Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 184

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 180 ← Archive 182 Archive 183 Archive 184 Archive 185 Archive 186 → Archive 190

swap image hooks for Q6 and Q7?

Would anyone object to swapping these two? I'd originally said Dec 31 or Jan 1 because the article is about both, but (I know, duh) the hook itself is actually a New Year's Eve hook. —valereee (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

No objections from my side. Good call to run it on NYE. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 20:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
both non-u.s. non-bios, so no prep set balance problems with a swap. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@DYK admins: anyone wanna execute this? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 05:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@DYK admins: the New Year's Eve queue goes live in five hours, can someone please do this swap before then? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 19:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
(: thank ya thank ya theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:03, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Cwm! —valereee (talk) 20:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Queue 5

Cikobia-i-Ra

The Cikobia-i-Ra hook as approved says: ... that on the island of Cikobia-i-Ra, women donate 10 percent of their earnings to combat climate change? What it says in the article is as follows: The island has been affected by the climate crisis, including an increase in the number of natural disasters. In response, women from the island established the Cikobia Island Development Committee, which enables women to start businesses based on natural resources available to them. This then enables the women to return 10% of their earnings to sustainability projects on the island. So it appears that it is self-employed women who donate part of their earnings, whilst the hook implies that all women do so (which would only be true if all women were self-employed). Any suggestions for improvement? Schwede66 19:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps women → some women or → a group of women. TSventon (talk) 20:13, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I suppose I should ping User:Lajmmoore and User:Storye book. Schwede66 20:37, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
I have added a quote from the source (ref.5 in the article: Cikobia's women agents of change) into the articole to confirm the hook. Storye book (talk) 21:27, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
Storye book, the hook suggests that all the island women donate 10%, the reference says "From the 42 participants at that workshop, 15 now have fulltime businesses", so it seems the wording of the hook is misleading. Schwede66 do you think the hook is ambiguous, but acceptable for DYK, or inaccurate and not acceptable. TSventon (talk) 22:48, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
TSventon, the hook needs changing. Schwede66 05:46, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I am happy with "some women" or "a group of women", as suggested above. It could also be "self-employed women", I suppose, since the number 15 may have changed since the source was written. Storye book (talk) 10:28, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Changed to:

  • ... that a group of self-employed women on the island of Cikobia-i-Ra donate 10 percent of their earnings to combat climate change? Gatoclass (talk) 14:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Argentine seabass

The Argentine seabass hook as approved says: ... that while bottom trawling is a viable method of commercial fishing for Argentine seabass, it rarely occurs in areas where trawling is possible? I cannot see in the sources where it says that "bottom trawling is a viable method of commercial fishing for Argentine seabass". Ping to User:Ryan shell User:Gwennie-nyan as nominator and reviewer; they might be able to help. Schwede66 20:11, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Schwede66 I clicked on the reference which leads to this. I can only find one mention of trawling there which says "It is not found in areas in which trawling occurs (Heemstra pers. comm.)." That contradicts the hook. SL93 (talk) 15:37, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Sources that I have found with a Google search showed that the trawling happened a long time ago with the first time being in 1978. The link in the IUCN article references "Nakamura, I. 1986. Important fishes trawled off Patagonia. Japan Marine Fishery Resource Research Center, Tokyo." We would need proof that bottom trawling is still used for Argentine seabass. SL93 (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
SL93 What I remember from the sourcing was one said that currently bottom trawling doesn't occur, as you pointed out, however it seems the other source on the FAO which, if I remember correctly, listed the fact that trawling used to occur. I know the IUCN mentions that they're likely in marine protected areas now. I interpreted the former use of the method as indication it was viable, however yes, as you and sources stated, it doesn't happen anymore. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 20:18, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah found it. The FAO source has the wrong link. The correct one is https://www.fao.org/fishery/en/aqspecies/3081 which lists Caugth [sic] with bottom trawl . The total catch reported for this species to FAO for 1999 was 5 914 t. ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 20:22, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
I thought that the hook was referring to something that is currently happening when I first read it. Maybe it was viable then, but there is no verification on it being viable now. SL93 (talk) 04:34, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Schwede66 Maybe the hook should be pulled for now. The nominator last edited on November 30. SL93 (talk) 15:21, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
What about changing the tense to "bottom trawling was a viable method of commercial fishing for Argentine seabass" based on the references discussed? TSventon (talk) 15:38, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Am I missing something? Because the hook makes no sense to me. Bottom trawling rarely occurs in areas where trawling is possible? So it mainly occurs in areas where trawling isn't possible? How does that make sense? Gatoclass (talk) 08:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It makes no sense on top of bottom trawling not even happening with the species currently. I think this should be pulled. SL93 (talk) 22:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Suggested alt:

I have substituted the above suggested alt in the queue to ensure the original hook doesn't slip through to the main page given that there is not much oversight at this time of year, but it could still use independent approval. @DYK admins: ? Gatoclass (talk) 04:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
i have to imagine the IUCN list would turn up "data deficient" on many a rare species (looks like just over 20,000), but the hook is hooky and cited, if not unusual. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 04:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Indeed it does, but I'm afraid I could find nothing else in that article that could be described as "hooky" at all, but anyone else is welcome to try. Anyhow, thanks for the tick :) Gatoclass (talk) 05:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Neither of those hooks work for me, though the underlying idea isn't too bad. How about something like:
While waiting for a response, I have substituted ALT4 into the set. Gatoclass (talk) 14:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: hmm, not sure what your objection is—ALT4 seems a little too clinical to me. what about adding "specific name" to the previous hook? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
"Specific name" would eliminate the chief objection I had to that hook, which is that it was just plain confusing stating that a name mentioning Argentina somehow signifies Brazil. However, the phrase "points to its Brazilian origin" seems inaccurate or misleading since the fish doesn't have a "Brazilian origin", it's just the first place it was found. Gatoclass (talk) 03:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Ah, i see. How about:
  • ... that the specific name of the Argentine seabass points to its place of discovery in Brazil?
does that work? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, it's more accurate, yes, but when put like that, it's pretty ho-hum IMO. ALT4 does a better job of highlighting the naming anomaly. Gatoclass (talk) 03:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
hmm... I'm betting that most people won't know offhand that "specific name" doesn't mean "Argentine seabass", which will make them feel like they stumbled onto the confusion instead of us spelling it out for them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I've already outlined my objections to ALT3 and shouldn't need to repeat myself. But I have better things to do than waste any more time on this nomination. If ALT4 isn't acceptable, the hook will have to be pulled because I'm done trying to find something better. Gatoclass (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
yeah, one would have to figure we were never going to get out of that one. I don't like ALT4 very much, but you're the one who can edit the queues and it's at least better than the unknown trend hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Meanwhile, I changed "relate" to "refer" in ALT4 as I agree that "relate" was a bit obtuse. Gatoclass (talk) 03:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Midnight Sun Mosque

I have a slightly technical question about Midnight Sun Mosque's eligibility for DYK. I reviewed this version. I had three main concerns:

  1. A substantial portion of the text was sourced to Google Maps and "accompanying photos" included with the article (in fact, there is just one photo: File:Midnight Sun mosque and photographer's shadow in the midnight sun, Inuvik, NT.jpg).
  2. As the article was started with text copied from Islam in the Arctic, I didn't know whether Midnight Sun Mosque satisfied WP:DYKCRIT 1(a)–(b), which requires text to be new, not copied from other articles.
  3. I was not sure whether some of the sources were reliable.

Daniel Case has responded to concerns (1) and (2). His view is that (1) is not an issue because Google Maps and original images can be used responsibly per WP:PRIMARY and that (2) is not an issue because the prose was expanded more than 5x between the original version (copied from Islam in the Arctic) and the current version. This is correct: the original version had 2338 bytes of prose; the current version has over 12000 bytes of prose, which puts this slightly over a 5x expansion.

My question is this. Does any kind of prose expansion, including an expansion from primary sources such as Google Maps, count towards the 5x requirement? Analogous situations might include nominating an existing article on a novel or movie after expanding the prose 5x solely with a primary-sourced description of the plot. I am uncomfortable passing an article that contains so much prose based on Google Maps and other primary documents. If our default rule is that articles should be based on reliable, published sources independent of the article's subject (see WP:RS and WP:V), I think the 5x expansion rule should be interpreted accordingly. Of course, it's generally hard to determine what sources an article's content is based on, so I don't think I favour changing the wording of WP:DYKCRIT to make this explicit.

In practical terms, I may need someone else to review Template:Did you know nominations/Midnight Sun Mosque, if anyone else is available. I don't know how to proceed at this point. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 19:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@AleatoryPonderings: my hunch would be that the prose expansion is valid, but the article would fail the sourcing requirement. Google maps is a primary source, and shouldn't be used to support this kind of text. If there's no secondary sourcing for the stuff, it likely doesn't qualify for inclusion in the article (and doing so could be construed as WP:OR). On the narrow question of 5x expansion, this would pass, but getting the article through the nom process would require either cutting out parts (falling below 5x) or strengthening the sourcing. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I agree with you that Google Maps (specifically Street View) is a primary source, but I commend your attention to the passage at WP:PRIMARY that says primary sources may be used to "make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge." IMO, and I don't really see how there can reasonably be any other opinion, descriptive, non-interpretative text about the publicly visible architectural features of a building and its surrounding neighborhood based on pictures anyone can go look at online is well within both these parameters and pretty much the same thing as the WP:TRANSCRIPTION provision under WP:NOTOR. As I told AP, I have done this in quite a few articles with minimal objection (save for the guy at Chaonei No. 81 who didn't think it was OK for me to use pictures I myself had taken.

We do not seem to have reached a consensus on this, although IMO we should, in order to prevent the kind of rulemaking by assumption that has led, for years, to overbroad applications of plainly worded policies such as people thinking that no links to YouTube whatever were allowed, when in fact WP:YT is pretty clear that only third-party copyrighted content is not allowed to be linked to per the DMCA. In a discussion 14 years old about a similar use of Google Earth as a source, one participant said: "It would probably be OK to say that a satellite photo accessed through Google Earth showed X number of aircraft on the field, as that would be a descriptive statement easily verified without specialist knowledge. But drawing a conclusion that the airfield was active or inactive from that observation would be both questionable, and OR." I firmly believe my descriptions of the exterior of the building fall under the former.

At the end of another discussion of about the same vintage about Street View specifically, another editor says: " OR policy makes clear that a photograph from a reliable source can be a primary source. GSV is a reliable source. OR policy also makes clear that if the primary source unambiguously backs up the passage written in the article — to any reader, inarguably, and without specialized knowledge — then it is acceptable for use as a source." Again, I completely concur with that interpretation. Daniel Case (talk) 22:03, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Essentially, my content concern re Google Maps is: what is the encyclopedic value of summarizing, at length, the contents of photographs online that are not discussed in depth by secondary sources? If secondary sources do not comment on what is on Street View, etc, I don't see why we ought to be doing so either. The concern is not OR exactly, more like a concern analogous to WP:UNDUE: it seems unencyclopedic to emphasize details such as those captured in Street View if secondary sources are not flagging them for our attention.
This is a broader concern than DYK eligibility and if DYK experts concur with leeky that the article is eligible as a 5x expansion, I would pass it as such and take this convo to WT:OR as necessary. If this particular OR question hasn't been discussed in detail in over a decade, presumably opinions will differ. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:12, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: The policy also says to not base an entire article on primary sources, and [to] be cautious about basing large passages on them. By my count, 3,200 prose characters (or over a quarter) of this article is based solely on these kinds of primary sources, and it goes into a lot of detail that I frankly don't see the purpose for without secondary sources signaling its importance. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:39, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I think I have to agree with Ponderings and leeky on this - the building just doesn't warrant this level of detailed description, because its details are not at all important to its notability, as evidenced by the secondary sources. To put it another way, this is not a notable building as a piece of architecture. The section in question does look very overdone, and if it was used to get to the x5 expansion, that would qualify in my book as padding. If Daniel wants perhaps to cut back on the detail and submit what remains to GAN, the article in modified form could still be promoted at DYK of course. Gatoclass (talk) 23:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I will let you know when I have pruned it and submitted it to GA so you can promote it then. Daniel Case (talk) 02:50, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

On a similar note: The Alignment Problem

Does an article about a book need 1500 characters of non-synopsis text to pass the length requirement, or does plot/summary count for length as well? I'd rather the article be able to show it wouldn't be a stub without plot summary, otherwise it seems like an unfair way of bypassing the "this needs to have the sourcing heft to write a substantial and secondarily-sourced article" requirement. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I've never seen anyone exclude synopsis text from DYK consideration, and I've nominated, reviewed, and promoted books all in substantial measure. (That said, most of those books haven't been ones where this question would apply.) Vaticidalprophet 07:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
While the idea of excluding plot synopses from the character count has some merit, I'm not persuaded it is necessary. The cited nomination, for example, doesn't read to me as deficient or lacking in substance. Gatoclass (talk) 16:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
aighty, thanks to both of y'all—I'll continue with the review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 16:54, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Help with a new DYK editor

Hi, just a request for an experienced DYKer or two to keep an eye on Template:Did you know nominations/Uranium mining in the Bancroft area and help if needed, it's a new DYK proposer who needs some help going through the process, and I'm new at providing such help here. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Hook referenced to primary source

I was going to promote Template:Did you know nominations/40 Foot Telescope, but the hook "... that the 40 Foot Telescope (pictured) at Green Bank Observatory was the first fully automated telescope?" is referenced to Green Bank Observatory's website. It seems like we would need a reliable third party source for such a claim. The fifth reference says, "As far as we know, it was the first completely automated telescope." Pinging nominator Mike Peel and reviewer Mindmatrix. SL93 (talk) 22:41, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I added a second source to the article and the hook: "World's First Automated Radio Telescope". National Radio Astronomy Observatory.. I hope this is workable. — Maile (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Also, if there's a catch that the second source doesn't use the word "fully", then just eliminate that one word and go with the hook. — Maile (talk) 23:04, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I promoted the article. SL93 (talk) 23:40, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
@SL93: See the discussion on the nomination page for my perspective. Note that NRAO isn't a completely independent source either, since Green Bank used to be part of NRAO. But these are by reliable scientific organisations anyway, so I'm fairly sure they can be trusted (or, if someone comes along to point out an even earlier telescope, expect a new Wikipedia article shortly afterwards. ;-) ). Please ping me if you reply, as I'm not following this page. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 09:56, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Mike Peel: I will take your word for it. There will be the promoting admin and this discussion is here for anyone who disagrees to chime in. SL93 (talk) 15:20, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
OK, thank you. I'll also ask around the astronomy community as an extra check. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 16:48, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@SL93: Just to close this, I checked with the professional astronomers group on Facebook, and got several replies, including from scientists who have been using the 40ft, and those that have worked on other automated telescopes. No-one could find an earlier example, the closest was an optical telescope in the late 1960s, which I've now mentioned in the article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:35, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for checking up on it more. SL93 (talk) 19:40, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

U.S. hooks limit

by my count, we're currently at 21 approved U.S. hooks versus 84 approved hooks overall; that's exactly a quarter, or two out of eight in a prep set, so we should probably keep sets to 2 U.S. hooks or below. Pinging @BlueMoonset, SL93, and Kavyansh.Singh as recently active prep builders and bluemoonset theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:39, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm still following this. Let us know when to get back to 4 or less. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh and SL93: i think we're able to go back to normal now :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
try not to use any more non-u.s. non-bios than you have to, though, we're running a shortage of those theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sangatsu no Phantasia

Looks like we're at a bit of a brick wall on this one. the first hook doesn't check out, there's no sourcing that says that the songs were based on the novels, just that they were released together, and I don't find the second to be quite interesting enough. We could always go with the "featured in television shows" angle—anyone want to take a crack at fixing this? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:57, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived less than two hours ago, so I’ve created a new list that includes all 32 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 13. We currently have a total of 201 nominations, of which 87 have been approved, a gap of 114, up 13 over the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Woody plant encroachment

last one of these for a while, I promise.

The nominator proposed the first hook, and I proposed the ALTs. i don't feel super comfortable going ahead with the original (on interestingness grounds), and the nominator doesn't want to use the ALTs because they're not what's most important about the article. could some people weigh in on the nomination? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Recent_additions - the archive lists

This has got out of whack somehow, I presume when the recent switch from 2 to 1 sets happened. Certainly wrong for the 25, 26 & now. Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Johnbod: hmm, I'm not seeing an issue with the timestamps—keep in mind that sets are archived by the date and time by which they're taken off the main page, not the time at which they are added. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok, thanks - that's confusing though. Johnbod (talk) 03:30, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
It really is, but I imagine it's easier for the bot programmatically. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:32, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
It's been like that from the outset and yes, it really ought to be fixed, but the issue has been brought up several times in the past and nobody ever seems interested in doing it. By coincidence though, I was just thinking over the past couple of weeks about bringing the matter up again, and now that it's been done, perhaps it's time to have another discussion about it. Gatoclass (talk) 05:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to see both start and end time, honestly. Something like:
  • 00:00, 27 December 2021 – 00:00, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
That way, my script doesn't have to go fishing around in other stats pages just to figure out how long a hook has been on the main page. Right now, if I want to know how long it took for a hook on the first of the month to run, I have to compare the timestamps on two separate pages, which is just kinda annoying. If we were to switch it to the time it was put on the main page, I'd have the same problem, just with the last day of a month. I'd be happy to do the legwork in writing a script to update past pages, if DYKUpdateBot were to change the manner it which it archives future sets. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 05:27, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't think we should be changing the format just for one user's convenience. It would be redundant to add both dates to each entry given that the second date will always appear above the next set anyway. Gatoclass (talk) 14:50, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Then we should probably stick with archiving by the off-time—otherwise, you don't know how long a hook set has been on the main page until the next one is archived. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
sorry, forgot to ping Gatoclass theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:42, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
otherwise, you don't know how long a hook set has been on the main page until the next one is archived
So what? Nobody cares, but if they did, the archive is the last place you'd go to check a detail like that. Gatoclass (talk) 23:13, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: as far as I know, the archive is pretty much the only place you can go to check a detail like that—it doesn't appear on the nompage, the article's talk page, the pageviews, or the stats page. The only other way you could work it out is to take the DYK date from the article's talk page and cross-reference with the revision history at User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates. As for who cares—the fact that I'm pretty much the only one who updates the dykstats page at the moment doesn't mean the stats page should only concern me. Waiting until the next set is archived to figure out the full time it took for a hook to run unnecessarily delays the time it takes to count and process pageview stats by twelve hours or a day, without good reason. I don't see the upside in going through all the hoops to programmatically edit the timestamps thousands of archived sets if it comes with the downside of omitting important information, without which the archives are perennially incomplete. Anyways, count me opposed to removing the off-timestamp from the archived sets. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:26, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I am really struggling to follow your logic, but if you want to know how long a set has been on the main page, all you need to do is look at the timestamp of the bot diff on the archive page because as you yourself noted above, the bot archives when the set comes off the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Third Day of Christmas

Herrscher des Himmels, erhöre das Lallen, BWV 248 III, was compsed for the 3rd day of Christmas which was 27 December, day of the premiere. It was nominated for that day, and in prep pictured with a new image, uploaded recently, of Bach's manuscript which is a precious thing to present (pun intended). Until we switched to one set per day. - In the nomination, I said that it could be used for Christmas Day in case we had too few hooks for that day. This is not so. Now, it's in Queue 6, which - if my math is right - for 24 December: please not! (... and if there's really no other way, drop "for the Third Day of Christmas" or we'll get ERRORS for sure, - this goes for all placements which are not that day.) Bach composed it for 27 December, and I see no reason now not to have it then, and best pictured. We have already music by me for 24, and more, "Morgenlicht", on 26 which would be better on 25.

In a nutshell: please move BWV 248 III from 24 Dec to 27 December, best pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:52, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

It could be replaced with Template:Did you know nominations/Glee: The Music, The Christmas Album, which is now approved after GA review. eviolite (talk) 17:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done. Gatoclass (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
    Thank you Gatoclass. Next wish: as you can read a bit above, I made a hook for Stefan Keil fulfilling the wish for more Christmas topics. Mentioning Christmas market, it could go to 24 December. If that (or 25 the latest) is not possible, I'll look for a different hook, - no Christmas market in January ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
    that puts 3 u.s. hooks next to each other—i don't mind that, we're running a bit of a hodgepodge, but we should probably switch out It's Christmas, Eve with Josef Rheinberger so that it's two u.s. hooks next to each other instead of three. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 18:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 18:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Too tired to do any more tonight - I will take a look at it tomorrow if nobody else has - but we already have two full sets for Christmas Eve/Christmas Day, so it might have to go somewhere else. Gatoclass (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Some possibilities:
  • get it into 23, but that is soon - advantage: no other hook by me in the set, only one swap
  • squeeze it into 25 as a ninth hook, - some of the hooks there are short
  • have it replace Morgenlicht in 25, which could replace Rühle in 26 (who is also in prep1 which needs some solution reardless of the other)
  • say the efforts to make it Christmassy were for nothing, and I'll think about a different hook
Thank you, and sorry about too much cheer ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
took ruhle out of prep 1, not sure how that happened theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:30, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Kingsif may have some extra Christmas hooks, too—I'd put them both in the boxing day sets theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 19:41, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Once the sets were full I didn't bother, then I figured "we don't know the origins of Christmas" would probably be good enough for AFD, so welcome the nom Template:Did you know nominations/Christmas (surname). Just thought I'd tell you what happened to them. Kingsif (talk) 02:30, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
Leeky - Armenians around the world celebrate Christmas on January 6, as do Anabaptists. Oriental Orthodox celebrate on January 7. Some religions even celebrate it January 19. Take your pick - there's faiths out there celebrating on different days. — Maile (talk) 02:52, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Christmas hooks can also be used on Jan. 7, which is Christmas on the Julian calendar. Z1720 (talk) 02:39, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

new day: could an admin please pipe "the oratorio" to Christmas Oratorio in the 27 Dec hook for BWV 248 III, or spell it out? - yes, it's linked the previous day, but that's probably not enough ;) (see thread "my bad" on tlc) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

  •  Done. I've piped "the oratorio" as spelling the article out would introduce the word "Christmas" a second time in that hook. Schwede66 08:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Looking at possibles for a third Christmas set on 6 or 7 January. The following might be appropriate - Dumelow (talk) 16:46, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
all four have been moved to prep 7, they'll air on jan. 7 theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 19:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Current preps - hookiness

I thought I'd do a select review of hooks in the current preps and queues, because I was reading them and every now and again "hookiness" gets brought up. Here are my comments, everyone welcome to respond: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs)

Queue 5

Stale. Kingsif (talk) 22:51, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Third circle of hell

The "rather than the sin of gluttony" in the image slot kind of relies on people knowing it should be what is depicted, it also feels like an afterthought. I'm not sure it's necessary, but would suggest moving it to the front of the hook to make it feel more natural — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs)

Re'quan Boyette

It seems like the hooky part of the Re'quan Boyette hook is the "second Duke player" part, but this is also left to the end; the AFCA Good Works Team may not be common, but as a simple award for his field it is something that anyone in his field could achieve and not very hooky alone. I don't even think the year needs to be included, just that Boyette was the second Duke player to... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs)

Suggested ALT: ... that Re'quan Boyette was the second Duke player named to the American Football Coaches Association Good Works Team? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@PCN02WPS and SL93: to above. Kingsif (talk) 22:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: not much use, Q5 comes off the main page in an hour and 45 minutes or so :l theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I didn't notice. Been busy, then went to bed early, and now back home from work. Although I was fine with how the original hook was phrased. SL93 (talk) 22:49, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Chninkel

The Chninkel hook is half PLOT, and the other half is saying it has been translated into other languages (without even saying how many). I assume most non-English comics get translated? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs)

The thing about this one was that there was no record of an english translation, but saying there was no english translation would be WP:OR since there was never a mention of it at all. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 17:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Ingeborg Beugel

I'm not quite sure what it is, but the Ingeborg Beugel hook scans more as a news story than a hook. Could it be condensed, perhaps? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs)

@GGT and Theleekycauldron: How about, "that Ingeborg Beugel was accused of being a “pro-Turkish” agent following her press conference questions to the prime minister of Greece?" — Maile (talk) 02:01, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Hi Maile66, I'm not really comfortable with having a BLP on the main page associated with a one-sided accusation. I know that the current hook is somewhat clunky but I still think it's an interesting story, at least, and it's within the character limit. Open to any further suggestions. --GGT (talk) 02:07, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@GGT and Maile66: Hmm, maybe it's another hook that needs front-loading? Would "... that Ingeborg Beugel left Greece following death threats and reported attacks after she questioned the prime minister about pushbacks?" work Kingsif (talk) 02:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes! That sounds an awful lot better, thanks. --GGT (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I've requested this at WP:ERRORS. Kingsif (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Michael Smith (diplomat)

The quirky hook about Michael Smith uses wikivoice to say something that sounds like an opinion. It might get a pass as a quirky hook, but I don't think that an "X said" takes away from the quirkiness in this case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs)

I'm not sure what you mean—it's what the sign on the office door says, of course it'd be from him. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah that seems more logical than my original assumption of hate mail/other not-him message stuck on his door. Maybe "that Smith summarized his negotiating style by putting a sign reading "This is not Burger King" on his office door" would help, but I think my reading of the hook won't be so common. Kingsif (talk) 02:32, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Queue 6

off main page theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Teodor Boldur-Lățescu

I'd just replace the dash with a semi-colon in the Teodor Boldur-Lățescu hook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs)

WP:ERRORS would be the best place for this. SL93 (talk) 01:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Brought it up there. Kingsif (talk) 02:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Tokio (software)

... that the asynchronous Tokio runtime for the Rust programming language uses a work stealing scheduler? is basically nonsense to someone who doesn't know programming. There's wanting to get people to click, and then there's needing them to read a technical manual to understand once they have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs)

I tried to get the nominator to slim it down, this was as far as I got—pinging Legoktm. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
This is in no way hooky; imo, it should be pulled. Espresso Addict (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Actually, I think this is alright and I think this in keeping with other hooks where the (un)stated objective seems to be to pique one's curiosity to click the link into the article. It immediately interested my curiosity and had me looking for links to click on. Yes, as a computer science article it might attract an audience that is reasonably interested in the subject, but, well, that is true about sonatas], concerts and symphonies amongst other topics. Ktin (talk) 03:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Seeing something one doesn't know piques interest for one to read the rest of the hook and then hopefully click links, but there's a point at which "I don't know about this" becomes "I don't know what any of these words mean together" or "I don't understand this", and that makes it become uninteresting again because the knowledge gap seems too insurmountable (so what's the point) and/or there's no context for what you might be finding out (the hook hasn't hit interest, it's caused confusion; wanting to learn more will get people clicking because it doesn't require reading the whole thing and they will happily waste time on something they already found interesting, while wanting to resolve confusion I don't think will get clicks because it is more like an unnecessary chore). Kingsif (talk) 04:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, I think we should acknowledge that not all of us are cut from the same proverbial cloth. The text that you have described above is exactly what goes through my mind when I read a hook about sonatas, symphonies, the ninth major and the eighth minor and what not. That insurmountable knowledge gap is what causes me to skip the hook and move onto the next one. But, I do not find myself making the case that the hook should be reworded to pique my interest (or worse still, pull the hook). It is perfectly alright. This hook might get less clicks as compared to other hooks and that is perfectly alright. Ktin (talk) 04:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
It is a requirement that hooks are interesting, I'm not going to mention the "average reader", but if a hook is actively off-putting you, that isn't perfectly alright. Some have argued that filtering hooks until they touch on things that are in general consciousness is death to obscure subjects, and that it is nearly impossible to achieve this and be interesting, but with some group effort DYK has almost always managed to find something universally-relatable and interesting. When not, there truly hasn't been anything remarkable to say about a subject that isn't for the 1%, which is fine. I don't nominate half the articles I work on that could qualify for DYK because there's nothing I'd support as a hook. Quality over quantity before DYK becomes known as benign fact corner... Kingsif (talk) 04:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I am no longer following this one. I am saying that I am actually finding this hook interesting. I have no clue how you are computing "average" or 1%. Ktin (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I agree with Ktin - the hook is fine. It won't appeal to everybody, and that's fine too. We are not a tabloid we are an educational project, and the hook gives users an opportunity to get acquainted with several encyclopedic topics, including "work stealing" which is surely a hooky term. Gatoclass (talk) 04:34, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The hook still could use some improvement for clarity, but i agree that it's hooky enough to a broad audience. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 05:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I totally understand that for people with a non technical/software background, parts or all of this hook don't make sense. I believe all of the jargony terms ("asynchronous", "runtime", "work stealing") are either wikilinked immediately in the article or in the hook itself, so by reading the rest of the articles, it should at least begin to make some sense. And, "work stealing" was the thing that actually got me to look into Tokio more in the first place (I had never heard of work stealing before), so I think it's a good fit for the hook.
I showed it to my sister, who's not as technical as me, she got tripped up by Tokio splitting "asynchronous runtime", and suggested adjusting it like "...that Tokio, an asynchronous runtime for the Rust programming language, uses a work stealing scheduler?" - Would that make things clearer? Or are the issues elsewhere? Legoktm (talk) 07:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
During some IRC discussion, I had the idea that we could say "platform" instead of "runtime", and perhaps also drop "asynchronous" (being a rather hefty word, and IMO used here in a different sense than its everyday meaning). Lego agrees with the former suggestion. Enterprisey (talk!) 07:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@Enterprisey and Legoktm: Could one or both of you provide a proposed alt if you think these changes don't take away from the hook? Kingsif (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that the asynchronous Tokio platform for the Rust programming language uses a work stealing scheduler?
ALT4: ... that the Tokio platform for the Rust programming language uses a work stealing scheduler?
I slightly prefer #3, but if others also think "asynchronous" is more jargony than helpful I'm fine with dropping it. Legoktm (talk) 21:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I think the thing that trips it up is that the hooky part is "uses a work stealing scheduler" - we don't need to know what they means, but with the rest of the hook also being jargon, it gives no context as to why that is interesting. Maybe every asynchronous runtime software does... Anything where the "instead of" part doesn't go without saying needs some indicator. Kingsif (talk) 21:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I think it's what I'm about to coin as "accessible jargon"—jargon where you know what all the individual words mean (and some jump out at you), but it's still jargon and you have no idea what it means, so you're interested to try and put it together. But I agree that we should minimize jargon, so I like ALT4. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
If we all think ALT4 is an improvement, am I allowed to swap it in myself or should I flag down another admin for it? Legoktm (talk) 23:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@DYK admins: please Kingsif (talk) 23:14, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: IMO there is no obvious "instead of", there are too many types of scheduling (see all the sections on Scheduling (computing)). As the lead of Work stealing explains, I think it's likely that people who know about computers would contrast "work stealing" to "work sharing", but adding something like "rather than work sharing" would probably just add to the jargon rather than help clarify. Legoktm (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Legoktm: You're going to have to teach me! FWIW, I am also happy with alt4, though predicting that "work stealing" will probably get more clicks than Tokio. It is what it is, people will learn something. Kingsif (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to switch in ALT4 -- it is fully sourced and more comprehensible. Best, KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:56, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Done: Special:Diff/1062869744 KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 23:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Karolína Huvarová

... that Karolína Huvarová quipped that she earned her position as men's hockey coach "in bed"? - I hope I don't need to explain how bad this comes across. It's quirky, I get it, but the joke is sexism... I don't know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs)

Pinging nominator GRuban. SL93 (talk) 01:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I would totally agree with you, except she made the quip herself—i understood the double meaning as intentional on Huvarová's part. It threw me for a loop when I first saw it, too; I never would have ran this if someone else said it about her. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I feel the same way. SL93 (talk) 02:21, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
There is a noticeable difference between self-deprecation and deprecation of another. That said, I offered a choice of two hooks to the closer. --GRuban (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Queue 7

off main page theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:28, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


New Year foods

The twelve lucky grapes
The twelve lucky grapes

I have honestly never heard of the underwear part of the uvas tradition, something I have taken part in, and the current structure seems like the (pictured) refers to the underwear. Maybe remove that part? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs)

Well, the underwear is also pictured, and if the sourcing checks out on the fact, I don't see the issue. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
ping @Theleekycauldron, Ritchie333, and Valereee: We could interrogate the sourcing. There are two sources for the sentence: one doesn't mention underwear. Searching for "uvas ropa interior nochevieja" (grapes, underwear, NYE) gives multiple sources that say they are separate traditions: you eat grapes, you wear red underwear, there is nothing about both at once. [1], [2], [3]. One goes so far as to mention yellow underwear for money, red underwear for love, as different things. Kingsif (talk) 21:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I've added another source for while wearing red underwear given to you as a gift by someone else. —valereee (talk) 21:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Can't read the book, if you could quote from it @Valereee:, but the other new source (on web) says Bonus points if you’re wearing special New Year’s Eve underwear while eating your grapes. A pair of red underwear can bring you a new year of love, while yellow may bring joy and fortune. - again saying that underwear is a NYE tradition, but a separate one, and there are different colors. Nothing about gifting in that. I would say that even if you can find more sources connecting them, there are enough sources which actually separate them that it would be cherrypicking to only use the ones that agree and we can't confirm it as fact when sources disagree. Kingsif (talk) 23:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
"For luck, wear red underwear bought for you by someone else." —valereee (talk) 23:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
So the bought-by-someone-else part checks out. Maybe just a little rewording, saying that Spanish NYE traditions include eating 12 grapes, wearing red underwear someone else gave to you, and putting gold rings in cava? The trifecta structure could work, and it doesn't get into the maybe business of if they traditionally all go together or just can. Kingsif (talk) 23:12, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
NPR says "the entire country gathers in front of television screens or in town squares, clutching a small bowl of green grapes and wearing red underwear". I think the hook is accurate. —valereee (talk) 23:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
And Spanish sources (multiple above) discussing grapes and underwear explicitly do not say that (as well as some saying it is for reasons other than luck and not all saying if the underwear have to be gifted), not that NPR's sentence actually tells us if the two things are connected or coincidental anyway, so I think the hook isn't accurate. Rather than having to use our own views on which sources are more correct (though hopefully you'd agree the Spanish know their traditions a bit better), we can avoid the problem. @Theleekycauldron: ? Kingsif (talk) 00:10, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Promise.es appears to be a lingerie brand's blog? —valereee (talk) 00:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Then it knows about Spain and underwear more than NPR does... seriously, fine, discard one of four sources, it doesn't change matters. Kingsif (talk) 01:15, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
So you're going to argue a lingerie brand blog is a more reliable source than NPR? —valereee (talk) 01:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee and Kingsif: does it harm the hook that much to change the "while" to an "and"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:07, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Good solution, although I question whether this was an actual problem that needed to be solved. I'm a nitpicker, but this just seems silly. Yeah, second thought, no. This is silly. The hook IMO is good. —valereee (talk) 01:19, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Looking at the sources, there are still many that suggest red underwear is not for luck, and don't need to be given as a gift, on top of not being part of the same tradition. I don't know what's gotten into Valereee but they seem very tied to just believing the first thing they read, and they have demonstrated above they are unwilling to accept any sources (the good, actually Spanish ones) that disagree. And even though the NPR source doesn't actually support the hook as it is written. I suggest pull it completely if they refuse to accept even the smallest change, as it could be entirely inaccurate. Kingsif (talk) 01:32, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
NPR says "the entire country gathers in front of television screens or in town squares, clutching a small bowl of green grapes and wearing red underwear". —valereee (talk) 01:38, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
El País says Junto a las uvas del día 31, las carreras de San Silvestre también forman parte del acervo de esta jornada... Tampoco falta la superstición de llevar alguna prenda interior roja para atraer el amor: "As well as the grapes of the 31st, the races in San Silvestre are a tradition of this day... Also present is the superstition of wearing some red undergarment to attract love". Kingsif (talk) 01:52, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
And that means...?
You opened like two dozen hook queries at once all in the same post. I get it, the project isn't perfect. But this has been a pretty big time sink. Are you trying to make a point? —valereee (talk) 01:58, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I think Kingsif is trying to say that they are two separate traditions that happen to be in the same timeframe. imo, that doesn't affect the wording of the hook too much. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay, fine, actually weighing in here. The washington post says (as an addition to the grapes tradition): Bonus points if you’re wearing special New Year’s Eve underwear while eating your grapes. A pair of red underwear can bring you a new year of love, while yellow may bring joy and fortune. Kingsif, that's two RSP-greenlit sources corroborating the idea that 1. these two traditions have at the very least a tendency to be in conjunction (although I personally see the connection as stronger than that), and 2. there is an association of both with luck. I don't think this hook is innaccurate—both are considered lucky, and there is some evidence that the underwear has a tradition of being gifted. They don't need to be the same tradition, they're at the same time, you're obviously gonna be doing one while you're doing the other. We can hedge if we really have to, but I frankly don't see a need. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:57, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
if you're both still dead-set on this, take it to WP:ERRORS, it's already on the mp. but as far as I understand the situation, I don't see a need for a change. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:59, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Re. WaPo: "Bonus points" to me doesn't indicate that they go together, it's just a sleek way of mentioning the most interesting (underwear) of the many other NYE traditions after the most common one (grapes). And it doesn't say it brings luck, it says love. It says yellow underwear is luck - do you want to change the hook to yellow? Now, FWIW, I will take one Spanish RS about heritage over two American ones that are compiling lists of weird foreign customs. The country and purpose are things to consider in accurate reporting here. If El País is wrong about Spain, the BBC is wrong about Britain. It's going to ERRORS. Kingsif (talk) 02:06, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

KOBF

I'd also make the KIVA-TV hook front-heavy (...that KIVA-TV got bomb threats...) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs)

I would say received or something similar. "Got" isn't encyclopedic. SL93 (talk) 01:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Full ALT: ... that New Mexico television station KIVA-TV received angry phone calls and a bomb threat after switching away from a tied football game? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie and SounderBruce: as nom and reviewer Kingsif (talk) 22:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I approve of this wording. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 22:55, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
this one's a queue, we'll need one of the @DYK admins: to do the swap. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:57, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Rudolf Pohl

... that Rudolf Pohl, who was a member of the Aachener Domchor as a boy, led the choir that dates back to Charlemagne to international recognition? - is "the choir" referring back to Aachener Domcher? If so, just say "that Pohl led the AD, a choir that dates back to Charlemagne, to international recognition" for ease of understanding. If it isn't the same choir, why is that confusing sub clause there? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs)

It's the tradition of a choir at the relevant cathedral that dates back to Charlemagne. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I totally read it as "Aachen Cathedral Choir", is that not a fixed choir? Will it be too wordy to try and explain (because the definite article usage in the hook confuses); if so, can we remove something that isn't needed for the hook fact - if "dates back to Charlemagne" is the interesting part, perhaps the choir name can be removed? Or do we say "... that Pohl led the AD choir that dates back..." and let everyone safely assume that if he led it, he was indeed a member. Kingsif (talk) 06:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
is Aachener Domchor the same as Aachen Cathedral Choir? It says the tradition of a choir, so it may not be a fixed one... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
From my middling German, that's the translation, and I just checked and our article says it is so. Our article also suggests it is a fixed choir (i.e. not just whatever choir sets up at Aachen Cathedral), of course with transient members as they grow and move. Pohl it seems was a member and then grew up to be its conductor; if "led" was supposed to indicate that it didn't. @Theleekycauldron and Gerda Arendt: - bringing a choir to renown is something I think most people will understand, and it is very interesting that the conductor used to be a singer in it. There's just a few words where confusion settled - the unclear "the choir", and then "led". I don't know if it's just me, but "led" gives the idea that he was the lead singer, as conductors are generally so little-known/given credit. Could this part be clearer? e.g. "...that conductor Rudolf Pohl brought the Aachener Domchor, a choir that dates back to Charlemagne and which he had sung with as a boy, to international recognition?" Kingsif (talk) 21:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: how about this for some punch: ... that conductor Rudolf Pohl, a member of the Aachen Cathedral choir as a boy, brought the Charlemagne-era choir to international recognition in the 1960s? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:54, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm tempted to ask for "this Charlemagne-era...", just so we definitely know it's the same choir, but it works. Kingsif (talk) 23:04, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
we'll need one of the @DYK admins: for this too, and the New Year foods hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:25, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
nevermind, we're still squabbling on the new year's. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I've changed the Pohl hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:41, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Volkswagen worker organizations

Is the Volkswagen hook just a really long-winded way of saying the company was one of the first to have a workers' union? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs)

I think it's the specific type of union that matters here? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prep 2

all issues resolved! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Yasmin Miller

Was it that unusual for an athlete like Yasmin Miller to use a park to train during COVID? From what I hear, most of them, even in rich countries like the UK, had to do so. The real hooky stories are the ones from poorer countries without public parks, like the swimmer nearly getting eaten by a shark, or building their own sandpit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs)

I agree and I don't see anything in the article that I think would work as a hook. SL93 (talk) 02:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Pinging Dumelow. SL93 (talk) 02:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
yeah, not going to contest this. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@SL93, Theleekycauldron, and Dumelow: Even if it just mentioned that when Miller was training in the park, local children would copy her, is something different. Kingsif (talk) 02:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I guess that would be fine if we really want the article to run. Children are known for copying things including myself and I'm no one special. SL93 (talk) 02:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
It would be interesting, perhaps even hooky, if there were sources that said whether or not she finally achieved Master of Laws degree in international commercial law. — Maile (talk) 02:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Can't find anything, though her twitter suggests she is, er, vaccine-sceptic. Interesting, but probably not hook-appropriate. Kingsif (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I found this quite interesting personally, but then I don't usually write sports biographies. An ALT as suggested above, otherwise if the consensus is that it is boring then just don't run it - Dumelow (talk) 08:11, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
ALT3: ... that children copied British champion 60m hurdler Yasmin Miller (pictured) while she was training in her local park during the COVID-19 lockdown?
@Theleekycauldron: I'm going to assume you promoted this and ask you to swap alt3 in? It may not be the most exceptional, but the way Dumelow has phrased it does add more punch for me. Checks out, sourced in article. Kingsif (talk) 21:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
i think that'll work, yeah—swapped in theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Dumping in Dixie

... that Dumping in Dixie was the first book to cover environmental injustice in the United States? - for all purposes, this is PLOT. The real world element is just "first to", but is that really enough (X is first book to write about Y is pretty bland, maybe a date would help this one if it's more recent than expected for the first?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs)

Added "the 1990 book" theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I thought that "plot" meant fiction. MOS:PLOT refers to fictional content. SL93 (talk) 01:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
At DYK, I use it as my catch-all for "media hook only talking about what's in the media" (not referring to the MOS, caps was to differentiate from simple/literal plot); even non-fiction works need some real-world element, so maybe I need a better shorthand. Kingsif (talk) 02:02, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
do we have a rule against entirely "in-universe" hooks for non-fiction books? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 05:35, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
If it's the case that hooks can't be primary sourced to the article subject, yes, but even if not I still take the real-world factor to mean that DYK is for things you won't know just from "seeing" the boldlink, so "building looks like X", "book is about Y", "film mentions Z" aren't acceptable. Kingsif (talk) 06:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
hmm, that's a useful rule if that's true—I didn't know we had that. But I disagree with your interpretation of the broad idea here, you wouldn't know that Dumping in Dixie was the first book to do this just by reading it. I don't know if there's even an in-universe aspect to this hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:45, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
That's why I said besides "first" - the rest of the hook is "book is about Y", and the first to do something isn't always interesting. The year does help in this case. Kingsif (talk) 06:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Talk of plot is absurd. The real issue is whether it was actually the first as it seems easy to find counter examples. Bullard himself wrote books on this theme before this one, such as Confronting Environmental Racism (1983), which was published 7 years before this one. And there are other authors too such as Environmental Justice (1988). Andrew🐉(talk) 19:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
    From the bottom of the EPA source: This timeline presents EPA's involvement in the Environmental Justice Movement and the major events leading up to it. This is not meant to be an all inclusive history of the movement in general. I don't think this hook checks out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 19:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
    (as nominator) For reference, here are the specific quotes from the sources: Dumping in Dixie by Dr. Robert Bullard was the first book focused primarily on documenting environmental injustice in the United States. The book that Bullard eventually wrote about that work, 1990’s Dumping in Dixie, is widely regarded as the first to fully articulate the concept of environmental justice. His “Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class and Environmental Quality” was the first book to introduce many readers to the field of environmental justice (Westview Press, 1990). I suppose an alternative hook can be:
    though I'm not too sure.. any thoughts? (Also @Riley1012: as reviewer). eviolite (talk) 19:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Eviolite and Theleekycauldron: The alt2 is sourced in article and I would say it is interesting enough. I'd ping to thank Andrew for drawing attention to it, but I really think he's come into this with a negative mindset so I'll give him some space. If he's stuck around and is reading this, thanks. Kingsif (talk) 21:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
    agreed! I've swapped it in :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:41, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Goliath Tabuni

... that due to guerilla commander Goliath Tabuni, Puncak Jaya Regency became "the most violent" in Papua? - the most violent what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs)

regency, I'm assuming? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I added "region" to the article per "Since then, Puncak Jaya has been considered "the most violent" region in Papua." Regency would work also, but that is repetitive. SL93 (talk) 01:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prep 3

1552 Broadway

Can we link the women in the 1552 Broadway hook? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs)

We can, but I generally only link something if we really have to—the more links there are, the more we distract people from the bolded article that we want people to pay attention to. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
That kind of conflicts with the 'guideline' (or some unofficial rule I remember) that we don't mention names unless we can link them. I would say it comes down to how relevant they are to the hook; does it work best if someone knows who these people are, and thus we need to link them for those who don't? Or does it totally work no matter what the names are? Kingsif (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Theleekycauldron is correct. Only the nominated article should be linked. If people want to know more then they can click on the bold link. Secondary topics will then be explained further in the article. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Prep 4

Johann-Werner Prein

... that Johann-Werner Prein, an Austrian operatic bass-baritone based in Germany, took part in the 1994 premiere of Schulhoff's Flammen? - without any context as to what Flammen is and why it might be unusual for such a person to be in its premiere, this is just "actor acted". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs)

I'll ping Gerda Arendt for this, she's usually got an explanation and I've learned not to argue too much. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I had the same thought. Though I tend not to argue with Gerda about interestingness for reasons. SL93 (talk) 01:17, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Same, though maybe it is concerning that DYK regulars feel we can't challenge someone on how interesting their hooks are. It's on the DYK checklist, and I like Gerda and she's a great contributor, but someone being unhappy that they keep getting questioned on one part of the review shouldn't mean we skip that part for them, right? Kingsif (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
That is a lot of discussion back and forth. I think almost everyone just gave up on that. SL93 (talk) 02:06, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I always thought it was weird that her role hooks tend to get a pass whereas similar hooks by other editors often get rejected. I understand that she's the most frequent contributor to DYK and she's done great work over the years, it's just that it feels odd that the usual standards that editors have about role hooks don't seem to be used for reviews on her hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Gerda's hooks usually score poorly with our general readership but she is well aware of this and indifferent to vulgar tastes. As she seems to be a subject-matter expert and this is a matter of high culture, we should respect her preference and wishes. De gustibus non est disputandum. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I disagree that being a subject-matter expert makes it so that her hooks don't need to meet the interesting to a broad audience criterion. I'm sure plenty of other nominators are experts in the field of articles that they nominate. SL93 (talk) 13:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Honestly I think the hook should be pulled and ideally be replaced with something else. Like most of the opera roles hooks this isn't interesting at all to non-opera fans, as it's full of names and titles that aren't that well known to broad audiences. It's just not interesting enough to a broad audience. Looking at the article, it's almost entirely about roles, so I'm not sure if there's even a usable hook fact there. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I've gone ahead and pulled the hook for now, editors are free to propose new suggestions at the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
    Rubbing eyes (if there was any working ping I missed it, sorry, I'm travelling, and I am busy with Gwendolyn Killebrew for RD): How is that a role hook? It exposes an opera which the Nazis made disappear, so - written in the 1920s - it wasn't premiered until 1994, and in a translation that Kafka's friend Max Brod had prepared. If that is not supplying valuable facts to the general audience, I don't know, really, what we are good for. If someone can word it better: welcome! - I work towards making Flammen known (and the fact that this singer is open for the unusual), not the tenth Ring or Zauberflöte, which would be all too commonplace imho. Next year will see less of me on DYK, promised. GA, FA and RD seem better ways to spend my limited time. Look at stats for Günther Rühle: how many (few) for DYK, and how many for RD (where we just give the name, and interest is there)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:43, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Firstly, the hook is about Prein and not Flammen; indeed, if the hook was about Flammen, then it being written in the 1920s but only premiering in 1994 would make a great hook. Secondly, it's a role hook because the ultimate format is "opera singer X played a role in Opera Y", which doesn't really say much about the person without additional context. It may appeal to you, as someone who is very interested in classical music and is a classical musician yourself, but it's hard to say that it would appeal to anyone else given that, as Kingsif suggested above, the work itself isn't well-known enough to catch the attention of the typical reader. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
It should also be noted that Flammen being written in the 1920s is not even mentioned in Prein's article, so if that angle is to be used, said information has to be in the hook subject's article (i.e. Prein's). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:50, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I disagree. The kind of repertoire a singer performs IS relevant, and this one sings an amazing unusual array of early 20th-century opera. That is the key hook, but I believe that mentioning one of them is better than a summary, and picking the neglected one seemed interesting to me. The detail of why it's more interesting than the others should not be part of any singer's article, nor of the hook. We also have no room for that it's a Don Juan myth opera, but I thought that Flammen is close enough to Flames to raise interest just by the title (+ it's nicely short). I have been told again and again to not say it all in the hook but just kindle curiosity. - The hook was in prep on 3 Jan because it's the singer's birthday, and I think it would be a nice gesture to put it back there. I do prefer to recognize a singer for a birthday rather than death, but please don't make it too hard. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, it wasn't for 3 Jan, - not even that worked. But we have 2 hooks mentioning Christmas in prep 7. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: You know I like your work, that I care little for opera but the technical details fascinate me. This only gets across when you explain them. You say the key hooky part is that Prein "sings an amazing unusual array of early 20th-century opera" - why doesn't the hook say that? In the past, you have nominated hooks of the format "X opera singer was in A, B, and C" where A, B, C are very disparate works - but only someone already interested in opera can tell that from the titles. Saying they are disparate in the hook, however, makes it clear. And this precludes the need to mention roles or places or dates that make them different, and if the examples would be too lengthy, just saying "Prein unusually sang a wide array of early C20 opera" at least tells the readers that something about him isn't run-of-the-mill.
You say you think that naming a single unusual work he was in is better than summarizing that he was in lots of unusual works, but then you also picked the most neglected one? With people not knowing what it is by your design, how are they supposed to know it is unusual? And with only one mentioned, how are they supposed to know he was often in unusual works? To wit, say you have a movie star who acts in lots of films that are shot on 8mm, but the hook just said "X actor was in the movie Y in 2010". Making a film on 8mm in 2010 is unusual, and moreso is someone choosing to be in multiple! The hook does not say either of those things, and someone with a knowledge of filmmaking will not get it.
For the other things you mentioned: Flammen and "Flames" don't sound alike enough in English that I connected them until you mentioned it, and I don't know why "flames" makes something interesting anyway? Sure, some people have heard of Don Juan, but the hook would still be "opera singer was in opera", just with a bit of fictional detail. Would "actor was in film which is based on book" be a good hook? No.
The long and short of it is: there is some really interesting stuff with stories of operas. You can't explain it all in a hook, we know this, but then short and sweet only works when the interesting factor is short and sweet. If it takes lots of connections to explain, summarize it, or find something else. You've said in the past that you like to recognize people in DYK hooks for their career and achievements, not for random weird parts of their life; I think that putting up a hook like "opera singer only wore underwear on Tuesdays" is going to get more people to click through to find out about the person, and appreciate their talents more in contrast. With Prein, if his biography can get some connecting clauses that maybe compare how unusual the works were (nothing excessive), we could try to make a hook out of that. Because right now it's nothing more than a prose list of works; there are whole books on him in the references, do they say nothing except "he was in A, then B, then C"? Kingsif (talk) 22:24, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I am sorry to not have the time to read all this now - probably next year. We talk in the nom. Why I didn't say "vast array ..."? Because it would be my OR. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Prep 5

resolved! :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:00, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


Elspeth Green

... that Elspeth Henderson stayed on the line despite a direct hit by a Luftwaffe bomb? - what line? I assume telephone, but it might be a tightrope for all I know, it doesn't give any clues while assuming the reader knows to what it refers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs)

The article says phone. It took me a few seconds to find that in the article and fix it. SL93 (talk) 01:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Kingsif assumed that this was a telephone line and was correct. There is therefore not a problem that needs fixing here. Hooks are supposed to be brief and punchy, not wordy and pedantic. I oppose change. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:49, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
One extra word does not equal "wordy and pedantic". SL93 (talk) 10:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh yes it does. See the sorites paradox and last straw. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The problem was that, regardless of what type of line it was (being hit by a bomb is reason enough to get off anything, surely), the hook jumped right in as if the reader knew who Henderson was and why she would be on [whatever kind of] line. Frontloading - putting the hooky part (here, the bomb) first - is always a good idea because it avoids this kind of confusing prelude that can turn readers off before they get to the punch. I wasn't so clear explaining that initially, but then again neither was the hook ;) Kingsif (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Just observing as a non-British reader, the original hook does not make me want to click. I wonder if it would be acceptable as this:

  • ALT1 ... that WAAF Corporal Elspeth Henderson never left her post despite a direct hit by a Luftwaffe bomb?

— Maile (talk) 13:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I have changed it to:

ooh, i like that theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 17:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I like that also. — Maile (talk) 18:22, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Thirded. Kingsif (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prep 7

Daniel Henchman (publisher)

There's a stray comma in the Daniel Henchman hook. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingsif (talk • contribs)

Fixed, that came from a pictured that i removed. in the future, that's the kind of thing you should probably just fix on your own—Mandarax and Ravenpuff don't take every change they make here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Miya Cech

... that Miya Cech is said to "do what [she] can with nothing" in The Darkest Minds? isn't even just PLOT, it's like a contextless snippet of some press release synopsis that functionally means nothing. It tells me nothing except there is someone called Miya Cech in something called The Darkest Minds. Kingsif (talk) 01:04, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Ping @Andrew Davidson and Daniel Case as nominator and reviewer (I'm the promoter). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
That would actually be Pamzeis and Feminist. Daniel Case (talk) 06:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
sorry, my bad—i clicked on the elspeth green hook by mistake. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:36, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
as for actually fixing the hook, that comment was intended to be praise for Cech, in that she gave a good performance in a rather bad movie—"do what they can with nothing". How about:
Open to workshopping here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Ah, sometimes quotes of praise can be turned into acceptable hooks, but the ones in Cech's article seem pretty standard - as in, no unusual turns of phrase or things actors aren't usually praised for. The article doesn't give much besides "starred in X, of which critic said "good job"," but we might have something about her being born in Japan but in two television shows called "American"... Kingsif (talk) 06:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I think it's pretty unusual for an actress to be praised for being an oasis of a good performance in an otherwise bad movie, no? and the quote to that end seems quirky enough. I could be wrong, but that praise doesn't seem to be inside-the-box "good job". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Not really. This year there have been some bad/panned movies see praise and award nominations for certain actors (Ariana DeBose and Rachel Zegler in West Side Story, Jennifer Hudson in Respect), and variations on "did their best with bad material" is a pretty common way of praising such roles (it's seen again later in Cech's own short article as "does solid work [...] even if the script doesn't always give her the best lines"). Not to forget, the coverage of this in the article is limited to In 2018, Cech made her film debut in The Darkest Minds as Zu, a mute girl who can manipulate electricity. The film received generally negative reviews, but her performance received praise. Deadline Hollywood said "Cech do[es] what [she] can with nothing", while IndieWire considered her a standout. - I was trying to think of a way to expand, but (appropriately for her bio), the response focuses on her within the film, so we can't say she was the only good performance when there is an absence of detail of any other performance. The Decider review quote for Rim of the World might have something ("She's funnier [than the males], too") to work with, but the coverage of her is pretty routine, not very hooky. Kingsif (talk) 07:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
ALT1: ... that Miya Cech, born in Japan, appeared in American Horror Story and American Housewife?
This can work, though according to the article, she only had guest roles in these two shows. And if the concern with the original hook is that an actor who "did their best with bad material" is pretty common (i.e. not hooky enough), so is multicultural representation in American cinema. feminist (talk) 07:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose change The hook does what it can with nothing as the article seems to be mostly a list of the roles that the subject has played. The use of square brackets is unusual but this is a virtue in a hook as it may attract attention. The ALT1 hook is inferior because the point about the different nationalities is subtle and so easily missed. It might also generate concern about cultural appropriation which seems to be a big deal in acting nowadays. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:28, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Honestly none of the hooks proposed so far seem to be all that interesting. The original is rather vague and seems to dependent on brackets. I agree with Andrew that ALT1 isn't great since the connection is too subtle to be noticed by most readers (indeed, I noticed the two "American" mentions before the "born in Japan" phrase). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:03, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • ALT1 is a yawn, countless actors born elsewhere appear in movies of another country. I support leeky's copyedit of the original hook, ALT0a. Gatoclass (talk) 15:51, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5, Gatoclass, and Feminist: throwing out alt2 because I still think "a critic said an actor was good in a film" is worse than just saying they were in the film, being pseudo-promotional. ALT2: ... that Miya Cech has played characters called Kono, ZhenZhen, Zu, and Amy?
    Not great, but hopefully might get a chuckle at the end. Kingsif (talk) 22:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with that one. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: mmm, not quite a fan—i don't think that kind of bait-and-switch would be particularly unheard of, particularly for asian-american actors. Simu Liu has played "Lah Zhima" on Star Wars: Visions, "Xu Shang-Chi" on Shang-Chi and the Legend of the Ten Rings, and "Gilbert" on Women Is Losers. If we can't get consensus on a hook, I suggest pulling it while we work something out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:11, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron and Gatoclass: I did a bit of research; I found an actors on actors video with her. Some things: she likes Harry Potter and is "in" Hufflepuff house and would want to play Luna or Hermione if she was in the movies; she filmed a Nickelodeon show from her home in Davis using a green screen (because pandemic); she thinks Canada is cold (they have a chat about Canada being cold, twice); she learned to do magic tricks for her role in Marvelous and the Black Hole; she used wires, apple boxes, and a parallelogram to record anti-gravity scenes in The Astronauts; her "craziest set experience" was showering on a tour bus between shooting scenes for different movies in different cities on the same day; she does calligraphy; she wants to be a director and felt it was "huge" working with female Asian-American director Jennifer Yuh Nelson on The Darkest Minds; she found it hard to play her character, a mute girl, in The Darkest Minds because she likes to talk a lot, but felt the role helped her learn how to act expressively. I can add any of these to the article as needed if you think something is interesting, courtesy ping to creator/nom @Pamzeis: before I do. Kingsif (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Who cares what the names of some characters she played were? Please let's just stick to ALT0a, it's easily the best that's been proposed, it tells the reader that not only is Cech a capable actor who can rise above her material, but that The Darkest Minds was a dog. Lists of names of characters or movies on the other hand, deliver no useful information whatever. Gatoclass (talk) 23:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: If you really want to go with it, can we do it without a boxy quote? "... that critics thought actress Miya Cech performed well in The Darkest Minds, despite not being given much to work with" is at least palatable. Kingsif (talk) 00:03, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Not an improvement IMO - it's wordier, more ambiguous, and omits that the film was poorly received. I have however given ALT0a a small tweak for clarity, so it now reads:
... that actress Miya Cech was praised for "do[ing] what [she] can with nothing" in the ill-regarded The Darkest Minds? Gatoclass (talk) 00:13, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
Excited to hear your view on my further suggestions, but agree that alt0a edit is getting better. Kingsif (talk) 00:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I like it. feminist (talk) 03:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

General discussion

The proposal to forbid hook copyediting without discussion is a perennially failed issue at DYK. Editors are encouraged to notify nominators when copyediting but it is not a requirement for reasons of practicality; WP:BRD applies to hooks as to any other content. This is not going to change and there is no point in discussing it for the umpteenth time. Gatoclass (talk) 15:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Minor things can be fixed by anyone. SL93 (talk) 01:18, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

agreed—for wording swaps and changes and typo fixes, make the changes you want to make and ping the nominator. If you have an issue with the hook fact itself, that's when to come here. Substance comes here, style can be fixed boldly. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I was only going to bring up hookiness issues, but dumped everything. I don't plan on regularly picking at every hook, but nearly every set having something I probably would have contested before promoting was a little shocking. Kingsif (talk) 01:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Can we get a clue on who is asking? I can't follow it. Is it Kingsif asking all of these? Kingsif, are you asking multiple questions on multiple preps? I'm confused. —valereee (talk) 04:15, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: Yes and yes. I basically dumped all my comments on every prep and queue here. Responses broke it up but the bullets should section off each hook. Kingsif (talk) 04:26, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
It got really confusing as it expanded. Maybe in future we sign each bullet point query to help clarify? That would also provide a date for each, which is helpful. —valereee (talk) 04:29, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I added unsigned templates and expanded everything into subheadings. That should make it easier on the eyes. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 05:31, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose Bold stylistic changes to hooks by bystanders are outrageous and should be forbidden. A hook which has been composed with care and then reviewed and approved represents an established formal consensus for that form of words. To alter an approved hook without consultation and agreement is disruptive as it is impolite and will tend to annoy and drive off contributors.
I'm here because I was pinged. But I was pinged in mistake about a hook that I haven't worked on. Putting all the pending hooks into play is generating chaos and confusion. We have an established process of proposers, reviewers and promoters. This established workflow is efficient and productive and so does not need changing.
If instead, we have a free-for-all committee in which everyone speaks at once about everything then this will multiply the work by duplicating and repeating it; generate argument and bad feeling, and so tend to destroy DYK. A relevant precedent is WP:ITN in which the nominations are considered collectively by a peanut gallery. Just about nothing gets through that process and so the productivity of ITN is poor – less than one blurb per day and so their set of blurbs is usually quite stale. DYK's current productivity is many times greater so, if it works, don't fix it!
See also WP:INTODARKNESS.
Andrew🐉(talk) 10:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I disagree about it being disruptive, but the majority of these hook issues seem to be unnecessary stylistic preferences such as moving something to the front such as the first two hooks mentioned in queue 5. There is no established consensus on plot elements referring to non-fiction works. I don't think we should have admins rushing to the queues to edit non-errors. SL93 (talk) 10:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I feel strongly that the time to comment on hooks is before they are approved, and that later comments should be few, and must be notified to the hook nominator and reviewer. There has been far too much last-minute tinkering in the past, often escaping the notice of the nominators and reviewers, as it happens on pages they don't watchlist (and would go mad if they did). Johnbod (talk) 13:23, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Close

per Andrew's proposal, this "entire shambles"—namely, this close-request section—is closed immediately, "before it does any more damage". :) seriously, though; participation can be messy, but it makes DYK a better, more interesting place with better artisanship. i'd love to see more people add their voices to our domchor. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:20, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I propose that this entire shambles be closed immediately before it does any more damage. If it remains open, then I'm going to comment on every single hook as that is what we have been invited to do. This might get noisy so be careful what you wish for ... Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

"If you don't stop I'll do what you want" isn't the threat you think it is? More voices can only be helpful, moody or not. As said above, I'm not (and hopefully nobody else is) planning to do this all the time. But every few weeks, a number of complaints about interestingness of hooks on the MP are raised, and I thought an exercise in final checks might at least be a reminder to regular contributors that they can and should challenge boring or windy hooks. Kingsif (talk) 22:42, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

I kind of see Andrew's point. The whole thing was just kind of a time sink. What was the point of this? Are we proposing that this is needed weekly? It's taken up a ton of energy. How productive was it vs the time it took? —valereee (talk) 01:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

In the interest of CIVIL, I'm not going to tell you here the impression this comment leaves, but please read the comment directly above yours that answers all the questions. Kingsif (talk) 01:40, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking earlier that this exercise in examining the hooks was pretty productive, as I find it annoying that editors wait until things are on the main page to comment. I realize nominators have worked hard and don't want their approved hooks diddled with. On the other hand, better now than at WP:ERRORS after it's on the main page. — Maile (talk) 02:36, 31 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not objecting to people querying hooks. I query hooks pretty much every time I move a prep to queue, fairly often 2 or 3 hooks in a single set. What I'm objecting to is something that looks pointy: I'm going to finetooth comb everything on the Qs/Ps page today and mass query everything I see that could possibly be queried. Kingsif, I'm sorry the comment left a bad impression, because I don't like thinking I've left a negative impression of me for any of my colleagues here. If you want to each day check the most recent move-to-queues for something you thought needed a query, I'd have zero objection. You can do that daily as far as I'm concerned. But this was like two weeks' worth of hooks all in a single post. Someone else had to come along and subsection it. —valereee (talk) 20:44, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: Thanks - I genuinely thought it would be useful, and most of the engagement was quite quick and, er, receptive. Yes, the impression was that you thought I was being POINTy, but I wasn't. I didn't think a one-time dump of the entire prep list would be unwelcome or disruptive (what is this talkpage's purpose if not to interrogate and fix things) but I can see how so much at once could feel like too much. But I dunno, a couple of editors seemed to quite eagerly discuss many if not all the things I brought up; in the past, I have not infrequently made queries on nom templates, but that doesn't get so many eyes on it. I was glad to see more engagement here. Kingsif (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@Kingsif, probably just a misunderstanding between two colleagues. It happens online. :) Best to you. —valereee (talk) 23:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Barton, Kinder and Alderson

I would like a second reviewer to look at the hook here. Thanks for any assistance. MB 01:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Responded at nom. Kingsif (talk) 02:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

nomination categorization

We had a discussion a while back about nomination categorization, and I think I just found a solution—is there a way that the talk-page transclusions of DYK nominations could add categories to just the article's talk page? That way, we could intersect the categories with the other talk-page categories from WikiProjects to get the various needed categories—for example, crossing all the talk pages with open DYK nomination with articles in WikiProject biography would give us all the bios. The categories should be transcluded only if it's an open nomination, of course. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:14, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

It's possible to make the template only provide the categorization when it's transcluded elsewhere, but that would mean that the categories also show up on the DYK pages where nominations are collected. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
that would be just WP:DYKN and WP:DYKNA, no? I'd be okay with that... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:23, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
update:the feature has been implemented at Category:Articles that have been nominated for Did you know! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:49, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

120 approved nominations

We are at 120 approved nominations. The queue page says that it goes to two sets a day with at least 120 approved hooks, but I didn't follow the end of the last conversation about if that should change. @DYK admins: SL93 (talk) 02:02, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

We're in the first round of WikiCup now, so we'd need to go to 2-a-days for that anyway. —valereee (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh, that is a useful reminder to me. I joined earlier. SL93 (talk) 02:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Is there any reason we shouldn't go ahead and do this now? I'm sure it will mean doing some swaps, but that shouldn't matter for the next set? —valereee (talk) 02:09, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: i've moved the relevant hooks, we're good theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:13, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
we have a christmas sheni set that's currently schedule for Jan. 7. I've moved them down to the bottom prep set, but they'll need to be moved further than that (we're running a backlog of promoted queues, so I'd prefer to wait until the admins promote some preps to queues rather than depromote the noms.
For the admins: before noon UTC (roughly ten hours from now), please change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200.
Bureaucratic stuff out of the way, everyone please feel free to discuss whether this eleven-day one-a-day period was too short. happy new year! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Arguably artificial as the queues are backlogged, but at this point inevitable, so - here we go! A new year's gift from the DYK queue. While I'm here, Happy New Year everyone! Canadianerk (talk) 02:14, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done We're on 2-a-days. —valereee (talk) 02:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

We are on two sets, which means that Canticle IV: The Journey of the Magi, requested for 6 January, sits now in q5 for 3 January. Which may be a good chance to get Johann-Werner Prein (now approved) in there for his birthday?? It will need an admin. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @DYK admins: for Gerda. SL93 (talk) 19:39, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
Is there a problem with fulfilling the request? SL93 (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
maybe @DYK admins: has a bystander effect—every admin thinks every other admin is going to do it for long enough that everyone puts it out of their mind. with a little passive-aggressive reping to the admins there, just for sparkle. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 17:03, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Make it easy for me -- instead of linking to the articles, which is not where I need to work, people asking me to help them can give me convenience links to the queues/preps/nom templates as appropriate. :) It's why I always link to the nom template, queue, provide each full hook plus ping nom, reviewer, promoter whenever I need to query a hook: to make it easy for someone to help me by giving them every link they could possibly need. I got pinged here last night, saw it was going to be complicated, saw that the links were to the articles, and decided I didn't have time. I have some time now, so I'll go at least get started. —valereee (talk) 17:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
i stand (or, most likely sit) corrected :) if you still would like links, i'm happy to provide, but it seems like you're on it at the moment. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 17:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't think you should feel responsible for providing all the links the requester didn't. I said something because I want to help requesters understand how to make it easy for me to help them. :D —valereee (talk) 17:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
ah, i understand :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 17:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Aaaaand there's no space in Prep 4 or Prep 3, which is where I need to make that first move. Theleekycauldron, do you have a preference for where that hook should go? —valereee (talk) 17:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: cleared a spot in prep 3 for ya theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 17:26, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Speaking of which, gerda, I'm not sure I understand the magi hook—what does it mean to "set" a poem? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 17:35, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Claudia! Would you also be willing to promote Template:Did you know nominations/Johann-Werner Prein to somewhere in prep so I don't have to go remind myself of the exact steps lol? I get paranoid when I haven't done that in a while that I'll forget a step. —valereee (talk) —valereee (talk) 17:36, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: done-dunino! seventh hook of prep 5 :)) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 17:47, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
I think you mean prep 5 ;)
 Done, and thanks for the assist! —valereee (talk) 18:09, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

prep 5

I just cleared this prep, as it seemed to have been moved but not cleared. Just making sure I didn't misinterpret. —valereee (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

@prep 4 also -- @Amakuru, am I missing something? —valereee (talk) 18:58, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: oh no, sorry I just forgot. Thanks for clearing up!  — Amakuru (talk) 19:08, 1 January 2022 (UTC)
No worries, I just wanted to make sure I wasn't just staring right through something obvious! :D —valereee (talk) 19:21, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Current main page

The hook for Daviesia devito and Daviesia schwarzenegger has been rewritten so that it is no longer at all quirky. Better suggestions than the current wording appreciated at main-page errors. Espresso Addict (talk) 04:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't expecting my suggestion to be taken, especially within minutes of saying it, when I basically said that I'm in the minority when it comes to misleading quirky hooks. I thought it was common sense to not use a minority opinion without further discussion. Sorry for assuming wrong. SL93 (talk) 16:51, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Kaori Maeda

Hi! I just created this article (it's not yet complete though as I'm still planning on adding a filmography section, I just had to get it out of the way to meet eligibility). I was thinking of nominating it for DYK but I wasn't sure if it had any information that would be considered hook worthy, so I wanted to ask for feedback here first before nominating it. Would either of these options work as broadly-interesting hooks?

  • ALT ... that prior to starting a voice acting career, Kaori Maeda was part of a high school band that covered songs by LiSA?
  • ALT1 ... that Kaori Maeda cites Mister Donut fortune-telling as one of her hobbies?

To be honest, I'm a bit iffy with the first hook since, while LiSA's well-known among anime fans and Demon Slayer was quite a popular anime with some mainstream appeal, I'm not actually sure if she's broadly well-known enough to add hookiness. I'm more partial to the second one since it seems funnier, though any feedback is welcome. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:08, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Further thoughts: I discussed these hooks with NLH on Discord and came up with the basic shape of ALT1 inspired by a mention in the jawiki article. I'm partial to ALT1, though should be considered involved regarding it. The jawiki article also discusses her ambidexterity and that she's apparently some sort of expert cartwheeler (my Japanese isn't good enough to be sure), which could be incorporated into other potential hooks. Vaticidalprophet 15:43, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
My only question is what Mister Donut fortune telling entails - does she predict new donut flavors? Did she just practice fortune telling at Mister Donut? Is this a thing I haven't heard of before, maybe some explanation is needed (in the article - the hook is fine, but the article only gives the context that she used to work there). Kingsif (talk) 22:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Unfortunately the sources I could find (including the tweet) do not actually clarify exactly what it means (apparently it was also mentioned in a radio interview that I have no access to but is mentioned in the article sources). I can't tell if it means fortune telling using donuts or if it's simply her brand of fortune telling. I wonder if it's fine to just let it be mentioned in the article without further context (there's a reason why I put it in quotes in the article). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:58, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I think ALT1 is much more intriguing and therefore more hooky. I don't need to know how to perform donutmancy to be curious about it enough to click on the hook. As for the article, we can only write to the level of detail our sources provide. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh yeah, ALT1 is amazing. I just want to know more, so I asked. If the sources don't explain, then I'm sad, but the hook is the hook. Kingsif (talk) 22:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

QPQ question

Can I use a QPQ on another nomination if I had to withdraw a nomination? SL93 (talk) 16:48, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: for Ladoga Skerries National Park, I think you're fine keeping your QPQ on IAR—no one reviewed the thing, it wasn't rejected, you just took it back within a few hours. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 17:04, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
@SL93, I agree, if a nom was withdrawn or rejected, you should feel free to reuse that QPQ. —valereee (talk) 17:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
My question is now moot. Kavyansh.Singh has significantly expanded the article. I will add them to the DYK. SL93 (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Queue 5 issues; admin needed

There are two issues with Queue 5 that need to be fixed by an admin.

The first is that the third hook has the text <---special occasion hook--> visible in the queue. It needs to be properly commented out, and it would help if the comment gave the special occasion date (January 3), since we do change from doing one to two promotions a day and back again.

The second special occasion hook in Queue 5, for Cornwall Electric, should be run no sooner than the second set on January 5 (currently Prep 2), because the 1998 ice storm guiding the timing ran January 5 through 10 in Canada. If this special occasion comment had been given a date, it would probably have been moved sooner. It would be appreciated if an admin move this hook to Prep 2 or Prep 4 (so it runs during the day in Canada), and a hook be swapped into Queue 5 in its place. Pinging admins valereee, Maile, Cas Liber, Wugapodes, Amakuru, and Gatoclass, in the hopes this can be handled soon. Also, more queues need filling, if any of you are up to it; only two are filled at the moment. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:52, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed the markup, my bad! Added the date. —valereee (talk) 19:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, BlueMoonset, I'm not following the other request? —valereee (talk) 19:57, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, so Cornwall Electric (hook 6) from Q5 needs to go to P2 or P4 and Jan 5 added to its spec occ comment? Any preference on what we're taking out of 2 or 4? —valereee (talk) 20:06, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
yeah, I have a preference—P4 doesn't use any non-u.s. non-bios. I'll clear a slot out of Prep 2. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:08, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I think I've gotten that done so far...what goes into Q5 now? —valereee (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
if you could take the 1999 legal case (Prep 5, slot 6) to replace the q5 cornwall electric hook, that'd work best theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:10, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
ec, working —valereee (talk) 20:19, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
Ok, think I got it, but I've been making dinner all the while and it's never a bad idea for someone to check my work. :D —valereee (talk) 20:24, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
everything looks good on my end—thanks, valereee! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:27, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Prep 1

The article Levantine Arabic uses Wikisource as reference 269 which I think might not be considered reliable since its a wiki. it doesn't source much of the article so it should be an easy fix. Pinging nominator A455bcd9. SL93 (talk) 04:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

You mean it is citing a primary source text that is available on Wikisource? Maybe the ref needs editing, but that should be fine if the information is non-controversial. Kingsif (talk) 04:27, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, it's the Lord's Prayer in Arabic, I wonder how much of that is also just translation? I'm more worried about the English translation, I've never seen the Lord's Prayer like that! Kingsif (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Kingsif I have tried to use unreliable sources for uncontroversial content, but that was never let through. Maybe I just need a guideline that says "non-controversial content can be sourced to unreliable references". SL93 (talk) 04:33, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
As someone who grew up Catholic, I have never heard of such an English translation for the Lord's Prayer. SL93 (talk) 04:34, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, and the English one has a reference. My point was more that Wikisource collects primary documents, it isn't the source itself, so it isn't unreliable. Like google books hosting a book - use the book as primary, and google may be unreliable but not the document it's hosting? The fact it's all translations throws it out of whack. Potentially, we don't need a source for the translated text but do need a source that says "this is the official translation". I'd like to examine the English one, especially if that's what the others may be based on. This seems trickier than just "find a better source for ref 269"... Kingsif (talk) 04:37, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I guess the word "wiki" threw me off. I do know that Google Books does have unreliable publishers such as Lulu at times. I'm glad that I brought this up though since something else was pointed out. SL93 (talk) 04:40, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Wikisource is a Wikimedia site, it could be hyperlinked! FWIW, here is another source for the Arabic text and its romanization. I'd like to discuss with the nominator before editing the article, though, even the English. Kingsif (talk) 04:43, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
Thanks for checking the sources!
For the English version, I used "1988 ELLC" cited in Lord's Prayer#English versions. I think it's fine as there are dozens of versions/translations/Christian denominations and no "official" one.
For the Modern Standard Arabic version, if Wikisource is not suitable, then similarly any Arabic translation of Matthew 6:9-13 would be okay. For instance, here, or here, or there.
What do you think? A455bcd9
(by the way, I recently opened a peer-review on this article, feedback welcome!)
(talk) 08:07, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Now in Template:Did you know/Queue/1. FWIW, I've heard so many different versions of the Lord's Prayer. Trespass against us, lead us not into temptation, thy and thine are what I learned, but I've heard lots of versions that used closer to the phrases in the article. —valereee (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Queue 1: Uranium mining in the Bancroft area

As far as I can tell, apart from Bancroft, none of the other locations in the hook (Blind River, Beaverlodge and Northwest Territotries) are mentioned at all in the target article Uranium mining in the Bancroft area, which means it's not compliant with eligibility rule #3, "The fact(s) mentioned in the hook must be cited in the article". As an additional point, it's unclear how significant Bancroft was in the overall point being made here about exports from Canada. If we're going to go with this hook fact, it would be nice if the article indicated exactly how major the contribution was from Bancroft specifically, since that's what we're focusing on here, not the other locations. Pinging @Theleekycauldron, Mike Peel, and CT55555: as promoter/reviewer/nominator. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Good point, I missed that. There is a second hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Uranium mining in the Bancroft area - maybe just change to that? (I've just double-checked that one is in the article) - or add the facts from this hook into the article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 11:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi Mike Peel and Amakuru how can I be most helpful here? Some notes:
  1. I could improve the article to mention the split between the locations (not easy).
  2. I know that Bancroft i very significant overalll to the national percentage, but I don't have quantifiable data to back that up without research.
  3. I could suggest a better hook? (maybe easiest solution as I see it). Some notes on that: The uranium prospecting in Bancroft was "greatest uranium prospecting rush in the world." Source: http://www.geologyontario.mndm.gov.on.ca/mndmfiles/afri/data/imaging/31C13NW0075/31C13NW0075.pdf (page 3 officially, page 10 as per the PDF reader) - that's probaly a more exciting hook than anything I've proposed to date. CT55555 (talk) 16:36, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
OK thanks for the responses @Mike Peel and CT55555: I'm happy with either ALT6 or CT55555's new suggestion here myself (if Mike also approves that one), one of those two seem the easiest route to take at this point. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I think going with ALT6 is best - "greatest X in the world" is rather subjective. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 20:59, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I support that. CT55555 (talk) 21:05, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Mike Peel and CT55555:  Done thanks for your input!  — Amakuru (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
I... don't support that, I'd much rather keep the current hook. I'll add the material about the other regions myself, that's no problem, and I don't think it's a huge issue that we don't say where the bulk of the uranium comes from. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:50, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
welp—that's that, i suppose theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:52, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I think this could easily change still, if the info is added to the article. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 22:57, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Carmine

User:I'ma editor2022 attempted to create a nomination here; I've moved it to its own nompage and translcuded it to WP:DYKN. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Queue 1: Levantine Arabic

In the article, I'm seeing the line "Israeli Druze and Bedouins preferred Hebrew characters" under the "Writing systems" section, but I can't see a specific reference to Arab Christians using Hebrew characters online. Unless I've missed it! I suspect from the DYK nom page that this is verified by the source Shachmon, Ori; Mack, Merav (2016) but it would need to be explicitly included in some way. Pinging @A455bcd9, David Eppstein, and Theleekycauldron: who were involved with the hook. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Oops, I misinterpreted the phrase "code-switching"—I can't access the above source, so i can't copy the above citation to add the necessary content. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 10:33, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
The sources are quoted in Template:Did you know nominations/Levantine Arabic, I copy/paste them here:
  • "Colloquial Arabic written in Hebrew characters on Israeli websites by Druzes (and other non-Jews)". Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam (43–44): 15: "In other words, the Israeli Druzes, most of whom vote for the Zionist parties, usually use Hebrew script for writing online comments in colloquial Arabic. However, the Golan Heights’ Druzes who regard themselves as Syrian, do not use Hebrew characters for such purpose. The Galilee Bedouins who show strong support for the Zionist parties — although less than the Druzes — often use Hebrew letters for writing colloquial Arabic in online comments, whereas among the Negev Bedouins, whose support for the Zionist parties is much more limited, such usage of the Hebrew alphabet is not very common.";
  • Abu Elhija, Dua'a (23 January 2014). "A new writing system? Developing orthographies for writing Arabic dialects in electronic media". Writing Systems Research. Informa UK Limited. 6 (2): 190–214. doi:10.1080/17586801.2013.868334. S2CID 219568845: "Israeli Druze and Bedouins were found to prefer Hebrew script for status updates rather than Arabic or Latin (Zoabe, 2012).";
  • Shachmon, Ori (2016). "Writing Palestinian dialects: the case of 'Hikāyat al-xunfusā'". Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam (43–44): 13: "In addition, Arab youngsters in Israel today, mainly Druze and Christian but also Muslims, gradually use more and more Hebrew characters in their text messages, Facebook correspondence, personal blogs and public forums.";
  • Shachmon, Ori; Mack, Merav (2016). "Speaking Arabic, Writing Hebrew. Linguistic Transitions in Christian Arab Communities in Israel". Wiener Zeitschrift für die Kunde des Morgenlandes. 106: 223–239. JSTOR 26449346
Another source (Shachmon, Ori; Mack, Merav (2019). "The Lebanese in Israel – Language, Religion and Identity". Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft. 169 (2): 343–366. doi:10.13173/zeitdeutmorggese.169.2.0343. ISSN 0341-0137.) mentions that Lebanese people in Israel can also write Levantine in the Hebrew alphabet. A455bcd9 (talk) 10:38, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
I've just added the information to the article ("used in Israel, especially online among Bedouin, Arab Christians, and Druze"). A455bcd9 (talk) 10:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
@A455bcd9: thanks!  — Amakuru (talk) 16:37, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Price of the Modi Years, To Kill a Democracy, and extending DYK guidelines to non-fiction books

Since the same problem is coming up on two nominations, and since my objections don't rest on the grounds of DYK's explicit guidelines (or a solid maintenance tag), I want to bring this here (I'll ping nominator Venkat TL, who nominated both articles, and reviewers Storye book and Gwillhickers). I have two big issues with both of these nominations, and I think approving both of them was in error and that these articles need significant transformation before they are ready for the main page.

First, both of these articles present the synopses of the book as fact, placing political opinions in Wikipedia's voice with sparse or no attribution. That alone should give reviewers pause under WP:VOICE—arguably, the same problem applies to a third nomination as well, Our Hindu Rashtra.

But second, and more importantly, I just don't think that argument synopsis is enough. I had a brief discussion about this with Gatoclass and Vaticidalprophet, and while I agree that the book in question (The Alignment Problem) was probably fine in retrospect, since it contains a lot of encyclopedic content that isn't related to plot summary (if not 1500 character's worth). However, these nominations have barely a pretense of doing that—they contain one-line descriptions of the various degrees of and qualifications held by their respective authors, but nothing externally encyclopedic such as critical reception, significance, impact, popularity, controversy, etc. I was this close to taking both articles to AfD, but there are critical secondary sources out there (although none are used in the articles, as far as I can tell) that suggest that these books may actually be notable. We have WP:ALLPLOT for fiction books, and DYK's supplementary guidelines prevent hooks about novels from being entirely in-universe, but no such guideline exists for books that place themselves in the non-fiction category, so I can't argue that this technically breaks any policies. However, I couldn't in good conscience put these on the main page in the state they are.

So, my thing is this: This isn't explicitly in the DYK guidelines (being non-fiction), and there's no maintenance tags I can use that fully describe the problem. But the fact that these books happen to be political manifestos and not fantasy novels don't give their article licenses to ignore real-world analysis and encyclopedic content and call it a day. Neither the hooks nor the articles offer anything about the book that can't be found in the book, and if that's fine for every non-fiction book hook and article, then there's really no point to having WP:NBOOK at all. To quote WP:ALLPLOT: Note that regardless of the length of the page or the number of edits made to it, a page containing only plot summary is still a stub - an incomplete article. I don't see how we couldn't say the same for non-fiction books—and we don't feature stubs. Anyways, that's my shpiel—apologies for the length (and if this wasn't strictly necessary). Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:30, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron I am still learning this, but as I understand DYK requirements are chosen based on community consensus. DYK Participants are expected to meet the requirements that are based on community consensus. Satisfying individual perfectionists will turn the DYK review into a preliminary Good Article review. While everyone of us have good intentions for the improvement of these article, we should not be using the lack of GA or B or C status on the article to block a DYK that has passed the community supported DYK requirements. I request you to clearly elaborate things. (1) How in your opinion DYK requirement are not met here? which points Please share links too? (2) what sections/content do you want added before you will be satisfied with these articles. Venkat TL (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
In my opinion, these nominations have yet to meet the neutrality (WP:DYK#gen4a, under WP:VOICE), length (WP:DYKSG#D11 and WP:DYK#gen2d), and "eligibility other" requirements (WP:DYKSG#D13). And your articles don't have to be C-class, by any measure: lots of the articles i wrote that have seen the main page are start-class articles about fictional works or characters. And, as other users have pointed out, a strict DYK review can compare to a lax GA review, but I'm not looking for that by any stretch. Really, if the articles had substantive reception sections that show real, external, critical analysis of the book, that would be enough. 1500 characters' worth isn't necessary, but it should be not insignificant—more than just "<outlet> thought book was insightful and a grave warning". I'd also ask that the plot sections be rephrased to not lend Wikipedia's voice to the arguments the authors are making (see WP:VOICE for more information). I'm not going to ask that the hook not be about the book's contents, but it'd be nice.
And to be totally clear, I'm not trying to block anything; I'm trying to help improve the article to the point where it can be featured (and get a clearer sense of how DYK guidelines apply to non-fiction works), instead of rubberstamping. I look forward to seeing all three articles on the main page, but not just yet. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:11, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
This is an interesting case, as someone who's taken multiple non-fiction books through DYK. (Both fiction and nonfiction books seem to inspire complex DYK discussions, for slightly different reasons for each.) I see where Leek's complaints are coming from. I don't think it's a bad thing for a synopsis to be a major share of an article -- ALLPLOT (which I agree is translatable to nonfiction synopses, if not 1:1 translatable due to ALLPLOT's specific context in the long-running and acrimonious disputes over Wikipedia's fiction coverage) is not MOREPLOTTHANANOTHEREDITORWOULDHAVEADDED, and is in significant part a copyright issue rather than an article quality issue per se -- but the given articles have noticeable issues with POV due to uncontextualized synopsizing. (In maintenance tag terms, both could certainly have a POV tag.) I don't think they would be able to run DYK in their current state in significant part due to failure to contextualize. I might actually be inclined to say we should be stricter on 'real world connection' for nonfiction than fiction; I'm an outspoken critic of "no in-universe hooks for fictional works ever" because it's an attempt to handle a serious issue (hook interestingness) in a way that's at best net neutral and often individually negative, but given non-fiction books that get articles are so often about controversial subjects, presenting their content uncritically on the main page can be...questionable. Vaticidalprophet 10:23, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, I do believe that you have the best intentions for the article and the DYK. Please share those sources you are talking about, here or on the article talk page, that you feel could improve the article. I will be happy to include them. @Vaticidalprophet A lot of what you are suggesting appears as personal preference to me. Instead of making abstract or policy discussions, it would have helped me and the article more, if you would suggest exactly what needs to be added/removed/updated. Leaky has given some pointers. I will try to include those suggestions. These articles are just recently started, hopefully it would improve overtime. Venkat TL (talk) 10:45, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with Theleekycauldron, I think we should avoid these kinds of hooks for the most part, as they are presenting the findings of a particular author as if they're truths, without the usual context and balance which one would get from regular assertions in Wikivoice cited to multiple secondary sources. If the fact presented is correct and can be backed up by other sources, then it should be presented as such. For example, for the "lost 20% of its workforce under Prime Minister Narendra Modi" case, if this is an uncontroversial statement which can be verified with other sources, then we should be describing how the book presented that information; while if it's not a correct statistic, then we shouldn't be saying it at all as that's misleading. As an aside, the article Price of the Modi Years itself seems to have WP:VOICE issues, in particular with statements like "India will pay the price of Modi years, primarily on its economy and society". This is clearly a POV statement about a real-world topic, and I've not seen a synopsis of non-fiction presented in this kind of "plot" format before.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:52, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Re To Kill a Democracy. I don't disagree with what has been said above, but I think you are all going about it the wrong way. Complaining about the article from a great height is not helpful in this case. It is more useful to advise (and assist if possible) the creator of the article, and any other editors who may want to help to improve it. I have said on the DYK template that I think that the DYK nomination should be suspended until this and other issues are resolved, and I have put a link to this discussion there. I have also written positive and specific advice on the talk page of the article. I have added extra links into the External links section, in case the creator or future editors might find them useful. The creator in this case is not a vastly experienced editor, and they have already been asking for help. We all had to start somewhere on WP. If you are able to advise the creator in a positive and practical manner, that would improve the article a great deal, and I look forward in hope of seeing the contributors to this discussion doing just that. Storye book (talk) 17:08, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
    I couldn't agree more, Storye book—I'm sorry if I don't come across as constructive. I think I was looking for consensus that there was a problem before helping the nominator find the solution, since otherwise it'd be rather WP:SLOPpy. with that out of the way, we can start talking about what's next :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:10, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
  • This is a complex matter. I agree we should not be presenting the argument of a book in Wikipedia's voice in a hook, unless independent secondary sources (i.e., high-quality book reviews) endorse the book's argument, and perhaps not even then. This isn't very different, to me, from requiring that hooks not be entirely based on in-universe elements of a fictional book. I don't think a synopsis being a substantial part of the article is a large problem, though. The article should establish the subject's notability; should include enough non-synopsis content that a reasonable hook can be written; and not omit critical material in a way that skews our coverage relative to what reliable sources say. But DYK doesn't require perfection, or even detail; our bar is intentionally fairly low. I haven't engaged much with the first two nominations, but I hope to help the nominator a little with Our Hindu Rashtra; hopefully something useful will come of that. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:47, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK's December wrap, 2021

The number of people whose permission I need before I can do whatever the hell I want... Let me tell you something—there's really a lot to be said for fascism.
– Josh Lyman (Bradley Whitford), on The West Wing's "Bad Moon Rising" (2001)

Welcome back, everyone! :D I'm sorry this is so late, I've been super busy and trying to catch up on stuff. It's been a hell of a year, and I say that even though I wasn't even around here for the half of it. Because of that (and to the disappointment of my husband), i'll be leaning a little heavier on summarizing this month rather than the entire year. No reason to skimp on December for having the rotten luck of being the last month, after all. Also, next month's will be shorter, I promise. Let's hop to it!

As always, an ovation for our most-viewed hooks of the month: (Did you know...)

To let you in on a secret, I actually really like the two-a-day sets :) sometimes it feels too quiet around here. Nonetheless, we switched over to one-a-day on the 21st, just before Christmas. Speaking of which, the Christmas sets! I'm sorry to report that they were not... the best performers, but I wouldn't have it any other way. We had fantastic sets for Christmas and Christmas eve, and thank you so much to everyone who contributed! There was a little bit of disagreement over how to best format the Christmas sets; some thought the sets should all be run in one day, while others wanted to run one set on Christmas Eve and another on Christmas Day to utilize the December 24 hooks. In the end, when we switched to one-a-days on the 21st, we swapped queues to opt for the Christmas Eve and Christmas Day sets (a swap and switch, by the way, for which I nearly got shishkabobed—right here at WT:DYK). We are also still waiting on the incredibly important moving of the SOHA from the bottom to the top, since Wugapodes is quite busy lately transcending the mere mortals to join the High ArbCom (congrats, by the way :D). Lastly, there was quite a bit of sprawl when Kingsif swept of all of the prep sets and queues for mistakes, leading to lots and lots of discussions and hook swaps. Thanks to everyone who discussed and found solutions, and thanks to Kingsif for the vigilance!

And finally, for our ever-wonderful quality quirkies that did not receive that sweet sweet validation of making WP:DYKSTATS—there were so many this month, unfortunately: (Did you know...)

Year-end wrap

Just when you think, you're in control,
Just when you think, you got a hold,
Just when you get on a roll,
Oh here it goes, here it goes, here it goes again...
– OK Go, "Here It Goes Again" (2006)

Like I said before, I really only got here in August. I read through most of the archives, and was going to try and highlight the most important thing that happened every month—but the announcement of Yoninah's death in March weighed too heavily on anything else to be found. Instead, I'd like to use this space to share something with y'all as I intersperse our most-viewed DYK images and hooks for the year. I promise, this extremely uncharacteristic display of emotion will be as brief as possible and most definitely non-recurring.

Growing up, it was kinda hard to find common ground with others interest-wise. I was, and am, pretty personable (if i do say so myself), but I'm still kind of an oddball. My parents might have cared what my grade in geometry was, but probably not what I found interesting from the class (for the record: t'was logic and proofs. That shtuss ruled.) So, I did lots of cool projects and spreadsheets and documents, but all of it just sat in folders. And even when the results were interesting to others, they didn't care about the process, or all the things I learned along the way, making me feel trapped in that respect. I still got by socially just fine, and today I'm so lucky to have my friends and husband and family; I love them all to the stars and back. Let's be real, though—none of the other going-into-eighth graders that year toted the mueller report and a graphing calculator to summer camp.

I had no idea what I was getting myself into when I volunteered to build one (1) prep set here nearly five months ago, just as a what-if. But I'm sitting here, after a length of time that feels like both the blink of an eye and an eternity, and I feel such gratitude. It's crazy to me that I get to be a part of this place that celebrates knowledge and discovery—not for the sake of grades, or a paycheck, or fame, but just because we're all committed to making a more knowledgeable space for everyone. It feels like, after quite some time, that I get to be among peers who value the work I do—in barnstars and buttons and praise, sure, but more importantly in genuine discussion and interest and collaboration towards a common goal. That is irreplaceably valuable to me.

So, I'd like to extend a heartfelt thank-you to everyone who made my experience on the site both enjoyable and impactful. I wish you all a bright 2022, full of storytelling and curiosity :) Cheers!

Most-viewed hooks of 2021 (Did you know...)[a]

Notes

  1. ^ My favourite hook of the year is, without question: ... that the manufacturers of Hedgehog Flavour Crisps were taken to court under the Trade Descriptions Act as they did not contain actual hedgehog?

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 13:21, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: thanks very much for this excellent summary of last month's records and your impressions of the year as a whole. I'm sure I speak on behalf of everyone in giving a huge thanks to yourself and the others who put their time into DYK day-in-day-out. As noted, there was a huge hole left behind when Yoninah tragically left us, and it's very encouraging that others have stepped up to fill that void and bring new ideas to the project in that time.
Also, I hear you on your "what I found interesting from the class" theme... I can identify with all that. I too have played with graphing calculators for hours, just making interesting shapes and exploring what different things look like. I can also sit for hours with a map, just charting out where the various roads or railways go and what their history was, not because I need to travel anywhere, but just because I admire the order and logic of it all. All things which play nicely into being a Wikipedian!
And let's be honest, while writing articles is great on its own, having a project like this one (and also GAN, FAC, the various contests etc.) where you get to validate and discuss those articles with others adds significantly to the satisfaction. Obviously my main role at DYK is to sanity-check the hooks on the final leg of their journey, and I apologise to anyone who may be annoyed by my pernickety points, but I only do it because I care about the project and I want our front page to represent the best of what we have to offer! So a happy new year to yourself Leeky and everyone else, and here's to much more entertainment and useful work in the coming year!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:34, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:35, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Prep 2: The Hatchling

context: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Urgent attention please: I'm sorry, but this hook will have to be revised. I have just noticed that the hook has been changed without consultation with the article creator (me). Please note that there is a convention at DYK that where the creator and other contributors to the article are available and cooperative, it is normal to consult them before changing the hook, because they may know something that the promoter or reviewer does not.

In this case, the hook in its present form is misleading, and also disappointing. It says that the puppet "was flown" over the sea, but the hook does not reveal the very rare and rather exciting situation that this giant puppet was flown as a kite (and not, as might appear from the hook, that it was packed up in an aircraft and flown overseas).

So could we please change it to the following:

I should add that it is an accepted convention in the English language to speak of a puppet as if it were alive, so long as it is made clear that it is a puppet. Thus, we can say that the puppet Punch traditionally hits Judy with a stick, and we don't need to say that actually a puppeteer does it. So I believe that my first suggestion should be acceptable. But if you are concerned that people speaking English as a second language may be misled, then my second suggestion is telling a clearer truth (which is still really rather an exciting and extraordinary achievement - that giant puppet, that was paraded through the streets on rods, turned out to be a gigantic kite, whose line had to be held by a ship which pulled it off the cliff and over the sea). Storye book (talk) 11:06, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, Storye book! I'm sorry, I totally didn't catch that you were referring to that during promotion. The original hook tripped me up because it uses "was paraded... by puppeteers" as well as "flew over the sea". If you want to use either the "either" hook, or the "or" hook, I'm definitely fine with that. As long as we're consistent on who has agency in the language. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Theleekycauldron, Yes I could see that you changed it for linguistic reasons, but unfortunately that changed the meaning. I have already respected your linguistic cause in my alternatives above. Let's go with the above "OR" hook that says it's a kite, because it is clear to everyone. Storye book (talk) 11:39, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
swapped :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 12:14, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Prep 1

There's an interesting opportunity here; feminist has given us two hooks about redistricting in the United States. Specifically, the redistricting arms of the two major U.S. political parties, the National Republican Redistricting Trust and National Democratic Redistricting Committee. Now, I know that we don't like putting two next u.s. hooks next to each other (mechitza required), and definitely not two u.s. hooks of the same topic, but the Democratic and Republican parties are like a mudslinging yin and yang. It's not like we're running two random state legislators; these two organizations are each other's direct counters, they round out the topic. I think it'd be interesting to run these hooks side-by-side—we'll still use only four U.S. hooks in the set, but I think it's novel and interesting. I've implemented in prep 1 for now, just as a preview; thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Sure. feminist (talk) 09:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Fine by me.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Prep 2: 1963 Indiana State Fairgrounds Coliseum gas explosion

The hook has just been changed from -

I just wanted to confirm that I approve the change, because ref. 43 of the WP article demonstrates that a number of authoritative sources have agreed on that point. Since the system pinged me about it, I'm putting the approval here. Storye book (talk) 10:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

@Storye book: actually, Amakuru struck the hedgebit entirely—I personally have no issue with that (it represents the consensus of reliable sources), but you may want to take that up if you disagree. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 10:48, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, the system didn't ping you, i did :) if you approve of the change, a thank-you would probably be sufficient (and not necessarily unwelcome :D) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 10:49, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Please define hedgebit? (I googled it, it's around, but undefined). I don't suppose it matters, now, but I was just trying to work out what Amaraku did? Storye book (talk) 11:00, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
you caught me, i made up the word. It was from "hedge", which means to... nevermind. anyways, amakuru cut "is considered" entirely. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:02, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I probably should have consulted on this, although I was aware that the hook is not running in the immediate future so people would flag it if there was a problem. The bottom line for me is, per WP:WEASEL, why are we saying it "is considered" something, without directly saying who it is that considers it that. It seemed that if it's so widely considered that, we can simply state it in Wikivoice. Another option might be to use "widely regarded" or similar, to convey that it is not an inalienable fact but that it is supported by lots of sources. WP:WEASEL does also mention "widely thought" as something to watch, but I've seen it used quite a lot with a footnote detailing the sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Queue 1: John Giordano (martial artist)

  • ... that American martial artist John Giordano, who taught karate to women and the handicapped in the 1970s, held plays similar to kabuki theatre?

Although technically not incorrect, we see in the article that Giordano also taught karate to men during that period, and to me the above sentence seems to imply, rightly or wrongly, that he only taught the two groups mentioned. On a separate note, I'm not sure we should be using the term "handicapped" here even if it was the prevalent usage at the time in question. Both Cambridge dictionary and Merriam Webster listed it as a potentially offensive term for disability. Pinging @Theleekycauldron, Muboshgu, and SL93:.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:12, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Amakuru ... that American martial artist John Giordano, who taught karate to women alongside men and disabled people in the 1970s, held plays similar to kabuki theatre? I also changed handicapped to disabled people in the article. I didn't know that handicapped was considered so offensive, but I do know as someone with autism that disabled people is often better. SL93 (talk) 16:44, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: OK, your suggestion works fine for me. And it's probably one of those terms that is fine for some people, and in some locations, but not in others... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:07, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list is entirely used up, so I've created a new list that includes all 14 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 28. We currently have a total of 219 nominations, of which 118 have been approved, a gap of 101, down 13 over the past seven days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Since all of the above nominations have been taken (except for the one still being expanded), I've added the 11 nominations remaining from 2021 below; these are all of the remaining unreviewed Older nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Queue 6 Prep 3: Machine learning in earth sciences

Three points regarding this:

  1. I'm wondering if the syntax of the sentence is correct, as it seems to me that machine learning is a process, not an entity in itself. Thus I wouldn't think machine learning itself would recognize rocks, but rather a machine would recognize rocks after undergoing machine learning.
  2. What does the word "automatically" mean in this context? Presumably if we're saying that the machine recognizes the rocks, that's sort of self-evidently automatic, i.e. without human intervention.
  3. Which part of the article does the hook correspond to? There's a section on recognizing fractures in rocks, and then a separate section on Geological structure classification, which might be what is meant by "recognizing rocks", but it's not entirely clear to me.

Pinging @Graeme Bartlett, SL93, and Theleekycauldron:. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:00, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

"Machine learning (ML) is a type of artificial intelligence (AI) that allows computer systems to interpret data while eliminating the need for explicit instructions and programming." per my reading of the wikilinked articles. SL93 (talk) 18:44, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: Well I'm not sure that squares with my understanding of the term. From our own article, "Machine learning (ML) is the study of computer algorithms that can improve automatically through experience and by the use of data. and then "Machine learning algorithms build a model based on sample data" (emphasis mine). It is not an entity in its own right, but a study or a principle. Similarly, from Merriam Webster: "the process by which a computer is able to improve its own performance". So machine learning isn't an actor in its own right, but rather a process by which actors (i.e. machines) gain abilities, or the study of that process. Since this is due to go live in less than two hours, and I'm not sure we've settled the issues above, I've moved the hook out to Prep 3 for now to give more time for discussion. If I were acting unilaterally, and considering the three points above, I'd probably amend the text to something along the lines of:
Obviously happy to hear alternative and dissenting views on this, however!  — Amakuru (talk) 10:09, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
Amakuru I would be fine with that, but I hope that Graeme Bartlett will respond. SL93 (talk) 16:46, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
@SL93 and Graeme Bartlett: sure, thanks, I hope Graeme will be able to respond too. Incidentally if we want to keep it as "recognize rocks" rather than "recognize rock fractures" that's probably OK, as long as we're clear which bit of the article that corresponds to and that it is unambiguous and properly sourced!  — Amakuru (talk) 18:03, 7 January 2022 (UTC)
I am happy with the alternative proposed by Amakuru. (But I would dispute our Machine learning definition (that it is a "study")). Rather than just fractures I was trying to say it can classify or identify rocks. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:00, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Amakuru It looks like the wording can be changed to your suggestion. I'm not sure if I would be able to do it. SL93 (talk) 22:52, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Prep 2: Shirley Chisholm

  • ... that the first black female U.S. presidential candidate for a major party's nomination, Shirley Chisholm (campaign poster pictured), is largely credited for paving the way for future candidates Barack Obama and Kamala Harris?

If "nominee" means "presidential nominee" (from that article: A candidate for president of the United States who has been selected by the delegates of a political party at the party's national convention to be that party's official candidate for the presidency), then Kamala Harris was not a nominee. Perhaps "future candidates" would be more accurate? DanCherek (talk) 16:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Pinging FormalDude, Johnbod, Theleekycauldron for their thoughts. DanCherek (talk) 16:12, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
i'd be behind changing "nominees" to "candidates", even though Harris was technically nominated for the veepstakes? people don't need us to tell them who Obama and Harris were anyway, so it's not worth being technically correct on that one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 16:15, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine changing that to candidates. ––FormalDude talk 17:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Personally I think a VP nominee is a "nominee", but if people (more than just one or two) want to change it, fine (though as always this sort of thing should be brought up well before it hits the main page). Johnbod (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I think "nominee" would have to mean a presidential nominee. Otherwise, it's pretty much saying nothing - she might have been a nominee for a position on the Handforth Town Council for all we know. Putting in "major party" per the below seems legitimate too, and looks to be the way RS are framing it.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:22, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Not really - the VP is on the ticket in a presidential election. But whatever. Remind me never to review a US political nom again. Johnbod (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Sounds good to me! ––FormalDude talk 19:05, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Factually wrong

By no means am I an expert in American politics, but I do know that Charlene Mitchell was the Communist candidate in the 1968 presidential election, and she was racially black. (Source: The New York Times) That was 4 years before Chisholm was a candidate. Doesn't that make the hook factually wrong? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy pings again for @FormalDude, Johnbod, and Theleekycauldron: – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Hmm - can we squeeze a "major" in here? Mitchell was only on the ballot in 2 states - our dense coverage of the election doesn't seem to say which, or how many votes she got. Johnbod (talk) 18:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, Mitchell didn't received much votes. "California, 260 votes; Minnesota, 415; Ohio, 23; Washington, 377. Total: 1,075" (Source:Guide to U.S. Elections. SAGE Publications. 2009. ISBN 978-1-60426-536-1 p. 808) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:17, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
From Chisholm's article: Chisholm became the first African American to run for a major party's nomination for President of the United States "Major" must be included. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
I've updated the DYK per above. ––FormalDude talk 01:01, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Prep 1

Hi...Can I request to bring back the hook for Tulio de Oliveira in prep. 1 for a rethink on the hook in light of information on another article being worked on.. Eftyhia Vardas? Whispyhistory (talk) 19:10, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

done! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 04:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. Will ping after going through. Whispyhistory (talk) 07:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Prep 3 Florence Church Bullard

Suggest moving this to Prep 4. Florence Church Ballard was an American Red Cross nurse who was deployed to France during World War I. This is how France came to decorating her. But I'm thinking Prep 4 would be a better time slot for viewing in the United States. — Maile (talk) 12:18, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Maile66: agreed, and that works better for bio/non-bio image balance as well. I'm hopefully getting around to building preps sometime this morning, so I'll use bullard in P4. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 12:33, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, I just added "American nurse" to the hook, to clarify it for readers. — Maile (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

gotta go for a bit

@Coolperson177, Canadianerk, BusterD, Kavyansh.Singh, SL93, and Cwmhiraeth: I just started winter semester, and it's kind of knocked me off my balance. my sleep schedule is quite literally nocturnal at this point; I'm building preps at one, two, even three in the morning, and things slip past me when I do that (as you can see from WT:DYK and WP:ERRORS). I need a few days to get my bearings; so, y'all (especially you new/interested prep builders) are going to need to take over the preps sets while I'm out. I'll be floating around still, and I should be back in a few days—I'm really sorry this is without notice, too. i'm sure y'all will be just fine :) thanks so much! back in a jiffy theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:59, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds suspiciously like wisdom to me. First things first. BusterD (talk) 04:13, 9 January 2022 (UTC)
Don't, they might not come back! Kingsif (talk) 06:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Queue 1

Do we really need these two hooks, uninteresting to non-Americans, in the same set? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:08, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

  • ... that Adam Kincaid of the National Republican Redistricting Trust defended lowered competition in US House elections, arguing that the changes would save the party money?
  • ... that the National Democratic Redistricting Committee supported lawsuits in North Carolina and Ohio against alleged gerrymandering by Republicans?
  • In my opinion, no- we should be aiming for diversity in hooks, and running two US hooks on the same topic doesn't seem appropriate. We wouldn't do this for any other country, not sure why US hooks are allowed to break all the rules... (Yes, I read the other topic, but don't agree that we should run both) Joseph2302 (talk) 11:07, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Indeed our own prep building guidelines, specifically N6 of WP:DYKNN, say that this sort of thing isn't allowed. Why on earth are we doing this tomorrow (When it isn't even an election day in the US anyway)? We wouldn't do this for the UK so why are we allowing the Yanks to get away with it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 23:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Q5 Jan 14a

I tweaked from

  • ... that before the Swiss surgeon René Prêtre specialized in surgeries on children's hearts, he treated victims of gunshots and stabbings in the Bellevue Hospital in New York?

to

  • ... that before the Swiss surgeon René Prêtre specialized in surgeries on children's hearts, he treated victims of gunshots and stabbings at Bellevue Hospital in New York?

Any objection, @Paradise Chronicle? valereee (talk) 15:13, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

And while we're at it...is "surgeries on children's hearts" a stylistic choice? I probably would have written "pediatric heart surgery", but YMMV. valereee (talk) 20:23, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Use of Lang template

It was suggested I ask this here. Recent DYK article Johanna Quaas had the use of the {{Lang}} for the German words (including a quote, a couple of names, and place names). The proper names used the template's parameter italic setting it to no. More info about the template, how it's used, and its rationale are on the template page. Should DYK articles on the main page only have English words, and if they have non-English words, should they have the Lang template? Thanks for input in advance. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Clarification – the hook did not contain non-English words. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 17:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Articles should in general be written in English, but Wikipedia's MOS does not (and should not) prohibit the use of short phrases in other languages for uses like quotes, titles, or names with their translations, as seen in this article. DYK has no additional rules on article content in this regard, nor should it. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:52, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you very much. – Elizabeth (Eewilson) (tag or ping me) (talk) 19:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, there was this request at Errors the other day that I actioned. It made reference to Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines § Other supplementary rules for the hook C10, which states: "Enclose non-English text in {{lang}} e.g. ..." So we do have a rule for that already. As that lang template explains, it makes no difference to appearance, but changes how some browsers and screen readers react to the link. Might as well ping Gerda Arendt, as she would be the most common provider of foreign language terms at DYK. Schwede66 22:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list is down to one nomination available for reviewing, so I've created a new list that includes it as one of the 15 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 5. We currently have a total of 214 nominations, of which 102 have been approved, a gap of 112, up 11 over the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:33, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Requesting new reviewer on 5 December DYK nomination

Wondering if I could get a new reviewer on Template:Did you know nominations/Play-by-mail game? Nominated 5 December and I've checked with the reviewer regularly here and his talk page. I discussed a reviewer change with him on his talk page and he was agreeable. I think he is just very busy IRL, and his response seemed to confirm that. Appreciate the assistance. Airborne84 (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Happy to pick this one up. Vaticidalprophet 02:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
Much appreciated! Airborne84 (talk) 13:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Admins needed for prep-to-queue promotion

@DYK admins: – We currently have only 2 queues filled (for 24 hours). Will any of you be able to promote more preps to queues? It would be of great help. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 03:52, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

@DYK admins: I don't want to be a bother - but the above is still the case, unfortunately. Any assistance to open up more preps, ditto'ing Kavyansh.Singh, would be helpful! Canadianerk (talk) 02:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Canadianerk: what worries me is that we're at 106, and once we fill these two preps Maile just promoted, we'll be at 92. We don't drop to one-a-day until we're below 60; if the admins are already fatigued, this could present a strain. To be fair, it is friday night/saturday morning, but this seems to have happened in the middle of the week as well. Nonetheless, I'm sure we'll be just fine :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:27, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
With 4 queues filled, no need to panic! I only promote preps when there are 3 or fewer queues filled. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron I haven't been here long enough to assess properly, but it definitely seems that 2-a-day this cycle has had more empty queues than last month-
Part of me wants to point out that keeping the queues and preps full as much as possible could enable a switch to 1-a-day faster (doing more work now to overall reduce the workload, instead of leaving empty queues which essentially delay a switch), but ultimately it does come down to the amount of work DYK is asking for *now* and admins' existing tasks elsewhere. I don't know what balance we could establish, but if you're concerned (and admins share it) then we'll need to open a larger discussion on the issue at some point, if this pattern is recurring. In the interim, thanks to the admins who responded to this ping swiftly, and to all admins who manage the queues! Canadianerk (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Procedural/rules question

I found a brand new article today that I thought would make a great DYK. This is a about a cemetery monument on the National Register of Historic Places, so unquestionably notable. It was sitting in draft space for over three years. A new editor expanded it, added refs, and submitted it to AFC where it was approved. At this point it was not quite long enough for DYK (1,385 characters). I was going add a sentence or two to make it DYK-eligible and wound up doubling it to 2,712 characters. I did the nomination and it was reviewed and failed by Nick Moyes because he thinks it should be merged into the article on the person buried there. Our rules (D5) say a nom is placed on hold if there is an AFD, and (D6) says a DYK can't have dispute tags, but neither applies (Merge is not a Wikipedia:DISPUTETAG), so I don't see any valid reason for declining this nomination. One other consideration could be the amount of new content. There certainly is overlap with the biography article as the monument article does give background on the person. But it was not copied, this article was written independently. There are about 1,500 characters in the monument article that are not in the biography article in any form (I ran DYK check with the bio section completely removed and got 1,444 characters), so I think length is not an issue either. Can I get some additional opinions on this one. The articles are Hi Jolly Monument and Hi Jolly. MB 05:48, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@MB: I remember that John Gray (nightwatchman) was put on hold while a merge was being discussed—I think our criteria for what exactly a dispute tag is is a little looser than WP:DISPUTETAG. I'd wait until the merge discussion is resolved before proceeding with the nomination process. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Not formally, Did you know/Supplementary guidelines rule D6 specifically says A list can be found at WP:DISPUTETAG. Our criteria IS what is listed at WP:DISPUTETAG. I also see that there was a question on whether John Gray was notable. Notability is not an issue here at all. MB 07:23, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@MB: Oh, I may be misunderstanding—I thought the merge question asking whether or not the monument is independently notable of the person? I think there'd be some objection to an article being aired on the main page while a merge tag is still attached, since that could result in consensus to merge and the article being redirected. I don't think the nomination should be failed outright (and I said as much at the nomination page), but I also wouldn't feel comfortable putting this in a prep set just yet. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:55, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
No, because the monument is listed on the National Register of Historic Places, I can pretty much guarantee it would survive AFD. The bio is also notable on its own. The merge suggestion is based on the two being closely related, and neither one being very long. MB 08:11, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Midnight Sun Mosque

I've started to review Template:Did you know nominations/Midnight Sun Mosque (2nd nomination). I then noticed that it was not created using the create new nomination code, but copied from the earlier Template:Did you know nominations/Midnight Sun Mosque. Could someone add the appropriate DYK structure for this new nomination, including both creators? Thanks, Zeete (talk) 16:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Ah, yeah—Daniel Case, when nominations are closed, the nomination template on the page is substituted. I'd make a new nomination from scratch, instead of copying content from the old. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@Zeete: done! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: This is a rare enough situation that unfortunately the DYK page creation page, useful as it is, is just not set up to handle. First, I wanted to save the original four hooks and their sources as it would have taken time I didn't feel I had at the time to retype all that (and I also wanted to augment the sourcing for one of the hooks with an additional source I had found during the GA expansion). Second, I believe I might have overwritten the original (which had already been archived) had I saved it anew, and we can't have that. Third, as you yourself experienced, it just can't handle this sort of situation effectively.

We don't have many second nominations, not like we do in AfD, and the template needs to find some way to handle this. Daniel Case (talk) 01:32, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: fair enough—however, I'd still recommend you use the {{NewDYKnomination}} template and manually fill in the blanks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The Clarion

At Template:Did you know nominations/The Clarion (Canadian newspaper) I had requested to hold promotion for anytime during Black History Month (ie - February), but the article was recently promoted to Prep 6 (which according to Template:Did you know/Queue means it will appear on the front page on January 21). Is there a reason it wasn't held until February? Mindmatrix 01:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Mindmatrix I will unpromote it. I didn't notice that and it wasn't in the special occasion hooks. As the promoter, I'm the person to ask so maybe ping me if there is a next time for anything. SL93 (talk) 02:12, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: Much appreciated. Thanks! Mindmatrix 02:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

For fuck's sake

  • ... that an advert for Hawkstone Lager, made using ingredients from Jeremy Clarkson's farm, was banned because it featured Clarkson saying the phrase "fuck me, that's good"? Queue 1
  • ... that contrary to popular belief, a film rated PG-13 in the United States is not limited to one use of fuck? Prep 5

I see we have two more DYKs in the pipeline which are going to parade the word "fuck" on the Main Page. Which as usual may cause issues for educational settings which are required to have filters for young children.

Yes, yes, NOTCENSORED and all that, but I note that they're both from User:The C of E, who having been banned from putting various other controversial DYKs forward, now appears to be going for "let's see how many swear words we can do". This is all very juvenile, frankly. I suggest that if this editor can't find something better to do, they cease doing it. Black Kite (talk) 23:19, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

First, excellent section heading. A+ shtick :)
Moving on, the mentioned instances are two days apart (we can make that longer if necessary). I think the second one's pretty clearly encyclopedic; there's no way to talk about the one-fuck rule without saying the word (at least, no way that doesn't blatantly fly in the face of NOTCENSORED). We can't censor any topic that has to do with the word, and that one seems like a pretty clear-cut example of acceptable and necessary use. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
If it was any other editor, yes, but C of E has such an extensive history of being provocative in this area that it's hard not to see this as another one of his breaching experiments. See also this, this, and this. Pawnkingthree (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, but that's the point - they've chosen those articles to improve because it will get the word onto the Main Page, not for any other reason. Meanwhile, I'd also point out that the Hawkstone Brewery advert that was banned for saying the beer was "better than Birmingham ... and Spain" is actually funnier than the other banned one that was chosen... Black Kite (talk) 01:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm won't pretend my blood isn't boiling a little when reading that ANI thread, but I honestly don't care why The C of E chooses to submit a hook. If the lesson he learns from these experiments is that it's okay to impart useful information about a topic that contains a swear word (instead of what appears to be gratuitous use of curse words, as well as homophobic and racial slurs without encyclopedic value), then I'm okay running the hook. His hooks belong to the collective, and if they don't violate his sanctions or DYK rules, I don't see a reason to pull. It's not like he's swamping the main page with curse words; he was credited for 78 hooks last year, when we ran over 4,000. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Given how recent the Adolf Uunona debacle was, and how even more recent Template:Did you know nominations/Watermelon song was, I can't be certain C of E has learned much at all. Vaticidalprophet 02:15, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As usual, The C of E goes for the dirty or controversial word, even though there are a number of good potential non-swear-word hooks for Hawkstone Lager, at least, thanks to Clarkson's antics. May I suggest that an admin pulls the Hawkstone from queue while the inevitable discussion occurs. Next up: Template:Did you know nominations/Dick Graves, with "cock"—the article is written to emphasize the phrase "Dick's cock", though it's talking about a solid-gold rooster used to advertise a newly opened casino restaurant, "The Golden Rooster Room", and its "signature" fried chicken. (This is not explained in the article, of course, nor is the restaurant's name given.) Indeed, the entire paragraph is such a perversion of the facts in order to feature "cock" as many times as possible (seven at last count), that I'll be removing them all, and I strongly recommend that further sanctions be considered due to this deliberate use of inappropriate terminology in the encyclopedia: this is an article about an American casino and the sources use "rooster" rather than "cock". BlueMoonset (talk) 01:53, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
The source says "‘f**k me that’s good’", which means that The C of E has altered it to completely spell out the offensive term. That aside, I think that as a group just as we have declined to run a main page set about cannabis, we should surely be able to reject all these hooks focused on the one word. Why should we be obligated to run an ongoing series using profanity? DYK is not a project of doormats. — Maile (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Maile, so far as I know, the restrictions imposed under their original ban have not been lifted; the latest attempt in November 2021 went down in flames and was withdrawn, as did the prior attempt in April 2021. So as an independent reviewer, I'm vetoing the Hawkstone Lager hook currently in Queue 1, and requesting that you or another admin remove the hook and reopen the nomination to find a non-swear-word hook. Thank you. (Queue 1 will need a replacement hook from a prep area.) I've also vetoed the hooks from the Dick Graves nomination above. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:30, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
 Done - Please check me to make sure I did it correctly. The nomination is back under December 26. — Maile (talk) 02:50, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
While we are at it -- what's the procedure to veto the second hook? I am not too good around AfD and the like -- but, I would really want to challenge why we need a page for an "often-quoted guideline". A quick scan of the sources listed there do not refer to this as a rule nor as a guideline, unless I am missing something. Ktin (talk) 02:48, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how to answer that, but I think the second hook makes it look like DYK is being played. I question if the content of the article is even notable. But counting the title, it does manage to mention that word 10 times. Given the over all content from this editor lately, it does seem that they are trying to see how many times they can use DYK to drop the profanity into Wikipedia, specifically the main page. Which seems to me like an abuse of editing privileges, but nothing to prevent them from doing so. On the other hand, I'm not sure DYK has to accept all of these. — Maile (talk) 03:28, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Ktin: a strict reading of The C of E's sanctions would give you the power to unilaterally depromote and strike a hook iff you felt it used unnecessarily provocative language. Since that's not the basis of your objection, an AfD or merge proposal would be required to unilaterally depromote (or you could just [classified]). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:33, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Done. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/One-fuck rule Gamaliel (talk) 03:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, I don't see any "if and only if" in the original sanctions about vetoing hooks at all, much less any requirement that the hook "used unnecessarily provocative language" to be eligible to be vetoed. If a reviewer has any sort of real problem with the hook, the veto means that The C of E has to stop fighting for said hook and propose a substantially different alternative. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: i mean, yes, but I imagine there'd be a row if reviewer used The C of E's provocative history to unilaterally veto a hook because, say, it just falls into the grey area of the in-universe rule. I think the language I used above was a bit strong, but i don't think I was flat-out incorrect—hear me out:
In Vanamonde's original statement, where they lay out their reasoning for the proposals, they really only cite The C of E's provocative hooks as cases where he gets argumentative: The question is whether potentially offensive content is being used to educate the reader, or for shock value or to push a POV, per WP:GRATUITOUS... when these hooks have been challenged, The C of E has been obdurate to a degree, refusing to modify their hooks in any way... I don't see how you could, based on the scope of the ANI thread and the systemic problems it laid out, use this veto power unless these specific issues with the hook were involved. And even if you could, I especially don't see how you could use Ktin's problem, which is with the article's notability rather than any issue with the hook, to pull and strike it unilaterally. The article was AfDed and subsequently pulled—for the issue Ktin brought up, that's what's supposed to happen. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't want to get too sidetracked here, because this discussion could easily stretch to thousands of words without resolution—what I'll say is that I just didn't want Ktin to end up at the center of something chaotic or troublesome because they construed the sanctions too broadly. I thought it'd be better to play it safe and stick to original intent. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:24, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
@Maile66: looks like you forgot to put blank credit and hook slots in the vacated Jim Beam spot in Prep 1; but the queue and relisting looks okay. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Ahh ... thanks. BlueMoonset just took care of that. — Maile (talk) 03:43, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
Happy to do it. Looked fine otherwise. Thanks for taking care of it! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • A bit late to the discussion, but my reading of The C of E's restrictions is that any of his hooks can be vetoed without appeal for any reason. While I suppose the spirit of intent was to limit it to controversial areas which could broadly be interpreted to include any areas he had issues with in the past, the close was actually quite broad and in theory any of his hooks could be rejected for any reason. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:55, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Narutolovehinata5: like I said above, there'd probably be a row if someone tried to use an excuse that wasn't relevant to provocativeness to strike a hook. in any case, we'll cross that bridge when we get to it; I don't think anyone's tried that yet. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:36, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
  • FWIW, The C of E has suggested a perfectly good ALT1 at Template:Did you know nominations/Hawkstone Lager. My alternative suggestion was "...that an advert for Hawkstone Lager made using ingredients from Jeremy Clarkson's farm, was banned because it contained Clarkson claiming that the beer was better than both Birmingham and Spain?" [4]. Black Kite (talk) 10:07, 11 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Also late, uninformed and anecdotal, but FWIW, in all my time as a student I never once accessed (or observed someone else intentionally access) the Wikipedia main page, Wikipedia was found via search results (direct to articles)... That aside, is the concern that a school would accidentally or intentionally block the Wikipedia main page, or the site overall? 'cause the latter is surely already happened, because of the sheer volume of "inappropriate" content for children across the English Wikipedia? The amount of fucks has surely caused technicians more than enough headaches than the handful/year of swearing that is barely tolerated on main page? Tl;dr - school boards' use of filtering software on computers to determine our conduct doesn't seem like a rational basis to me... Is this about the "juvenile"-ness of swearing, or is there actual merits to a "think of the children!", christian parents approach? Because the former is more than a bit silly, and the latter, I'd have to plea for some evidence on why this concern is necessary, and widespread enough to reject hooks. From my experience, teachers were far more concerned about the reliability of Wikipedia (source: attended catholic school) and were certainly persuasive enough that they could have argued to block the site altogether. A quick google search seems to confirm that the entire premise of the project is of far more concern to schools and teachers (and students using us as a crutch/treating Wiki as a source) than this argument. Canadianerk (talk) 03:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
  • The Hawkstone Lager campaign is deliberately very meta and so can't be taken at face value. So, it would fit the spirit of the campaign if we were to ban it too. If you want a bureaucratic excuse then see often overlooked rule 10. Also, from the reviews I've seen, while it may be great advertising, it isn't actually very good lager, being rather flat. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • In any case, I've proposed a new hook for Hawkstone Langer, so a new review would be appreciated. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Queue 6 Prep 7: Mighty Bomber

  • ... that calypsonian Mighty Bomber believed that the judges denied him the Trinidad and Tobago Independence calypso monarch title in 1964 because he was born in Grenada?

This hook seems to be inaccurately conflating two separate things mentioned in the article, namely:

  • In 1962, he was did not win the "Independence calypso competition", and later complained that he had been denied the title due to his birth. As far as I can tell this competition was not the Calypso Monarch, but a separate event. (It was won by "Lord Brynner", while that year's Calypso Monarch was won by "Mighty Sparrow").[5]
  • In 1964, he did win the Calypso Monarch title.

I would therefore suggest removing the reference to Calypso Monarch from the hook and clarifying that it was 1962, for example:

  • ... that calypsonian Mighty Bomber believed that the judges denied him the Trinidad and Tobago independence calypso title in 1962 because he was born in Grenada?

Pinging @Guettarda, Epicgenius, and SL93: as nom/reviewer/promoter  — Amakuru (talk) 12:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. To be honest I must have overlooked the two facts, since they were in reverse chronological order: In 1964 Bomber won the Calypso Monarch competition, defeating Sparrow.[1] He placed fourth in the Independence calypso competition in 1962 which was won by Lord Brynner (Kade Simon). – Epicgenius (talk) 15:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Thanks so much for catching this - I'm not quite sure how I typed 1964 instead of 1962. As for the rest - the winner of the independence calypso competition was the independence calypso king (see this for example). "Independence calypso monarch title" or "Independence calypso competition title", but "calypso title" would be ambiguous wording. Guettarda (talk) 16:20, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@Guettarda: I'm obviously no expert on this, but per my link above, which shows that Lord Brynner won the independence calypso event with Mighty Sparrow in second and Mighty Bomber in fourth,[6] and the Calypso Monarch article which shows that Mighty Sparrow won in 1962, it would appear that the "Calypso Monarch" and the "independence calypso contest" were separate events, probably held around March and August respectively.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@Guettarda: given the ongoing dialogue over this hook, and that it is due to run in the next set, I have postponed it out to preparation area 7 so we have time to get it right. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Moving it to Prep 7 is fine with me (I thought Template:Did you know nominations/Kenny J was in there, but it looks like it's been moved to the Queue). The short answer is it doesn't matter to me too much which wording you go with.
I trust your judgement. The longer answer is yes, the Independence contest was separate from the normal, annual Calypso Monarch contest, though until Calypso Rose won it in the 1970s it was known as the Calypso King. The idea of a "King" of Carnival is a part of European Carnivals, and probably originates there. At the Dimanche Gras show (Sunday night before Carnival; so either February or March, depending on when Easter falls) the King and Queen of the Bands are crowned, together with a Calypso King (later monarch; more recently there are separate King, Queen and Monarch competitions). So the winner of the Independence calypso competition was presumably crowned "King" because that's what the winners of calypso competitions are always called (with perhaps an extra dig at the British monarchy intended). Trinidad and Tobago became independent on July 31, 1962, hence the date for it. All a long way to say "yes, these are different" and "no, it doesn't matter". Guettarda (talk) 22:01, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wedding of Princess Beatrix of the Netherlands and Claus van Amsberg

Template:Did you know nominations/Wedding of Princess Beatrix of the Netherlands and Claus van Amsberg appears to have been abandoned by its nominator who is still active elsewhere on Wikipedia. Does anyone want to adopt this, or should it be marked for closure? Flibirigit (talk) 15:51, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination was adopted. Flibirigit (talk) 00:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Queue 6: Haematomma ochroleucum

Two points on this: (1) the "haema" root, meaning blood, is from Greek, not Latin as far as I'm aware. And (2) I couldn't verify the meaning of "tomma" and whether it definitely refers to an eye, in either Ancient Greek or Latin. But I don't speak either language, so perhaps it's correct. Would someone who knows a bit more about this be able to verify what's going on here? Pinging @SL93, Narutolovehinata5, Theleekycauldron, Storye book, and Leomk0403: who were involved with the nomination. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

  • The information used for the hook comes from the article here, and that information comes from an offline citation, which was taken in good faith. Latin used for taxonomy, gravestones, stained glass windows inscriptions, sometimes old Roman monuments, is frequently in the form of dog latin, which is and was a sort of equivalent of schoolboy Latin and Franglais, that is an inadequate, lazy or idiosyncratic and short-form attempt at Latin (or another foreign language) peppered with elements of one's own native language (or Greek in this case). It was used in mediaeval times in the UK for legal and other purposes. Genuine Latin scholars sometimes laugh their heads off when translating dog Latin. So don't expect a direct primary-source Latin-grammar translation of Latin taxonomy and trust the secondary sources because they understand the specific usage in each case (sometimes WP rules can be useful).
  • Haematomma is a form of the current medical term Haematoma (Hematoma in the US), which may be described as "an abnormal collection of blood outside of a blood vessel" An example (should one be punched in the face) might be what is popularly called a black eye, or bloody eye. Storye book (talk) 14:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Storye book: OK, that's fine, I can see that the offline cite was accepted in good faith, but it does need to be accurate even so. I've reopened the nomination page. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm more than a bit perturbed that this article was lifted from my sandbox with nary a mention of my work in the revision history of the article. This is the second time that this user has done this with my work and it's really not on! My work on the original (in my sandbox) can be seen here. It long predates the appearance of this article in live space! This user never even asks first - s/he just moves things to mainspace under his/her own ID. Can this be stopped? MeegsC (talk) 21:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Oh...yeah, yikes. That's a blatant copyvio. I've placed a G12 tag -- WP:CWW is okay with attribution, but this is unattributed and, more urgently, with nothing resembling permission. Vaticidalprophet 21:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I closed it, but the closure is messed up for some reason and I don't know how to fix it. SL93 (talk) 23:18, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: fixed—you want to make sure that everything is in the {{DYKsubpage}} template before closing the nomination. if it happens after you close, move the bit that says </div><includeonly>|}}</includeonly> to the bottom. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:41, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
@MeegsC: which was the other article that was lifted? And, if you'd like, we can move your sandbox version to mainspace once the infringement is deleted; you'd receive DYK credit for a new nomination? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:45, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Copyright violating image in prep 4?

I am concerned that the photo File:Emerging Mummy - cropped (1a).jpg in prep 4 may be a copyright violation, as the US does not have freedom of panorama for sculptures (Wikipedia:Freedom of panorama). I suggest substituting a different first hook and leaving out the image from the Freedom (Frudakis) hook. Pinging @Bruxton, Storye book, and Theleekycauldron:. —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 09:19, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

If using that image was an error, then it was my error, since I cropped out the section for use in DYK. I looked at the image licence, and at the We Love Monuments tag, and assumed that the image had been seen and approved. I am puzzled by this. Nevertheless, if you say so, it must be so. I shall see whether I can suggest another hook.
ETA I have had another look at the article and it says not only that the Secret Philadelphia leaflet by Lebeau mentions that the sculpture was created as a photo op, but also that the artist has actually written "stand here" in the alcove, to encourage that. (See chapter 28 "Closer to Free" in the online leaflet, linked in the article as ref.6). Moreover, if you look at the other pictures in the Commons category, the artist has posed in the alcove to show us how to do it. If those things are not an encouragement for the public to take photos, what is? I think that the author could not sue on this basis, and would not want to anyway, whether there is lack of panoramafreiheit or not. So I think we can afford to leave the picture where it is in prep 4. Storye book (talk) 10:38, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not convinced wikipedia's legal team would be happy with us for relying on that. If we do replace the image while I'm asleep, please promote Template:Did you know nominations/KHOL to its place, as it's also a u.s. non-bio—thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
tell you what, though—how difficult would it be to ask the artist to provide permission for the photo? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Mx. Granger: Thank you for catching it. Yes, the actual sculpture does invite photos so I am unsure how to proceed. I see other notable monuments tagged wit this template. FoP-US

The architectural work depicted in this photograph may be covered under United States copyright law (17 USC 120(a)), which states that architectural works completed after December 1, 1990 are protected. However, architectural copyright in the United States does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work. See COM:CRT/United States#Freedom of panorama for more information. :This law only applies to architectural works (such as buildings or other structures) and not other forms of 3D or 2D artwork such as sculptures, paintings, or posters. Images of these artworks taken in the US must be deleted unless they are in the public domain, or their presence is trivial.

  • It is used on the FDR memorial photo. Somone also used a dfferent license for this actual sculpture of FDR. Bruxton (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Reading through my own posts, might be best to delete. The wrong license may be on several of other sculptures but it does not give us license to do the same. The license on the first FDR monument photo which I posted in green, is a photo of the wall entrance to the monument. I guess they are considering it architecture? The next one of FDR in a wheelchair may be improper. Bruxton (talk) 15:39, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Freedom sculpture (extract)
  • Update. I have been informed by user:Mx. Granger that using a cropped-out extract of File:Zenos Frudakis Freedom Philadelphia.jpg would be "fine", because that is a verified free-use image with permission of the author. I have therefore created some cropped versions of that file, which (as I understand it) you may use on DYK with the existing hook. I have added one of them here, the rest of the cropped versions of this original, plus the original, are in Commons category:Freedom Sculpture. Please only use the images with the VRT permission tags, or the cropped versions thereof. Storye book (talk) 16:17, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • That is good news @Storye book: We will see if it is enough I was smirking a bit regarding the irony of this situation. That we did not have the freedom ...to use a photo of a sculpture which depicts freedom. I couldn't resist. Bruxton (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Well we do have that specific freedom in Philadelphia, according to the Philadelphia leaflet which you have used as a citation in the article. It is clearly spelled out. But WP is WP. Storye book (talk) 16:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - the licence on the original Commons image doesn't seem clear to me. There should be explicit separate licences listed for the sculpture and the photograph of it, and personally I'd like to see confirmation from the VRT team that the permission they've stamped on it refers to the sculpture specifically. Also, the "source" field simply points back to the Commons file itself, which doesn't seem right. We should not run the image until these issues are resolved.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    Also, if we're using a cropped image it would seem better to me to use File:Zenos Frudakis Freedom Philadelphia - cropped (1).jpg rather than File:Zenos Frudakis Freedom Philadelphia - cropped (2).jpg, as it is clearer what is going on in the freedom image and the "photo opportunity" slot is visible, albeit with someone standing in it. In fact, unless the resolution would be bad, we could even use the original File:Zenos Frudakis Freedom Philadelphia.jpg, which shows the whole sculpture and is IMHO much more informative and the meaning clear compared with only showing part of it.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru:. If it will resolve the problem, then using the original image which is already on the article page Freedom (Frudakis) would be fine. It was the image initially selected by the DYK creator/nominator Bruxton anyway. It is time that this issue was wrapped up. Storye book (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Storye book: I do agree it would be better to use the original image, but as far as I can see there is still a licensing issue to resolve. An image of a sculpture requires two separate licenses - one for the sculpture, and one for the photograph. At present only one is listed, with a VRTS ticket and it's not clear who took the photograph and whether they released the rights to it. If that ticket in fact covers both the photo and the sculpture then that should be made clear (and we'd need to consult someone with access to the VRTS correspondence I believe). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:07, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Freedom of panorama or not?

Commons:Mexico Freedom of panorama

I was wondering if the image at Template:Did you know nominations/Fuente de las Tarascas is acceptable for the main page before I promote it. Pinging nominator {[u|Tbhotch}}. Also pinging Amakuru who might have an idea. SL93 (talk) 00:48, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixing ping - Tbhotch. SL93 (talk) 00:49, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm asking because Wikimedia Commons states - "The Mexican law only mentions that artists don't receive payment and doesn't explain if use for commercial purposes is possible. It is supposed that it's possible." SL93 (talk) 00:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Commons link above. Section Protected: Under the 1996 copyright law as of 2018, the following are protected - it lists sculptures. — Maile (talk) 01:25, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I quoted from a different Commons page. I'm glad that I asked here. SL93 (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Maile66 The bottom of the page for freedom of panorama says - "Reproduction, communication and distribution by means of drawings, paintings, photographs and audiovisual processes of works that are visible from public places (lugares publicos)." "Pictorial works or works of drawing", "Photographs", and such are also listed under Protected. It looks like freedom of panorama likely does apply for sculptures in Mexico. SL93 (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Mexico has freedom of panorama for everything as long as you are standing on an open-to-public space. (CC) Tbhotch™ 20:06, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
Just to clarify on the above, the sculpture doesn't need to satisfy US laws in this instance? As already noted, pictures of sculptures inside the US are not allowed, but the assumption is that freedom of panorama restriction doesn't apply in the US to overseas works?  — Amakuru (talk) 23:43, 18 January 2022 (UTC)
There are two basic things that will have to be met by a Commons file: it has to meet US copyright requirements (which are often stricter than the copyright requirements of the file's home country) and it has to comply with the rules of the home country. Hence, the only issue here is the Mexican FoP rules. Schwede66 04:03, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Prep 4: 4th Submarine Squadron (United Kingdom)

Following a query I made at c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright#File:HMS Tactician Jan 1953 SLV Green.jpg, I have nominated the file File:HMS Tactician Jan 1953 SLV Green.jpg for deletion. It appears that although it is public domain in Australia, it remains copyrighted under US law. This file was originally included as the picture hook for Queue 2, so I've swapped it out of there and put it in the second hook at Prep 4 for now. If it turns out I have made an error here, and the image is actually eligible, then it could be moved back into the picture slot later. Pinging @Dumelow, Trainsandotherthings, and Theleekycauldron: as nominator/reviewer/promoter. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Sounds good—sorry I missed that! I'm watching the deletion discussion, we'll find another image theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:23, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Not my image, I found it on Commons and checked the source (the State Library of Victoria) which stated: "This work is out of copyright" and "No copyright restrictions apply". It didn't occur to me that the US would have a more restrictive copyright regime. Commons is in dire need of a purge of media without a United States public domain tag, sometimes it seems that most media I find there is missing one - Dumelow (talk) 09:37, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The C of E DYK's in-progress

The C of E has been topic banned from DYK, based on a discussion at ANI. My close can be seen here. I'm posting this here mostly to direct your attention to the last paragraph, which says "Finally, this last bit is a judgement call, since it wasn't really discussed, but just to prevent another discussion: Any of The C of E's already-approved DYKs can proceed thru the pipeline (thanks for the prompt about this, User:28bytes). We're preventing future disruption, not punishing anyone. And, I haven't checked to see if this applies, but: any already-made but not-yet-approved DYK's can proceed, but if the QPQ hasn't been done, or any uninvolved reviewer rejects the DYK for cause, that can't be fixed or appealed. Hopefully that seems fair enough that I don't get claims of deciding this part unilaterally." My intention was, if an in-progress nomination has no problems, there's no sense pulling it, but if an in-progress has any problems, the C of E isn't allowed to fix it, so the nomination should be closed. This seems fair and reasonable, but if my lack of understanding of how the DYK process works means that I'm overlooking a complication, let me know. --Floquenbeam (talk) 16:41, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Looking at his contributions list in template space, I believe that these are all of the DYKs of his that are in progress (i.e. have not run on DYK, and have not been rejected):
  1. Template:Did you know nominations/Nebraska v. One 1970 2-Door Sedan Rambler (Gremlin) - approved and listed on April Fools' Day page; new hook needs to be reviewed
  2. Template:Did you know nominations/O'Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom - possible hook issues
  3. Template:Did you know nominations/Prince Imperial Memorial - approved and promoted to prep; has run on main page
  4. Template:Did you know nominations/Dick Graves - approved for regular set and promoted to prep, and listed on not for April Fools' Day page
  5. Template:Did you know nominations/Rosa (cow) - approved and promoted to prep; has run on main page
  6. Template:Did you know nominations/One fuck rule - on hold, article is at AFD rejected; article is being merged into another
  7. Template:Did you know nominations/Hawkstone Lager - being reviewed, alt hook needs approving/rejecting to be revised; disagreement as to whether this violates WP:DYKSG#F10 (WP:NOTADVERTISING) closed due to multiple article concerns
  • Hopefully this list should make it easier for users. 6 and 7 from this list were also discussed at #For fuck's sake, and number 2 is the only one I could imagine also being an issue (since the others are approved). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for that. I could also imagine the Dick Graves one as being controversial, as although the article has been re-written and a different hook approved, it was mentioned by several editors in the ANI discussion. -- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:02, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    I've just updated the status of the nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:30, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I think that was a good close, Floq. I was dwelling on that issue during the discussion, but never got an opportunity to bring it up (it seemed a bit presumptuous even with how the wind was blowing); your reading that you implemented is the one I was hoping for, per WP:NOTPUNITIVE. While the disruption here was too great for anything but a full tban, C of E also clearly enjoyed DYK, and stripping him of the last few already-approved ones would just salt the wound. Thanks also to Joseph for compiling the list. Vaticidalprophet 17:06, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I've noted the two nominations that are currently at April Fools' Day. The Hawkstone Lager ALT1 hook has grammatical problems and runs on a bit, which I had noted earlier but just realized I forgot to ping The C of E at the time; someone would need to propose an ALT1a or ALT2 hook if the nomination is to continue, and shepherd the nomination through the rest of the review process, if Floquenbeam's close allows. It is always possible that issues will be found with already-approved nominations—happens all the time here at DYK—in which case perhaps an editor could step in and address any issues, as often happens when nominators don't return to a nomination. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:12, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    I just updated the list of 7 at the top to reflect the current status of the various reviews. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for that list, Joseph. I didn't mean to imply already-approved hooks couldn't be pulled or modified as a normal DYK process. Also didn't mean to imply others couldn't address problems in C of E's in-progress nominations, if they wanted to. In particular, I didn't realize from reading the ANI thread that the Dick Graves article was still an active issue, I thought it had already been resolved. Not a fan of making penis jokes about some guy's name on the main page, April Fools or otherwise, especially since this is the exact type of thing that got C of E in trouble. But I'll leave that to the normal DYK processes, I pretty much stopped dealing with main page stuff so I won't raise the issue myself. --Floquenbeam (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    I mean I guess it has been resolved, I don't think anyone specifically mentioned the new hook that Theleekycauldron approved. I just thought it might get still get complaints. Maybe I'm being over-cautious.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:30, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    Pawnkingthree, the new hook was mentioned in Fram's ANI post that began the discussion: After his two first attempts at getting a hook with "dick" and "cock" on the main page were rejected, they suggested a third alternative, again using "dick" in a deliberate manner. That third alternative is the one that has been approved for April Fools' Day. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:05, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks, I missed that. I don't think it's much better than the first two, myself. (Also it does appear a bit odd to have C of E DYKs suddenly appear two and a half months after his topic ban was enacted, but that was permitted by the ANI close.) Pawnkingthree (talk) 00:25, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • FYI I have unapproved #1 and proposed an alt hook, so if anyone wants to take a look at that one and re-approve it (or not) with the new hook I would appreciate it. 28bytes (talk) 18:20, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
    • (And agreed on a good close for the ANI discussion.) 28bytes (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Approved the gremlin alt (Theleekycauldron) and have given a hook review to the outstanding O'Halloran and Francis v. United Kingdom - I think it needs a new hook to proceed, if anyone wants to give it a shot. Kingsif (talk) 03:17, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • This is, of course, if the O'Halloran and Francis article isn't flying far too close to The C of E's previous TBAN on nominating British politics at DYK... Kingsif (talk) 03:20, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Floquenbeam: Just for clarification, would the articles created/expanded by The C of E, but nominated for DYK by someone else be allowed? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Kavyansh.Singh: from discussion on The C of E's talk page, it looks like that's not technically disallowed, but I'd recommend reading through that thread and absorbing every caution before doing so. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 12:04, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
    @Theleekycauldron:: Yeah, reading through that thread (a long one), I feel that while it is not restricted, one should take care while doing so. We are not restricting 'The C of E' from writing/expanding articles. We merely have issues with his DYK hooks, and if a third-party wants to nominate his work, they should be allowed to do so, given that the hooks should be "appropriate". Nonetheless, I have never, and hopefully will not nominate any article for DYK which I have not worked with. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:58, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that very fair-minded close Floquenbeam. Having said that, I think I must concur with RandomCanadian's comment that the AN/I discussion in question was a "knee-jerk disproportionate pile-on". The C of E's serially poor judgement with regard to hook selection is well known but also well in hand given the blanket veto that any user could exercise over his hook proposals. The AN/I discussion also strikes me as very much an example of double jeopardy given that he had not AFAIK previously been sanctioned or even warned for mere profanity in hooks, nor is there any guideline precluding the project from such.

As is well documented, I personally have had many infuriating arm-wrestles with The C of E in the past given some of his lamentably subpar April Fool's submissions, but as noted above, the hook veto had already well and truly dealt with that issue. In spite of his predilection for the sensational, the user in question does have an eye for an interesting hook and IMO only needed a little oversight to keep his excesses in check. This looks to me very much like a classic case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Gatoclass (talk) 10:46, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

  • I missed the discussion owing to being quite busy over the past few days, but I would agree that the move is long overdue. While The C of E has made some hooks that are harmless and perfectly fine (for example Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Challenge Cup which I recently reviewed), he was clearly doing breaching experiments and testing the community's patience. I always thought that his apparent focus on Rhodesia was odd, but I think what's shocking is his own admission that he was doing provocative hooks on purpose for his "own amusement". At the very least I would have supported a topic ban from biographies and politics broadly construed, but a full topic ban seems like an appropriate action too given how it appeared he didn't get the hint despite multiple warnings and discussions. Maybe one day he will change, genuinely realize his errors, and return with a new outlook and only focus on appropriate content, but only time will tell if that will happen. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:19, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
With regard to the Rhodesia submissions, I searched that AN/I discussion in vain for any indication as to how exactly these nominations were supposed to have "crossed the line" or represented a "breaching experiment" as some contributors indicated. Gatoclass (talk) 11:43, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
My guess was that, given the topic ban from Ireland-related topics but still wanting to make DYK hooks that somehow related to British imperialism, he settled on Rhodesia. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:56, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's not a crime to have an interest in British imperialism or any other topic. The only requirement is that whatever topic one chooses to write about, one writes about it in a neutral manner. If nobody can point out exactly how these Rhodesian hooks/articles breached the neutrality requirement, then there isn't a problem there that needs addressing. Gatoclass (talk) 12:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't say there's anything wrong with having an interest in Rhodesia by itself, it was more about the whole context of it all that was worrying. I do remember one Rhodesia hook he did (unfortunately I cannot remember the exact article right now, but it was about a statue of some kind or a person who had a statue of him) that made fun of Robert Mugabe. Now we all know Mugabe was a terrible dictator who held back Zimbabwe for much of his rule, but as far as I can remember the hook felt like an excuse (for lack of a better term) to make fun of post-colonial rulers of a British colony than anything and I was surprised that the hook as written managed to be approved and promoted. At the very least, that nomination felt it went against the spirit of the topic bans if not the letter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
I do recall that hook Naruto, and while I thought it was clunky and needing a copyedit, I think one would be drawing a long bow to read a pro-imperialist subtext into it. Gatoclass (talk) 12:26, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
For those following along at home, Template:Did you know nominations/Rhodesia/Zimbabwe government buildings would be the ticket. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 12:30, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: my question is, aren't bans supposed to be preventative, not punitive? It doesn't look to me like there was much bathwater left to throw out. As far as I can tell, no one questioned the fact that the veto system worked pretty much exactly how it was supposed to, preventing any offensive/provocative hooks of CoE's from reaching the main page. is there a hook that slipped past veto onto the main page that I'm missing? in other words, has anyone shown that the veto system failed to prevent The C of E from doing harm to the actual project, therefore necessitating a wider net? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 12:01, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Not so far as I'm aware. Gatoclass (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
Also, just as a response to the earlier comment about profanity, while as far as I know he was yet to be sanctioned for that, his profanity hooks (such as attempts to put the N-word on the Main Page, multiple times) were brought up multiple times in the ANI discussions and may have at the very least played a role in the veto being implemented in the first place. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:37, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
The n-word is not actually a profanity, it's an epithet. With regard to his nomination of another article including the epithet in May last year, that was in my opinion an inexcusable lapse of judgement that probably should have resulted in at the very least a warning if not an additional sanction at the time, but dredging it up at AN/I eight months later seems belated to say the least. And in any case, only a handful of respondents referenced that nom when casting their !vote. So the !vote was mostly about the profanity, and what disturbs me in part about that is the implication that profanity itself should be avoided in DYK hooks, which would not in my view be a helpful development. Gatoclass (talk) 05:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@Gatoclass, I dont think there's any implication that profanity should be avoided. The point is that it shouldn't be dragged into a hook kicking and screaming. If a particular article's best hook contains profanity, fine. But 'though his cock was grabbed, experts said Dick's was exquisite' wasn't that, nor was the proposed alt 'some dick sold a casino without getting the sale written down' any better. The man sold his casino to an employee on a shake of hand and told him "Pay me when you can" and we're calling him 'some dick'? We could build a great hook around that, btw, and we don't even have to mention the silly rooster. valereee (talk) 15:06, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Part of the problem Valereee is that this has all been a bit of a slippery slope. For year after year, The C of E (and some others) have submitted hooks to the DYK April Fool's project that are quite crude and provocative, and have not only not been sanctioned, but been glad-handed for it instead. So although The C of E's protests of innocence do to my ear ring hollow to some degree given that I think he is well aware of the provocative nature of some of these hooks, it is also probably genuinely bewildering to him that in one moment he is being celebrated for such contributions, and sanctioned the next. With regard to this particular nomination, I don't know if it was intended as an April Fool's hook, but it may well have gotten approval in that context and passed on the day in question without comment. If the nomination wasn't intended for AFD, then I think it likely that it's just a case of The C of E forgetting that what may be acceptable in one context is not in another.
If there is one positive thing to come out of this mess however, it may be that we will see a decline in the "anything goes" attitude that some users including The C of E have had toward the AFD subproject up to now. It's an area that's needed closer scrutiny for some years, so the fact that somebody has now been sanctioned for gratuitous nonsense may cause some other would-be offenders to think twice. Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Honestly I generally hate the AFD set. I'd much rather we put the one best AFD joke in, and even then only if we have one really clever one. One that really works on multiple levels rather than a full set of 8 groaners. valereee (talk) 17:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Well last year, I actually rejected half the nominations and intended to run only one set, but somebody didn't read the discussion on this page and went and promoted all the rejected hooks anyhow. I was pretty pissed about that but given the consensus model, one cannot simply impose one's own preferences. As it happened, we didn't get a single objection, so there was evidently no harm done, but then it seems all the more questionable when the community suddenly turns around and hands a user a blanket DYK ban for doing pretty much what he's always done with little if any complaint. Gatoclass (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Are you talking about this current issue? Because I think I could go through dyk talk for the past three years and come up with many, many complaints. I really don't want to have to do this, as it sounds tedious, but Gatoclass, really are you saying that there haven't been complaints? I can remember complaints that weren't even referenced in the ANI. Please don't make me go track those down, I'll strike this before I have to do that, but you don't remember that? valereee (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
Valereee, when I wrote the above, I was thinking specifically about last year's AFD, for which AFAIK there were few if any complaints. But of course I am aware that there have been many complaints over the years about hooks submitted by The C of E - I should do, since I myself have frequently been the complainant. My point though is that The C of E has been contributing what I consider to have been some pretty crude and/or clunky hooks to AFD and elsewhere for many years and getting away with it, in the sense that those hooks have frequently made it to the main page and stayed there for their fully allotted time without being pulled, regardless of any objections that might have been made somewhere along the way. In which case, I think it must be bewildering to him to suddenly cop a six month ban for doing what he's done many times before, namely proposing a hook containing the f-word or an overdone pun on the word "cock". I mean, he literally had a hook/article featuring the very same overdone pun on AFD last year, with no complaints. And now suddenly he cops a ban for proposing the same joke? Regardless of what one might think of The C of E or his contributions, the inconsistency of response from the community is glaring. Gatoclass (talk) 08:47, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Gatoclass, for me the deciding issue was not having "Dick's cock" in the hook, it was suppressing the fact that said "cock" was actually a gold rooster in the Dick Graves article before things came to light: "cock" was used to the exclusion of "rooster" (except in the case name), and this was the second year in a row he'd done it (see last year's AFD court case article, which was only fixed during this year's ANI discussion). That's deliberately writing unencyclopedic and misleading prose in not one but two articles a year apart. That's not only inexcusable, it's warping the encyclopedia for the sake of a hook, and more than enough, in my opinion, to warrant a topic ban, which is why I supported one. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: A little truth telling here, and why I haven't been in the midst of these discussions. While I realize that Wikipedia does not censor, I think any project that shares Main Page space ought to take into consideration that the MP has no age restrictions on viewing. Maybe I'm more conservative than others, but I think we need to shoulder some responsibility that school children also possibly read our Main Page. I have nothing personal against this editor, but am somewhat offended with potty-mouth repetitions on that page. Not the least of which, is that I get this mental image of a bunch of adolescent boys in the boys restroom, giggling over smuggled nude female photos. And for a more detailed insight into what kinds of topic bans can be applied, and how long (some are permanent), please see Active editing restrictions. It can be worse, sometimes I'll run across an editor who has been globally banned on all Wikimedia sites. And with those, there are no explanations, just a notice on their user page that they are globally banned. — Maile (talk) 03:06, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@Maile66: as someone who has recently and frequently been exposed to adolescent high school boys, I totally understand and sympathize with that concern :) I also believe that gratuitously vulgar language unnecessarily restricts access to the site, subsequently harming our mission to provide open access to all. And don't get me wrong, those homophobic and racist slur hooks? I was close to leaving a long-winded rant on The C of E's talk page, cursing him out for even thinking to treat that like a joke. That is absolutely inexcusable, and towards CoE as a person and editor, I will absolutely hold that against him—and I'm not inclined to accept his rather hollow apologies.
And then... I remember that The C of E doesn't exist in a vacuum. We had dozens of other editors here, keeping watch and reserving special powers over his hooks to make sure that nothing offensive reached the Main Page. We're folly if we think we should be able to change every person's behavior, force every juvenile actor grow up; sometimes, what we should do is make sure someone's harmful impulses don't affect the project. The veto did this well; I'm not aware of any unambiguously offensive hooks that CoE made that slipped past the veto. To impose further restrictions seems, to me, unnecessary. Did we think that CoE was going to change his stripes instantly? Did we just reserve the veto power as a deterrent, rather than something to actually be used? If yes, I find that to be a rather untenable use of sanctioning. Keep in mind that we just lost quite a bit of good Main Page content, albeit from a problematic editor. Was it worth it? No further offensive hooks were prevented from reaching the Main Page this way; they were all vetoed by someone or another. I won't, for a minute, defend what The C of E did—but I think we only hurt ourselves with this tban. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:48, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Well, you hit that nail square on the head → The C of E doesn't exist in a vacuum. I like to believe he (they?) will learn from this. But in real life, history seems to repeat itself with the same cast of characters. — Maile (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
With regards to the veto, while it was working, given the recent episode of proposing not one but three separate hooks with profanity, and even writing an article in order to fit the use of such profanity (as seen in the Dick Greaves case), what happened showed that there was more to his issues than hooks that could be vetoed. There were issues where the possibility of a veto was not enough to address the concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
  • It seems very clear that the C of E is being censored and so it makes no sense to run his DYKs regardless. Anyway, I think we should definitely censor the Hawkstone Lager article in particular because that fits its campaign perfectly and so that would be quite ironic. Also, promoting the product would be contrary to DYK rule F10. But are we still allowed to use the letter F? Andrew🐉(talk) 09:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't say he's being censored. Plenty of his non-controversial hooks have been allowed to run in the past. In addition, hooks that include profanity have been allowed to run in the past. I think it's really more of a combination of him having a history of breaching experiments and questionable judgement on hooks that led to what happened. If he didn't have a history of hooks that apparently pushed British imperialism, homophobia, in the past, I think there would have been more toleration about his profanity hooks. Some editors above mentioned reservations along the likes of "what about the children?" or "the Main Page is not the place for profanity", but if you've read the multiple discussions about him on WT:DYK and ANI, censorship concerns were a minority and in fact the concerns were more to do with his judgement than the use of profanity itself. I mean, if proposing a hook that clearly made fun of Muhammad, and insisting on said hook even when other editors had expressed concerns, and only dropping the idea when it became clear that the alternative was rejecting the nomination entirely, wasn't a warning sign then I don't know what is. In addition, proposing a clearly pro-Unionist Ireland hook and requesting that it run on a day known for sectarian tensions was at the very least bad judgement and at the most a clear example of the kind of POV pushing that we strive not to promote. In any case, even the topic ban suggested that he could always make non-controversial edits to other topics, then appeal at least six months from now once he's understood what cause his issues and makes sincere and genuine efforts not to repeat those actions again. Then if he does that, he can always be welcomed back with open arms and the story can have a happy ending. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomination page already exists

I'm planning to nominate Technical support scam for DYK given that it has been improved to GA, however there is a failed DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Technical support scam already. Any ideas on what I should do now? Perhaps Template:Did you know nominations/Technical support scam (2) or G6 the old nomination? Pahunkat (talk) 16:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if there's a specific guideline on this, but the recent Template:Did you know nominations/Midnight Sun Mosque (2nd nomination) used "(2nd nomination)", so you might want to do the same (though you might have to do the nomination manually rather than with DYK-helper or wizard). eviolite (talk) 18:13, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Eviolite, I'll create it using that format. Pahunkat (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Pardon the orthogonal ping. I have highlighted certain sections of the article for WP:NPOV. Specifically, there is an assertion that technical support scams primarily originate from call centers in India that seems WP:UNDUE and is backed by a qualitative statement in a news article sans any proof. Will require further detailing before a bold assertion is made imo. But, if any of the regulars here want to take a look at that, that would be much appreciated. Ktin (talk) 19:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
The talk page is here for anyone who wants to comment on that issue, already some discussion on the issue. It isn't relevant to my question though. Pahunkat (talk) 20:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
well, it does hold up the nomination (which is up and running at Technical support scam (2nd nomination)) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Prep 5: Amanda Asay

I specifically stated my preference was for ALT1 to be used (because I thought it is the more interesting of the two). The reviewer did not comment as to which hook was better/more suitable. I'm a little baffled that I now find my hook promoted with a modified ALT0. Unless one hook is clearly superior to the other(s), shouldn't my stated preference be taken into account? Pinging @5225C: reviewer, and @Theleekycauldron: promoter. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:38, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

The modified ALT0 in Prep 5 would be more interesting to a broad audience. ALT1 would be interesting to a small niche.Flibirigit (talk) 11:49, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
ALT1 seems more interesting to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
Hey, Bloom6132! I'm sorry about the bait-and-switch here. My reasoning was about the same as Flibirigit's—I found ALT1 more interesting personally, but I had a hunch that a broader audience would probably like ALT0 better. They are both reasonably interesting, so I can swap it out if you insist—just wanted to show where my head was at. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:53, 19 January 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: no worries. Thanks for explaining your reasoning! I can now see where you and Flibirigit are coming from, so no need to swap. Cheers! —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:27, 20 January 2022 (UTC)
Ah, I appreciate it—cheers to you! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 05:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived an hour ago, so I've created a new list of 17 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 13. We currently have a total of 223 nominations, of which 115 have been approved, a gap of 108, down 4 over the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:58, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Tristan and Isolde

Is it OK for Prep 7 to have two hooks about Tristan and Isolde? J4: "Mix your hooks up. ..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Art LaPella (talk • contribs)

whoop! my bad theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:54, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Murad Takla

The nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Murad Takla needs more input on the sources and notability. The nomination has been stalled since December 25. SL93 (talk) 14:20, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

iOS Wikipedia App

Does someone know who maintains the iOS Wikipedia app? The iOS app has a homescreen quite similar to our Web mainpage. Someone does actively maintain that page. However, I do not see any WP:DYK articles being showcased there. It will be a good idea to connect with them and see how we can showcase some of our best hooks on that app. I do not know the traffic that the app / homescreen receives, but irrespective, I was thinking that it will be a good showcase for our efforts. I posted this on WT:ITN as well to see if someone there knew. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Ktin, MW:Wikimedia Apps/iOS FAQ § Developing the app and Contacting the app team may be useful here, as might MW:Wikimedia Apps/Team/iOS. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:36, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
I'm not familiar with the app you are talking about. But perhaps it's this one:
https://github.com/wikimedia/wikipedia-ios

— Maile (talk) 22:35, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Thanks folks. I am happy to go reach out to them to see if they can include some of our hooks from WP:DYK on an ongoing basis. However, before I go too far, I want to check -- is there an interest from the regulars here on pursuing that avenue? Based on that I will reach out to them. Ktin (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    FWIW, I use the Wikipedia Beta app on Android and it also does not show DYK (but does show ITN, OTD etc). My understanding is that it is automatically generated from the format of the desktop Main Page (rather than being human maintained on a daily basis) but I am not 100% sure. eviolite (talk) 23:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)
    That is accurate. I installed the Android app on a different phone and it seems very similar. And, you are also right that it does seem like a parsing of the homepage into a mobile specific page. I still think if folks here think it is worth asking -- I am happy to try reaching out to the folks there (iOS and Android) and asking if WP:DYK can be included in some form in those apps. What I do not know is the number of users who land on those app homescreens vis-a-vis our web homepage. Ktin (talk) 01:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
    I have gone ahead and posted here MW:Topic:Woovak9ewnnydabz. Let's see if we get some response. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 05:45, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Date request

Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Gutama Soegijo was approved a month ago for a date request of 29 January. Can it be added to Prep 7 or Prep 1 (both of which are currently full)? I don't particularly care about the image slot but would like for it to run on the requested date. Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 14:22, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

DanCherek Done. SL93 (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! DanCherek (talk) 17:43, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Concerned about conflict of interest

Template:Did you know nominations/Lillian Eichler Watson was nominated by someone who is related to the late subject of the article. I wonder if such a nomination is ever acceptable. SL93 (talk) 00:40, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, editors with COIs are allowed to navigate content processes if adhering to relevant guidelines. There are several GAs written by disclosed COI editors. Vaticidalprophet 01:06, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Vaticidalprophet Ok. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Wizard Pharmacy

Issues resolved. Gatoclass (talk) 10:32, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The Wizard Pharmacy article, which is in the DYK queue, has been tagged as undisclosed paid editing and its creator blocked. Under this circumstances, is it still acceptable for it to appear on the front page? Calistemon (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it would reflect poorly on DYK to run an article created in defiance of the rules prohibiting undisclosed paid editing, especially in that it may not be sufficiently neutral. At the very least, it needs to be pulled by an admin from Queue 3 before it runs on the main page in 19 hours to allow a thorough check if we do ultimate run it, but we have been known to disallow nominations by people violating other Wikipedia norms, such as block evasion or sockpuppetry. Pinging admins, including Maile, Gatoclass, Cas Liber, Amakuru, Wugapodes, and Cwmhiraeth, who can pull the nomination from the queue while we're waiting for a more definitive decision on whether it should run at all, and move a hook from one of the Preps to run in its place. (Perhaps Prep 7's Tana Tidung Regency hook?) Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
 Done, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 07:39, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I did move the Tada Tigung Regency hook to queue 3 but have returned it to prep as the article content does not support the hook. The hook states that the regency is the smallest in its province, but the article says it's the smallest "not counting the City of Tarakan". The discrepancy will need to be resolved before the hook is featured, and I can't do so because the sources are either in a foreign language or offline. Pinging the nominator Nyanardsan for clarification. Gatoclass (talk) 08:04, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Because Tarakan is not a regency, it is a city. Perhaps removing the phrase from the article would solve the problem? Nyanardsan (talk) 10:02, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes Nyanardsan, that would solve the problem as otherwise the meaning is unclear. Gatoclass (talk) 10:14, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
Done removed~ Please take a look Nyanardsan (talk) 10:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Wellbee

In Queue 2 has a cartoon image gesturing to the right. Is it technically possible to position the image on the left of the hooks as it would work perfectly there? Also, can we remove the words "the Centers for Disease Control's" from the hook to make it less clunky? I don't think they are needed and they make it four links in the hook. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Philafrenzy, looking at the code for the mainpage image, there does not appear to be a provision for left alignment; instead right alignment is hardcoded. Why not just produce a mirror image of the cartoon image? Schwede66 08:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
I thought of that but although it's a cartoon, we are cautioned against mirroring images somewhere here. I easily can if there is support for it. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
It's just gone live and the image is pointing to On This Day instead of the hook. If anyone wants to flip it they can. I can't because it is protected. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:22, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Q1 Jan29b

There are two Indonesia hooks in this set.

The second one is marked as a special occasion hook. Does anyone know off the top of their heads whether that means both are before I start digging around or swapping something that shouldn't be swapping?

Pinging noms: Nyanardsan DanCherek, thanks for any insight! valereee (talk) 17:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Nyardsan, we also need the 'smallest land mass' sentence in the article to get a citation. valereee (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Paul Gutama Soegijo looks to be a date request based on date of birth. So should be fine to move Tana Tidung Regency (as that doesn't have a connection with 29 January). Joseph2302 (talk) 17:15, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, Joseph2302 is right. (Alternatively, you could swap Paul Gutama Soegijo into Queue 7.) Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 17:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I get so confused with dates...would moving PGS to Q7 actually make it appear in a better time zone? valereee (talk) 17:50, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
No worries, I do too. Unless I'm mistaken, Queue 7 will run from 7am to 7pm in the Western Indonesian timezone. DanCherek (talk) 18:04, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
Swapped PGS into Q7. valereee (talk) 18:16, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
An admin should probably move Tana Tidung Regency out of the queue until the citation that Valereee mentioned is added. SL93 (talk) 22:51, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

DYK suggestion Prep 7

The creator of Dudleya cymosa subsp. pumila changed plant host to larval foodplant which I agree is the better term. Also pinging promoter of Template:Did you know nominations/Dudleya cymosa subsp. pumila. Kavyansh.Singh. SL93 (talk) 22:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

If I understand the suggestion correctly, I have made the change (Special:Diff/1068387901). Let me know if the works. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:48, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
That works. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 06:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Should Wizard Pharmacy be allowed to run at DYK?

The previous discussion was archived above before a very important decision could be made: whether the DYK nomination should be allowed to proceed given that the article was written and the editor/nominator blocked due to undisclosed paid editing. Here are the relevant sections from above:

    • The Wizard Pharmacy article, which is in the DYK queue, has been tagged as undisclosed paid editing and its creator blocked. Under this circumstances, is it still acceptable for it to appear on the front page? Calistemon (talk) 04:42, 26 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I think it would reflect poorly on DYK to run an article created in defiance of the rules prohibiting undisclosed paid editing, especially in that it may not be sufficiently neutral. At the very least, it needs to be pulled by an admin from Queue 3 before it runs on the main page in 19 hours to allow a thorough check if we do ultimate run it, but we have been known to disallow nominations by people violating other Wikipedia norms, such as block evasion or sockpuppetry. [Removing list of admins who were requested to remove the nomination from queue, which was done] while we're waiting for a more definitive decision on whether it should run at all ... [more no-longer-relevant removed text about a substitute hook for the queue]. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping we could have a discussion on the matter here, where more DYK people could see it and give their thoughts, rather than have a sparsely attended discussion on the nomination page. Thanks for your participation. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

  • Well, first things first we should ping Psiĥedelisto and Storye book, as the reviewers. UPE is a fiendishly tricky issue, and opinions amongst experienced editors on the merits of UPE-related articles divorced from their context of creation run the whole spectrum; I'm sympathetic to every side. Both reviewers felt the article was fine on its merits before the discovery, and may or may not still think that now. Vaticidalprophet 03:05, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Strongly object. When did we ever sell our Main Space to a commercial entity?
    1. Free advertising on Wikipedia's main page - an article created by a paid editor, who also created the DYK nomination.
    2. Any written-for-pay article, with a DYK nomination written by the same paid editor ... is nothing more than paid advertising, no matter how you turn it around.
    3. Gives the appearance that Wikipedia is (a) endorsing a for-profit entity; (b) Wikipedia's main space is for sale.
  • I think we should reject the nomination, based on it being paid advertising - and Wikipedia is not the one who got the money - on our Main Page. If we open the door to one for-pay DYK hook, it sets a precedent — Maile (talk) 03:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I generally judge paid editing by the quality of the content, on an individual basis; but here, I think that undisclosed paid editing shouldn't be rewarded with a spot on the main page. DYK is a source of sought after exposure for new and improved content; it shouldn't be given to rulebreakers, we can't encourage content creation via rulebreaking. I don't have a problem with paid submissions to DYK, as long as they're aboveboard, the content is quality, and we don't get into another Gibraltar situation. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Had I known about the UPE I would have rejected the nomination…given that I think it should be pulled from the queue. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 08:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
    • Note: Wizard Pharmacy is now under discussion at WP:AFD. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizard Pharmacy. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 08:20, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
      • I totally agree with Maile66. Schwede66 08:27, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
        • Regardless of the AFD outcome, putting this on DYK would be supporting UPE. The nomination should be rejected as a result, as UPE is a violation of the WMF terms of use. Which is stronger than any DYK criteria. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
          • In my opinion, if the editor has been blocked for undisclosed paid editing or creation of the Wizard Pharmacy article, then of course it cannot go to DYK. I, too, agree with Maile on that.
          • That said, I am at least grateful that the paid editor did do a good job, having followed all the rules except that (unfortunately serious) one. I have recently been struggling to deal with a far worse one on Little Amal (created by me) where an incoming editor has not only naively given away that they are editing at the behest of the conpany's producer, but that editor does not understand or follow WP rules and does not know some of the facts, so that there is little or nothing of their work that I can allow to remain in the article. So, although I agree that the Wizard Pharmacy article should be pulled from DYK, and that its editor should of course be blocked, there are worse ones around. Sigh. Storye book (talk) 10:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
            @Nick-D, Joseph2302, and Gatoclass: Hang on a second—speedy deletion under WP:G11? Obviously, this nomination isn't going to come back, so I've closed it. On the other hand, Storye book has vouched for the article's neutrality, both before and after learning of the article's undisclosed paid contribution status. Storye book is a competent reviewer, I trust their judgement; and I skimmed through the page myself before it was deleted and found nothing ridiculously out of order. G11 is supposed to be for exclusively promotional articles. Am I missing a policy that states that all undisclosed paid contributions must be reverted, and pages deleted under G11? Having re-reviewed every paid disclosure guideline I can find, I don't see any article penalties for undisclosed COI editing as long as the article is written well enough, although of course there will be blocks involved for UPE. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
            • and the closing statement for the AfD says WP:G8, which makes even less sense—it'd be for that article's talk page? i'm... i'm lost here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:13, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
              • It was TOS enforcement -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 11:29, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
                • we should really... have a separate CSD for that one. Neither G8 nor G11 applies here, in which case the afd process should play itself out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:32, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
              • (Edit conflict). The initial reason given for deletion of the article was that the article was run-of-the-mill and therefore not notable, and that the sources were not good enough. Whether the article should ultimately have been deleted is not for me to say, but I can say that I don't agree with those reasons.
              As I understood it, the reason for notability was that the pharmacy was the first to do something or other (I forget what, but I remember that it was something like a new prescription-provision process that would have mattered to the customers)
              I did check all the sources, and I was satisfied that they were capable of representing those truths which were repeated in the article. Regarding those sources which may have also contained puffs, I did not think that the puffery (which was not repeated in the article) was strong enough in the source to imply distortion of those truths which were mentioned in the article - e.g. stuff like dates of opening, locations and so on. I felt that the sources were certainly not obvious potential liars like e.g. Breitbart (don't check that out, it's nasty), The Sun newspaper and certain blogs. I'm not saying the sources were ideal, but they were well-intentioned, and as far as I could tell, they were enough to support the article's facts. But I'm only one voice saying that. If there is disagreement about deletion, then as it's not a harmful article in itself, maybe it should come back for discussion (re the article, not re DYK)? Storye book (talk) 11:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I think in our zeal to save the Main Page from advertising, we got a little carried away on the process. It was put up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wizard Pharmacy at 08:18, 27 January 2022, received one Ivote for deletion at 08:49, and deleted at 10:02. AFD is meant for discussion by more than one editor. but it's water under the bridge now.— Maile (talk) 12:12, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
  • Sorry, I meant to record that the CSD reason was G11, not G8 in the AfD. As the article had been created by a COI editor in response to an apparent solicitation, it was a clear cut advertisement as none of the content could be trusted to be neutral or reliable. This business might be notable, but that's a different issue as an article would need to be started from scratch for the community to have any confidence in it. Nick-D (talk) 07:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

We need more prep builders

@Kavyansh.Singh, SL93, Cwmhiraeth, Vaticidalprophet, BusterD, Canadianerk, and Coolperson177: If you're remotely inclined—I have a little too much on my plate right now to cover the prep sets and things are not looking great at the moment. We have one fully built prep, one almost-finished prep, and pretty much everything else is empty. If you guys can do whatever you're up for, I'll finish it off when I wake up in a few hours. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:17, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't get pings, but I do watch WT:DYK, although it's a busy talk. I'll take a look. I've had inconsistent computer access lately, but that's resolved now, so I've more time for this. Vaticidalprophet 11:34, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
'preciate it :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
I got a prep done. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron Really can't help atm, I'm sorry! I've been trying to clean up anime and manga project english voice actor articles since I started actively editing in October/November, and have stumbled across some which are insanely undersourced. I came across one that only had one source total for example, and there are several others w single-digit source counts and as low as 0-10% of the filmography sourced... I'll be back to help DYK sometime next month *I hope*, but I'm at the point in my new-to-Wikipedia phases where it's hard for me to just stumble across a stub in an area I'm working on and am confident to edit in, and just leave it for someone else and hope it doesn't get AfD'd (after already being neglected as articles for years...) - I know y'all need consistent prep builders, and I'll hopefully be one later this year - but I gotta devote as much of my editing time on the Wiki as possible to fixing this mess. I'll pop by the queues for a bit next week - beyond that, I can't promise much at this point given just how much time it's taking. All the best - Canadianerk (talk) 08:39, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Special date request

Didn't think to ask about this when I created the nomination. Is there any way that Template:Did you know nominations/USS R. B. Forbes could be put in the special event slot for February 25? That date is the anniversary of the ship's sinking. Hog Farm Talk 14:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Done! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Prep 5: Price of the Modi years - redux

(this was previously discussed at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_184#Price_of_the_Modi_Years,_To_Kill_a_Democracy,_and_extending_DYK_guidelines_to_non-fiction_books)

@Kavyansh.Singh, Theleekycauldron, and Venkat TL: - I see that the hook above has been re-posted into Prep 5, but the article has been altered significantly since that hook was written (rightly so, given the concerns raised last time), and it no longer contains mention of the "due credit" line. We'll need a new hook I think. This probably means reopening the nom, unless anyone has a quick fix to suggest here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:57, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Suggesting ALT2 here: – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 10:07, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, but I don't find the suggested alt interesting, especially considering that there ought to be a really good hook to be extracted from the article content.
Apart from that though, IMO the article is still not in good enough shape to feature. Apart from needing a copyedit, it has two other substantial issues, one of which is that the content is not neutral, and the other that a substantial chunk of the article seems to be derived, not from the book content, but from an interview given by the author. At minimum, the article should clearly distinguish between the contents of the book and the opinions of the author given in the interview, which may or may not be replicated in the book. So while the book sounds very interesting and worthy of a spot on DYK, IMO more work is required to bring the article to an appropriate standard. Gatoclass (talk) 10:44, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
I agree, this article is not NPOV. Yes it's a book that's critical of Modi, but this article is wholly negative about Modi. There must be at least some reviews that don't agree with the book and aren't massively anti-Modi? The purpose of DYK is not to instill politics, ALT1 is clearly a massive POV violation too. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:48, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
The content from the The Economic Times seems to just be ripped from the headline and the first paragraph (both freely viewable without subscription). I have to imagine the ET article would be much more heavily critical of the book in full, at least much more than we say it is. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 10:55, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
It's also listed an Economic Times Opinion piece, rather than a peer-reviewed factual article (similar to how many newspapers/website have opinion columns, which are way less reliable as sources than the other articles). Full content available [7], it is a negatively opinionated source. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Joseph2302, please stop edit warring to add the tag. Please read Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editing, not neutral content. In case you have not realized the Book itself is a work of criticism. If you have specific points and evidence that something is amiss, you should point it out. General comments like this article sucks, it is one sided etc, is non constructive. @Theleekycauldron I have copy edited. Please review again. I hope you will guide me to take this to the finish line. Venkat TL (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I understand the book is a criticism, but that doesn't justify the article being 100% critical. And opinion pieces being portrayed as reliable sources isn't correct either. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Provide a praise. I will be happy to include if it exists. Venkat TL (talk) 11:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@Venkat TL: well, there isn't much I can do at this point; other editors are voicing objections, so your job is to improve the article enough that you can obtain consensus to reinstate its place in the queues. Although (for once) I agree with joseph—the article should reflect the opinion of reliable sources on the book, not the opinion of the book. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, is your ET concern now resolved? I did not hear back on that. Please point me the reliable source that I have missed. I will be happy to include it. Venkat TL (talk) 11:49, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I have pulled the article from prep until the problems have been addressed. Gatoclass (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

The POV issue continues to be an issue even with their most recent DYK nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Tek Fog. I think that the general problem needs to be solved as well. SL93 (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
Agree, all of those proposed hooks violate WP:NPOV. And the start of that article says that Tek Fog is reportedly used by the Bharatiya Janata Party, whilst these hooks are asserting it to be true. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:39, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
  • I made a spot check on this. The book's cover shows lots of graphs with lines heading down. But notice that there are no scales. One of the graphs is the Human Development Index, which is calculated by the UN and so seems reasonably reputable. The book's cover shows this plummeting down. But if you look at the same index at Our World in Data or at the UN, the line for India seems to have risen or stayed level – a rather different picture. The book therefore seems to be unreliable – a political polemic. The article thus seems to violate the spirit of rule 4 of WP:DYKCRIT, "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals or promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:03, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Is only 7 days perhaps a bit too short for a 5x expansion?

Hi! I tend to edit articles that are about 1-2k words in length when I start working on them and might take me 2 weeks or so to expand 5x. Is it worth discussing whether this limit is a bit short? I think expanding it to two weeks for articles that are not stubs when expansion started would improve the quality of articles being taken to DYK and help highlight expansions more than niche new articles a bit more. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

While an expansion of the DYK eligibility criteria is a reasonable proposal for other reasons, enough 5x expansions are drafted in userspace that I suspect the de facto timeline for them is much, much longer than a week for most. Vaticidalprophet 13:20, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
I don't usually do them in sandbox, the DYKcheck script uses 10 days, which I've always found to be a better amount. It stops there being such a rush if you are near the cutoff. I realise that is kind of a moving goalpost, but to me it seems a bit fairer. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
And I guess most of the reviewers IAR if it took slightly more than 7 days, say 10 or 12. The unwritten upper limit here is 14 days, I guess. Because, I don't remember which, but I have seen a nomination which took 14 days for 5x expansion, but was approved anyways. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
No IAR needed; the supplementary guidelines explicitly state: The "seven days old" limit should be strictly enforced only if there is a large backlog of hooks. Otherwise nominated article may still be approved if it were created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations. See also Wikipedia:Did you know/Not exactly. DanCherek (talk) 14:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps the bolding in DYK is only for articles that have achieved one of the following within the past seven days: is unnecessary in the instructions page? The "seven days old" limit should be strictly enforced only if there is a large backlog of hooks. (emphasis my own) seem to contradict themselves in the eyes of new editors. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
In practice, DYK is pretty much perpetually backlogged; in fact, it's one of the reasons why we have the whole switching-between-one-and-two-sets-a-day thing. If DYK is so backlogged that we have to do two sets a day to clear the backlog, there seems to be little appetite for enforcing the "loose enforcement" supplementary guideline unless the lateness was not by much (i.e. 1-2 days) and was an isolated case rather than the nominator being regularly late. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:26, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I had the opposite thought. We used to have three sets a day presumably routinely enough that "8-hour sets" are mentioned in plenty of DYK's supplementary material, and that hasn't been the case in...certainly well before I first noticed DYK as an editor. The particularly high levels of backlog that was presumably written for don't seem to be the case ever nowadays. Vaticidalprophet 11:45, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
I vaguely remember four-sets-a-day being a thing at one point (around the same time DYK had the "from Wikipedia's newest content" hatnote), but from what I've read it was attributed to DYK having lower standards before. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Mentioned not too long ago on this talk page was the fact that we seem to be switching between one-set-a-day and two-sets-a-day with increasing frequency, and that all the manual steps and required checking is a timesink. For that reason I would personally define a "large backlog" as a situation where we're continually running two sets a day and the number of approved hooks still continues to rise. DanCherek (talk) 14:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Case in point Vaticidalprophet: First Carlist War and User:A. C. Santacruz/sandbox has already reached a 2x expansion (with about 0.5x of the original article having been removed), and I expect to reach 10x or so before moving it to mainspace. Not that I was thinking of this when I started the thread, but found your comment a bit surprising if only for how true it is. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 19:08, 28 January 2022 (UTC)
When you plan such a thing, how about doing the expansion in user space with all the time you need, and when ready adding it to the article in Main space in one batch? It needs some attention to changes in between, of course. A different approach (which I came to favour) is make the article GA, - then you can forget about the petty character counting, and can slowly work towards higher quality, - the deadline for nomination is 7 days from GA qualification. My latest example: BWV 157, and there was no way to expand it 5fold. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)
Of course, then you enter the GA backlog, which is its own thing. Like others, I note that the DYK system incentivises draft-space additions. It feels a bit gamey to do this, but ultimately a temporary delay to your article improvements is not a huge price for en.wiki if you want to submit something to DYK. CMD (talk) 19:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Prep 5

My first time creating a new section at WT:DYK (I think) ... In Prep 5, can someone please change a My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episode is said to My Little Pony: Friendship Is Magic episodes are said, because the episodes in question (i.e. "The Cutie Map") are not a single episode but a double episode (or a two-parter, whatever you wanna call it). Thanks! Pamzeis (talk) 02:53, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Done! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:46, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Prep 2

I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/John Wayne Bobbitt Uncut to prep 2, but I now have a question about the article and hook which should be an easy fix. The reworked hook says, "... that John Wayne Bobbitt Uncut was the bestselling pornographic film of 1994 and had the most rentals that year?" Was it the bestselling in the United States or worldwide - or something else? I assume it is referring to the United States due to AVN being a United States publication. Pinging nominator Polycarpa aurata. SL93 (talk) 00:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

no answer to this, but a pointer to the nom for BWV 157 sitting in the approved noms, waiting for promotion to a 6 Feb prep, 2 or 3, 3 preferred as Europe is awake then. I am not supposed to move "my" nom to special occasions. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I've moved it. DanCherek (talk) 00:22, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
And now in prep 3 so that it can have an image slot. SL93 (talk) 00:29, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
SL93, while researching this I saw many suggestions that this is (or was) the best selling porn movie of all time. I am fairly sure that those claims are all based on the awards from Adult Video News. AVN is American and my assumption is that they were only tracking American sales and rentals. Just as an example of why English and probably other foreign sales would not have been counted, the movie wasn't released in England until 1996. It probably *was* the best selling pornographic movie in the world in 1994 just based on US sales, but the AVN award should not be assumed to indicate that. I hope this helps. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Polycarpa aurata I added in the United States to the article and hook because that is all we can be sure of without original research. SL93 (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
SL93, while I am sure that is correct, there is no source that qualifies as "in the United States". It might be best to leave it to the reader to interpret. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Polycarpa aurata I don't feel comfortable having this as a hook without knowing. I'm almost positive that it would be brought up at WP:ERRORS. SL93 (talk) 04:01, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Pinging BlueMoonset for their thoughts. SL93 (talk) 04:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
SL93, I found the the answer in our page on the AVN Awards, which "recognize achievement in various aspects of the creation and marketing of *American pornographic films*". So "in America" is correct. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:25, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I'm glad that is solved. BlueMoonset, sorry for the unneeded ping. SL93 (talk) 04:26, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I will keep it as United States per the usual standard on Wikipedia. America redirects to United States anyway. SL93 (talk) 04:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for your help with this. I'm still feeling my way around Wikipedia. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 04:38, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Queue 3

The quirky hook, about the Claudia Quintet, has a "the" added, presumably since it details an ensemble and not a person. The "the" was purposefully omitted in the hook i proposed for the quirk (since Claudia Quintet sounds like a real person, if probably a secret agent in an 80s film). Could the original hook be restored, please? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Should probably ping the DYK admins here, just in case. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
For deliberate nonstandard grammar like this that wouldn't survive a normal copyedit, should we put hidden comments in the hook to clarify? —Kusma (talk) 13:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Kusma: Yes, I guess we should and I will note that I should do this for future reference. In this case, the issue was reported at ERRORS during its run, and Maile66 did a good-faith re-addition of "the" into the hook, presumably not realising that this discussion had taken place and that the omission was deliberate. (For the record, while I am not a fan of mangling something into nonstandard grammar just to make a humorous hook, I did think the usage "that Claudia Quintet did...." was not actually incorrect, just less a usual formulation, so I gave it the go-ahead here). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, yeah, I did make that edit in response to WP:ERRORS. When I looked at the article itself, both the lead paragraph and lead sentence in the "Early Work" section begin with, "The Claudia Quintet..." Oops, but the article wording should be consistent with that hook, I think. — Maile (talk) 13:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Yep, true. In general that's the case, although historically the "quirky" slot at the end of the set does get a little more leeway in these matters.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I tried to crop the image to make it clearer at size, but it's already been cascade protected over at Commons, and I'm not sure how to deal with that. Does someone else know how to crop an image that has already been protected? And without screwing up the protection? valereee (talk) 19:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Valereee: If i'm correct (and I am like, 60 percent sure I am), you could upload the crop as a separate image to enwiki, at which point it should automatically cascade-protect on its own. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:21, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Theleekycauldron, it's not even letting me save the crop because of the protection, even though it's named something else. valereee (talk) 21:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
    Oh, I see...so download the original, crop it on my own machine, upload as another image here on enwiki, and switch to images. Ugh, it's only a few hours. Trying to figure out if this is worth the possibility I'll screw something up that someone else then has to fix lol... The image isn't bad. It just could be better if the empty space were removed so we could actually see the subject. valereee (talk) 21:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
    Well, I managed to change it, but now I think I need to protect it, and the instructions at Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions say to follow the instructions at Special:Upload and the button isn't working for me. Ugh. I'm just going to revert. This is silly. People need to crop these tiny images while there's still time. valereee (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Changes at prep or queue

I hate to bring this issue up yet again, but I think it's important to remind workers here that those who aren't workers here may never see changes to their hooks that happen in prep or queue.

When a hook is promoted, it disappears from the watchlist of non-workers here. For those of us who are regular workers, it's easier to follow our hooks: prep builders have all the preps on their watch, and admins have all preps and queues. So it's maybe easy for us to forget that the average nominator and reviewer do not have those pages watchlisted and unless they are constantly checking their hooks, they can easily miss a change, which as we've seen in the past can be anything from annoying to infuriating when a nominator and/or reviewer have carefully crafted a particular hook, and then when it appears on the MP it's been changed.

Personally I think any change that represents a change to what the nominator intended needs a section opened and the nom pinged. But the bare minimum should be a ping to the nom in the edit summary of the change, which isn't a burden to anyone as the nom is right there in the credits. I think we should discuss whether that should be a requirement for making a change in prep or queue. valereee (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

This usually only becomes an issue with things that look like an innocent copyedit to the person making the change but turn out to change the meaning, or to break something totally non-obvious (like "quirkiness"). I don't think we should discuss all those (WP:BOLD and all), but I'm all for asking people to please use edit summary pings even for changes that seem minute. —Kusma (talk) 13:38, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
the problem is that the time it takes to ping, like, reaaaally adds up. It arguably takes longer than the copyedit itself. What if this were bot-work in some way? Detecting hook modifications wouldn't be overly challenging, we should just figure out how we want to ping people. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:34, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I would love it if there were a bot that would automatically detect changes to hooks already in prep or queue and ping the nom. valereee (talk) 17:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I find the edit summary based pings quite useful. I have had a few times that TLC (and perhaps a few others) has / have pinged me that way and I have been able to follow along. Would that work? Ktin (talk) 17:27, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I have no objection to the ping taking longer than the copyedit. We don't need to make these copyedits take 1 second instead of 3. We do need to make them apparent to the nom, IMO. valereee (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
It would be great if there could be bot notifications so that it becomes a failsafe system. Here's a case in point; had the nominator known about the change (and its underlying issue), it could have been fixed before it went to the main page. Schwede66 19:11, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Using the talk page of the nom is a great idea, especially if someone can bot this. If we could record all hook changes there, also people not hearing pings could use their watchlist to avoid bad surprises when the hook hits the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 19:31, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
I've got a bunch of work today, but I'll see if I can slap together some proof-of-concept code sometime over the next couple of days. If you don't hear from me on this again, it's probably safe to assume that the difficulties have overwhelmed my current levels of single-minded hyperfixation :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:33, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
If we're making it all a bot, why not leave a message on the editor's talk, not ping them? Not everyone receives pings, and the system is faulty even for people who do. Vaticidalprophet 01:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I worry about clutter—half the hooks get tweaked for one reason or another throughout this process, it'd be annoying. I'd certainly rather receive a ping. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I have pings turned off because I really dislike them (although the dislike is most specific to "things I'd already be watching" -- I'm surprised to learn that apparently every prep builder has all the preps watchlisted, because I check them manually). I'll need to turn them back on at some point just logistically, but the date for that is indefinitely put off because pings are just an inherently panicky experience and putting myself back in all that panic sounds like a bad idea. I'm pretty sure it's still formally enshrined that you can't assume pings reach their intended targets, so anything that needs a 100% success rate officially still needs to be conducted through talk pages. I recognize the clutter issue -- it doesn't have a simple answer. Vaticidalprophet 01:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I think I saw someone say they have bot edits to their user talk turned off because they dislike them. :)
However we do this, I think it's safe to say that anyone who has (that type of notification) turned off has zero room to complain if their hook gets changed and they don't see it because the message we sent didn't get through. No one making a change to a hook should be expected to personally go to the nom's user talk, take them by the hand, and lead them gently back here.
I don't actually think this needs a 100% success rate. It's not ANI. If you don't want to be notified about a change, that's cool.
Hey, VP -- your dislike of being pinged to discussions you're already part of might be a good thing for the folks at Topic Subscriptions to hear. Maybe an option to turn off pings for any topic you've already participate in, whether or not you're subscribed? That way you'd still be able to be notified if someone was in a discussion you hadn't participated in and thought, hey, VP should see this. valereee (talk) 11:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
This is well into digression, but...The big moving part is I interpret pinged messages (on any platform, not just Wikipedia) as more aggressive than equivalent messages that don't generate pings. In ongoing conversations this gets expressed as a kind of snappy "Yes, I know we're talking, you don't have to yell". Pinged to new things, it's relatively muted if the message is obviously not aggressive, but if there's any possible reading that it is then that's a problem. I've ran into the issues with trying to work around this on a lot of platforms -- a recurring problem is that telling people "please don't ping me" means reasonable people who aren't going to be dicks anyway listen and don't ping you (including in situations you might want to get pings), while people who are less inclined to such considerations, so to speak, keep pinging, so pings actually become net worse. Vaticidalprophet 18:06, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Taking tangent to your talk :D valereee (talk) 18:21, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee, Kusma, and Vaticidalprophet: Well, I don't have any working bots set in stone yet (some dingus got me IP-blocked visa v account creation, so no bot account yet), but I'm definitely confident that I've got a working proof-of-concept script—it's like 90% of the way to being a functional bot. I'm going to get myself a bot account and file a BRFA :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Annoying :( Would we need to give you accountcreator or ipblock-exempt to make it possible for you to use Special:CreateAccount? (I haven't checked what the rules on these flags are, WP:PERM is where you can get them). —Kusma (talk) 12:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
No worries, I'm in touch with an admin—shouldn't be a huge delay :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm the admin in question. Perms wouldn't help; see T189362. I love the word dingus ... it's a cool word! Graham87 18:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Requesting comment on a hook

Hello, theleekycauldron informed me that there is a general consensus that WP:DYKSG#C6 also applies to thematic gameplay and relates to my hook below at Template:Did you know nominations/Midgard (game). They suggested I bring it up here.

I would like to use the hook and request comment. It seems that the hook applies to the real world in that players are able to choose battles in scale from the very small (200 troops) to the massive (200,000). These differences in scale are unusual for a game. The choices involve real people. Thank you for your time. Airborne84 (talk) 21:51, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

For me it doesn't relate to the real world. For me it's basically "Did you know ... that in a game, there are rules?" Why is it interesting that a game has rules? Of course a game has rules, and real life people have to follow those rules. If you could explain why this particular rule is in some way interesting, maybe we could IAR, but for me, no. If this is interesting because the scale is unusual, maybe make a hook around someone talking about how unusual it is? valereee (talk) 22:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Why not build a hook around the PBM aspect, which is something that I'd imagine many readers would have no experience with. Something like ... that in the (whatever decade) play by mail games like Midgard (something interesting about them)? valereee (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
Many thanks valereee. I appreciate your advice. I will say that I considered rewriting the hook to explicitly say "allows players to choose battles in size", or something to that effect, to highlight the player aspect. I felt like that was implied and tried to keep the hook concise. I think that may have been a mistake since the focus seems to be on the game as a result.
Since you asked how this particular rule is interesting to be a possible exception, the difference in scale is unusual. Board and table games, of which this is a category, don't typically vary in scale this much in my somewhat limited knowledge. Examples are Axis and Allies, Diplomacy, Risk, and others. But I'm not a WP:RS; the reviewer called this point out specifically in his review of the game (perhaps that should be the way it is written?).
I'll defer on this if you think it's unreasonable as a hook, of course. I appreciate your input. Airborne84 (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2022 (UTC)
@Airborne84, certainly if a reviewer called out something about the game as being unusual, it's worth mentioning in the article and probably in the lead, IMO. But honestly, I think the play-by-mail aspect is more interesting, and given that your reviewer also had no idea there was such a thing, it still might be a better hook.
FWIW, my interpretation of the fiction thing is just what TLC was saying -- anything can happen in a fictional universe, which a game is an example of. Games can have any rules anyone can think up. So the rule itself is never interesting, even though real live people play by that rule.
ALT1: ... that Midgard, which is unusual in allowing players to choose battle sizes from 200 to over 200,000 troops, is an example of the professionally-moderated play-by-mail games popular in the 1980s?
That just squeaks in under the 200. You'd have to add unusual into the article, with a citation. valereee (talk) 10:35, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: hmm, I'm iffy; we ran two articles on play-by-mail games in January (and one on a play-by-email game) and one in December. I'm assuming there'll be more, so I don't think we'll be able to use that as an escape every time. not a veto, but that should be kept in mind. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
we could incorporate the fact that one reviewer withheld top marks due to a negative experience with a gamemaster, that seems a little unusual(ly petty)? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I think as a layman who knows very little about board games, personally ALT1 works even without the mention of "unusual" (indeed, deleting the characters associated that word greatly shortens the hook). However, it would also be interesting to see if a hook based on Leeky's suggestion about the gamemaster could also be proposed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:49, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Ah, didn't realize we were experiencing a rash of such hooks! Yeah, the gamemaster's a great idea!
ALT2: ... that a reviewer withheld top marks for play-by-mail game Midgard because of negative experiences with a gamemaster? valereee (talk) 10:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
on board with that! :) Airborne84? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
we'll also need someone who wasn't involved to formally tick that—narutolovehinata5? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:57, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
It's sourced to an offline source so AGF in that. It's also mentioned in the article so that's okay. I'm approving ALT2 but I'll also note this discussion on the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Greatly appreciate everyone's assistance on this! I'd be OK with the ALT2 hook if it had the caveat "in 1996", to note it's not contemporary (as the game is still active) but would like to rummage around a bit first to see if there are any other options. Thanks again!! Airborne84 (talk) 21:34, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Queue 5

Quick thing:

The second hook (which I nominated) currently reads ...that Maria Keller founded a nonprofit at the age of eight that would go on to collect and distribute more than three million books to underprivileged children?. Can this be changed to ...that when Maria Keller was eight years old, she founded a nonprofit that would later go on to collect and distribute more than three million books to underprivileged children? The proposed change flows better to me.

— Mhawk10 (talk) 22:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging admin Maile, who promoted the prep to queue. Any other admin can also make the edit, if they agree that the revised wording is an improvement. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 10:41, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

we're below 60!

readout's showing 60, and I just moved an incomplete nom back to DYKN, so we're at 59 approved hooks, meaning it's time to switch back to 1-a-day. So, for the DYK admins, please switch User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400 sometime before noon UTC (roughly 2 hours and 20 minutes from now).

As for special occasion hooks: a full sweep of queues 4 and 5 reveal no hooks that need to be run within the next twelve hours, so the change is good to go. We'll need the lead of prep 3 (bach) to be swapped with the lead of queue 6, and the lead of prep 6 (sousa) to be swapped with the lead of queue 7.

Also, for posterity, I'm setting the over-under at ten days in one-a-day before wikicup overwhelms the backlog again. any takers? :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done. As for when we'll have to go back, you might be right Leeky, although I'd note that in the early rounds of the WikiCup the bar for moving on is very low and people don't really need to pad out with DYKs unless they want to... personally I've done four FA reviews and that should hopefully be more than enough for round 1!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
i suppose :) shame SL93 and I got our FAs in the first round, too, 200 points could come in handy later for us stragglers. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
also, to be clear, the queue moves still need to happen, although that is less urgent. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:44, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
just watching: how about switching not immediately after the limit is reached, but after the currently built preps have been handled, to make life easier for the prep builders, - perhaps starting with a bit higher limit? - personally, I don't mind switching soon, of course, full-day exposure being better for views and for keeping track in the 3 cats I watch (Germany, opera, and my own) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Gerda, hm. Can we figure out how to make our changes without having to move stuff around? Like, as we're approaching a switch, instead of doing it exactly at the stroke of 60/120, see if we have a gap in special occasion requests and make the switch at approximately 60/120 whenever it's least disruptive/causes the least amount of swapping? valereee (talk) 12:03, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
do as works best for you - here I wrote like mad to create Otto Borngräber in time for the next set which I thought was today, - saw too late that I could have done something more useful ;) - some admin needed to decide if he should be linked in the hook about Die ersten Menschen. It's not the greatest of articles, but perhaps better than a person's name without a link, - you decide --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
valereee, there is no realistic way of making changes without having to move promoted special occasion hooks around. At two a day, you might so many preps and queues already filled that you have to wait as long as seven days, and at one a day, up to two weeks. That's completely infeasible. If there's no way for a special occasion hook to run at its correct time without delaying the switchover, then you wait until it has run during the requested time, but that shouldn't be more than 24 hours. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:37, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Not completely following but I do completely believe you. :) valereee (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

We were never below 60; change was premature

Unfortunately, theleekycauldron and Amakuru, we never dropped below 60, so this changeover was premature. The two nominations moved back from Approved to Nominations had already been counted by the bot when their approvals were superseded at 07:33 and 08:10 respectively. At 08:40, we were at 61, according to DYKHousekeepingBot; at 09:10 we were at 60; and at 09:40 we were back at 61 (thanks to the approval of this nom at 09:20). No "59" to be found.

February 1 is a 20-nomination day so far, and February 2 is already at 15: that's two and a half sets for the one and two sets for the other: not the time to be switching back prematurely to one prep a day. However we decide to proceed, we should ensure that unless DYKHousekeepingBot reports a number either 59 or below or 120 or above, no change will be made. (Remember: one person may be removing approval from one nomination even while another has approved a different nomination; until the next report comes out, no one truly knows.) There is also no huge urgency: waiting until midnight in this case, or to the next day if midnight is fast approaching, makes sure that things can be done carefully and with less risk of error, or of issues with the upcoming special occasion hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:24, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree that there's no rush. The reason we set it at 60 was because once we're down to 40, it's slim pickings for prep builders. If we're for instance at 58 (or even lower but most preps/queues are filled, as they are now) but seeing a definite strong upward trend in noms, we can hold off. This should be treated with some discretion rather than as some sort of toggle switch. If we really want to use no discretion at all and always immediately switch, we should probably set the lower number closer to 40. valereee (talk) 17:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, BlueMoonset, that's my mistake—I'll wait for the readout next time. Doesn't making the switch in afternoon UTC throw off the cycle? Like, you don't want a set that went on air at noon utc to run for 24 hours... regardless, I'm fine waiting a day or two. If you'd like to switch back, I'm fine with following your lead here. We are already picking up hooks pretty fast, so I imagine we'll be back at two a day pretty quickly either way. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, if we do switch back, then we just need to move a couple of hooks around in the preps. I'll leave to Amakuru or another passing admin to decide: either they can put us back to twice a day decently before 12:00 UTC, or swap the two special occasion lead hooks you mention above: Prep 3 with Queue 6, and Prep 6 with Queue 1 (not Queue 7 as stated previously, since it needs to run on 8 February, which is when Queue 1 is scheduled if we stick with one set per day).
You wouldn't want to switch over in the afternoon in either direction—I don't believe I suggested that. Waiting until shortly after midnight to make a switch in either direction is always safest, though it can be done over the next several hours (but not too close to noon to avoid confusion or collisions). If it gets to be past 08:00 or so, it's probably best to wait to do the switchover until after 00:00 rolls around again. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:03, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I've put it back to 12 hours; saves us from having to move hooks around. And we've moved some distance from 60 hooks anyway. Schwede66 04:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
If this is so, the pictured hook about BWV 157, now in prep 3, should please go to Q2, especially as my dear prep builder inserted a "today". Needs an admin, and pictured please. If pictured is not possible that day please pictured some other day, but say "on 6 February 1727", - my preference anyway because we'll have readers who see it 5 Feb or 7 Feb. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:29, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, I've swapped the lead hooks of Prep 2 and Prep 3, so your nomination will be run on 6 February. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:43, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:49, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Are article split eligible for DYK?

Just wanted to check, are articles split from other articles eligible for DYK? I'm reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/York City F.C. (1908), and York City F.C. (1908) is an article split from History of York City F.C. (1922–1980). I believe the DYK criteria 1a For DYK purposes, a "new" article is no more than seven days old, and may not consist of text spun off from a pre-existing article. means that this article isn't eligible for DYK, but wanted to check (since I've not had this scenario before). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:29, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

@Joseph2302: you're right, this article would be ineligible—doesn't really count as new content. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:31, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Joseph2302, if the newly split article is then expanded 5x, or eventually becomes a GA on its own, then it could be eligible. Also, if the information in the newly split article was first added to the older article within seven days prior to the split, it is considered "new" in the newly split article, but that isn't the case here. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:55, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh, that last one is very interesting. Yes, I've added stuff to an article occasionally, then realized the content would support a standalone. valereee (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
See WP:DYKSG#A5 for a more details. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks all, the nom has been updated to note this ineligibility. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
I should have known we'd have a specific rule already lol... valereee (talk) 17:06, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few days ago, so I've created a new list of all 20 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 26. We currently have a total of 166 nominations, of which 68 have been approved, a gap of 98, down 10 over the past twelve days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:53, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Should we move this one as a sticky post toward the top of this page to draw editors' attention? Thoughts? Ktin (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
plus, it'd prevent archiving, we could just keep updating this list—it's worth thought :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I would recommend against moving this to the top of the page, since most people look at the bottom of the page to see what's new, so people will miss it. There's a regular progression up the page, and then something new comes along to catch the eye once a week. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:50, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Why are there so many DYK's about American radio stations?

Apologies if this isn't the right talk page for this, but this question has been on my head for months. Why are DYK's about American radio stations so common these days? It seems like every few days there's a fun fact about some K or W station. Not that I don't like it, but I can't help but wonder why they keep showing up. 49.144.204.135 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

It's because an editor enjoys working on radio station articles for DYK which there is nothing wrong with. Pinging editor Sammi Brie. SL93 (talk) 14:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
DYK reflects the interests of the editors who participate in it, and one of the most active editors in the process has that as her preferred topic. Anyone can edit Wikipedia, and we're always looking for new blood -- if you'd like, you could start writing articles for DYK too :) Vaticidalprophet 14:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Another option would just be nominating other articles that were created or 5x expanded in the past 7 days. SL93 (talk) 17:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
You can blame me for this. I write these because I have an interest in broadcasting history and I have identified this field as one where sourcing far outpaces the quality of our articles. The proof in how successful this is is the volume of my work: a pace of 100 DYKs a year since I started being super-active with newspapers.com in 2019, more than 20 Good Articles (all but one on broadcasting topics)...and thousands and thousands of additional references. There are still pages in the DYK and GA pipelines, too... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: I used to submit hooks on Michigan and college football at a similar pace; I then started getting negative feedback about the volume of similar hooks. It's worth keeping your "antennae tuned" to such comments. You are clearly preparing high quality content that improves the 'pedia, but FWIW, I did a review last year of DYK's lowest performing hooks, and the radio station DYKs were heavily represented. I've dealt with reader weariness by trying to be more selective in deciding which articles/hooks to submit to DYK. Cbl62 (talk) 20:38, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I've had periods where I've had too many DYKs (that was me with Mexican politicians in 2016!). I've shifted to also doing more GAs/expansion work of existing pages, though it's still my long-term goal to write a DYK into every TV market in the US (so far I've done 133 down out of 210). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Putting this in perspective, have a look at Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. Of those who are still active (and those who aren't), editors who create a lot of articles/nominations, tend to do it on subjects they have an interest in. These editors keep DYK alive. — Maile (talk) 22:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Filibustered nomination

Over here, we have the twice-approved nomination of an eminently qualified article being held up for nearly two months by completely frivolous objections (shown as such at great length) from a user who basically doesn’t want a Communist dictatorship that collapsed 32 years ago to be portrayed in a negative light on the front page. Could someone perhaps step up and break this absurd logjam? It simply isn’t fair to the hard-working article creator to be put through these kinds of artificial hurdles. — Biruitorul Talk 19:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Wow! The discussion of the nom has reached 33,000 characters -- now surpassing the article in length! Cbl62 (talk) 20:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Good grief. Both sides seems to be loving the walls of text.
To me the hook seems fairly uncontroversial, so let's start with the two assertions:
  1. circulated his memoirs in samizdat.
  2. since the communist regime did not want them published.
Which of those is causing the argument?
@Anonimu, can you explain your concern about these two assertions briefly? @Dahn, ditto. To clarify: There is a very good chance walls of text will be ignored. No one here is required to read them. Whittle it down to the minimum or risk having no one bother to read it. valereee (talk) 23:42, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
First I strongly protests Biruitorul's personal attacks against me.
Regarding the content: none of the assertions is supported by sources.
  1. The memoirs mentioned by the hook is recorded by sources to have had two copies (one of which is only asserted, based on a discussion the author of one source once had with the subject of the DYK) and basically no circulation. Calling it a samizdat is original research and extraordinary claim since Romania, unlike other Eastern Bloc countries, did not experience a samizdat phenomenon.
  2. The assertion regarding the regime is also unsupported, as sources do not indicate that any attempt to publish them was made or that the regime was even aware of their existence.Anonimu (talk) 08:05, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for that brief explanation. Dahn, would you like to briefly respond? valereee (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Briefly: (1) a manuscript now to have had several copies that were circulated in a group is a samizdat, uncontroversially so -- sources may not use that exact term (specifically because the term is rather unused in Romanian, the language of the sources), but they do quite clearly indicate what it was. (2) The samizdat's description as unwanted by the regime is not just Eminescu's own guess, it is also backed by the researcher quoting him (the quote is to the secondary source as well -- this was shown to Anonimu, yet he continues to claim "none of the assertions is supported by sources").
But further: even at that, I have proposed an alt hook which refers to another aspect of the article, namely that Eminescu was jailed and was allocated a 25-cm-wide sleeping cot; this has also raised objections from Anonimu, ones that he did not care to outline here. Dahn (talk) 08:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I've also proposed an alt, one that is completely nonpolitical and to me quite interesting. valereee (talk) 14:03, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
  • The discussion is now at 45 thousand bytes. Can someone, anyone, please approve one of the three proposed hooks and close the discussion before we all wear out into dust? Seriously. — Biruitorul Talk 13:48, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
    Okay, it's closed now. breathe easy, fellas :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Please leave at least one empty prep

At least one empty prep is a net positive. valereee (talk) 19:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Having two passed special occasion hooks certainly didn't help. SL93 (talk) 19:55, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't see any special occasion hooks in the bottom set? I have no objection to slotting those in from the start. But there's absolutely zero reason to have only three slots out of 56 available for people to work in. There's no upside, and there are significant downsides. valereee (talk) 20:00, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Please don't harp at me. I slotted in two special occasion hooks into that set and one in the set before it. Theleekycauldron built most of the sets and I had to backtrack to promote skipped special occasion hooks. I can add hidden notes to those hooks when I get home. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Chill, everybody. She said "Please". :-) - anyway, I cleared a prep. No big deal, as I'm sure the thought of an empty prep never occurred to anyone before. I certainly never thought of it before. But it sure makes sense.— Maile (talk) 20:08, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I couldn't get the earlier now removed message out of my mind. If people didn't skip special occasion hooks and we had more promoting admins, this would not be as much of an issue. SL93 (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
Probably re the promoting admins. As we admins are scattered around the globe, and who knows what's going on at their end, it's a roll of the dice on promotions. One thing I have noticed, is that we have been fortunate to currently have editors willing to promote so well and so often. It hasn't always been this way, in the fact that when Yoninah was around, she often did the majority of the promoting. When it rains, it pours, I guess. — Maile (talk) 20:18, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
I was gonna promote the spec occs before I went to sleep, but it was like 4am—I just collapsed. I really should stop promoting hooks in zombie mode, it just creates more work for the admins... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, SL93. I removed it because it seemed unnecessarily bitchy. Hopefully the move of the spec occ holding area will help with preventing people missing seeing the spec occ hooks. And yes, additional promoting admins would be helpful. I do wish some of the extremely prolific admin contributors here would take a look at how easy it is to move to queue and that there's literally nothing scary about it, it's only a matter of doing the 8 re-reviews that is the issue. valereee (talk) 20:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Special occasion in Prep 2

@SL93: Thanks for promoting! Would it be better to place Eberhard Zeidler (architect) as the picture hook in Prep 3? That way, it will run during the day in the Canada. Or are we switching to one set a day before February 10? (i.e. won't make a difference) —Bloom6132 (talk) 04:28, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Bloom6132 I took care of it. SL93 (talk) 11:27, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Small reminder

This is totally my slip-up, but since none of you caught me, you're all getting pinged too—actually, just Amakuru. Looks like I forgot to credit Thriley in promoting the Donald Gurnett hook that ran recently—there was a blank credit slot in the prep sets. So, do double-check those when doing queue reviews. thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:22, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Pilate cycle in prep 5

theleekycauldron I'm not sure every reader will know what the scare quotes refer to. It seems better to outright state the fact at least similarly to ALT1. SL93 (talk) 12:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: Hmm, I'm not sure I agree. Yes, we could put ourselves unambiguously in the clear by removing all the quirkiness, but I think that's overly cautious and doesn't outweigh the quality of the hook we're losing.
in my opinion, there are two factors at play: there's the factual accuracy of the hook, and there's first-glance interpretation. Factual accuracy is important; when the jig is up and people understand what we were trying to do, it's important that they know we didn't just straight-face an outright lie (such as "dead people have the capability to write") for a joke. So by putting in the scare quotes, it gives us a bit of cover to say "here's what we were trying to do", and the people who take the time to click/investigate will understand.
But there's also first-glance perception of the hook, and here's where I feel we go off the rails. For some reason, we seem to be worried that if we suggest a dead person can write letters and reports, people will take that suggestion at face value, as if our readers won't think about the hook long enough to remember that dead people are—and this is true—incapable of writing letters. What we want is for people to feel a little confused, and wonder how a dead person can write letters, and then they see the scare quotes and they realize "oh, something's wonky here". So they click and learn about the real thing. We can't be held responsible for someone who reads that hook and walks away thinking "oh, they said Pontius Pilate wrote letters after his death—they must be telling the unvarnished truth". That's obviously a ridiculous conclusion, and it ignores quite a few context clues.
For the record, I presented the hook to quite a few friends as a blind test, and all of them confirmed that their first thought wasn't to take the hook literally. I think we're underestimating our audience, and I think we're taking responsibility for more than we should—it really isn't our fault if, after we include the scare quotes, someone goes around saying we claimed Pontius Pilate was a zombie author, or a ouija board reincarnated. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
welp—I suppose this is moot now :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Queue 1: osteogenesis imperfecta

Just a quick query about this - when I hear the term "blue eyes", this suggests to me the normal situation whereby the iris is blue. i.e. where our Blue eyes redirect points. It seems therefore that this hook may be confusing, as obviously that's not the kind of blue eyes caused by this condition. I suppose the accurate way to phrase it would be "blue sclera" or, more longwinded, "blue whites of the eyes". Pinging @Psiĥedelisto, Storye book, and SL93: who were involved with the DYK nomination. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I think "blue sclera" would work. SL93 (talk) 13:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
My understanding is this is the point, i.e. it's the ordinary sort of mild misdirection used in many hooks to make them "hooky", and changing it would defeat the purpose. (Not a pinged party, but I was the GA reviewer so have been following along.) Vaticidalprophet 13:42, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I thought that it was only ordinary for the last hook in a set. SL93 (talk) 13:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
As long as I've been paying attention to DYK (which predates even being an editor by many years), this has been relatively flexible. I can anecdotally tell you that when I was reader-watching DYK I expected to see that level of hook-quirkiness in any spot. Vaticidalprophet 14:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
It would be better for this hook not to be brought up at ERRORS. SL93 (talk) 16:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I have not yet seen evidence that someone at ERRORS wouldn't complain if DYK ran a completely blank slate. I don't think "the hook is in and of itself unproblematic, but the single most dysfunctional process on the project might disagree" is cause for a veto by itself. I think the suggested tweaks defeat the hook's purpose, and that if this hook is inappropriate (which I'm unconvinced of) it'd need wholesale replacing to an equally good or better one, not rewriting to a worse one. Vaticidalprophet 16:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
We will just have to disagree. I don't see it being a worse hook with one word being changed. SL93 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
As I understand from the above, we have the choice of 1. leaving the hook as it is, risking being pulled due to error; 2. replacing "blue" with "blue sclera" and 3. replacing "blue" with "blue whites of the eyes". I can add that the picture does demonstrate which bit is blue, so that readers (excluding colour-blind people) should be able to understand the hook without clicking. Colour-blind people whom I know (including those in my family) are well able to check out colour-related matters via the article, so that should not be an issue. So that leaves the issue of wording. I think there is nothing wrong with "blue whites of the eyes". It does not make the hook over-long, and it's not the sort of hook which needs to be snappy like an advertisement. So I would go for choice number 3. Storye book (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I support that or the other option of blue sclera. SL93 (talk) 17:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
as a broader point, i'm not so sure... harmless misdirection generally only flies (at least, in my opinion) when the misdirection is 1. necessary for the cohesiveness of the hook (see Pilate cycle) and 2. really harmless. given the image, this probably isn't harmful at all, but I think the license for quirkiness should be limited to when it's strictly necessary, and shouldn't be used for just punch. In any case, "blue whites of the eyes" or "blue sclera" both work well. It's a good image; ten bucks on the table this'll make DYKSTATS no matter what we write. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:24, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron I highly disagree on Pilate cycle. I don't see misdirection being needed and stating it exactly is still a cohesive hook length. I have never heard of misdirection being used for cohesiveness at DYK before. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, cohesive isn't the best word. What i mean to say is, misdirection shouldn't used for no reason, or just to make the hook shorter; the thing about hooks like Claudia Quintet, Pilate cycle, Condor (options), and Corynaea crassa is that the misdirection is an integral part of the hook, and that without it, you end up with a boring restatement of the facts. If you use misdirection just because it's easier to write/read, that's not okay—the misdirection (in addition to being relatively harmless and factually accurate once you look back) has to be a significant part of the way the hook is delivered, its substance. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:37, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru, Vaticidalprophet, and SL93: My intent was indeed harmless misdirection. When we say "blue eyes" we typically mean to refer to the iris and not the sclera, right. If you think it's too misleading and likely to be accused of being an error (which is beyond a stretch), then I think the problem can be solved by very simple change: blue eyes; bluish eyes. It's also more factual because the blue tinge to the eyes is often subtle, and decreases with age. Some never have it at all (including myself). Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 00:59, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
"Bluish eyes" would be OK I guess, since at least it doesn't sound like the normal description of an eye colour. I'm probably less tolerant to this sort of thing than most, but I do think this errs to far on the side of being potentially misleading. The Claudia Quintet thing wasn't, because Claudia Quintet isn't a real person anyway, so it's not like we're making people think she did something she didn't. Blue sclera as suggested above is also fine with me.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:21, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
In my view, if this is used as a picture hook showing the symptom (and it has been chosen as the lead hook), then there's no problem with the original hook wording. Schwede66 21:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I am really opposed to the word "sclera" as someone with OI, I can say anecdotally very little of the genpop knows this word, even some people with OI don't know it. It's over-WP:JARGON. Neutral on bluish, of course prefer my original wording but very willing to see "bluish" if that's what it takes. But it seems most are fine with the wording as is, and in the event it gets raised at ERRORS page, well, we have a discussion to point to even. (Meaning: it was considered.) Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 01:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Q2 Feb10a

Template:Did you know nominations/Dr. Rick

Bait30BahnfrendTheleekycauldron

Not loving the scare quotes, any objection to changing to 'a book ostensibly written by'? valereee (talk) 14:53, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Another thing which concerns me is that did they publish exactly 5,000 copies, or around 5,000 copies? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:56, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I would be fine with that change. Another alternative could be "credited to Dr. Rick" maybe. Ad Age just says "recently published 5000 copies" so they definitely published 5000. I feel like whether its 5000 or more than 5000 doesn't make too much of a difference as to how the hook should be written.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 15:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I like credited to Dr. Rick better! valereee (talk) 15:14, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree, we can go with that :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
"credited to Dr. Rick" would be fine by me. Bahnfrend (talk) 14:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Shaylee Mansfield

  • ... that at age 12, Shaylee Mansfield became the first deaf actor to be credited alongside the "audible" voice actors for a "sign over" performance in an animated production?

Pamzeis Ornithoptera Theleekycauldron

I don't understand why we're using scare quotes either in the article or in the hook. Any objection to:

  • ... that at age 12, Shaylee Mansfield became the first deaf actor to be credited alongside the voice actors for a signed performance in an animated production? valereee (talk) 12:08, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    I meant to correct that one today—I don't think they were meant to be scare quotes, but it does come off that way. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:12, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
    TheWrap also used the quotes, so I though it was OK, but yeah, no objection. Pamzeis (talk) 12:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

DYKNA: Margaret Lemon hook error

Errr... there is an error in the hook for Margaret Lemon, currently at DYKN/A#Margaret Lemon. I am quite sure that Anthony Van Dyke is not the contemporary of Margaret. Wikilink needs to either be changed or redirected to Anthony van Dyck instead. Also, consider changing mentions of Anthony van Dyck in Lemon's article to the spelling used in his article for consistency. Thanks!

New hook:

– TCMemoire 19:43, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Great catch! While we are at it -- is it only me who was scratching their head on "popular artist's model"? Should we wiki link artist's model? I do see that it just redirects to model (art). Ktin (talk) 19:50, 7 February 2022 (UTC)
Hey, TCMemoire! In the future, if a nomination is still at WP:DYKNA, feel free to make comments on the nomination page :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:18, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, will do! I wasn't totally sure and wanted to make sure it was seen. – TCMemoire 18:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

quick question

anyone have any objections to me using AutoWikiBrowser to substitute all instances of the {{prep}}, {{queue}}, and {{dykn}} templates? When it's used as a section header, the anchors in the page history don't work properly, they need to be substituted for the anchors to work. I did it on a few pages as a test, but I figured I should put out a feeler before going through the rest of the archives/user talk archives. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:51, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

This will be a bit more work for some editor or group of editors when the move out of template space is finally implemented, but AWB can be used again to modify those links as needed. – Jonesey95 (talk) 03:56, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
does the move apply to the preps and queues? Those do feed directly into T:DYK, so those could conceivably stay in template space... regardless, i'd be happy to perform the necessary AWB edits myself when the time comes. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:01, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Just do it, AnomieBOT isn't happy and no one else cares. Also, please change your direct invocation of Category:Wikipedia templates to be automatically substituted to a {{subst only|auto=yes}} on the /doc subpage when you are done, so that users know they're supposed to subst it. Primefac (talk) 08:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Will do; time to click on the "save" button 510 times... well, i'm already down to 458. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
aaaand done. we're still in the same moon cycle, right? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Queue 1: Satellite Television & Associated Resources

Minor point, maybe, but I'm curious as to why the cited quote is placed in a quote box in the article, rather than simply in the prose? The advice at the {{quote box}} template definition advises that it shouldn't be used in articles. Also, this doesn't seem to comply with the conditions at MOS:BLOCKQUOTE to only use a block quote if the quotation runs to "more than about forty words or a few hundred characters, or consisting of more than one paragraph, regardless of length". It seems like this would be better simply incorporated in the prose, as quotes usually are, but perhaps there's something I'm missing! Pinging @Sammi Brie, Muboshgu, and Theleekycauldron: who were involved with the DYK nom. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:32, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

No strong preference either way, but I will say that in this case, having the quote floating and detached from the prose works a lot better than ham-fisting it somewhere in the body, allowing the sequence to flow with the relevant color commentary on the side. In any case, I don't much mind if it gets switched. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:36, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
It could be better in prose, but I didn't see a reason to object to a quote box. It's up to Sammi imho. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:29, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Welp... *looks around* I have a bunch of GAs and GANs that use {{quote box}}... I think in this case it flows better in the quote box than outside of it. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:27, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Prep 6: Sea rewilding

Seagrass
Kelp (not seagrass)

@Melissa Highton, Chidgk1, Schwede66, and SL93: Just to notify that I've (WP:BOLDly) changed the photo accompanying this hook – kelp is not seagrass. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:38, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

are the seas not being rewilded with kelp? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
If we are to include seagrass (example pictured) in the hook, we ought to use an image actually depicting seagrass, I'd say. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
true, but I do happen to like the image of the kelp better—so I'd rather change the hook than the image. just my preference, of course :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 13:45, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm happy with your bold change, Ravenpuff. Schwede66 18:57, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for changing. I was being dumb while tired - I could have sworn I added a picture of seagrass. The rest of the hooks I promoted at the time turned out fine so I'm lucky it was just an easily fixable image issue. SL93 (talk) 23:28, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for changing - yes definitely seagrass because it makes the hook sound much better I think Chidgk1 (talk) 07:41, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Sea otters are an apex predator needed to control the population of sea urchins so their reintroduction to the Pacific coast of Canada has been a successful case of rewilding.[1]
  • The hook and pictures about seaweed seem rather dull. I have added a picture and caption about sea otters (right) which might be more photogenic and so work better. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Gregr, Edward (2021-07-07). "Sea otters: how welcome should a recovering top predator be?". TheScienceBreaker. doi:10.25250/thescbr.brk563. ISSN 2571-9262.

User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors

@Shubinator, Mandarax, and BlueMoonset:


User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors

has just triggered these errors: 

   Couldn't find hook for Harrat Khaybar, was the hook pulled or moved to a different set?
   Couldn't find hook for Maud Holland, was the hook pulled or moved to a different set?
   Couldn't find hook for Palácio de Lahane, was the hook pulled or moved to a different set?
   Couldn't find hook for Donald H. Elliott, was the hook pulled or moved to a different set?
   Couldn't find hook for Donald H. Elliott, was the hook pulled or moved to a different set?
   Couldn't find hook for Princess of Xiaohe, was the hook pulled or moved to a different set?
   Couldn't find hook for Lloyd Simmons, was the hook pulled or moved to a different set?
   Couldn't find hook for 2022 Bogoso explosion, was the hook pulled or moved to a different set?
   Couldn't find hook for 2022 Bogoso explosion, was the hook pulled or moved to a different set?
   Couldn't find hook for Phil Williams (Alabama senator), was the hook pulled or moved to a different set?

Not sure what all that means, but this posted after the set was on the Main Page. — Maile (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

The above message has now cleared from the DYKUpdatebot. — Maile (talk) 00:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
This is a bug, I've just fixed it :) I'll go back through and add hooks to the article talk credits for that set. Shubinator (talk) 02:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Queue 5: Beatriz Rico

  • ... that Beatriz Rico's team of scientists uncovered a developmental mechanism for specification of inhibitory connections within the brain?

It might just be my ignorance, but I'm having difficulty making sense of this hook. To be honest, I'm not sure what an inhibitory connection is, I don't know what would be meant by the "specification" of such a thing (perhaps it's like a software spec, but for brain parts?) and I'm not even sure what a developmental mechanism is exactly. Any chance we can rephrase this to make it more clear to non-specialists, or if that's not possible, at least include a few links to relevant topics for further clarification? Pinging @MrMeAndMrMe, Feminist, and SL93: who were involvd with the hook.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:29, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm also curious. Is this Cellular differentiation or something else? —Kusma (talk) 14:59, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I won't be very helpful. I don't know what it means and I promoted the hook because I thought it might just be me being daft. SL93 (talk) 23:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Me too ... as I said in my review, I'm just assuming it's how it should be described. feminist (talk) 09:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Quite bamboozled myself. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:11, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Well, I can at least say I'm glad it wasn't just me. SL93 (talk) 23:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Amakuru I personally think the hook should be pulled for now. SL93 (talk) 04:01, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 Done almost missed this one! I'll reopen the nomination so it can be considered more slowly.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:05, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Francis G. Brink

I spotted a couple of things that don't look quite right and I'm not sure how this comes about and what to do about it.

Firstly, there's a nomination for Francis G. Brink by Mztourist that appears to have been pasted straight onto the nomination page (Template talk:Did you know) with this diff without there being a nomination page having been created for it. Does that happen when editors who nominated under the previous system kept a template set that they are trying to reuse? Is the simple fix to direct nominators to new nomination form and to remove the manual entry?

Secondly, I spotted that Template:Did you know nominations/Did you know had recently been recreated. As far as I can see, this doesn't serve any function but I can see that a confused user may create it to post a response to a discussion. So rather than deleting it, I've cleared it out and semi-protected the template. That way, this shouldn't happen again. Does that sound ok? Schwede66 19:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

@Schwede66: I put Francis G. Brink at {{Did you know nominations/Francis G. Brink}}, thanks for the heads-up! And thanks for the protection there, that's perfect :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I tried to follow the nomination procedure, but for some reason it didn't save but said I could just manually paste it in, which is what I did, apologies if I messed things up. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
it's all good, Mztourist :) for next time, it meant copy to {{Did you know nominations/Francis G. Brink}}, not Template talk:Did you know. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Queue 3: Jean-Claude Corbeil

@Amakuru: by swapping Jean-Claude Corbeil into Queue 3, there are now two Canadian biography hooks in the same set. Hope that won't be problematic taking DYKSG J2 into consideration. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:38, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Take Holger Mühlbauer from Prep 7 slot 4 if someone corrects for this one :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:54, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
DYK admins – anyone want to make the swap before it hits the Main Page in <4 hours? —Bloom6132 (talk) 08:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
 Done. Thanks for spotting this.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:32, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Russia

Looks like we're having a bit of trouble with this nomination—it was recently promoted to GA(!), but for a country so big, there seems to be trouble finding a good hook that constitutes due weight. Can we get some extra eyeballs on the nom? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:57, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

We could just simply highlight something interesting about Russia that's mentioned in the article that may not be well-known. I'm not sure why the fact needs to be something that has good weight. For example, we had Winston Churchill at DYK a while back, but instead of the hook being about his political career it was about his bricklaying hobby. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
I didn't realize due or undue weight was even part of the DYK rules. SL93 (talk) 02:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
It's not. WP:DYKHOOK makes no mention of weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
yeah, i didn't really follow that part either—I'd get it if it were something unduly positive or negative, but expecting us to say anything that could even start to do justice to the immense complexity of russia's history and culture would be something out of West Wing republicanism (thinking that complex things can or should be simplified to simple blurbs). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:10, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
It looks to me that the weight is being referred to in the article itself per my reading of the discussion. SL93 (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I do stand corrected. The rules do say Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. Any random quirk of Russia, no matter how obscure, if sourced in the article, would be valid. But, a hook about how they interfere with foreign elections would not be. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Derp it just occurred to me that Russia is not a living individual. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
In practice, even clearly negative hooks about dead individuals and organizations are also often rejected, so the point still kind of stands. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:36, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
In any case, we don't think we really need to make a due weight hook. DYK was never about writing hooks meant to summarize an entire subject (and hooks that have tried to do so in the past have tended to not work out so well anyway). It was meant to highlight interesting facts about a subject even if they're not something the subject is best-known for, with the intention of making readers read the article and learn more about the subject. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:13, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
Unless I'm reading something wrong, the issue with the "weight" was more that the bit of trivia about the February Revolution was not significant enough to be included in the article at all, and of course having a hook not based on the text from the article is not allowed. What may be more of an issue for the DYK nomination is that there is a citation needed tag and several better source needed inline tags, as well as the fact that the nominator is an indeffed sock so can't communicate or rectify any issues. eviolite (talk) 02:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Well, to be DYK picky here, I don't see anything in our rules about socks. They might have nominated it, both here and at GAC, but admin Lee Vilenski did the GA review. I think it's the review that makes this eligible, and the nominator being a sock is a minor issue. Does DYK have any rules that say otherwise? They didn't create the article, and GAC reviewed it in good faith. — Maile (talk) 03:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
    eviolite wasn't suggesting that it's ineligible, but the sockblock does mean that one or more editors needs to help resolve the [citation needed] tag and the 18 [better source needed] tags (something that the nominator would normally do). DanCherek (talk) 03:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see. So maybe this is just a matter of resolving the tags. — Maile (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I have offered ALT 1 on the template. We have Special Date March 8, International Women's Day on the horizon. And the article tells us Russian florists report that this is their most profitable day or the year. Russians love International Women's Day. Apparently, Russian men are very romantic. That would be a pretty good topical hook, I think. — Maile (talk) 02:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Bot task proposals

Hi there! I should... probably be writing the DYK wrapped right now. Maybe I'll start setting a "before-the-month-is-over" deadline... Regardless, after spending many long hours reading dyk discussions, teaching myself javascript, and possibly neglecting homework, I've come up with two tasks that I could pretty easily implement in a new bot, and I have proof-of-concept scripts for both—but before I go to a BRFA, I want to hear your thoughts on whether or not these should be automated. Feel free to ask if you need clarifications on what these tasks do—thanks in advance! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:40, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Maintenance of WP:DYKSTATS

I'm not expecting this one to be super controversial; I've had a script in place for quite some time now that does basically what I'm about to propose, except semi-automatically (a user-activated script that makes the changes with the user's account). The bot, in this task, will maintain the WP:DYKSTATS page by:

  1. Updating monthly tables at WP:DYKSTATS
  2. Creating new tables every month, and archiving excess tables
  3. Notifying users with {{DYK views}} when a hook they have nominated or contributed to has reached WP:DYKSTATS
  4. Other statspage bookkeeping functions that would happen in its own userspace

Discussion

  • replace to write first comment

Recording post-promotion hook changes

We've had many, many discussions about whether prep builders and tweakers should have to tell nominators that they've modified their hooks while in prep. Proposals to force prep builders to notify noms every time have never really gained consensus, and in general, we've chosen to notify noms basically on scout's honour. Detecting changes in hooks and notifying nominators, though, can be bot work, and it can make the lives of prep builders easier. As a bonus, this would also record any changes made while the hook is in queue or actually on air at T:DYK.

The actual way the changes will be recorded and nominators will be notified hasn't been set in stone yet, but I'm leaning towards listing all changes on the talk pages of nominations (e.g. Template talk:Did you know nominations/Claudia Quintet instead of Template:Did you know nominations/Claudia Quintet—these talk pages don't seem to do much) and pinging the nominator and any other contributors. If a user would like to be talk page notified instead, they'll be able to add their name to a list.

Discussion

  • Awesome. I'm really looking forward to it. I'm not sure about the ping, though. It's now easy enough to add anything to your watchlist temporarily and a DYK nom page is certainly something that one should watchlist as nominator or reviewer, so I'm unsure why a ping is needed. Could the ping be restricted to the prep builder? Schwede66 09:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
    I wasn't planning on notifying the prep builder—some people end up modifying 20 hooks for small stuff in a go, I don't want them receiving 20 pings. Regardless, I agree that we don't necessarily have to ping at all :) depends on what the community wants here, and we can always change it in the middle. We should probably ping for changes made while the hook is on air, since that's more timely theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Schwede66, nom/reviewers have the nom on their watch. Once the hook is moved to prep, the nom/reviewer no longer see changes on their watch. Unless you have the preps and queues on your watch -- which almost no one would unless they're working here regularly as prep builders or admins -- changes drop completely out of sight. valereee (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • valereee, that's exactly what this proposal is trying to address. I'm leaning towards listing all changes on the talk pages of nominations Schwede66 20:19, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I would actually rather have all post-promotion changes require some kind of notification (at the minimum an edit summary ping) but I guess there's no consensus for that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:14, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
    not necessarily—that's what the bot might be here for. It all depends :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:23, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the proposal. If this goes forward, I would like there to be a way to opt out of all hook change notifications (whether pings or talk page messages), if possible. (I think it’s a valuable task worth doing, I just personally already keep an eye on my hooks as they move through preps/queues ) But this isn’t super important and doesn’t necessarily have to be implemented on the first go. DanCherek (talk) 21:31, 6 February 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm all for this proposal also. The opt out choice is a must. The bot is a nice idea, until a user starts seeing the notification one too many times. — Maile (talk) 21:59, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Prep set fixes

I'm thinking there are probably common prep set corrections that should be bot-work, such as crediting errors and bad hook formatting. Anyone got ideas on that one? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

off the top of my head:

  • Send out a notification if a queue does not contain a credit for an article/contains a blank credit (looks like we just made that slip up)
  • Substitute certain templates used in hooks, probably {{Currency}} and {{Convert}}
  • Add {{nbsp}} where necessary
  • Fix use of {{'}}, {{`}}, {{'s}}, {{`s}}, and {{-?}} in hooks

Discussion

  • replace to write first comment

Columbia University tunnels

I don't understand how Columbia University tunnels got to GA status with that map. It's the poster child for WP:OR. I know {{Did you know nominations/Columbia University tunnels}} just got promoted, but I really think that was a mistake and my apologies for not popping up with my objection earlier.

The map is described as "Based on the original map by Mike Schiraldi". But there no WP:RS for that. The caption includes, "Information gathered over the course of many expeditions by many people". Who, exactly? The source cited for the image caption is the Columbia Spectator, which I would consider a WP:RS for some things, but the cited article is, as far as I can tell, a letter from a student, so there's no real editorial oversight. And it doesn't even have the map itself, just a mention that "a highly circulated map was compiled (credited to one Mike Schiraldi)". That's not the kind of WP:RS on which GA is founded. And it's not wikipedia's job to be the next link in a citogenesis chain. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:40, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

RoySmith, I suggest you start a GA reassessment. When that gets going, we can put the nomination on hold until it's resolved. Schwede66 21:01, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree—I mean yes, that's a valid move, but GARs aren't exactly a speedy process. From my reading of this objection, we're in the clear if we can get consensus to properly source, replace, or mostly likely remove the map. I'd recommend working this out here, and if it doesn't happen fast enough, we can go to GAR—but I don't think it'll take that long, we're not talking about overhauling the article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:06, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
good article reassessment has been opened, so discussion continues there :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Columbia University tunnels/1 -- RoySmith (talk) 21:25, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Need queues

@DYK admins: we're at two queues, and we're going to burn another in just over an hour—anyone able to promote at the moment? thanks in advance :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:47, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

OK, I'm on it. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Possibly time to delete WP:Did you know/Onepage

The thing is quite outdated; we should be consolidating rules so that we don't have to update more than one copy of the stuff every time something changes. I want to get consensus here before I go to WP:MfD, though—if we do keep it, I suggest using templates and transclusions to keep stuff in sync. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:33, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

If the page is currently causing any issues: instead of MfD, you could tag with {{historical}} or just redirect somewhere. —Kusma (talk) 11:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
ah, done, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:03, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I have removed the page from Template:Learning DYK box; I guess that is where most of the traffic came from. I don't know whether it needs to be replaced by something else or what to do with the box. —Kusma (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot is down

@Shubinator and @DYK admins: we're only 12 minutes overdue so far, but it looks like DYKUpdateBot ain't movin'. I'll do credits if an admin does the manual move. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:13, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Looks like the bot performed the update on time: [8] ?? —Kusma (talk) 12:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@Kusma: oops! That's my brainfart, I thought it was midnight UTC, not noon. sorry, y'all theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Queue 6

This is a special occasion hook for Black History Month but it makes no sense to me. Does it need ", the first ever" added after championship, and wouldn't it be better to spell out "Historically black colleges and universities" in full? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:11, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: not sure i totally understand the question, but I interpreted the hook to mean that the first ever championship won by an HBCU was subsequently struck down, if that helps you rephrase. and yeah, I'd spell out HBCU, we're probably not getting a black history month set together. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Ping Alyo, Storye book, and SL93 for this one theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Looking at it again, it does make more sense, but I misunderstood the hook to mean the "First Division Championship" rather than a championship won for the first time by ... . None of the acronyms are familiar to me nor I daresay to people from much of the world nor do I even know what sport we are talking about here. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:55, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
. . . that despite being the first historically black university to win a Division I national championship, the NCAA vacated Howard University's win? [?]-- Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
That new wording by Alanscottwalker looks fine to me. Storye book (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Probably better--the only point I might re-add is "to win a Division I national championship in any sport". Thanks for the edits regardless. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:18, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Maybe it’s not important but I still don’t know which sport we are talking about. Schwede66 18:03, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
College soccer. When I first nom'd, I didn't think it was important to specify that in the hook but we easily can? E.g., "...the NCAA vacated Howard University's NCAA soccer final win?" I thought it more engaging to build the hook around the fact that the first D1 title in any sport by an HBCU was vacated, but happy to hear from others. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:38, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Actually, one other thought. Can we change "that despite being" to "after becoming"? The "despite" makes it sound as though the university being an HBCU had nothing to do with the vacating, a sort of happenstance rather than a central part of the whole dispute. Alyo (chat·edits) 18:43, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
The proposed hook needs a bit of restructuring to avoid making it sound like the NCAA is the first HBCU to win a D-I championship. DanCherek (talk) 22:51, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
...that after becoming the first historically black university to win a Division I national championship in any sport, Howard University's 1971 soccer title was vacated by the NCAA? This feels pretty wordy to me, though I have less experience here, so I wonder if it's best to just stick with the original hook but spell out "historically black university"? Alyo (chat·edits) 00:17, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
There's a grammar problem with that hook, also: it is incorrect that HU's soccer title became the first historically black university to win. It is HU itself that became that. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to be honest here, this is only my second DYK and it feels like I'm trying to build something from IKEA without knowing what kind of furniture it's supposed to be. In fairness, I have no idea if the burden is specifically on the nominator to fix issues as they arise post-promotion, but I don't really understand what problem I'm solving here. Are Cwmhiraeth's concerns answered by spelling out "historically black university" and leaving the original hook otherwise untouched? Does the lack of specifying which sport in the hook matter or not? My own opinion through the nomination was that the more words/qualifiers added to the hook, the worse and more confusing it got--and I think the objections you and Dan make to the structure of Alanscottwalker's hook bear that out. Alyo (chat·edits) 04:23, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Trying my hand at redoing the hook: "...that the first Division I college sports championship won by a historically black university in any sport was vacated by the NCAA?" Honestly it would be too hard to fit soccer in there, but specifying that this was a college championship would probably be enough. SounderBruce 10:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

SounderBruce's hook looks good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:53, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Support as well. Alyo (chat·edits) 15:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Yes, this is much clearer. Too bad about not mentioning soccer but you can't pack everything into these things. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:30, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Just following up on my previous comment. That's a much clearer hook and through stating that it's about a college sports championship, it matters much less that it doesn't say which sport it is. Schwede66 21:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

We're below 25!

... help theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:27, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

We're planning to go back to 1-a-day from tomorrow morning I believe, so hopefully we'll just about be OK and the numbers will start picking up again from tomorrow! Otherwise, as a last resort, we might just have to slot in a few old hooks (we have done that before when having to make very quick swaps from a live set).  — Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
For sure—also, someone cleared more queues than usual, so it'll be a while before we need to fill another prep :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:41, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
actually, we've had an unusually high ratio of unapproved hooks : approved hooks for the past couple days, so this might be a good time to test-pilot that "unreviewed backlog mode" proposal from August... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
I want to see more unapproved hooks before the "unreviewed backlog mode" is implemented (maybe 300ish). Many of the unapproved hooks are on hold for various reasons, and implementing the backlog mode without enough hooks to review might cause some problems. We have about a week and a half's worth of preps/queues set up, so I don't think there's a rush to get more approved hooks. Round 2 of the Wikicup will start soon, so that might encourage more DYK nominations. If editors want to increase the number of approved hooks, I suggest reviewing unapproved DYK hooks or good article nominees (as recently promoted GAs can be nominated at DYK). Z1720 (talk) 14:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Agreed that this is not the time to be doing that test-pilot; there should be more of a gap between total and unapproved before . (However, reviewing GANs doesn't help matters, since it can add to the number of unreviewed DYK nominations: each passed GA comes with a talk-page post to the nominator that reminds them they can nomination said GA for DYK.) In fact, the gap between total and approved is down over the past 20 days by 12: it was 108, and is now only 96. Mind, it could stand to be lower, but this is a self-correcting problem now that we'll be at one set per day for a while. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list is getting old, so I've created a new list of all 25 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 4. We currently have a total of 118 nominations, of which 23 have been approved, a gap of 95, down 3 over the past nine days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these: we need to get the number of approved nominations up so prep builders have more to choose from!

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:28, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

We're below 60! (but really this time)

DYK admins and BlueMoonset: And this time, I've got the diffs to prove it :) readout's showing 56, so it really is time to go back to 1-a-day. We have quite a bit of time before noon UTC, but we'll need an admin to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400. If we do the swap, here are the spec. occ. hooks that need to be moved:

  • Eberhard Zeidler (architect), currently in Queue 3, needs to run on Feb. 10—by my math, it should be swapped with the lead of Queue 1 (which is running next)
  • Lucifer on the Sofa, currently in Prep 4 Queue 4, needs to run on Feb. 11—that would mean putting it in Queue 2. I would recommend taking Dr. Rick out of Q2, but since it doesn't fit back in P4, put it in Prep 3, I'll sort out the balance later.
  • Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky, currently in Prep 5, needs also needs to run on Feb. 11 (Q2)—again, I'd take Shaylee Mansfield out of Q2, but since it doesn't fit back in P5, put it in P3 and I'll deal with the balance. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • New instructions (these swaps should be made on February 10, and the actual timing switch should be made on the morning of the eleventh): theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:20, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • All that needs to happen is that Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky (in Q5) needs to go to Q4:
    Or we could wait until midnight and have slightly less swapping around? —Kusma (talk) 10:45, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Kusma: The switch has to be done between midnight and noon (or, a.m.) UTC; otherwise, it throws off the cycle. We could wait another 14-ish hours, let the Feb. 10 hook go on the main page before making the switch, but you'd still bump up against the same issues with the next two hooks that need to be swapped, which are arguably thornier to work out. Or we could let all the s.o. hooks flush themselves out and come back to this on the morning of february 11—but I think we're running out of approved hooks too quickly for that. Eleven hours ago, we were at 69 hooks; now we're at 50 hooks, we'll be at 46 once the preps are fully refilled, and we're still running 16 a day. There's no rush, but I do get worried about these things. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:55, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
    if we do make the swap on february 10, we need to swap the leads of q2 and q3 beforehand, because q2 is the morning set for the tenth; so the hook needs to be live in the morning for when we extend it to 24 hours instead of 12. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:27, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
okay, we're past noon UTC, so don't do the swap yet :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 12:17, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, having been too quick to make the switch last time, I was too slow this time! Happy to do it during the morning of the 10th (sometime after midnight) if that's what you want me to do. Or indeed the 11th. Just let us know what the decision is!  — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
No worries, Amakuru! :D let's do the swap on the morning of February 11, I think we can make it work until then—in the meantime, the second and third swaps need to be done before the relevant set goes live, I'll update the instructions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Why don't we use a bot to do the switch? Thingofme (talk) 10:21, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Just switching without manual adjustment would mess up all the special occasion hooks already scheduled. —Kusma (talk) 10:40, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@DYK admins: , please correct if I'm wrong, but doesn't the swap TLC described above (Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky from Q5 to Q4, etc.) need to happen right now (i.e. within the hour) if we're switching to 24 hours on the 11th? Apologies if I've misunderstood. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
@Extraordinary Writ: yep! :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:17, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Extraordinary Writ is correct. If we are to switch to 24 hours, Briscoe v. Bank of Kentucky needs to be switched to Queue 4 from Queue 5 immediately. Otherwise, we'll have to wait another day. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:19, 10 February 2022 (UTC)
Looks like we missed the draw; let's make the swap on the morning of February 12. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:00, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
@DYK admins: good mornin'! it's february 12, and it's also really time to go back to one-a-days. Sometime before noon UTC (a little more than seven hours from now), an admin is going to need to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400. All special occasion hooks are already in the correct spots. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:54, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Time to switch to one per day

Pinging admins Maile, Amakuru, Cwmhiraeth, valereee, Cas Liber, or anyone else who sees this to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400 as soon as possible (and definitely before 12:00 UTC). Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

 Done I just now saw this. Hope I wasn't too late, but I made the switch. — Maile (talk) 01:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Maile. You were very quick: only 12 minutes after I posted the request! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:14, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
HA! Timing is everything!. I had been out of the house for a while, and just walked in and saw your ping notice. — Maile (talk) 01:42, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Queue 7

I was wondering whether this hook raises BLP issues. If I had had mental health problems I would not like the fact to be plastered on the main page of Wikipedia. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 11:21, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't want to publicize it either, but he did volunteer the information and give advice to others in his situation—it's not like this is a tabloid scoop, or something else out of his control. I'd be less okay with us publicizing the sleeping pills bit, but kudos to him for not being ashamed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:25, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
As far as I can tell the point was that he wanted his case to serve as an inspiration for those who had similar experiences to him, so I don't think it's a BLP issue in this case since 1. he himself brought it up, and 2. the hook is meant to be uplifting and inspiring rather than putting him down. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:10, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
Good points. We'll leave it then. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:38, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 12 February 2022

Just wondering if it's necessary to include "(pictured)" after "Nicole Kidman", as I'm seeing that Kidman's photo seems to be the one that will be showcased on the main page. This is my first time nominating an article for DYK, so do disregard my suggestion if it's not needed or required, or perhaps it'll be automatically added once it's up next? Thank you! — Film Enthusiast✉ 17:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC) — Film Enthusiast✉ 17:52, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Good question; what's up with that? A few hours ago, I fixed the missing "(pictured)" that's currently on the mainpage after a complaint at Errors (Cwmhiraeth had promoted that). This set was promoted by Amakuru. Coincidence? Schwede66 19:12, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
We ran a trial without (pictured) a while back, and as far as I can remember, consensus was that we should include it. I have added it. —Kusma (talk) 23:46, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Kusma, I had wondered whether I had missed a more recent discussion. I for one was in favour of being able to leave out "(pictured)" but there wasn't consensus for it (back then). Schwede66 00:53, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I haven't actually got around to running checks on queue 2 yet, I'll do it later today before it goes live. So the omission wasn't my decision, I just copied it from the prep. Looks like @Theleekycauldron: you added the hook to the prep without the "pictured". Was this an oversight, or has something changed? I personally thought we should retain "pictured" for all Hooks even where it looks obvious, for consistency, and because we got a lot of complaints at ERRORS when we removed it. Haven't seen a follow up discussion but I would still !vote against removing them.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:14, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru: yeah, no, that was totally my oversight :) sorry it spawned all this discussion! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:08, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
No worries, just wanted to make sure I hadn't missed something!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Credits scrambled

This should have gone to Lear's Fool and this to Bloom6132. Somehow these got both scrambled and swapped. I swapped the credits because they were in the wrong prep sets, probably after a swap of some sort, but I failed to notice the credits themselves had somehow also gotten their editors swapped, which seems like a very strange error, not one I remember seeing before. The two hooks weren't even promoted by the same prep builder. At any rate, is there a way to fix it in retrospect? Other than just reposting the correct DYK to the correct user talks, I guess? Both editors will still have the correct count, but it might be nice if someone knew how to fix the log. valereee (talk) 14:03, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: For reference, these (1 2) are when the editors got mixed up. I'm not sure I've seen that before either, that's strange. As for fixing the log—as far as I can tell, the "official" (programmatic) log works by referencing edits made by DYKUpdateBot, so no, not really a way to fix that. We'll know in our hearts, I suppose, the truth theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:19, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Whoa, I scrambled them myself? How the heck did I manage do that? JFC. I am rapidly becoming a danger to the 'pedia. Well, thanks, TLC! I'd promise to be more careful but I honestly thought I was FIXING things. valereee (talk) 13:51, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Valentine

Am I the only one thinking that the (now one and only) Queue for Valentine's Day is not particular rich in romance, while the following one has an actress pictured, "Let me sleep beside you" later, and more music. Swap the two, perhaps? ... unless we have something date-related --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

Queue 2: eight-ball jacket

A couple of queries about this one - the article says "The popularity of the jackets among youth led to owners being robbed for them; these incidents occasionally escalated into shootings, some of which were fatal", and the use of "occasionally" here doesn't seem to match with the hook's assertion that this took place "frequently". Secondly, and I'm not really certain about this, but is a robbery which later "escalates into a shooting" the same thing as something being stolen at gunpoint? Intuitively I'd imagine "stealing at gunpoint" means the gun is involved from the beginning and is an integral part of the robbery, rather than it starting out as a regular theft with the gun only being brought out later.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Premeditated Chaos, SL93, and Theleekycauldron:  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
You can steal something at gunpoint without it being a shooting - think of a standard movie mugging where a guy shows a pistol and yells "your money or your life" without ever pulling the trigger. The jackets were frequently stolen in personal robberies where guns were used to intimidate the victim into compliance, but were not necessarily fired. Occasionally, those robberies escalated into shootings for whatever reason. Finally, a small fraction of victims who were shot in these robberies wound up dying. Does that make sense? (Edited to add: I did tweak the article's wording a bit, hopefully that's more clear?) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:06, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Premeditated Chaos: (edit conflict) thank you, yes that makes perfect sense. And I see that you have made an edit to the article to clarify that the robberies were frequently at gunpoint (and that seems verified by the Herald-News source), so I'm now happy with this one. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:17, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Cheers, thanks for calling it to my attention :) I realized the original version didn't mention guns explicitly so the clarification makes it much better. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Queue 2: Lithuanian People's Army

I'm somewhat concerned by the "faced repression" at the end of this hook. Criterion 3a for DYK says that the hook must "include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article" but this article does not use the word "repression" anywhere. The original formulation of the hook at Template:Did you know nominations/Lithuanian People's Army gave it quite specifically as "mass arrests" and "executions of the personnel", which is a definite fact and is found in the article, but I'm not sure that we can translate that definitively and without attribution into the more general term "repression". In some cases mass arrests might not be seen as repression, if they're regarded as legally defendable for example. Repression is a rather loaded and potentially POV term, and while I don't doubt that it was pertinent to the situation in Lithuania under Stalin, we still need to either put it in the article explicitly as an attributed quote (in which case the hook should also have it quoted) or, if it's a broadly enough accepted "fact" that we can put it in WP:WIKIVOICE, then do so explicitly and with a citation to preferably multiple reliable sources which attest that "repression" or some closely related word occurred. Or alternatively, we can go back to the more specific mass arrests and executions language of the original nom. Pinging @Pofka, Sammi Brie, and Theleekycauldron: as nom/reviewer/promoter. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:07, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru: In the ALT2 I used link to article political repression, but in the final version it was removed. Stalin's political repressions is a universally accepted fact. The Lithuanian soldiers who has shown their anti-Soviet attitude were punished for their political pro-independent Lithuania views. Phrase "political repression" is supported in this context by Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940)#Sovietization of the Baltic states, gulag.online, etc. A few examples of politically repressed Lithuanian soldiers: Kazys Skučas, Mikas Rėklaitis, Konstantinas Dulksnys (mentioned in the article). So maybe we should remake it to "... that following Soviet occupation in 1940, the Lithuanian Armed Forces were transformed into the Lithuanian People's Army, dropped all use of Lithuanian national symbols and faced political repression?" (200 characters). -- Pofka (talk) 10:41, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Pofka: thanks for the reply and for the info on the Soviet occupation article. The thing is though, per criterion 3a, the hook fact needs to be explicitly mentioned in the linked article Lithuanian People's Army, not just in a non-bolded linked article. Also, the hook looks to me like it's referring specifically to repression in members of the Lithuanian Armed Forces / Lithuanian People's Army, whereas the political repression mentioned in Soviet occupation of the Baltic states (1940) applies to the whole population... As you say, Stalin's political repressions is a universally accepted fact, and I don't dispute that, but it needs to be explicitly stated in the article and it needs to be cited, specifically in the context of members of the army who were repressed. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:09, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I added additional reference (pdf with 37 pages), published by the General Jonas Žemaitis Military Academy of Lithuania, which states that the repressions were carried out against the officers of the Lithuanian Army. Moreover, I slightly modified the last sentence of the header so that it would be more connected with the DYK hook. Is it solved now? -- Pofka (talk) 11:24, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Pofka: thanks, that looks like it satisfies my concern, since the article now explicitly says they were repressed and the fact is cited. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 11:34, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Great, thanks for pointing out. :) This new valuable reference is really necessary for the article. :) -- Pofka (talk) 11:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Prep 6: The Perfect Pear

I don't want to be too hasty about this, so I'll leave my notes here before going to GAR or pulling the hook. Pinging @Styyx, BuySomeApples, and SL93: as nom/reviewer/promoter; Pamzeis has a lot of experience in this area, so I'll ping for her opinion as well. I have some questions about sourcing and due weight of The Perfect Pear, so bear with me: (version review :D)

  • The article makes significant use of Equestria Daily as a source. surprisingly, the site looks pretty decent in terms of reliability, but it is still a fan website concerned with all things My Little Pony, so I'd still be concerned about whether the information presented constitutes due weight.
  • While Screen Rant is listed as marginally reliable for entertainment at WP:RSP, it's also used here basically as a summary of IMDb pages, and we have good reasons for not using that as measure of critical reception (see WP:Citing IMDb). I definitely don't think we can use that to assert widespread critical acclaim.
    • The only thing taken from IMDb is the rating (and therefore the order of episodes), the text is written by a writer of ScreenRant itself.
    • Reverted lead to what it was when I initially converted it from a redirect. The sentence was changed by some random IP, which I apparently only noticed partially before the GAN. I agree that this doesn't count as "widespread critical acclaim", hence I didn't write it. :)
      • Aha, I gotcha. The review from ScreenRant is good, the IMDb rating (and the screenrant text that bases itself off of that) isn't. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
  • A lot of material is used as a primary source for itself—I'd be more okay with it if the sourcing was still treated carefully, but there's a lot of stuff I had to cut/I see in the article that I would strongly prefer rely on secondary sourcing:
    • In a Twitter post after the series finale, writer Michael Vogel explained that the feud between the Apple and Pear family came from a long-running joke among the show's staff "that Applejack should have a nemesis named Pear Steve", which made them laugh every time. This is cited to the tweet in question—I cut the last clause, so this is more just to illustrate the problems with relying on primary sourcing, especially for a GA.
      • I'm fine with the cut.
    • press.discovery.com is used as a source for a Discovery channel press release—of course it'd be reliable for itself, but it's primary, and I do wish the details of the release and production didn't rest pretty much solely on primary sources (there are a few secondary sources here and there).
      • I sort of found a replacement source by Yahoo for this: [9], but it doesn't really mention what the article says, so I can change it a bit and replace it with this one.
        • Ooh, that sounds good :)
          • Swapped.
    • Yahoo.com isn't a terrible source either, but it's used to confirm its own release of the episode's trailer
      • I mean, it's the promotion section we're talking about so..
    • Foxtel.au (cable company down under) is used as a source for the show's television release
      • To be honest, I don't really have a comment on this one, I just don't know.
    • Shout! Factory is used as a source for that company's release of the show on DVD

Overall, the article isn't in terrible shape, but it looks like a lot of information rests on sources that aren't reliable, to the point of falling afoul of WP:PRIMARY's use cases. Because of that, there's a lot of information that I couldn't justify including based on the sourcing available for it. Could this be cleared up before we think about pulling/GAR? In fact, given that I can't point to two super-solid sources that give in-depth critical analysis of the epsiode, I'm not seeing AfD as out of the question... hopefully, it doesn't come to that. This is a pretty awesome article and the hook has good potential, I really hope to run this :) Cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:09, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Also pinging GA reviewer Simongraham. For the fan site, the reasoning given for it being a reliable source on the GA review is "Equestria Daily has had a peer review, albeit more than 10 years ago, where it is mentioned that they "received coverage in mainstream media, and Hasbro/The Hub have acknowledged them as well, sending them exclusives and putting references to the site in official television advertisements". This information is sourced in the WP article itself." I'm doubting that makes it a reliable source. SL93 (talk) 01:39, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
      • Fwiw, I think Equestria Daily can be a reliable source. Some exclusive coverage and interviews are especially useful for MLP-related pages, but not everything on the site is of equal quality/depth. I was unsure about the use of Twitter as a source, but I don't have a strong opinion on the rest. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:48, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Theleekycauldron Well what a day, shit went loose on both enwiki and trwiki while I was asleep. :D Apart from responding to most of your questions above, I have expanded the "Production and promotion" section with a source from DenOfGeek about the involvement of Shanter (the GA reviewer asked me to look for sources regarding the involvement of the guest stars, and I said that there weren't any, turns out I lied). ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 12:26, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron I was the promoter and I feel like unpromoting the hook until the issues are solved. Does that sound fine? SL93 (talk) 23:33, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: yeah, no issues there—hopefully this gets done soon, though theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:41, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
Done. SL93 (talk) 23:46, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@Styyx and SL93: all right, looks like it's in a much better shape now—thanks for working with me, Styyx! We'll need someone else to put this back in prep. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Doesn't someone need to re-approve the article/hook on the nom page first...?​​​ Pamzeis (talk) 04:07, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Secret occasion hooks

We have this organisation that has an annual awards ceremony and if the individual (national) winner wasn't notable before, they will be through the award. I've cottoned onto the fact that somebody from that organisation has been tasked with writing a bio for the upcoming winner. Yes, COI and the rest of it, but some of us have checked the bio, it was done well and neutral. Nobody has any concerns. A professional photographer was involved who published their work with a Commons-compatible licence. Great outcome! So, next time the award comes round, would it be feasible to have the article (after checking it for neutrality etc) nominated for a special occasion, with a date request but without being able to say why it's a special occasion because it's a secret? We can have a pro-forma hook and all the usual processes. But what we'll keep up our sleeve is an "annual award winner" hook that we'll publish in the next slot after the award was announced? That would obviously involve a couple of admins as we are talking about checking sources hot off the press just prior to publishing things on the mainpage and those admins would need to be in on this secret occasion business. The next awards ceremony is 12 months away but it's good to sort this now because if there's consensus, we can just say that we do secret occasion hooks. Thoughts? Schwede66 20:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm against the idea of secret occasion hooks, especially secret hooks that the community doesn't get to review. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Not sure DYK is a great place for news. We had some problems with special occasion hooks scheduled while some Olympic sportsperson was expected to compete. When something went wrong, things became a bit unpleasant. Let's not have hooks that require predicting the future or on having insider knowledge about the future. —Kusma (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Kusma, yes, as I was coordinating all the summer Olympics hooks, I certainly remember that. It was an individual who went septic over a mistake (where a country decided to change the composition of their relay team and the person we featured no longer competed) and in the end, the troublemaker got blocked as it was a long-term behavioural pattern. Schwede66 18:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
This doesn't seem like it will devolve into "burn DYK to the ground because a source became outdated after the hook hit the MP", but I do fundamentally believe that requiring a source which will only exist when the hook is due to hit the MP goes against the DYK process - it wouldn't make it through a normal nom process without that source. Why can't we just treat the article like any other and let it be given a hook a week later? Kingsif (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Wouldn't it violate policies to use admin tools (i.e. edit the mainpage) in conflict of interest? even if both the article and hook are neutral... also, who's "we"? I feel like I'm missing something here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:12, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
The first we? That's "us in New Zealand". Schwede66 09:36, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I could maybe see a ready-to-fast-track process with experienced reviewer, promoter, and admin all ready to push through and swap in. I assume someone will be publishing the bio the minute the award is announced? What time is that UTC? valereee (talk) 14:02, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Valereee, this year, the award will be in two days' time, but the bio got published a few weeks ago so it is ineligible for DYK. As it's an online award due to COVID restrictions, it's at lunchtime local time. My guess is that in "normal" years (will there ever be a normal again?), this is an evening event with the result known by 07:00 UTC at the latest. My thinking was to encourage them for a bio to be moved from draft to mainspace timed in a way that it works with DYK processes; we could thus have it in mainspace within the normal 7-day timeframe if we wished. That way, the article review could be done without any pressure, and it's only the hook, hook fact and swapping out where things would need to be fast-tracked. Schwede66 18:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh, that's too bad. Oh, well. Everything about COVID sucks. valereee (talk) 04:02, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
My opinion on this is that in principle it would be OK if the hook passes through the usual checks and balances with an independent reviewer and an admin who sign off and double check the whole thing. Really the only difference between this and the standard process is that there's no time for the more general checks and copyedits that take place in the prep areas in the days prior to a hook running. Which probably aren't essential anyway, and any errors can still be brought up at WP:ERRORS as usual. However, having said all that, I am more concerned about the COI aspect of this and also with whether the awards ceremony bio is really a sufficient reliable source to establish notability and avoid concerns about reliance on a single source. Wikipedia:Conflict of interest is fairly clear that such editing is "strongly discouraged", so in itself we should probably not get involved with this on that basis. But perhaps if the bio were written by independent editors and also cited to sources other than just the awards ceremony bio, it would be OK. This depends a lot on the detail I think, and if that detail isn't going to be available to the wider community then it's hard for us to make a determination.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:31, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
Agreed, the lack of transparency here is what gives me pause. We can't say for sure if the article is appropriate if we don't even know exactly what the subject is or what the article is like. I'm just not comfortable with an article getting an IAR run on DYK because of some "secret" process without oversight when it's been discussed in the past that it's important that any important decisions about article and hook reviewing be made on-Wiki for all to see. In addition, there do appear to COI concerns and given that we recently had to pull an article from prep (with said article later being deleted) because it turned out to be an undisclosed COI creation, having this so soon after that incident doesn't feel right to say the least. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:53, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
I really wonder why we can't just treat the article(s) like any other and let it be given a hook a week later? There won't be any secrets, the article can go through a normal nom process, etc. Otherwise, DYK could turn into a hotbed for promotion if people catch on to being able to do this kind of thing (rather than improve regular old content) - would this really be any different to a phone company making an article for a secret new phone drop and asking to run the hook on the day of the drop? Just because an award isn't selling anything, it still gets attention for the awarding body. (Yes, I know I nommed a Chadwick Boseman Oscars hook for the Oscars ceremony last year, but nothing was secret, nor COI, and neither of those subjects needed promotion…) Kingsif (talk) 10:12, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, all. I hear you. When this event comes round again in 12 months' time, I shall make sure that the article isn't written by somebody from the awarding organisation, and that'll get round any potential COI issues. Schwede66 23:08, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
As was mentioned above by Kingsif, is there any reason why the article couldn't have just been written the normal way and run as a regular hook after the event? That way, not only would the COI concerns have been mitigated, it would also address the opaqueness concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Article title check?

Not sure if DYK checks whether the article title is sane before DYKing an article. Currently Canada v United States (2012 Summer Olympics) is in the DYK queue (afaik). Can you guess from the title what the article is about? No? Seems bad. Discussed at Talk:Canada v United States (2012 Summer Olympics). --Tagishsimon (talk) 14:49, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

It's not in the DYK rules, but agree that the article title should at least tell people that it's a football/soccer match. There is a discussion about this article title (and similarly named articles) at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Football#Suggestions for article name?. Note: I am the person who approved this nom, but the actual DYK hook does make it clear that it's a soccer match. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:25, 14 February 2022 (UTC)
@Tagishsimon and Joseph2302: since the link is piped, I don't think we need to pull the article from queue—but I hope you reach a resolution on that one :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:46, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Queue 1: Gendo Ikari

Just a quick query regarding the use of the phrase "Hideaki Anno's abusive father" in the hook and article. It seems from [12] that Anno had at one point described his father thus in an article, according to a Tweet at [13], but I'm wondering if that's sufficient evidence to call him "abusive" in Wikivoice. I don't know if his father is still alive at this point or not, so this may also be covered by BLP (I'll file a request at WP:BLPN if we're not sure about that here). Additionally, I couldn't see reference to the power saw incident or the father's mental breakdown in the source at the end of the paragraph, so additoinal sourcing would be needed for that. Pinging @TeenAngels1234, Bleff, and Theleekycauldron: who were involved in this DYK nom. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Maybe if they changed it to "allegedly abusive father "? --🩸 𝗕𝗹𝗲𝗳𝗳 🩸 (talk) 23:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I think we should pull per WP:DYK#gen4—it's a funky case, because usually when we say Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals... should be avoided (emphasis in original), we mean the bolded article, not the bolded article's creator's father. But I think the hook does unduly focus on Anno's father—taking a closer look, I'm convinced we have the sourcing (or, for that matter, criminal conviction) for it either. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)
Please suggest a replacement hook and I'll swap it over. Schwede66 04:20, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Even if that's solved, a more pressing concern is the two {{citation needed}} tags in the article. Those look a little more intractable than plug-and-chug (they look like BLP issues), and would technically be disqualifying for a run. Without the nominator on hand to fix issues, I would suggest a pull. If this isn't of concern to you, I'd suggest:

Ok, that's done. Hook checked etc. I've dropped caps as per MOS:JOBTITLES so that it now reads that Charles William Warner, attorney general of Trinidad between 1846 and 1870, was one of the most powerful men in the colony and often considered "the real governor"? Thought I'd bring this up here just in case there are any objections. To my mind, the relevant target articles should be Attorneys general of Foo but when I look at Category:Attorneys general, that is mostly not the case. In case I've got the wrong end of the stick, please say so. Best we sort this before it moves to the mainpage. Schwede66 06:27, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

Special occasion hooks to promote

Note to hook promoters: There are two picture hooks in the SOHA that can be promoted to their requested dates when space opens up. The first is President's House (Ninth Street) for Feb 21 (Prep 1) and the second is Equestrian statue of George Washington (Newark) (Prep 2). As far as I know, the two picture hooks in those preps (Louth (crater) and Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany) were not SOHA requests. Z1720 (talk) 21:20, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I conducted the first promotion of President's House to Prep 1. I'm not thrilled that the first seven hooks are short, but I will leave it to more experienced hook preppers to make adjustments or post concerns below for me to fix. I'd appreciate it if someone could double-check my moves to ensure I did it correctly. Z1720 (talk) 01:05, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
move looks good- thanks, Z1720! looks like we're on a run of short hooks at the moment, so there's not much I can do about that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
@Z1720 and Theleekycauldron: Should the Equestrian statue of George Washington (Newark) be in Prep 2, rather than Prep 3, to run on February 22? Thanks, Zeete (talk) 12:49, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Queue 4: Charles William Warner

Hi @Guettarda: I moved this from the queue a couple of days ago, and intended to post about it here at WT:DYK at the time, but then we had a short discussion about it on my talk page and I forgot to circle back to it again. The issue is that there are quite a few unattributed quotes in the article, including "the real governor" which is used in the hook. All these quotes need to indicate in the prose who exactly said them per WP:QUOTEPOV or, if they're facts rather than opinions, rewritten in Wikipedia's own words. Including:

  • "unsuccessful sugar planter"
  • "not simply a British possession but a British colony" - was this a quote by Warner directly, or by the author of the source?
  • "the most powerful and influential man next to the Governors"
  • "the real governor"
  • "education for the upper classes"

The two quotes in the "Between 1845 and 1865..." paragraph are already attributed so those are fine. I've left it in the queue for now, in case you are able to deal with the above today, but if not then I'll move it back down again. Also pinging @Tbhotch and Theleekycauldron: as reviewer/promoter. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:09, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I've just modified the section header to read "Queue 4" rather than "Queue 1", since the problematic hook is in Queue 4 at the moment, and pinging Amakuru as a reminder that the hook will be promoted in a bit over four hours from now unless it is removed and replaced by another hook. It's been over two days since the discussion on Amakuru's talk page; since the edits haven't been made in that time, this needs to be removed from queue and the nomination reopened so the issues can be addressed. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:19, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
OK thanks. I've pulled it, and will reopen the nomination now. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru and BlueMoonset: Thanks for this. I think I've fixed these, but I did find one other problem - according to Campbell (which is the source I used in the hook) Warner was Attorney General from 1845 not 1846. I think that must have been a typo on my part. Guettarda (talk) 01:27, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Prep 1: Swiss Post

  • ... that in 1850, about a quarter of the post offices of the Swiss Post were located in taverns?
  • @Paradise Chronicle, Bahnfrend, and Theleekycauldron: just to note that I have moved this from Queue 4 to Prep 1, as I noticed that the "Services" section has no references. As an additional issue, there is a "clarification needed" tag further up the article, which it would be good to resolve. I assume this can be fixed fairly quickly, so I've not reopened the nom at this time. Let me know if you need more time though. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
    Hi Amakuru, sorry, forgot about that. Tried to fix it. Moved most to see also, red links removed. Tried to clarify, is it done for you like this? Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:55, 16 February 2022 (UTC)
    Ping Amakuru theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:12, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    @Paradise Chronicle and Theleekycauldron: oh yes, apologies for not seeing this, I should probably note down everything I query so I come back to it! The changes look fine, thank you.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    Amakuru, don't worry, all good and glad you seem to be satisfied. On coming back to something, I found this "to do" script and I try to use it.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 11:58, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Special occasion - February 22

Could someone please move special occasion hook Equestrian statue of George Washington (Newark) to Prep 2 from Prep 3, so that it runs on February 22? The current prep 2 hook, Persecution of homosexuals in Nazi Germany, could be swapped. Thanks, Zeete (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Zeete Done. SL93 (talk) 16:36, 18 February 2022 (UTC)
SL93 Thanks! Zeete (talk) 16:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of all 25 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 11. We currently have a total of 153 nominations, of which 54 have been approved, a gap of 99, up 4 over the past week. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

IWD

IWD is on 8 March, and March is Women's month on Wikipedia. I suggest we collect hooks for the month, and those for the specific day separately, those better related to women's rights, and not about a woman or her work in general. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:53, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

I support this idea. SL93 (talk) 23:55, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
I believe Template:Did you know nominations/Khairunnisa Ash'ari would be great for IWD. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2022 (UTC)
Apparently I was mistaken when I said that all IWD hooks were taken, but now they are with 8 hooks including that one. I'm hoping that your suggestion is used for other nominations. SL93 (talk) 01:44, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I actually have an excellent idea for a West Wing IWD hook, but if we're only doing eight, we're only doing eight. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:13, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
There's one waiting with a special occasion request for March 8 at Template:Did you know nominations/Stella Madzimbamuto, too. valereee (talk) 14:06, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
Just because there are eight there already doesn't mean we shouldn't keep adding them. For one thing we could easily be back to 2-a-days by then, as this round of WikiCup ends in two weeks, which could encourage nominations (and therefore reviews). And if we end up with a number we can't fit, we can choose the best ones. I agree with Gerda that we shouldn't simply slot someone in there simply because she's a woman. And we definitely should try to go for as much global diversity as possible. valereee (talk) 14:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
I moved Template:Did you know nominations/Hamdallaye, Niger to 9 March, but looked at the 8 now there for 8 March: 2 in sports, one trying to bite a finger off allegedly: back to that we should examine which message to send on a day for women's rights, not just being a woman and having done something internationally. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:49, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Gerda, we should ideally be looking for articles that are about women's issues, not simply articles about women. valereee (talk) 15:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt, why make an overflow? Isn't that just going to encourage promoters to simply go with the eight that are in the original? I'd rather see them pick and choose the ones they think are best/most diverse. valereee (talk) 16:10, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Did you read the nom? - The nominator wants it rather 9 March pictured than 8 without, - my understanding. I, however, believe that it's closer to the idea of IWD than the sports ladies, and the pic might not be taken any other day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
depending on how many IWD hooks we end up getting, we should consider switching to 2 sets for the day. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:40, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
Oh, whoops, I thought you were referring to an overflow! valereee (talk) 22:41, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Doing a partial review for a nomination you didn't nominate but contributed a hook to

Just wanted to have something be clarified. Reviewing your own nominations is obviously not allowed, and reviewing articles that you've proposed hooks to is generally discouraged unless the hooks you proposed are minor rewordings of previously existing hooks. However, is it allowed for a non-nominating editor to do a partial, almost-complete review of a nomination where they proposed a new hook that included a new hook fact, albeit without giving final approval? For example, an editor proposed a new hook for an article. They then review the nomination, checking all the article-relevant criteria (i.e. newness, length, paraphrasing, QPQ, etc.). The only thing they leave open is the review of the hook, which they leave to another uninvolved editor. Is this allowed? I'm asking because I contributed a hook to Template:Did you know nominations/Macy Rodman, and given that the article is relatively short and straightforward I was thinking of reviewing the article itself (but not the hooks). That is, I'd review the article according to the criteria, leaving only the final checking of the hooks to a different editor. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: I've done it a few times—usually, it's because once I've analyzed the whole article, I've come across a hook I think might be more interesting. In that case, I just don't tick either hook and use the icon to get final approval. In short, yeah, I think it's fine. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:50, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it buys much to do this, Narutolovehinata5, since you still need to get another reviewer to approve the hook, and they have to redo much of the review work to check that hook. It's one thing if, as theleekycauldron notes, you've done the review work already and realize that the hooks are problematic while thinking of a good ALT hook, but it strikes me as simpler to propose an ALT hook and let someone else do the full review including of your new hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Merge request needs closing on oldest DYK nomination

We have a situation where the oldest DYK nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/University of Texas at Arlington Rebel theme controversy, has been waiting for many weeks for a merge request on the article to be closed before the nomination can continue. If the merge occurs, then the nomination will fail because the nominated article no longer exists; if there is not consensus for a merge, then the nomination can continue.

It would be greatly appreciated if someone who is comfortable with reviewing Talk:UT Arlington Mavericks#Proposed merge of University of Texas at Arlington Rebel theme controversy into UT Arlington Mavericks take a look at the situation and do what they can. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:33, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Stability requirements

I just made the decision to decline 2022 Hijab row in Karnataka because of high edit volume and instability on a quite-tense DS topic (including a thread at WP:AE). I feel like I can't guarantee the page would meet guidelines by the time it made Main Page and that putting it there could fan the flames of sectarian tension.

I am surprised there is no stability requirement for a page at DYK, especially of this type, as there is for good articles; it isn't in the rules or the supplementary rules. Would this be worth adding somewhere, especially after my experience with a topic like this one? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

While stability isn't explicitly mentioned in the DYK criteria (after all, DYKs are not GAs), I have seen DYK noms in the past being declined due to stability issues. I think to some extent stability falls under the "within policy" part of reviewing; it's not explicitly mentioned but if it does happen it's a point against the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Sammi Brie, there is WP:DYKSG#D6, which starts The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit-warring or the presence of dispute tags. While not explicitly "instability", it sounds like there has been some back-and-forth editing, for which D6 would apply. What you could do is put the nomination on hold for seven days (or longer) to see whether things settle down, rather than mark for closure immediately. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset when I brought this to the ENWP Discord, one other thing was pointed out to me: that exposure of this page could inflame major Indian nationalist sentiment. I think it would be quite a long hold, too. That topic is still evolving. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Link in P1

Why are we linking to Black women in the first hook in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1? Is there really any English speaker anywhere who doesn't know what a Black woman is? valereee (talk) 21:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

I looked through the edit history and TJMSmith placed the link. I can't ping anyone at the moment on my phone. SL93 (talk) 22:11, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
TJMSmith? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:28, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Maybe we link African-American upper class? valereee (talk) 22:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Valereee, done. Schwede66 00:16, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! valereee (talk) 00:25, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Thanks all! TJMSmith (talk) 04:55, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

P1 29 28 Feb

Template:Did you know nominations/Woody (Toy Story) 2

  • ... that Woody from Toy Story was originally written as a ventriloquist dummy and the main villain of the film?

Kaleeb18 Sceptre Theleekycauldron

Any objection to ventriloquist dummy > ventriloquist's dummy? I feel like that's idiomatic and needs a link? valereee (talk) 01:11, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

  • A pedant writes: there isn't a 29 Feb this year, P1 is 1 March (sorry). Black Kite (talk) 01:18, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
    lol valereee (talk) 01:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • every day is 29 February if you have faith. On a more serious note, yeah, that change looks good. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:38, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Prep 1 is actually February 28 according to the queue page. SL93 (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Francis G. Brink (nom)

  • ... that Brigadier general Francis G. Brink, the first commander of Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) Indochina, committed suicide at the Pentagon with three bullet wounds in the chest?

Might be wrong about this one as well, but I thought this hook was a little off. I don't have a problem with morbid, but if the most interesting thing we can say about this person is that they committed suicide... but if consensus here is that it's fine (maybe because he committed suicide in the pentagon it's interesting?), then promotion is fine. Pinging @Mztourist and Pbritti as nominator and reviewer, although they've already made their thoughts pretty clear on the nompage. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:22, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Theleekycauldron, and I wanted to actually say I’ve changed my mind on whether the hook is a good idea. After some thought and consideration of how others might receive it, I think it’s permissible, but I’d like to see a different one if possible. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:10, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
That is the most interesting thing, committed suicide at the Pentagon with 3(!) bullets to the chest. Mztourist (talk) 07:16, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
damn, I can't believe I didn't catch that! Shame, I just had mac and cheese—barely any room for trout. Now I get why Pbritti was ambivalent, too—all right, let's see what others have to say. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:43, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I have a fairly low bar for what counts as insensitive material, and I think this hook is sensitive and appropriate. If this hook runs, there may be concerns about the word "committed"; I find them unpersuasive, but a consideration. Urve (talk) 17:27, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron, ah, haha. I realize now that the peculiarity of the circumstances may not have been immediately noticed (though I had myself missed the implications of featuring self-harm on the main page). I think the consensus here is to keep the original hook as is, but should something come up I am willing to take responsibility. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:40, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
  • @Mztourist, Pbritti, and Theleekycauldron: If there were concerns about "committed" (I am also unconvinced), or if the hook is maybe phrased with too much weight on the suicide, it could just be tweaked a little, something like "when Brink died, it was in the Pentagon with three self-inflicted bullet wounds". Though that does kind of sound like a Clue(do) solution, which might instead undermine the gravity. Kingsif (talk) 11:40, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, it's tricky to make it read well. How about "... that the death of Brigadier general Francis G. Brink, the first commander of Military Assistance Advisory Group (MAAG) Indochina, occurred at the Pentagon due to three self-inflicted bullet wounds to the chest?" Black Kite (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Mztourist and Pbritti there's an elephant in the room on this one, at least to me. What was "the situation in Indochina" that made him commit suicide? That's a big hunk of of the Asian continent, with a vast history. Given that this was 1952, we can't assume it was the Vietnam War, since that wasn't a factor until three years later. Was his suicide a protest, an act of a man driven to the brink of being asked to resign? Was he being held accountable for his decisions about Indochina? Did he feel driven to the brink by a consultation at the Pentagon? I accept the suicide as the hook, but 1952 doesn't automatically jump out as a key year for most people. — Maile (talk) 12:23, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

@Maile66: You have made me search this some more, and a conspiracy-theorist rant? says the official verdict was just depression, no wider motivating factor. But this book, at least, places his death (also, curiously, not "suicide") in a socioeconomic timeline of Vietnamese terrorism and the First Indochina War. It also sounds like his successor was fired for suggesting Vietnam might win, so very tense. Kingsif (talk) 13:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Here's a source for you, in which the family said he had been suffering from depression, but government officials said that was not likely related to Indo-China. "Gun Found at Side of Head of U. S. Military Mission to Indo-China". The Los Angeles Times. 25 June 1952. Retrieved 23 February 2022. Here's a different source that cites his friends as saying he had been suffering from depression not related to Indo-China."General Brink Dies of Wounds Inflicted in Pentagon Office". Evening Star. 25 June 1952. p. A-6, Col. 6. Retrieved 23 February 2022.. — Maile (talk) 13:42, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't know that there was ever anything truly conclusive, as far as I know he didn't leave a suicide note. Mztourist (talk) 14:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I think that there is enough RS basis to use "suicide" but "died in an apparent suicide" might also work if we can add source that references the partly ambiguous nature of his unfortunate passing. ~ Pbritti (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
update: I promoted the nomination to prep 5. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:52, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Prep 6: Cheok Hong Cheong (nom)

I know I already talked about this on the nompage, but I have an issue with this hook that wasn't addressed before promotion. It seems to imply that Cheong sold bananas while he was a missionary, which isn't true. The hook was put in the quirky slot, which suggests to me that our intent is for people to come to this conclusion? Quirky is one thing, but this feels outright misleading. If no one objects, I think the hook should be changed:

  • ALT1: ... that Cheok Hong Cheong sold bananas for a decade before becoming a missionary?

Pinging @Kingoflettuce, Cunard, and SL93: as nominator, reviewer, and promoter. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:09, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm fine with that change, but I do remember multiple times recently where hooks in that slot were way more misleading than this hook. SL93 (talk) 02:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
that might actually be worth a larger clarification discussion, to be honest... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I think you're reading too much into it—it's very nearly splitting hairs. Moreover, he already worked at a Chinese mission before his hiatus as a banana seller. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:13, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I object to the proposed changed because the source simply does not state that he sold bananas for ten years before becoming a missionary. It does extensively state that he was A) a missionary and B) a banana seller for ten years. If I wanted to go down your route, I could also contrive a reading that his becoming a missionary was somehow caused by his banana-selling. Let's not overthink things. Like I said on the nom page, any incorrect assumptions they might have after reading the hook will be gone after properly reading the article. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
I think the original hook is fine even though readers could make a wrong inference. The proposed new hook is inaccurate based on Kingoflettuce's note that the subject "already worked at a Chinese mission before his hiatus as a banana seller" and could also lead readers to make another inaccurate inference. Should hooks where readers could make a wrong inference be disallowed? I think it would be worthwhile for the DYK community to have a discussion to get clarity about this. Cunard (talk) 00:42, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I mean, if I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but I thought it wasn't an unreasonable inference to make. There are cases where if someone gets the wrong idea, it's not our fault, but it isn't immediately clear in this case, and I don't see how this misdirection is necessary for the hook to work. Would this method of correcting the inaccuracy work?
I think that could actually work as a quirky, to be honest. Like I said before, though, open to shifting with outside consensus. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:29, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
ALT2 complicates matters. It would make me think that he stopped being a missionary at some point to sell bananas before becoming a missionary again. Why not just rework the hook to say that he was a missionary while selling bananas for 10 years? ALT3 ... that Australian Cheok Hong Cheong sold bananas for ten years as a missionary? SL93 (talk) 23:36, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
...why not just use the original hook. He didn't sell bananas as a missionary, he didn't sell bananas before becoming a missionary, he simply was a missionary who happened to sell bananas for ten years. Why the need to be so banally precise when it's just a hook introducing them to a much more thorough article?? These semantics are giving me a headache. The man is known for being a missionary, hence he is introduced in the hook as an Australian missionary, and the "hooky" fact is that he sold bananas for ten years. The original hook captures all of that. It's needlessly confusing to debate over whether this necessarily implies yada yada. We should devote our energies to more substantive matters...... Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:56, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with the original hook which is why I promoted it. I only suggested ALT3 to maybe get this pointless conversation to an ending point. Mostly because apparently no one cares beyond those who participated in the nomination. SL93 (talk) 23:58, 21 February 2022 (UTC)
From what I've seen from this discussion, the concerns seem to be more about accurateness or preciseness, and hooks that were considered even slightly misleading or having the potential to mislead have been rejected or revised in the past. I have no opinion about the hooks themselves, this is just the perspective I've seen from previous experience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:04, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Ya, tho I must say he sold bananas as a banana seller, not a missionary, even though he was a missionary...So ALT3 really isn't saying the same thing as the original. There's no need to draw so many lines in the sand, the article gives a good enough picture of who the man was.Kingoflettuce (talk) 00:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
What struck me was that he sold bananas from 1875 to 1885, and in 1885 he was made superintendent of the Church of England in Melbourne. While the missionary comparison is a reasonably interesting contrast, this juxtaposition strikes me as far more so. Hence this proposal:
  • ALT4: ... that Cheok Hong Cheong sold bananas for a decade, after which he became superintendent of the Church of England of Melbourne?
If you think it useful, we could add ", Australia" after "Melbourne". Pinging Kingoflettuce, SL93, theleekycauldron, and Cunard. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
tick () as verified in the article and interesting—happy to go with this if we can agree on it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:31, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
Works for me Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:39, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
This is a good and accurate hook, thank you. Cunard (talk) 09:43, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
An admin needs to change it. The hook is in queue 6. SL93 (talk) 23:59, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm onto it. Schwede66 03:59, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Need queues promoted?

DYK admins: we're currently at two queues; I'm not sure if Cwm is planning on adding a third later tonight (I'm turning in early), but it would be super appreciated if anyone's available to make a prep-to-queue promotion? Thanks in advance :D theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

okies Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 07:00, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Nomination with an image

I have recently reviewed my first nomination with an image, Template:Did you know nominations/Trial of Neumann and Sass and am not sure that the image is public domain. What should I do about this, is it enough to have noted my doubts, or should I ask the nominator to double check on Commons? TSventon (talk) 20:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Can someone close this promoted nomination?

I tried to promote Template:Did you know nominations/Janine Brookner, but I was unable to fix the do not write below this line thing. When it looked like I managed it, the IWD list and below on the Approved nominations page looked like they were all closed nominations. SL93 (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Janine Brookner is sitting over in SOHO, exactly which is where I think you wanted it to be. — Maile (talk) 01:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I meant Template:Did you know nominations/Julie Croteau. SL93 (talk) 23:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I closed this out for you, as you already have it in prep. Not a big deal to do for you. — Maile (talk) 01:08, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Maile66 I moved them both to prep 2, but both of my closures didn't close correctly so I undid them to see if someone could find the issue. SL93 (talk) 01:13, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I was trying to see if someone could close them for me, but correctly. The bit about do not write below this line is on the bottom of Janine Booker, but the closure is messed up. SL93 (talk) 01:18, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I think I also fixed the closure on Janine Booker. — Maile (talk) 01:40, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate it. SL93 (talk) 01:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm actually not sure which one of those two. SL93 (talk) 23:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Queue 2

I know it is a special occasion hook, but if the Russian military start parading in Kyiv, we can't post that. No comment on the Russian military hook in this set further down (or the one currently on the MP, of which removal would be more noticeable). Kingsif (talk) 14:36, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

This hook, if it wasn't clear: "that after the 1871 German victory parade in Paris (pictured) 151 years ago today, the French symbolically scrubbed the streets on which the Germans had marched?" Kingsif (talk) 14:39, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Did you mean the 3rd hook: " that a Cossack detachment led by Imperial Russian Lazar Bicherakhov joined forces with British general Lionel Dunsterville's expeditionary corps to prevent Ottoman advance?" I assume you don't think we should run the lead hook because it would be insensitive, as it does not seem to be related to Russia-Kyiv. — Maile (talk) 02:00, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
no, I think that kingsif is talking about the lead, since it might look allegorical to the current russian invasion (e.g. russians are symbolically dirty invaders and the ukranians should remove them). But honestly, I disagree; we should be asking ourselves what lengths we should go to, what topics we should be censoring, for an appearance of neutrality. That hook was proposed on February 7, it's gone through all the normal processes, no one has suggested that this should be or is commentary. This only maybe looks bad as surface level optics; the harder anyone looks, the less there will actually be.
Pinging @Dumelow, Bloom6132, and SL93 as nominator, reviewer, and promoter. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:13, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
No one would likely say anything about the German victory parade hook if it wasn't for the invasion going on, and I certainly don't want to assume any bad faith towards the nominator (and I don't see the slightest reason to potentially do so). The event happened in 1871 and I don't feel right about censoring history for any reason. SL93 (talk) 02:49, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I wrote the article in question (German victory parade in Paris (1871)). It is about a historical event I nominated for its 151st anniversary. I think it's a bit of a stretch to connect it to current events. Coincidentally I also wrote the article mentioned as being on the main page in the first post (Viktor Taranovsky) about an Imperial Russian general; again written before the current invasion and, in my opinion, of little relevance to it - Dumelow (talk) 07:09, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
Yep - of course it is unrelated, but the organisers of the edit drive for Ukrainian cultural month (which they organised last year) have had to issue an FAQ (and their banner doesn't appear every time you load the MP) because they keep getting messages that it's inappropriate. I don't think we necessarily should hold the hook, but if Russian forces get into Kyiv, the allegory wouldn't be hard to spot. Kingsif (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Unrelated (sort of) footnote here. May 20 marks the 21st anniversary of Russian Wikipedia, which seems to be doing as well as the rest of us. Interesting. I don't guess we could take Russian Wikipedia to GA, just to get it on the Main page later. I'm laughing a little bit, because you see in the last paragraph that Vlad wanted the government to come up with something similar. — Maile (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
I've just been assuming that the GANR will see it delisted because that is a huge subject. Kingsif (talk) 10:42, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Negative hook

Template:Did you know nominations/Richard J. Ferris looks like it might have a too negative hook for DYK. Pinging nominator Ktin and reviewer TonyTheTiger. SL93 (talk) 17:02, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I placed the nomination on hold. I was hoping for some discussion by now. Pinging BlueMoonset for their opinion. SL93 (talk) 15:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
@Ktin: I think the issue is the hook working of "financing scheme", when the word "scheme" is not mentioned in the article. That may well have been what he was doing, but perhaps find a different wording. — Maile (talk) 16:40, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm also not sure we should have a hook about someone's financing scheme if that really is what happened. SL93 (talk) 18:07, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
More information would be needed for me to understand. It doesn't look like he did anything illegal, or even out of the ordinary, but maybe I missed something. In the news all the time, companies merge, companies diversify. They split part of it off under a different name. Look what's happened to the tech industry in the last two decades. Or the fact that the "help desk" or "service request department" of most companies are outsourced, often to groups in other countries. And all the outsourcing is about money - a bigger labor force at a much lower cost.— Maile (talk) 21:24, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Agree with Maile - the financing method used here doesn't strike any red flags with me. The method maybe isn't standard, but doing stuff like that to prevent a hostile takeover isn't too out of the ordinary. Hog Farm Talk 21:29, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with it now, only if the word scheme doesn't have to be in the article. SL93 (talk) 21:30, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey folks. I am sorry I am out for a couple of days at the hospital. In the meantime - nothing negative with this hook. If the word scheme needs to be substituted, can someone be bold and substitute the word with arrangement or something like that. Ktin (talk) 21:12, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Can this be resolved by replacing scheme > plan? In AmEng, scheme generally is negative. valereee (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I will add an alt hook with plan. That's what I was thinking. Negative or not, scheme is typically thought of in that way. SL93 (talk) 21:33, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't help that the definition of scheme is "make plans, especially in a devious way or with intent to do something illegal or wrong." SL93 (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I approved your ALT2. I think it works well. — Maile (talk) 21:45, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
  • Sorry folks. I am fairly inactive these days on WP. I don't pay attention to pings. I see scheme was swapped out for plan. O.K.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:17, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 20. We currently have a total of 215 nominations, of which 83 have been approved, a gap of 132, up by a whopping 33 over the past ten days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Grammar edit to Q5

Just letting everyone know I corrected the grammar of a hook in Queue 5 before it could embarrass us on the Main Page. (It was also necessary to clean up the prose in the relevant section of the article. Please take a close look at these things before you approve them). Daniel Case (talk) 05:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

the hook was my bad, sorry! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Double check my work?

I just did my first prep to queue promotion (T:DYK/P1 to T:DYK/Q1). Everything seemed fine except for a stray comma, but my paranoia still makes me ask whether anyone could please check my work. (I've had quite a few articles on DYK last year and now feel the urge to try and help with the admin side of things). —Kusma (talk) 11:50, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks OK to me. — Maile (talk) 14:11, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Thank you so much for getting into moving to queue! It's really helpful to have that help from DYK regulars. I don't offhand see anything that seems incorrect about the mechanics of the move. (Haven't looked at the actual hooks/articles/nom pages, but I assume that wasn't what you were asking about?) valereee (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

DYK toolbox - WMFLabs Dup detector "503 Service Not Available"

WMFLabs Dup detector throws up an error message; 503 Service Not Available. The URL of this tool is https://dupdet.toolforge.org/ . Earwig's Copvio Detector is working fine from toolforge. Do we do anything about the Dup detector? — Maile (talk) 03:08, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

It's being looked at, according to User talk:Gryllida#Duplication Detector. DanCherek (talk) 03:51, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

ASAP DYK review?

I don't normally ask to "jump the queue", but considering current events in the 2021–2022 Russo-Ukrainian crisis, I think Template:Did you know nominations/Yulia Tolopa might be very topical? --GRuban (talk) 22:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@GRuban, is there a date you're requesting, or just ASAP? valereee (talk) 00:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
I'll get started on a prompt review... but on a more morbid note, I'd be quite surprised if the hook were not still topical in two weeks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:32, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
No date, just ASAP, given the troop movements. Honestly, I am afraid any time it could become an obituary. There's an article I read somewhere about the Russians having a list of people that need to be dealt with when they invade. If there is such a list but she's not on it, I'll be shocked. I didn't use a lot of Russian-Russian sources in the article (as opposed to Russian language Ukrainian) but that's not because they didn't exist, it's because they were very yellow journalism. They certainly exist and they are not kind to her. --GRuban (talk) 01:46, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Probably unnecessary agreement, but I agree as ASAP as possible - it's a nice article and has some interesting hook suggestions, so it would be a downer (and horrific) if it became ineligible under our "don't post hooks that could be seen to take a side in current affairs". Get it onto the MP before anything that may or may not happen does. Kingsif (talk) 11:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
Given how much tensions already exist, wouldn't promoting the hook now not be kosher? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
I was thinking that pre-invasion would be safer than either during an invasion or waiting for it to be over. But you are correct that now would be horrible timing. Kingsif (talk) 11:23, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
--GRuban (talk) 16:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Here's the article about "the list": Washington Post. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2022/02/20/ukraine-russia-human-rights --GRuban (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
@GRuban: Hey, with this and now noms relating to the invasion, I might start a set in my user space for all Russia and Ukraine hooks we can't run until further notice. Kingsif (talk) 09:31, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
I don't think there is a strong reason to avoid Ukraine-related hooks right now. If our articles and hooks are neutral, then having them on the Main Page is good for showcasing how Wikipedia works even during conflicts. (Current battlefield news might not be appropriate, though, because we don't know for sure what is WP:RS; also WP:NOTNEWS). —Kusma (talk) 09:56, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
A hook about architecture or random companies in Ukraine, sure, but a Russian national fighting for Ukraine? No way. Kingsif (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Censoring Wikipedia's Main Page? No way. (Having said that, I can't assess the neutrality or the sourcing of the article in question, so there may be reasons not to feature it). —Kusma (talk) 17:16, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
Today's OTD, by the way, features Soviet Occupation Day. —Kusma (talk) 17:20, 25 February 2022 (UTC)
There is a difference between censorship and just choosing not to say something. Kingsif (talk) 15:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

How do I write a DYK nomination now?

I slowly got used to the new format of nominating, via the top line of an article, but now don't find that option anymore. The traditional method also doesn't work. ?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: you can use Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination—but the old toolbox still works for me, I'm not sure why you'd be experiencing difficulty there. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Are you referring to Eleonore Schönborn? I have tabbed viewing, and I see the DYK tab at the top of that article. `— Maile (talk)
Now I also see it again. Perhaps it's just the shaky line on a train. Thank you both. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Help with essay on nominating

Hi! I've just started a draft over at Draft:Wikipedia:Nominate, and wanted to get some contributions from other people. Essentially, I would like there to be a good essay on Wikipedia that encourages editors to nominate content they haven't created for DYK or FP. In my mind, no one owns stuff here, and as long as the original creator hadn't or was not planning to nominate the content, I think editors should be encouraged to do so if they think Wikipedia would benefit from highlighting it. It's been a few months since I participated at DYK, but I thought maybe y'all would be able to contribute a valuable perspective to this essay. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:04, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I've just checked the page and it is still pretty empty. As to me it should be clarified what nominations are meant and where the to be nominated articles are to be found. Like a New pages feed to the new ones and the articles which recently gained GA status. And I guess not all know from start what FP means. I didn't for example. Maybe a link to what it means could help. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Queue 1 italics

In the seventh hook of Queue 1, ABC News is the name of a news organization, not the title of a specific show, and it should not be italicized.  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  01:34, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 01:44, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

ALT image text in Prep/Queues

I just happened to notice that we admins don't seem to be checking for alt text for the images.

Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions Instruction #2 under "Required Preparation". "Ensure the image has an alt text useful to those with visual impairments, if necessary, per WP:ALTTEXT."

Prep builders probably weren't even aware of that requirement, so I added it to the Template:DYK Prep Set Instructions — Maile (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of it and it also isn't in the supplementary guidelines. I never thought to look at the admin instructions. SL93 (talk) 17:12, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
If we require alt text to be promoted to a picture hook, shouldn't we add that to the reviewing guidelines? So that the burden for this doesn't just fall on admins to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:16, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I support this idea. SL93 (talk) 17:21, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I think the "if necessary" should be reviewed - when is it necessary? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 17:36, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The last time we had this discussion I believe Graham87, who is expert in this, said it's not actually an issue here? I can't remember exactly what was said, (and I didn't really completely understand it at the time) but I remember concluding that the alt texts I'd been adding to DYK images weren't really helpful so I stopped doing it. valereee (talk) 18:23, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
My understanding is that the alt text isn't actually shown on the main page if using e.g. a screenreader which doesn't show images. This is the case for the DYK image or any other image on main page. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:29, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility/Alternative text for images explains it more fully. Yes, I believe this is for the visually challenged, with screen readers. I would think for the main page, we would not have the option of not having it. — Maile (talk) 20:01, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

When an image doesn't have a thumbnail (which is true on the Main Page), the specified caption is automatically used as the alt text (see Wikipedia:Extended image syntax#Alt text and caption). I can't imagine a situation where this wouldn't suffice for accessibility purposes. I've edited Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions and Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide (plus reverted the edit at Template:DYK Prep Set Instructions) accordingly. Graham87 03:48, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Preps need moving

@DYK admins: We are down to two queues and one will moved to the main page later today. We are almost back to two-a-days as well. SL93 (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to suggest that if we do reach 120 before March 8, that we stay at one a day until we run the International Women's Day set (Queue 2) for the whole of the day, and then start with two sets a day on March 9. (If we don't reach 120 until after March 8, then we naturally don't switch until we do.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:47, 6 March 2022 (UTC)
Is it just me, or do the issues with preps needing to be moved typically happen on the weekends, during the middle of the night for the Eastern US? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Lead hook photo swap

Weston House in 2006

Weston House is the lead hook in Q3. I've just managed to score a series of nice photos from the last owner, which she kindly uploaded to Commons. I've swapped the ibox photo to the one shown here. I suppose I shouldn't swap the photo in the queue myself; could an admin please do so (after the necessary license check)? Thanks heaps. Schwede66 23:36, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I support it. That picture is much better. SL93 (talk) 23:40, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
@DYK admins: SL93 (talk) 01:08, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 Done Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, thanks 🙏 Schwede66 08:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Queue 5: Tatiana Saunders (nom)

I thought Victuallers would bring this up here, but given that it's not happening, I think I'll get the jump on it. I think the main hook was probably the better suggestion, since it's women's history month and the main hook better highlights her accomplishments—sports trivia might be more hooky, but I don't think it is in this case and it's less important. Courtesy pings to @Mandarax, Cielquiparle, and Rlink2. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:11, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree. Rlink2, you promoted this. Any objection to choosing ALT0 instead? Schwede66 00:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Main hook might need some copyediting, too. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:20, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66 @Theleekycauldron @Mandarax @Cielquiparle
No objection from me. I don't particularly like the wording of "whose policy is equal pay" (not to say the fact isn't important, just the way its phrased). Other that that, it looks good.
Maybe a slightly better hook is hat Tatiana Saunders is now goalie for the equal-pay team Lewes Football Club Women after playing for U.S., Icelandic and French teams? Rlink2 (talk) 01:00, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@Rlink2: much better :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:09, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks everyone for resolving!!! Cielquiparle (talk) 06:02, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66: could you swap Rlink2's suggestion in? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:57, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Ok. Will do so now. Schwede66 08:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be "goalkeeper" rather than "goalie"? That's the normal term used in association football. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
 Done. I've wikilinked equal pay in the hook (it's not linked in the article!) and don't believe that it should have a hyphen unlike the draft above. And yes – goalkeeper. I'm off to bed... Schwede66 08:51, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Prayer for Ukraine

Template:Did you know nominations/Prayer for Ukraine - could that perhaps be processed fast, in solidarity with Ukraine? We expanded 26 Feb, and after the song was performed in SN that nightL, it found unpredicted interest, 8k+ views the next day. The support should continue. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:49, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: We have to figure out how we want to approach the conflict—some are advocating for avoiding any hooks about Russia or Ukraine until the crisis is over. Is anyone up for a centralized discussion on how we're handling the topic? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:30, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Quite frankly, Gerda's hook seems like a good idea, a rather nice one, in fact. But it might be a good idea for input here. So far, Gerda seems to be doing more than, say, news outlets who are just showing us the awful stuff. — Maile (talk) 22:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
As much as I think running the hook would be a nice touch, I can't help but feel there could be concerns about us taking sides in the conflict if we run any hooks about Ukraine or Russia anytime soon. Template:Did you know nominations/Russia was stuck for a while and unfortunately it's starting to look unlikely that it could run anytime soon owing to poor timing (even though the proposed hook has nothing to do with the conflict), while similar concerns have been raised about Template:Did you know nominations/Yulia Tolopa (a hook about a Russian woman fighting for Ukraine, which would very likely not be a kosher hook right now). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:25, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Okay, I'm just going to put this out there, and if I end up getting laughed off of the stage, know that I'm feeling about as stupid as I look.
Is it really fair to characterize this as an "ongoing dispute" for which we are promoting one side? I mean, in the strictest sense, of course: There is an active war between two countries that started last week. Of course it's an ongoing dispute.
But I have a hard time believing (and the old-timers can correct me on this) that we treated climate change or evolution as "ongoing disputes" back when evolution and climate change deniers were mainstream thinkers instead of the fringes. Wikipedia has pretty much always stuck by the fact that, despite the lack of overwhelming popular support giving rise to a political dispute in the United States, the scientific consensus (the reliable source) overwhelming weigh in favour of these two concepts. I am sure we've run many, many hooks treating the two concepts as foregone conclusions, despite there being a "dispute" in American politics about whether it's real.
This invasion has received widespread international condemnation; it's certainly been unanimous from Western nations, and from the editorial boards of many of our most trusted RSes. The consensus of reliable sources (not to mention some 87 countries, and both in and out of the opinion section) seems to be—and I could be calling this wrong—that Russia engaged in baseless lies and propaganda as a pretext to carry out an unwarranted and unprovoked invasion of a sovereign (albeit rival) country.
Listen, this is triggering my bullcrap-o-meter as well. But I was talking to SnowFire the other day about their DYK nomination, and they commented that some people come off as good or bad or crazy or funny because they are, and reliable sources report it that way. And that's the way it goes here, too; Gerda and GRuban seem to have written verifiable hooks that reflect the consensus and the attitude of reliable sources.
I am not an expert, and it's entirely possible that I'm inadvertently POV-pushing. My apologies if I am, I don't mean to. But if we keep looking at the sources and coming out with the idea that Russia is the worse actor here, well... that's the way it goes, no? we shouldn't be running hooks that read simply "Ukraine rocks", we shouldn't be going out of our way to smear Russia. But if a straight telling of the facts paints Russia in a worse light... how is that our problem? If these hooks reflect the integrity of our verifiability and neutrality policies (particularly due weight), and Russia still comes off worse—I don't see how we can shy away from telling what we believe to be the verifiable facts. What am I missing? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
WP:DYKCRIT gives the following quote: Articles and hooks that ... promote one side of an ongoing dispute should be avoided. Granted, this does not apply only to Russia-Ukraine but to many other contentious areas too where tensions are high. At the very least, while the Tolopa hook was nominated in good faith, the hooks proposed so far (especially ALT1) may not be appropriate at this time. It's arguable if either the Russia or Pray for Ukraine hooks also fall afoul of that criterion, but personally I lean more towards the "better safe than sorry" attitude even if we can all agree that what Russia is doing is very, very, very wrong. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:19, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I certainly agree with theleekycauldron and disagree with the criterion in this case. The primary consensus is that what Russia is doing is wrong and it's nothing different from the main reporting. I quote theleekycauldron - "The consensus of reliable sources (not to mention some 87 countries, and both in and out of the opinion section) seems to be—and I could be calling this wrong—that Russia engaged in baseless lies and propaganda as a pretext to carry out an unwarranted and unprovoked invasion of a sovereign (albeit rival) country." I honestly don't see anyone complaining about a Pray for Ukraine hook. I quote Narutolovehinata5, "we can all agree that what Russia is doing is very, very, very wrong". From what I'm seeing all over news outlets and social media, this is extremely stupid to me and isn't merely being better safe than sorry. I'm not trying to be uncivil, but I'm also not going to hold back what I feel are valid opinions. SL93 (talk) 03:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I highly doubt such a criterion means to avoid all hooks from two entire countries. I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Arithmetic (book). It's about a book from 1703. The United States, for example, have been in conflicts with other countries as well although not like this. This is such a weird stretch. SL93 (talk) 04:02, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
The difference is that climate change deniers are objectively idiots and Wikipedia can, for lack of any more polite way of saying this coming to me right now, ignore them for having no factual basis. Are Russian soldiers and the people supporting them objectively idiots? Can we even measure human conflicts with scientific objectivity? Of course not, to both. Kingsif (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I support Gerda's request above. OK. Everybody please really look at what Gerda's hook says. Prayer for Ukraine spiritual was written in 1885 and it's on a choir album from the year 2000. ALT1 refers to the performance of it on Saturday Night Live this week - but so what? There is nothing there that shows bias or favoritism either direction. I see nothing wrong with this hook going on the main page in the near future. — Maile (talk) 04:39, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Exactly. I would support it either way, but are we really going to censor a spiritual from 1885? SL93 (talk) 04:41, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
As someone who thinks of such censorship as the same as book banning, I can't get behind the DYK project if this is implemented with such hooks. SL93 (talk) 05:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
Given that the Russia hook is not conflict-related and neither is Prayer's ALT1 (at least not directly), perhaps both can be allowed to run? If there are any concerns about taking sides (which was one of the issues with the Russia hook), it may be even be possible to run both hooks in the same set as a compromise, just to alleviate concerns that Wikipedia is favorite one side over the other. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:36, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I haven't even seen anywhere close to sufficient evidence that there are or will be any concerns. SL93 (talk) 06:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I mean, as long as we run all four hooks, the balancing seems like one of the finer points. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:30, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Good thinking on balancing! hmm... the Russia hook is IWD. Maybe we slot it in that set, and put in Tolopa's hook as well? We can run Prayer for Ukraine and Snake Island in other sets. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:28, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I honestly feel we should have a community-wide discussion to see if there even is an issue. https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Ukraine%27s_Cultural_Diplomacy_Month_2022 has been advertised to me on my Wikimedia Commons watchlist...and yet that is a Wikimedia owned website. SL93 (talk) 06:38, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I do know that the event was planned well in advance, but how many readers know that? Same with DYK hooks. I don't think they will do research into it. SL93 (talk) 06:45, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • Late to all this: This is not "my" article and nomination. The article is the work of many, and is strictly neutral afaik (and if you see something that is not neutral change!), about a song that made it from 1885 (!) to the limelight of U.S. television. I think not to run articles about Russia and Ukraine is censorship. I had not seen the video mentioned in ALT1 but now I did. It's also strictly neutral. We began expanding before the TV show even happened, DYK? The article has interesting background, imho, and some of the text has already been quoted in news (forgot where saw it, but smiled). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    found the news quoting our Wikipea article (an older version): nysmusic.com --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:04, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    Adding after having read a bit more: of course we should run Russia and others, - I have one in prep about a Russian opera singer. I doubt however, that Russia should run on IWD, even if it's the precise date which is not mentioned in the hook. Anytime in March, and leave IWD to women who did something for human rights. My 2ct. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    When I built the IWD set, it was difficult to do that because of how many of them were actually related to that and I didn't get excited over the likely backlash from nominators if I refused to promote them for March 8. On this topic, I don't agree with Russia being in IWD. SL93 (talk) 07:33, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • You have probably all heard too much of my views on this already, but I advocate for avoiding anything even possibly related. People on social media respond to more benign DYKs to these. Will we get celebrated for supporting Ukraine, slated for not being neutral, condemned for depicting Russia in any kind of light by people of all opinions? Probably all of the above. And eventually, whether this be the final straw or adding to the pile, readership opinion will have effects on DYK running. Just +1 for oppose all for me, will ya? Kingsif (talk) 15:28, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Well...In the news on the Main Page, has been "Russia launches an invasion of Ukraine." since this started. It's already out there on our Main Page, so I disagree that DYK needs to tippy-toe around a subject that is already on the Main Page. — Maile (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
@Maile66: If we were just saying there is a war happening, that would be fine, but also would not get passed for being super boring. DYK is "fun fact" - can there even be fun facts about a current war? Kingsif (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't see how saying that a piece of music was recorded in 2000, when hopes for a new millenium were strong, would be "supporting Ukraine" in any negative sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Supporting Ukraine in a positive sense shouldn't happen, either, Gerda. And it is called "Prayer for Ukraine", it isn't any old song, come on. Kingsif (talk) 15:04, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Russia hook

As this gets so long (haven't read all, I admit), just signatures please:

  • I support to run "Russia" on IWD.
    1. valereee (talk) 13:58, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
    2. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
    3. Schwede66 08:00, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
    4. — Maile (talk) 11:21, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I oppose to run "Russia".
    1. The article hasn't been passed, the GA reassessment is still on going, and the article appears to have further issues. (It's also inappropriate for IWD.) BlueMoonset (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
    2. Until the GAR closes. Hog Farm Talk 15:30, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
    3. Until GAR closes and confirms it is a GA. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:39, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
    4. per above.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 23:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

All three per the discussions above. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:44, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

discussion

Coming in late here and did want to explain my reasoning for a different opinion. I actually think running it in the quirky is a good idea. It's completely on point. It's an interesting hook. It's not political. It provides a clue to any reader who hadn't realized why we have a set full of women. valereee (talk) 14:03, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we could slot in 10 hooks in that set if the consensus is to move the Russia hook into it. The set is already filled per the special occasion requests area. I would also like Template:Did you know nominations/Khairunnisa Ash'ari to be added to it since I couldn't promote my own hook and we are in a serious need for more prep builders. SL93 (talk) 02:57, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
No, we shouldn't unbalance the main page like that. The eight hooks there are already pretty sizeable. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Well, then I disagree on editing the set further. SL93 (talk) 15:15, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The IWD set is the next set to be moved to a queue. SL93 (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
We have admins who go for flexibility. I just discovered Ukrainian composer Anna Korsun, and started the article. It's not yet ripe for nominating, but close. She - based in Germany and teaching in the Netherlands, with a composition to be played on 10 March in a charity concert to help Ukraine organized by the State of Hesse - might by a good addition to the IWD set. Unless we want "her" on concert day. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should wait for that hook with such short notice. If we do switch around the set, it really should be with the current passed nominations. It doesn't help matters that the set is the next one to be moved to the queue. SL93 (talk) 15:35, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely agree. Special occasion nominations are supposed to be made at least seven days prior to the occasion, so this is way too late for IWD, and frankly too late for 10 March as well. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:19, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I oblige, but how please can I nominate what I don't know yet? I discovered her today. I guess I better offer "her" to the Germans. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:33, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
You can certainly nominate her article for DYK when you have it ready, but it's too late here for the special occasions. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:38, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I nominated her yesterday. ---Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:27, 5 March 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that the women of the world think that the combination of Russia and quirky is a good idea for time being. If you want a real quirky - and Russian and internationally working - consider Elena Tsallagova, now in the 9 April set. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
I'm not seeing why Russia should be run now, given that the DYK nomination was on the basis of improving it to GA status, and a GAR has already been opened. Hog Farm Talk 15:32, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
Agree, the DYK nomination for Russia should be put on hold until the GAR is resolved. The article was nominated for DYK as it's a GA, so if it loses the GA status, then it isn't eligible. And there seem to be many questions about the article, and the original GA review. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
This discussion has been nice and all, but there are only two filled queues, the next prep set to be moved is the IWD set, and we will soon be moving back to two-a-days. Perhaps we should just end this discussion now since we are running out of time. The entire month is International Women's Month. SL93 (talk) 16:39, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Yulia Tolopa hook

Same as above, signatures would be great:

  • I support to run "Yulia Tolopa" but not on IWD.
  • I support to run "Yulia Tolopa" on IWD.
    1. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:06, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
    2. Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 3 March 2022 (UTC)
    3. (nominator) --GRuban (talk) 23:33, 7 March 2022 (UTC)
  • I oppose to run "Yulia Tolopa".

German DYK

FYI: The German Wikipedia's DYK is Schon gewusst? and has a section for articles about Ukraine, and a special section for those nominated for the Main page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:23, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

update: Prayer for Ukraine will run there tomorrow, pictured. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:02, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

the day went well, with no concerns, today is their second day, - each hook gets 24 hours. It normally takes 6 weeks from nominating to appearing. Culture of Ukraine is preferred there - 3 days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

reminder

We are in Ukraine culture month. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:56, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

our Main page now says: "Russia's invasion of Ukraine is condemned by the United Nations General Assembly." Can we follow? We can at least show culture, no? The Germans managed already, Schon gewusst?, their DYK (lower right corner): de:Wikipedia:Hauptseite/Archiv/5. März 2022 among others. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:02, 5 March 2022 (UTC)

Error in Prep 2

Felt myself drawn to the haunting "ghost" image currently at Prep 2 which I believe is currently linking to the wrong article in bold.

The new article which should be featured is: Ghost of Abraham Lincoln (photograph)

The old article which the draft is currently linked to in error is: Lincoln's ghost

(I think it possibly has to do with Redirect clash!)

Cielquiparle (talk) 15:18, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

 Fixed Looks like there'd been some page moves/changes in redirects with Ghost of Abraham Lincoln and Ghost of Abraham Lincoln (photograph), so have fixed the link in prep 2 to point to the article about the photo. And have updated the DYK credits in the prep too. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:25, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I put my DYK article at the wrong date, can I just move it or will I break something?

I created NewsFront (website) on March 7, based on stuff in my Sandbox. But I messed up the DYK nomination so now it is listed as created March 10. Sorry. HouseOfChange (talk) 07:22, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I moved it for you in this diff, it won't break anything. DanCherek (talk) 07:26, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

thanks!!! HouseOfChange (talk) 08:00, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Hooks that I can't promote

I'm one of the few prep builders and I can't promote these hooks. I'm hoping that someone or some people can work on promoting these. Please help build preps as well. Theleekycauldron is feeling a bit out of DYK lately and I am also at least in regard to building preps. If we stop and no one picks it up, the whole process crashes and burns. SL93 (talk) 01:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. So, what happened behind the scenes here, is that I started to promote one, but have not done it for so long, that I thought I'd better read the instructions. And when old slow-poke me got to the closing of a template, it seems that Old Lightening Fingers Leek had already taken care of that one, and others. Nice job, you two — Maile (talk) 02:31, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
moral of the story: we'd have a good relief pitcher at the preps if I ever actually stopped winding up my arm ;) also, yes, what he said—thank you :)theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:34, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for trying to give it a go. I appreciate that as well. SL93 (talk) 02:35, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Over 120!

Special:Permalink/1076305479 We are over 120 and this time is to go to 2-a-day. Thingofme (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree, there's also a massive number of not-yet-approved noms coming in. We switch before midnight today? Are there any special date requests that need sorting out before noon tomorrow? —Kusma (talk) 12:50, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
Scratch that, I guess we need to make the change between 0:00 and 12:00 UTC, in either direction. —Kusma (talk) 13:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I think we will need to keep 2-a-day until April Fools Day. Thingofme (talk) 15:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yes, we'll need to change to two per day shortly after midnight. I checked yesterday for special occasion hooks, and didn't see any in the queues or preps, nor were there any waiting in the special occasion section for the current period. (There might be Women's History Month hooks in queue and/or prep, but none of them were marked, and they'll be running in March either way.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:41, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Special occasion: Ides of March

Hi, I've just reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Ides of March Coin and I agree with the nominator (Bruxton) that it would make an excellent special occasion hook for 15 March. I think the right slot is Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2, which has already been filled. If possible could someone take a look to see if this can be swapped in and run? Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 15:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

With a move to 2-a-day imminent, I think this can be done without swapping. —Kusma (talk) 15:19, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
And I agree that this is a good special occasion. —Kusma (talk) 15:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)
I think now needs to go to Prep 6 or Prep 7. @Theleekycauldron, @Kavyansh.Singh: do you think you could fit this in somehow? —Kusma (talk) 09:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
@Kusma: done :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:08, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_184&oldid=1137862915"