720 (talk) 14:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • @ModulationBend, MaranoFan, TonyTheTiger, and Cielquiparle: The citation needed tag has been resolved, but my concerns about the hook still remain. Any thoughts about that from you or other editors not pinged? Z1720 (talk) 14:03, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Z1720 I know it's not an ideal way to go about things, but I understood that @TonyTheTiger happens to have unique expertise in multi-nomination hooks at DYK, so I thought it must be OK. Personally I felt the hook was more enlightening because it mentioned the second song ("Oh, this was more than a one-off for Beyoncé") and the wording of it seems clear enough ("refused to play the former"). But in my experience you seem to have a good radar for what gets stuck at WP:ERRORS – to the point that things get stuck there even after you've flagged them because you didn't get around to implementing the fixes in advance – so I'm happy to go along with whatever solution. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hooks have been pulled due to lack of response to concerns above. I'll reopen the nomination shortly. Z1720 (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 Thanks. I think it's a fair pull given lack of response and lack of ALT hook as back-up. Will leave a note on @MaranoFan's page. Cielquiparle (talk) 23:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: Already posted a templated DYK notes and pinged. Z1720 (talk) 23:57, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like they are on wikibreak anyway; maybe we can resolve after they are back. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WWXL (Illinois)[edit]

@Sammi Brie, LissajousCurve, Gonzo fan2007, and AirshipJungleman29:

The article says, "Hilltop Broadcasting Company took WTVH radio off the air in mid-December 1954 in order to focus solely on the television station and remove interference caused by the co-sited AM operation." Was the station closed to avoid interference from a television reception or an AM station's operation? Z1720 (talk) 14:46, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The AM operation is the subject of the article, @Z1720. The newspaper article states, in a quote from a representative, "WTVH plans to discontinue its AM broadcasting about mid-December, thus eliminating the slight interference now present in a few areas due to the radio signal." The interference in this case is to reception of the TV station. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 17:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720 and Sammi Brie:, is this resolved? Seems fine to me. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:36, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hidden Letters[edit]

@NotAGenious, Sammi Brie, and Sdkb:

Important point here—Nüshu is a writing system, not a language per se—it was used to write the Xiangnan Tuhua language. Remsense 18:54, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's true. Language seems to state to me that "language" can refer to written, not just spoken, forms of communication, and many reviews of the film refer to Nushu as a language, so I went with "language" for the hook as it makes it easier to read. I used "script" in the article for precision, though, and if you want to argue that calling it a language is erroneous I wouldn't be firmly opposed to changing it in the hook as well. Sdkbtalk 19:18, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

April Fools'[edit]

I've started to fill out Prep 1, which will be the April Fool's set. I've moved what I see as the best nominations at WP:DYKAPRIL there already; I think those remaining at DYKAPRIL might need a bit of work, considering they can't all fit.

Or in other words, do you want a dog or a cat in the picture slot? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, new nominations are still equally welcome. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That cat image is brilliant, I say go with that. There was a suggestion by Theleekycauldron at the article's nom that ur mum should be lowercase and unquoted?--Launchballer (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i've gone ahead and done it, hopefully it isn't shooting myself in the foot :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No way, cat! The dog is fantastic. Wrongly accused—paw prints and mugshot taken—slammed into chokey for life—and then, as if things couldn't get any worse, put on diet! "Help!" sez Pep :) ——Serial Number 54129 17:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely the dog for mine. Great, eye-catching hook, whereas the cat hooks are quite clunky or else not very April Fools-ish. Gatoclass (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'm inclined toward the dog. Kudos to the maker of the ray cat image, but I think the article about Pep is more appealing both as a hook (it's concise, amusing, and attention-drawing) and as an image (although the bad lighting is a little unfortunate, it still registers strongly as a mug shot, resulting in further amusement because now the reader's thinking, "wait, did they really arrest a dog?). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've realised I never said it here, but I, too, prefer Monsieur Woof. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pawsing for thought... it's a shame we can't use Eastern State Pawitentiary too  :) ——Serial Number 54129 19:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I never saw a chartruce cat / I hope I never see one / but I can tell you anyhow / it would make a great lead photo.RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I prefer the cat, personally, it's more eye-catching. Not to say that Pep isn't a good boy. SilverserenC 16:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And the winner iiiiiiisssssss... a bridge? – Hilst [talk] 18:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like I mucked up the set- blissfully unaware of the date. When we open a new prep I will move out the offending hooks or another editor can. I moved out the image and will need to move two more. I realize that I have also overloaded Prep 6 with US-centric hooks and that will need to be corrected. Bruxton (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Are we really doing 10-hook sets? RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I did not set up the ten set, but I did run a character counter and we are well under normal set size so it will be ok. Bruxton (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Preps 3-5 have eight hooks instead of nine. The three misplaced hooks in prep 1 can be spread across those sets. I also notice that we are above the threshold for switching to two sets per day (10 preps/queues filled), so perhaps we can have a dog and a cat as lead April Fools' images.--Launchballer 20:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My warped mind wonders if we could run two different hooks that both use the same image. Because April. RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If desired, we could alternate the dog and cat hooks through {{random item}}, as a sort of extra joke for anyone who happens to view the Main Page twice. It gets purged something like once per second, so it'd be truly random each time someone refreshed the page. Or we could do a time-based parser, even number of seconds or odd. (COI disclaimer one: I wrote the cat article.) (COI disclaimer two: That dog looks like a very good boy.) -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 23:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If somebody could make that work, I think it would be awesome. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith:

Randomized
{{random item
|{{main page image/DYK|image=Green glowing cat.png|caption=An artist's impression of a ray cat}}<!--See [[Template:Main page image/DYK]] for other parameters-->
* ... that '''[[ray cat|color-changing cats]]''' ''(artist's impression pictured)'' could help us communicate with the future?
|{{main page image/DYK|image=Pep (inmate C-2559) mugshot.jpg|caption=Mugshot of Pep}}<!--See [[Template:Main page image/DYK]] for other parameters-->
* ... that '''[[Pep (dog)|Pep]]''' ''(pictured)'' was falsely accused of murdering a cat and sent to [[Eastern State Penitentiary]]?}}
Mugshot of Pep
Mugshot of Pep
Alternating every second
{{#ifexpr:{{#time:U}} mod 2
|{{main page image/DYK|image=Green glowing cat.png|caption=An artist's impression of a ray cat}}<!--See [[Template:Main page image/DYK]] for other parameters-->
* ... that '''[[ray cat|color-changing cats]]''' ''(artist's impression pictured)'' could help us communicate with the future?
|{{main page image/DYK|image=Pep (inmate C-2559) mugshot.jpg|caption=Mugshot of Pep}}<!--See [[Template:Main page image/DYK]] for other parameters-->
* ... that '''[[Pep (dog)|Pep]]''' ''(pictured)'' was falsely accused of murdering a cat and sent to [[Eastern State Penitentiary]]?}}
An artist's impression of a ray cat
An artist's impression of a ray cat
  • ... that color-changing cats (artist's impression pictured) could help us communicate with the future?

Just to be clear about how this would work, it wouldn't flicker on the Main Page or anything; the different versions would only show up on reload. The "every second" part shouldn't be an issue server-wise, since, like I said, the MP gets purged constantly regardless. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 00:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm always seeing the green cat in the example above, but I'm assuming there's just some cacheing that's getting in the way? RoySmith (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
On this page, if you're just refreshing, caching will probably keep it the same unless you purge (link); or it might change when someone comments somewhere. On the Main Page, the frequent purging by various actors takes care of that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 03:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll add the randomized version, if no one minds. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me, although the set isn't being transcluded properly at T:DYK/Q. Fixed. – Hilst [talk] 13:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@theleekycauldron: Not that it matters much, but will there be some way to make these count as only 12-/6-hour hooks (if on 24- or 12- respectively) at DYKSTATS? Since they'll average out to about that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 16:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll note that this set should absolutely run for 24 hours, and I'll handle that when it comes up if need be. As for DYKSTATS... bleghh. I could code in some kind of override, but it'd probably be a bit hacky. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO, providing a fun experience for our readers trumps getting the statistics right. RoySmith (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's April Fools-esque material at this nomination for the song "Obsessed" in case anything needs to get swapped out.--NØ 14:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As theleekycauldron notes, we can run a single set for the day, and fit as many as we can (I think we've had as many as 11 hooks in a set, given that hooks for this day tend to be shorter), even if we're technically at two sets a day: we've had more sets or fewer sets for this day depending on what's been nominated and our frequency when the day comes around. It's also typical that not every hook nominated for April Fools runs on the day because not every one is prime AFD material. (In that case, they're put back on the Approved page and run later with one of the other approved hooks.) If the decision is taken to run two 12-hour sets, we could have the cat and dog hooks sharing the lead slot in both sets. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

how about we do a random item where either we have the dog in lead and the cat no. 2, or vice versa? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha[edit]

@Therealscorp1an, Gonzo fan2007, and AirshipJungleman29:

After a ctr+f search, I could not find where Elizabeth II was mentioned in the article so I could not verify this hook. Z1720 (talk) 18:33, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Really? I have been waiting for ages for this. This page may work as a better source? This page here does not directly state that Elizabeth II is a member of the House, but that can be inferred as the branch of the House in the United Kingdom was simply changed. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 21:46, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Therealscorp1an:, the hook fact and a supporting reference need to be included in the nominated article, see WP:DYKHOOK. Also, do independent, reliable sources say that Elizabeth II belonged to the the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha? If not the hook would need to be reworded or replaced. TSventon (talk) 22:26, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @TSventon:, if I can look in here—to answer your question, briefly, that would be a 'No'. The British royal family has not been legally associated with SCG since 1917, when the 'German connection' became an embarrassment (due in no small part to London being bombed by a new German plane also called the Gotha!). See e.g. [1][2][3] Ironically, even the second 'source' Therealscorp1an provides (insufficient anyway as of course we can't infer anything, per WP:NOR) even notes that itself! ——Serial Number 54129 14:42, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Serial Number 54129:, I was aware that The British royal family has not been legally associated with SCG since 1917. It might be easier to source something like "a royal dynasty from which Elizabeth II descended".— Preceding unsigned comment added by TSventon (talkcontribs)
Way to copy and paste my own comment :D I think @Therealscorp1an: should be aware, though, that their hook is liable to be rejected on the grounds of misrepresentation. Cheers, ——Serial Number 54129 16:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Winter, G.; Kochman, W. (1990). Secrets of the Royals. New York: St Martin's Press. p. 173. ISBN 978-0-86051-706-1.
  2. ^ West, E. (2014). A Century of Royalty. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-74781-488-7.
  3. ^ Roberts, A. (2000). The House of Windsor. Berkeley, California: University of California Press. p. 14. ISBN 978-0-52022-803-0.
@TSventon and Serial Number 54129: Okay, we could change it to "a royal house that Elizabeth II descends from"? This may serve as a better hook. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 22:13, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Therealscorp1an: I suggest that you post your amended hook here, add the amended hook fact and a supporting reference to the article, then ask Z1720 if they are happy with it. TSventon (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Here is the new hook. - Therealscorp1an (talk) 06:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: an amended hook fact has been added to the article, so you should be able to check it now. TSventon (talk) 11:10, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a European royal dynasty that she isn't descended from? —Kusma (talk) 12:56, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
House of Zogu and House of Belgium (post 1920) spring to mind. Also House of Bonaparte. TSventon (talk) 13:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kusma:, @Z1720: hasn't responded, could you possibly check the amended hook? TSventon (talk) 19:05, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer not to be involved further. The person has been found to be non-notable before, and I think I have done enough by removing some of the more fantastical content about the future head of a "house" that hasn't been "royal" for a century according to the laws of their country. —Kusma (talk) 20:37, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You did good work Kusma. The whole Elizabeth thing is OR and synthesis, especially as the 'house' in question had effectively ceased to exist in any meaningful way by 1919. Now tagged, of course. ——Serial Number 54129 13:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Time to go to two sets a day?[edit]

According to WP:DYKROTATE, 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. Immediately after midnight an hour or so ago, we had five full queues, five full preps, and 169 approved nominations (144 on the list plus 25 that aren't transcluding and thus aren't counted by DYKHousekeepingBot in making the list). Many thanks to PMC and Z1720 for loading up the queues, and AirshipJungleman29, Bruxton, and Rjjiii for filling preps (the remaining two preps only have two blank hooks each).

Please note that this will mean that the April Fools prep set currently building in Prep 1 will need to be dismantled, since the available preps and queues will only cover what's left of March, whether we switch over at noon today or at midnight tomorrow. (If Prep 7 is promoted to queue, then we could move those 1 April hooks to the newly empty prep as a temporary measure.) There are no other special occasion hooks in the current queues and preps aside from April Fools, so no other hooks will need to be moved for date reasons. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is probably be a bit of a selfish request, but if this is to be done, would it be possible to hold Fūka Izumi until after returning to one set a day? I rarely have hooks up these days, and when it does happen they tend to coincide with two-sets-a-day periods and so my hooks tend to only run for 12 hours instead of the usual 24. I won't mind if the request isn't granted, I was just wondering. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I always think that we should accommodate the wishes and desires of those who contribute heaps to DYK, as long as it's a reasonable request. Your request is fair enough. Schwede66 05:19, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Prep 4 has a 4 April request.--Launchballer 07:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Launchballer, thanks for noting that. Once we've switched over to two per day, I'll pull the hook back to the special occasions section for repromotion later this week. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:20, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have five full sets. Someone has filled up Prep 1, the April Fool's set, with non-related hooks. In any case, we will need to rotate back to a 24-hour-set purely for April 1. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29, was just going to post a message about the Fools' Day set. A number of the hooks in that prep area aren't in the planning space and the image isn't quite Fools-y (IMO, the ray cat is much better). Is this standard practice? Or will the hooks be switched out? Thanks! MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 12:42, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, Bruxton did it by accident MyCatIsAChonk. See the section above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:45, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: When we engaged 12 hour sets prep 1 was no longer April 1 so I moved the items back. But I see they were moved back to prep one again. Bruxton (talk) 15:24, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bruxton User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates's history shows that 12 hour sets were not actually put into practice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:26, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@DYK admins: An oversight I think. The preps will be full as soon as another queue is promoted. We will have to rejigger the preps when it is engaged and we see where it lands. It would be a shame if we freeze all of these nominations for six days just to accommodate April one. Bruxton (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think I am correct in saying that if 12-hour-sets are engaged, the April Fool's set will be prep 7, which can be promoted and cleared now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure, so we may have to rejigger on the fly. Bruxton (talk) 16:01, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rejigging would probably be easier if you didn't promote hooks to that set Bruxton. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:07, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to AirshipJungleman29: at the time I posted this section, there were five full queues and five full preps just after a midnight promotion, which is the key; the preps were Prep 7 and Preps 2 through 5, so it did qualify. Prep 1 was not full and not counted, and it was clearly going to have to move anyway; I assumed that one of the filled preps would be moved up to Prep 1 when things were reorganized ... as will presumably still be the case. We now have six full queues and five full preps, again excluding Prep 1 (Preps 2 through 6 are full), so we should have ten full ones after the next promotion in a couple of hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:57, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've switched to 12-hour sets. Could prep builders please start moving the 1 April hooks out of Prep 1? Schwede66 02:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:58, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Which admin are available?[edit]

@DYK admins: When the switch happens, we will need more admins to help with promoting preps to queues. Please indicate below if you will be available (or not available) to help during the next few weeks. Thanks, Z1720 (talk) 15:48, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Should be available except for a couple days around the eclipse. —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:50, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Probably, I should be able to muck in. Good to see that the project is actually consulting on who's available now, rather than just switching to two sets a day blindly!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I will be busy the next few weeks. I'll try to promote but can't make any commitments. Z1720 (talk) 21:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I won't have time to do full sets in one sitting but I can chip in reviewing individual hooks, thus making it easier for other admins to do the remaining hooks in a set. Schwede66 02:50, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am still a bit burned out from the last round of 2/day updates (which coincided with a few days of bot outage) so I am not expecting to be of much help, if any. —Kusma (talk) 09:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Special occasion, again[edit]

With the switch to 2/day, my special occasion hook is now mis-scheduled. It's Template:Did you know nominations/Singh v Canada in Prep 4 and I'd like it held for 4 April, which I suppose means pulling it out of prep and back into the special occasion holding area at Template talk:Did you know/Approved#4 April 2024. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulled. If someone could replace it while I'm out.--Launchballer 15:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was trying to find my nomination Template:Did you know nominations/Josef Weiss approved section and had no luck at first. I now have just noticed that all the approved noms dating from March 16 after the Full Personality Expression nom have been strangely truncated. This needs to be fixed, particularly to make images visible for promoters as they decide which pictures to select. The truncated links hide the images, hooks, and conversations from view. 4meter4 (talk) 23:04, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is due to the page exceeding WP:PEIS, which is why we're on two sets per day.--Launchballer 23:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
~190 nominations on a single page will do that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Main page DYK now and Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2024/March#27 March 2024 don't match?[edit]

Right now (since 00:00 UTC 27 March), the main page DYK is showing the group beginning ... that Jean Schwartz and William Jerome (pictured) wrote more than 1,000 popular songs together? and I have received a bot notification to that effect. So I'm happy! .

But I suspect that the editors who contributed to the list at Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2024/March#27 March 2024 (beginning ... that while named for alliums, the fossil Paleoallium (pictured) was not necessarily directly related to any allium species?) may not be?

Or have I micsonstrued? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYKs are archived by the time :) they're taken off the main page theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, you're not the only one who finds this confusing, especially considering the talk page banners. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is super confusing I think I've actually reported this as a bug in the bot at some point. I understand why we have to do it this way, but we might need to try to document this better. —Kusma (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7[edit]

Petik and Sanos[edit]

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Petik and Sanos)

Two things here. Firstly, I don't think the line "which was an illegal act in the Ottoman Muslim city" adheres to the rule that the hook fact must be clearly stated in the article and cited as such. I assume the line which is intended to cover this, is the one that reads "This large-scale restoration confirms the exclusive power of Petik and Sanos, since the expansion of Christian churches was prohibited by the Pact of Umar". This seems nowhere near as strong as saying that the expansion was "illegal", on the grounds that the city was "Ottoman Muslim". The Pact of Umar article suggests it's a rather vague thing whose origins are unknown, and the fact that the authorities sanctioned the expansion makes it seem like it probably wasn't illegal, at least not in a formal binding sense.

And secondly, it was raised at the nom page that the hook was confusing because it suggested that it was the Armenian church in general that was expanded, rather than a specific building. It seems like that issue has crept back in, because when I read the Armenian church in Aleppo I did not immediately infer that it was referring to a building. This is due to run on Friday, so unless a quick solution to the first issue is found, a postponement to a later date may be in order.

Pinging @Smpad, Alaexis, Mandarax, and AirshipJungleman29: who were involved with this hook.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"which was an illegal act in the Ottoman Muslim city" does not mean "it was illegal because Aleppo was Ottoman Muslim", as you Amakuru have interpreted above, but rather "it was illegal. Also, Aleppo was Ottoman Muslim."
I would suggest not relying on a badly-written Wikipedia article in your reasoning; the sources used here are clear that it was illegal, and would have been enforced as such, had the Armenians not managed to gain a personal exemption from the Sultan. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: The hook fact needs to be clearly stated and cited in the article, per the DYK rules. Currently it is not, instead the hook is WP:SYNTHing several disparate points together. The article doesn't directly state that it was illegal, and anecdotally it seems an odd word to use for something that has received direct permission from the Sultan. But in any case, if the sources clearly state that it was illegal, then it shouldn't be difficult to have the article do so as well and we can probably move on from this. My interpretation doesn't really enter into that, although it does seem to me that by saying "which was an illegal act in the Ottoman Muslim city", you're directly or indirectly implying that the Ottoman Muslim status is related to the illegality, and the Pact of Umar is also one that relates to Muslim states.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It appears I accidentally promoted the wrong hook, so sorry about that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:22, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, are you looking at the amended version?
The source that describes these events says explicitly that "new construction of Christian space contravened Ottoman building regulations" (Semerjian). Alaexis¿question? 11:25, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis: Ah, it looks like maybe the wrong version of the hook was promoted... I think the version of the hook you mention is a lot better in terms of integrity with the article... my only comment would be that the "Ottoman laws that banned new constructions and expansions of churches" still isn't quite stated in the text. For one thing it mentions expansion only, not construction, and secondly, it is not said in the article that it's an "Ottoman law", merely that the Pact of Umar prohibits it. I think if we can add a cited line to the article stating directly that this was an Ottoman law being broken, and (if we want to retain that bit) also mentioning that it included new construction, then this will be good to go. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've amended the article to clarify that the Ottoman building regulation was violated. I'm neutral regarding mentioning the new construction, feel free to remove that bit from the hook. Alaexis¿question? 12:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru please lmk if something else is needed. I'm not the nominator but I really liked the article and would like to make sure it gets to the main page. Alaexis¿question? 22:00, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Alaexis: thanks for the edits, and I think that's fine, I'm happy with it now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:30, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

White-winged tapaculo[edit]

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/White-winged tapaculo)

Minor point really, but this hook struck me as odd at first - if the name of the insect is "white-winged tapaculo" then I would expect the "named after" to refer to that. But obviously "white-winged tapaculo" name is not derived from the name of Krabbe, instead we find when we drill down into the article that it's the scientific name that is named after him. I don't know if any clarification is needed, perhaps the consensus will be that this is fine, but just noting that I was momentarily confused by this when reading the hook by itself. @AirshipJungleman29, Pbritti, and AryKun: who were involved with the hook.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe these would make it clear?
Of course, if consensus determines that the original hook is just fine then there's that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:29, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
" that the scientific name of the white-winged tapaculo comes from Niels Krabbe, who discovered seven other species in its genus?" The wording "comes from" might imply that Krabbe coined the name himself. It is more correct to say that "the scientific name of the white-winged tapaculo honors from Niels Krabbe, who discovered seven other species in its genus?" or that " that the scientific name of the white-winged tapaculo is derived from the name of Niels Krabbe, who discovered seven other species in its genus?" But your second suggestion is better than either of those.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Khajidha and Narutolovehinata5: thanks for the responses. I've amended to use the second suggested alt. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 10:32, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2[edit]

In order not to go to Errors, I try here, regarding Queue 2:

  • ... that Karsten Januschke's conducting of Offenbach's Die Banditen with 22 soloists, including 11 tenors, was described as "lean, dry, [and] delicate"?

This is the hook after shortening and improvements. I - with my limited English - am not sure if what the source says is captured closely enough. It says: "He played a lean, dry, delicate Offenbach", which tells me that he made Offenbach's music sound "lean, dry, delicate", - I'm not at all sure that it is an equivalent of his conducting being lean, dry, delicate, - have no idea what dry conducting would be. Also: the source has no "and", - why insert one in brackets? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify how a conductor "made Offenbach's music sound "lean, dry, delicate" Gerda Arendt? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to have a language problem: "He played a lean, dry, delicate Offenbach". What's "lean, dry, delicate" is Offenbach, not Januschke's conducting. Offenbach's music that is (short for). My understanding. And I don't know what a dry conducting would be ;) - When a winemaker makes a dry wine, it's the wine that's dry, described as dry, not the process of making is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So would it be possible for Offenbach's music to not be "lean, dry, delicate" Gerda Arendt? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand the question. Yes, of course. In his conducting, with a small orchestra, it was. In someone else's, with large forces, slow tempos, lack of dynamics, it would loose that quality, and could perhaps sound rich, powerful. It's the conductor who shapes the music, but "conducting" speaks - at least for me - of his signals to the orchestra, movements, eye contact, such things. The reviewer didn't refer to that, but described the result. I believe that we should do the same if we quote him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 and Gerda Arendt: I think the shorter hook is preferable, but agree that bthe adjectives describe the music, not the conducting. Would it help to replace "conducting" with "version"? TSventon (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be honest, I'm pretty confused as to the difference, so I'll bow out here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, "version" would be better. I do have a language problem if the analogy of making the wine and the wine doesn't work. "Conducting" describes the process, or what he does to achieve the sound, - what does it mean to you, AJ? - The hook still doesn't tell us that this was a life performance, not a recording ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To me, it encompasses everything, like a filmmaker's "directing". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @AirshipJungleman29 and Gerda Arendt I think the quote in question clearly describing the sound of the ensemble which is being credited to Januschke's skills as a conductor. Dry is a term in sound description typically used by audio mixers in relations to the way sound is being picked up by a mic that has a very forward placement. It's possible the reviewer borrowed the term to mean the ensemble had a very forward sound. I conduct music as part of my job in the real world. I would suggest modifying the hook to say Alt "... that Karsten Januschke's conducting of Offenbach's Die Banditen was credited for the producing of a "lean, dry, [and] delicate" sound with an ensemble of 22 soloists, including 11 tenors?4meter4 (talk) 17:59, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Works for me, although "credited for the producing of" is a bit verbose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      • AirshipJungleman29 It's a way to indicate that the quote is an opinion and not a fact. I could have said "produced" if I had startted the sentence "according to one critic" which is a bit longer character wise.4meter4 (talk) 18:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
        • Perhaps "was described as producing"? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
          • Fine by me.4meter4 (talk) 18:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
            • So, when an admin takes a look: ... that Karsten Januschke's conducting of Offenbach's Die Banditen was described as producing a "lean, dry, [and] delicate" sound with an ensemble of 22 soloists, including 11 tenors? is I think a good change.
            • Or perhaps now take it to ERRORS and cite this discussion, Gerda. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
              • I hope for an admin. Will go to ERRORS if nothing happens after the next update. Amakuru? tlc? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
                 Done. Let me know if any further tweaks required. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:39, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

The previous list of older nominations was archived a few hours ago, so I’ve created a new list of the first 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 18. We have a total of 315 nominations, of which 190 have been approved, a gap of 125 nominations that has decreased by 27 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Easter [6][edit]

I noticed that we are not running any Easter hooks. March 31 is prep 6 which now leads with Hell Gate Bridge. I have an approved 3:16 game hook which may be Christianity related. Lightburst (talk) 19:14, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]