Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 194

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 190 ← Archive 192 Archive 193 Archive 194 Archive 195 Archive 196 → Archive 198

Holding area for 25 July

RESOLVED
Closed

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.

There seems to be 6 DYK nominations listed as being held for 25 July- that seems like way to many articles about similar topics to be listed on one day. I don't see any consensus to have so many similar articles listed together. A couple is fine (as we are doing for e.g. US Independence Day on 4 July), but 6 is too many. Also, a side note is that {{Did you know nominations/Quintana Square}} doesn't look to actually have an approved tick on it, so shouldn't be in WP:DYKNA at all. Pinging Evrik as they created all the articles being held for that date. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:16, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

That not-yet-approved Quintana article was moved to the approved page by @Evrik, too. Evrik, 1. please do not move your own articles into holding areas. Instead ask your reviewer or a prep builder or anyone else to do so. 2. please do not move to the holding area articles that haven't yet been moved by Wugbot into the approved articles page. Valereee (talk) 12:59, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Quintana Square has been removed from the "approved page". I did ask someone to move the articles, but when it didn't happen, I moved them myself. My apologies. --evrik (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I've long been a critic of date hooks outside exceptional circumstances (the biggest holidays and the biggest connections). This seems like a good demonstration of the problem. I'm disappointed but not surprised to hear 'nominators moving their own articles to date areas' is still a major concern. In my more "hard-to-action crackpot ideas" corner, I'd like to enforce only requesting date hooks if you have enough experience with prep building to know how demanding they are -- dates for preps and queues are so subject to change on so little notice. (This goes approximately quintuple for the occasional "run this at a specific timeslot" demands.) This is not practicable for a few reasons, but it'd be nice if people knew both ends of the deal. Vaticidalprophet 16:34, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
  • The only one I'd really like to see run on that day is the triple involving the Feast of Saint James. July 25 is also the Galician National Day. All the articles, and there are eight in all, three still pending approval, are related to Galicia, Santiago de Compostela, or Saint James in one way or another. I have no issue with themed sets. I think there is no harm in running them together. --evrik (talk) 17:36, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with running a themed set, but I'm a little leery of running one with a religious theme. I certainly wouldn't want it to be a frequent occurrence. Valereee (talk) 17:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind a themed set for the beginning of Ramadan or the like; it seems like a way to demonstrate the breadth of our quality coverage. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 01:38, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind a themed set for Ramadan, either. My concern is more that we could end up with a themed set for every Catholic feast day. Valereee (talk) 13:15, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm not sure if we even have consensus to run this set in the first place. Is there actually consensus to do so or are we just giving Evrik a one-time concession? The discussion isn't very clear. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:34, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Not all of them are religious, if I could make National Day of Galicia a GA in time I would ...
Approved
Pending

I liked the theme because it wasn't US centric. --evrik (talk) 18:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

I like that about it, too, and I think it's very clever and obviously represents a ton of excellent work. I don't object to something like this once in a while, I'm just concerned about setting a precedent. Which I guess is something we could discuss if that actually happens. Valereee (talk) 13:30, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Valereee. --evrik (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with the OP. We shouldn't run a themed set on that date, it's not a major exceptional day and we don't want to make this routine.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
  • We don't have a policy on themed sets do we? Is there any harm? --evrik (talk) 15:09, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  • DYK sets are meant to be balanced, which is why we set limits on US hooks, number of biographies etc. We shouldn't just be making whole sets for one theme just because someone thinks it's a nice idea. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:18, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
    I've said it before, but it's pretty easy to get hooks on lots of different topics connected by one theme. Our restrictions on bios and US article hooks are arbitrary based on how many noms for those we get (and so how easy it would be, without thinking, to have set after set full of them) - the main restriction is to not put hooks that themselves are similar next to each other. Kingsif (talk) 23:57, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
  • If people want to run whole sets dedicated to a topic, they should consensus here to do so. Rather than just nominating loads of articles for the same date and then trying to justify it, like what is being done here. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
The rules don't say that, but I don't have a problem with consensus, especially since this is not US centric. --evrik (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Indeed - get consensus first. And that hasn't happened in this case. Johnbod (talk) 17:07, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Consensus is great. First I wanted to get the set done. The point may be moot as not all the articles. Haven't been approved. Joseph2302 posted about this before I had the articles done. So now that the subject has bene broached, I'll ask directly: July 25 is the Feast of Saint James and the Galician National Day. Can we run a themed set? --evrik (talk) 19:12, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
    Would you be willing to propose this as your only such set? I'd be willing to allow no more than one from any single editor as a way to make sure this doesn't become routine. Valereee (talk) 21:54, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Sure. --evrik (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Frankly we should probably always have consensus first before we do themed sets. I've never been a fan of promoters making themed sets without consensus to do so, or just making/suggesting one and asking for articles immediately instead of first asking if people even want such a set. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:16, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I loathe proposing new rules. Has this really been an issue? Do we need a guideline? --evrik (talk) 15:44, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
    I don't think we necessarily need formal policy, just a general understanding that themed sets are going to inevitably require discussion anyway so we might as well get the discussion out of the way before someone has gone to all this work. Themed sets aren't really something someone unfamiliar with DYK is likely to try to attempt, so a 'general understanding' is probably good enough. Valereee (talk) 15:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
    Not necessarily a major issue, but there have been concerns before about themed sets being made without consensus to do so, or sometimes only being done so because the one requesting them were essentially, for lack of a better term, "begging" for one to happen. Some themed sets like Christmas already have de-facto consensus to run yearly so those could probably be exempted, but other cases like, for example the Fourth of July, need at the very least discussion beforehand. I'm also not a fan of such discussions happening in relatively short notice, like maybe a week or two before the event actually happens. For such cases, I'd suggest at least a month beforehand, not just to see if there's actually interest or consensus for such a set, but also so that if there's consensus for one, there's time and incentive for editors to create/expand articles to fill it out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:00, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
It's fairly likely that we'll have two-per-day at that point, so distributing the hooks across two sets is a possibility. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
That's still 8 hooks over 2 sets, which is 4 per set (or 50% of each set). That's way too many- 2 per set is acceptable, anything else is excessive. Notwithstanding the fact that it's not even a well-known date that's being requested anyway. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:18, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
That it is not a well-known date actually makes it more appealing for me. Did you know it is the National Day of Galicia today? No, I didn't. —Kusma (talk) 14:35, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Same. Valereee (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
It's not well knowm like say April Fool's day, but St James Day (also the National Day of Galicia) it's still a thing. --evrik (talk) 00:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm reading a bit of opposition to running it on 25 July, but since the book now has the approved tick, should I move it to the holding area and allow promoter discretion determine when it runs? ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:34, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
@Pbritti: It's okay to move Template:Did you know nominations/Quintana Square from here: Template_talk:Did_you_know/Approved#Articles_created/expanded_on_June_7 to here Template_talk:Did_you_know/Approved#Special_occasion_holding_area. --evrik (talk) 15:43, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
@Evrik: That second link is to this discussion. I think you mean the approve page's holding area. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:53, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Fixed it, thanks. --evrik (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
 Done. ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:18, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

The next time Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 empties, the hooks on that day should run on July 25. There are seven approved hooks covering ten articles. I haven't had the mental energy to focus on the eighth hook. I still hope to finish it. --evrik (talk) 06:32, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

I've checked all seven of the approved hooks, and I was able to promote only one right away. I've posted comments or questions on the other six. I'm not sure if these will be ready for Prep 1. Edge3 (talk) 17:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Currently, the hook for Way of the Lighthouses is at the top of Prep7. That could be moved into the newly opened slot in Prep4. Thoughts? --evrik (talk) 18:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

That would work for me, provided there's adequate sourcing for it. Is there a specific source you have in mind that backs this up? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 18:29, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  • There are a bunch. This is one, "the whitish light of the "lantern" existing at the top of the Clock Tower or "Berenguela" is turned on and that only remains lit during the Holy Years, as a symbolic "spiritual" guide for all the pilgrims who arrive in Holy Year to Santiago de Compostela." "Xacobeo 2021 and 2022". Mundiplus. 2020-03-21.--evrik (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
    • I have moved the Lighthouses hook to Prep 4 where it belongs; it should never have been promoted elsewhere once it was approved for July 25. The Spanish footballer, the only non-special-occasion hook that was in that set, is now in Prep 5. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @BlueMoonset: I was okay with the Spanish footballer, keeping on the spirit of the Women's football effort. If someone wants to change the first hook to the one has four hooks including the "tower" (which then opens a slot) I think its okay to highlight the footballer, but I don't want to throw sand in the vaseline. --evrik (talk) 22:37, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

What's tomorrow?

Queue 4 is all about churches and religious stuff. Jacobean Holy Year is mentioned in two different hooks. I assume this is in celebration of some sort of religious day, but I have no clue what and it just leaves me mystified. This seems contrary to WP:DYKSG#C2. RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Look above, Feast of Saint James. --evrik (talk) 01:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @RoySmith: welcome to the craziness! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:05, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
    This is really confusing. The lead hook talks about "when the Feast of Saint James falls on a Sunday", but we're going to run that on a Monday/Tuesday? RoySmith (talk) 01:09, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
    July 25 is the feast day. --evrik (talk) 01:10, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
    Ah. RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
    If we're lucky, our readership will eat it up. RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
    It would make a good item in Wikipedia:Did you know/Monthly wrap. --evrik (talk) 03:39, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  • i am a little concerned that the quirky hook in this set is presented in wikivoice. the lead of the article on queen lupa makes it clear that the character is part of galician mythology, but the hook appears to present the myth as fact. other hooks in the set make the distinction between legend and reality, so i am not sure if we are making an exception here simply because it is the quirky hook. dying (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Was there ever a consensus for this?

There's a section below, #Proposal: Themed sets, in which we're discussing how we want to do things in the future. I'm going to be WP:BOLD and close this section because I think talking about the future is more productive than continuing to haggle about what happened in the past. I'll summarize this part as "Not everybody agrees that we followed the best process on this one". And also noting that I'm remembering to manually sign this time because this particular widget requires it. RoySmith (talk) 20:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

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


I'm surprised that this has been run today, given that there didn't appear to be any consensus to run this, and clear objections, including about this being against WP:DYKSG#C2. Looking at the talk, there seems to be a clear consensus against doing this, and not at all a consensus from this community to do this. Allowing date requests for all hooks to be of one type will be a slippery slope, because know we've let it happen once, DYK has made itself effectively powerless to stop other requests for whole sets on a date. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Looking at the talk, there seems to be a clear consensus against doing this, and not at all a consensus from this community to do this -- I agree, though the upside is I'm less concerned about the slippery slope, because it's very clear to me we are not doing this again. Vaticidalprophet 11:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Says who? Right now we're doing a daily project on women's soccer - just because. There is no guideline against doing a special set. --evrik (talk) 14:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Another concern I had with this set is that allowing this given the circumstances would seem unfair to other editors. Even if it was intended to be a one-time concession, the fact that it was granted now but was not granted to previous editors and likely never will be granted again honestly just rubs me the wrong way. I've never been a fan of special treatment on DYK regardless of the person in question and I don't think it's fair that this particular request was granted without much discussion when others who have had similar requests over the years needed explicit consensus for their set requests. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
There was indeed seemingly no consensus to do this set at all. In fact I had brought this up multiple times, but several editors said it was no harm or this was a one-time thing as a concession to Evrik, to paraphrase Valereee's comment from July 5. It was more of "let's tolerate this set" rather than "let's do this set", which could be argued to be borderline or at best weak consensus. We probably should have discussions for future scenarios and I don't understand why we allowed this set to happen without explicit consensus, instead of first starting a discussion to see if there is consensus or at least interest. Now in the interest of transparency I'm not against the idea of a Feast of Saint James set per se as long as there was consensus to do it, my main concern was that the set was done without explicit consensus to approve the proposal. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
It is a much more wiki-like process to do this without any explicit consensus (and there was no explicit consensus against; one confounding issue is that people expected us to be on 2/day so not all of the hooks would be in one set), just with nobody reverting the prep builders who put this in. I am very much for prep builder discretion and against additional rules. People who don't like the preps we have should go and make better preps, not more rules. —Kusma (talk) 11:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree pretty emphatically in most cases with "rules about prep building don't help prep building". (My current bugbear is "you can never ever have more than 50% of sets have bio images, even though there are way more bio than non-bio images and way more non-bio than bio quirkies".) Date hooks have always been a mess, though -- people object to "missing them" earthshatteringly more than they object to just about anything else. Even vague suggestions of them frequently get taken as gospels (Urine deflector, the best-by-a-huge-massive-lead hook of July 2021, which beat the TFA, got me castigated for promoting it before the stats came in because someone made a non-binding suggestion it might be held for April Fools nine months later). Simultaneously, they're a huge pain from a prepbuilding POV, because they demand constant last-minute changes and disrupt existing sets. I am dead serious when I propose stuff like "date hooks should have a minimum number of preps built before you suggest them" or "no date hooks for anything but -5 or -0 anniversaries". Vaticidalprophet 12:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
People who don't like the preps we have should go and make better preps, not more rules. What he said. RoySmith (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm more concerned that the nominator moved many of these into that set to SOHA themselves. That shouldn't be happening. Valereee (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  • That's not true. --evrik (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Regardless if it's a special occasion or not, nominators promoting their own hooks isn't allowed right? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  • It didn't happen. --evrik (talk) 14:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
    You said above I did ask someone to move the articles, but when it didn't happen, I moved them myself. Valereee (talk) 15:13, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@Evrik didn't move the hooks into the set himself, but rather asked for independent promoters, including myself, to assist. Edge3 (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I did move some of the approved hooks to the holding area. That I did do. --evrik (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Other prep-builders, or the queuer, could have objected and moved things around. I didn't hear any concerns directed towards me. Edge3 (talk) 15:23, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Given that there were concerns expressed in the above discussion, these probably should have been taken into account before any promotions were done in the first place. I didn't comment earlier as I was unsure if there was even consensus to do the set in the first place (I had asked repeatedly and there were no clear responses given), and when I saw the promotions were being done I was under the impression they had already been approved despite the objections. It was only when Joseph brought it up again earlier when I realized that maybe this whole things was at best out of process.
Come to think of it, I think one major issue with this whole thing was a lack of communication. There was a lack of communication on whether or not there was even consensus to do the set in the first place, and there was a lack of communication on whether or not the objections expressed still held. In any case, it's all water under the bridge now as the set has already run. What we should learn from this experience is how to ensure that something similar won't happen again. and how do we move on from this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think anyone is necessarily objecting to anything you did, @Edge3. If you get a future request to build a themed set, it's probably best to open a talk section just to let others know. Valereee (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
There was already a discussion here, and I didn't feel a need to start a new discussion when there was no clear consensus against a themed set. I think WP:BOLD applies here. We don't need to wait for clear consensus before trying a new idea; similarly, there's nothing stopping another editor from reverting a BOLD move. Edge3 (talk) 17:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Not arguing with you. Valereee (talk) 17:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
That's the best way, ask someone else to move. That shows at least one other person is on board. Valereee (talk) 15:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@Joseph2302 [now that?] we've let it happen once, DYK has made itself effectively powerless to stop other requests for whole sets on a date. We're not bound to repeat mistakes just because we made them once. "I reserve the right to be smarter today than I was yesterday".[1] RoySmith (talk) 13:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I disagree, too, that we've set a precedent. I do think people who want to build a themed set ought to get consensus on that first. Valereee (talk) 14:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
We annually do a set on April Fool's Day, and if you look below, someone is asking about. "Public Domain Day (1 January) 2024: Steamboat Willie" Maybe we need to clarify the process? --evrik (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Generally speaking, we do tend to have discussions first for special sets, to determine if there is even a consensus to do such a set. Such sets are never done unilaterally, and even established sets like April Fools, Christmas, etc. have years of consensus behind them, they weren't done unilaterally. The Saint James set is different because, from my reading, there was no actual consensus to even run such a set on that date. I'm aware that Valereee gave permission by saying "I'd be willing to allow no more than one from any single editor as a way to make sure this doesn't become routine.", but that was one editor's opinion and not actual consensus. Multiple editors including Joseph, Amakuru, and Johnbod objected to the set. At the very least, there didn't seem to be consensus at all approving the set. If this were an AFD it would have been a "no consensus" rather than either a Keep or a Delete. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Clarify the process then. For the few who objected, I think the set was well received by the community as a whole. --evrik (talk) 15:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Reading the discussion, "the set was well-received by the community as a whole" does not seem to be an accurate reading of what happened. As far as I can tell, what happened was not enthusiasm or a good reception, but rather more of a case of "go along with it". The reception from what I'm reading (as in the discussion, I'm not talking about views) was probably lukewarm at best and very few editors actually expressed explicit approval for it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I think a shortage of active DYK admins played a role. The prep was moved to queue at 00:49 on 24 July 2023, the day before it was due to run and a question asked on this page at 01:00, which was a bit late to discuss, agree and implement changes to the queue. TSventon (talk) 15:30, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, indeed. I've mentioned this before; having the queue depth get so low that hooksets run the same day they get promoted severely cuts into the time for final review. That's one of the reasons I think WP:DYKROTATE needs to take into account the number of filled queues. RoySmith (talk) 15:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Evrik, you said above that you loathe proposing new rules, and I replied I don't think we necessarily need formal policy, just a general understanding that themed sets are going to inevitably require discussion anyway so we might as well get the discussion out of the way before someone has gone to all this work. I'm not sure how we walk the line between not making a rule but clarifying expectations? Valereee (talk) 15:49, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure we can clarify our existing rukes to establish some sort of guidance or expectation. --evrik (talk) 17:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not trying to be a dick, here, but you now do believe we need a rule? Valereee (talk) 17:21, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
No, we should rewrite this part of the guidelines, Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Date_requests where we talk about, "DYK special occasion projects." --evrik (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I feel like that means we need to define "DYK special occasion project"? Valereee (talk) 17:41, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
There is no explanation. We could rewrite the whole section and use that opportunity to better define the whole subject --evrik (talk) 17:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Valereee, evrik is being rather disingenuous here. They have previously intimated that they were never particularly invested in this set running, but in fact, the opposite is true. They denied moving their own noms to prep—twice—which was untrue, as you showed, but further, they closed the very discussion that might have established a consensus either way, even closing it as "Resolved" when it was clearly nowhere near resolution. This indicates either deliberate disruption with the aim of forcing their set through, or they do not understand basic Wikipedia concepts such as WP:CON (and, yes, the spirit of WP:INVOLVED applies to most discussions also, absolutely correctly when it involves anything to do with the main page).
If that discussion had been allowed to run, Joseph2302 wouldn't have had to question it now, and we wouldn't look like the bunch of religious obsessives we doubtless look to the rest of the world for promoting a minor saint of one religion in one region of a single European country. Talk about meta. If it was suggested that we run a set on the Maguzanci priesthood in Burkina Faso, it would be laughed out of town (although ironically, this would at least address WP:BIAS: Evrik's claim that to be countering US-centricity is hardly reassuring when it is merely replaced by Eurocentricity) *facepalm* SN54129 17:55, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I closed the discussion once the set had been placed on the front page. I did advocate for the set, but was willing to go with the consensus. I was open about this and was never trying to hide anything. Please stop casting so many aspersions and try AGF. --evrik (talk) 18:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
In fact, I have already assumed good faith by not suggesting that when you closed the above discussion, your failure to sign your closure was an attempt at opaquing responsibility for doing so. SN54129 18:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
To be fair, I've forgotten to sign when using the discussion closer script. It appears to be a definite decision by the developed not to sign the close, but for me it means I often forget and have to go back. Valereee (talk) 18:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
In the old days, I always remembered to sign. These days, there's all sorts of new-fangled widgets (like the one I'm typing in now) which append your signature automagically. Some of them make it obvious they're doing that (like this one). Some append it, but don't tell you that they're doing so. As a result, I'm never quite sure if I need to type a bunch of squiggles any more, and I often forget to do so. So I wouldn't read anything into somebody signing or not signing any particular post. RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee and RoySmith: Precisely my point; I didn't read anything into it, despite it being the kind of ABF that evrik was attempting to allege. If I was assuming bad faith, as suggested, that's where I would have started... SN54129 19:36, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
This entire comment makes no sense, Serial Number 54129. Evrik did not move any hooks to prep; if you believe so, please provide a diff. If you think closing a discussion about a set that is already on the main page is "deliberate disruption with the aim of forcing their set through", I may have to assume that you "do not understand basic [physical] concepts" such as time. If you really think the entire world is obsessing over DYK and what we put on it, I'm afraid you're vastly overestimating our importance to readers. Most people don't even realise that the TFA is an article of very high quality; they think it's just an article selected at random. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
sigh. You misunderstand, of course; ironic that you do not know the difference between DYK and TFA. "Please supply a diff" for your statement 😄 SN54129 19:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I regret to say I don't understand that comment either, but maybe I will someday. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29, Evrik has said they moved hooks to prep. Please read above. Valereee (talk) 20:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Exometeorology

Prep 3: Exometeorology (nom) the hook seems kind of verbose, and I think the image is distracting since it's about a single exoplanet while the hook is about the broader topic of Exometeorology. @Varmint256, Evrik, and Soulbust: RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

  • @RoySmith: suggestions? --evrik (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    • Now lead hook in Prep 5 after special occasion and other moves following changeover from two sets a day to one set a day. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
    Unfortunately, it's easier to take pot shots at what we've got now than to come up with good alternatives :-) I like ALT1 from the original nomination:
    although maybe we could make that even pithier as:
    RoySmith (talk) 02:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Or, if you want to have some fun...
    ALT4: ... that the weather forecast for HD 189733b is Easterly winds at 2000 m/s, with molten glass showers? RoySmith (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @RoySmith: Thanks for letting me know your concerns, and apologies for the delay in responding. I do really like the ALT4 you suggested; I'd be happy with running it, but is there any chance we could run it with the picture too? I was also typing a longer response before I saw your new comment, so here that is too:
I was afraid ALT0 & 2 were a bit wordy, but still want to have a statistic in a final hook to make it interesting. Also, I think ALT1 & 3 might be a bit too short (thanks for suggesting 3, though), but maybe these hooks could work for both our concerns:
  • ALT5: ... that exoweather, such as 2.0 km/s (1.2 mi/s) winds, has been empirically observed in exoplanet atmospheres?
(That could run w/o the image...)
(Source for added solar system stat: https://scijinks.gov/planetary-weather/#:~:text=Neptune's%20winds%20are%20the%20fastest,reaching%201%2C600%20miles%20per%20hour!) Or maybe the shorter version...
Any instances of "exoweather phenomena" could just be replaced with "weather", as exoweather is an informal term (albeit from one of the article's sources). I would prefer to keep the picture and statistic in the hook out of respect to the reviewer who suggested the image and the other reviewers who discussed and refined the statistic with me.
ALT4 includes 2 interesting facts and could run with the image too, so again, I'd be happy with running that (even if the picture can't be included). Please continue to let me know how you would like to proceed if the hooks I suggested do not work. Varmint256 (talk) 04:02, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Is there any reason why we can't go with ALT3? Yes it's short but it's also snappy and a surprising fact, especially to people who may not be so familiar with exoplanets. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:21, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
ALT3 is fantastic (and can run with the image). Strongly recommend it. Definitely would be a killer statswise. Vaticidalprophet 06:25, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
So how would we word the image?
ALT3a: ... that exoplanets (HD 189733b pictured) have weather? RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
There's no reason we can't go with ALT3, I just don't think the hook only needs to be 4 words long. Don't get me wrong, the fact that exoplanets have weather is interesting to the average reader, but hearing that an exoplanet has confirmed winds faster than anything in the solar system - or another unusual fact like that - might be more interesting. However, I realize I'm in the minority when it comes to ALT3, and I do see the value in having a short yet unexpected hook too. Honestly, I'd just be happy to get the article on DYK!
For the picture alongside the hook, ALT3a would definitely work to keep the hook brief, but there's no context for why HD 189733b specifically is the image. If we use that hook, could we expand the image caption to describe that the exoplanet has been observed to have weather phenomena? Maybe "Artist's concept of HD 189733b, an exoplanet with observed wind speeds of 2.0 km/s (1.2 mi/s)." or something that states its weather has been empirically/telescopically observed.
Again, thank you everyone for your input! Varmint256 (talk) 17:01, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I’d go with ALT4. Schwede66 17:10, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I see this got promoted to a queue without being resolved. @Aoidh: I've gone ahead any updated the queue to use ALT4; I hope that's OK with you (and everybody else), but feel free to override that if you like. RoySmith (talk) 01:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I was working through checking everything and making notes and literally just thought to myself "I hadn't checked WT:DYK first, let me see if there's anything there about this set" and as I loaded this talk page saw your ping notification. I'm happy to made any adjustments as needed, I just saw only 1 set and wanted to jump on that. @RoySmith: are you okay with ALT4? - Aoidh (talk) 01:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
The hook currently in the set looks like a mix of ALT3a and ALT4, saying there's weather and giving this one planet as an example. If the verbosity is the issue then perhaps such as eastward winds blowing at speeds of 2 km/s (1.2 mi/s) around HD 189733 b (pictured) could be simplified to such as 2 km/s (1.2 mi/s) winds blowing around HD 189733 b (pictured)? I don't think the eastward part is particularly necessary, for example. - Aoidh (talk) 01:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Nevermind, I just saw that you updated it with ALT4, no issues with that from me. - Aoidh (talk) 01:43, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @RoySmith:Thanks for updating the hook! There's just one thing - could we change "Easterly" to "Eastward" to be accurate about the wind direction? Easterly winds blow from the east, not towards the east. Just a small nitpick from the meteorologist in me. I'm excited to see the hook on the main page! Varmint256 (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
    Hmmm. Wouldn't it then be more accurate to just call it a Westerly? I'm not a meteorologist, but I am both a sailor and a pilot, so I do spend a lot of time thinking about wind :-) RoySmith (talk) 21:11, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that would be great too! Thanks! Varmint256 (talk) 00:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Done. RoySmith (talk) 00:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Damn! Came all the way here to learn why the hook was calling it a westerly wind when there was no "westerly" mentioned in the article (tbf the quotation marks threw me off and I was looking for a direct quote). :3 F4U (they/it) 00:31, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I could see how that could be confusing to people. I've added an explanatory link to the article RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Toroidal solenoid

Queue 7: Toroidal solenoid (nom)

@Maury Markowitz, Srnec, and Vaticidalprophet: The hook reads ...that the toroidal solenoid was the first fusion-power device to be patented? but I don't see in the article where this is cited? I see the sentence about it in the lede with a note about a different patent that wasn't granted, but I don't see a source for it. Also as an aside I'm not a fan of phrasings like This leads to an interesting possibility and It was at this point that a curious bit of legality comes into the events for MOS:EDITORIAL reasons; the article shouldn't tell readers what they should find interesting or curious. - Aoidh (talk) 13:43, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

"The program was approved in November, and the patent was assigned to the Ministry by the end of the year." Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: That doesn't verify that it was the first such patent, however. - Aoidh (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Does now. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh: My mistake. I read the first few pages of Hendry and Lawson, the source cited in the nom (which seemed to verify it), without checking to see that the fact was verified in the article. I saw it in the lead and just assumed it was footnoted elsewhere. The citation added now is RS (from ITER) and does verify the specific claim, stating that the first patent for a "fusion reactor" was filed in 1946 in the UK (Thomson and Blackman). Srnec (talk) 01:36, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Wool Products Labeling Act

Queue 1: Wool Products Labeling Act (nom) @Evrik @RAJIVVASUDEV @Soman The article doesn't say anything about "virgin wool". Also, this doesn't seem interesting, a point which I see was brought up and argued about in the nomination. RoySmith (talk) 13:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

  • I saw it on page 42 of this source. --evrik (talk) 14:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks, but that talks about "shoddy" vs "virgin wool", and refers to a previous 1902 bill. RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I did my best checking that source. Not sure what else to do. --evrik (talk) 15:14, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith, @Evrik @SomanPlease see revised, the missing definition is added. Virgin wool, according to the law, is defined as wool that has not undergone any form of processing. Consequently, it is considered improper to classify wool derived from knitting clippings or broken yarns as "virgin wool.". You can consider "* ALT4...that there is a law that has a history of addressing the challenges consumers face when trying to purchase an "all-wool" undergarment? Source: https://www.ftc.gov/system/files/documents/public_statements/674191/194607_freer_the_wool_products_labeling_act_of_1939.pdf. In my opinion, ALT4 appears to be more intriguing. Thanks RV (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I can't change a queue, but I am okay with Alt4. --evrik (talk) 15:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I'm satisfied that we've established WP:V for the hook. And I have no objection if somebody wants to swap the current hook for ALT4. RoySmith (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
ALT4 doesn't rest on an independent source, the government isn't a secondary source for the efficacy of laws passed by the government. At least, we couldn't say so in wikivoice. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
It also occurs to me that this might be another WP:DYKSG#C2 situation. If we're talking about laws, should the hook tell people which country the law applies to? RoySmith (talk) 19:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
given that the restrictions of the law aren't really the point of the hook, I could take it or leave it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
And just to toss out one crazy idea, and then I promise I'll behave myself:
  • ALT5: ... that 15 USC 68 contains provisions to prevent pulling the wool over consumers' eyes? RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
this one i like :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:50, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Quirky? RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
you know it! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for tying up loose ends. RV (talk) 03:56, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Better image for Queue 1?

The image of Radu Golescu is poor quality. Either of Charles F. Gumm Jr. or Baljuna Covenant would make a better lead hook, with good images. The later is the best image of the entire set, and I think it's a little disingenuous to bury a FA in the quirky slot. RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

As neither the Charles F. Gumm Jr. nor Baljuna Covenant nominations included an image, they don't qualify for a lead slot, since any image would need to be reviewed and these weren't; prep builders work with what they're given. To call it "disingenuous" to "bury" an FA in the quirky slot is harsh; I can easily understand a prep builder not noticing that Baljuna Covenant (which qualified by being listed as a GA) had become an FA. It is unusual (unprecedented?) to have an FA at DYK; indeed, as the article lost its GA status upon becoming an FA, technically it might not qualify for DYK any more, though I'd be in favor of an IAR exception if that were the case. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:52, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I knew it was an FA and intentionally placed it in the quirky slot so it'd be more prominent than if it were buried somewhere in the middle, though I was divided between it and second, and probably it should go second now. (In the set I originally built there was significant competition for that slot, but things have been moved around such that it should be prioritized for it now.) This is not the first FA to run DYK, so precedent exists for it as a Thing-That-Happens. Vaticidalprophet 13:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
It would indeed be silly to say a FA doesn't qualify for DYK under the GA rule, and it's worth noting how impressive it is that a new article would pass FA right out of the gate. So, yeah, I'm all for IAR on that one.
But, my real point is that the Radu image is not very good. And if we're going to IAR Baljuna, why not also IAR the image reivews. Let's not (ahem) paint ourselves into a rules corner and run a substandard image. RoySmith (talk) 13:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
As nominator of Baljuna, I initially nominated with the traditional image of Genghis Khan (the one at the top of his page), before reasoning the hook probably didn't need it. Honestly, I'm fine with the quirky slot, even if I do think ALT0 is the quirkiest of the three (plus a good proportion of my DYK hooks already center around historians having no idea what/where/when stuff was). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:40, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm not saying (or at least I'm not intending to say) we need to run the Baljuna image. But, we really should find something better somewhere for the top slot. If people don't want to rearrange what we've got now in this hookset, then we can look elsewhere. RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Maybe swap in the Jamie Kalven hook from Prep 7? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:01, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Or promote the Thomas Carlyle nomination (hook ALT3, which is short, sweet and verifiable) RoySmith? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:09, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I do recall there being an FA at DYK not too long ago? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:12, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there's nothing in the rules against former FAs/TFAs from featuring on DYK, as long as their appearance on DYK is at least a year after the TFA appearance. What could happen is an article was an FA (even a TFA), delisted, then improved to GA status, which would qualify it for DYK as long as it's not been featured at DYK before. Our rules don't say anything about an article that at one point lost GA status then regaining it is ineligible for DYK the second time, and I assume if anyone tried to game the system using that loophole it would be discussed on an case-to-case basis. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Queue 1 reshuffling

I've reshuffled queue 1 to incorporate the ideas from various threads above. Namely, moved Baljuna Covenant to the top so we could use its better image, and Wool Products Labeling Act to the quirky slot. RoySmith (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

Well done. BorgQueen (talk) 14:23, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith can you change the caption? I now think that "Temüjin, portrayed as Genghis Khan" sort of suggests that he's putting on a pose, like an actor in a play or something. Just "Genghis Khan" works better, to my mind at least. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:00, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Done. RoySmith (talk) 16:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK Page indexing

Recently, some editors have been going back into the depths of the DYK pages to find lost nuggets. Looking at {{DYKT}}, specifically {{DYKT|talk}}, I was wondering if we couldn't add a categorization feature so some of our administrative pages might load to their own category under Category:Wikipedia Did you know administration. I'm pinging @John Cline: on this simply because of the work done on the template. Thoughts? --evrik (talk) 15:40, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Follow-up: a centralized copy of the rules

Per an above conversation with @Art LaPella, Schwede66, and RoySmith, I've finished creating my finished copy of the DYK guidelines, which puts all of the rules from DYK's far-flung reaches into a simple, accessible, paragraph format. I've also updated the reviewer instructions and admin instructions to be far more user-friendly based on the proposed guideline copy, and created centralized prep builder instructions.

Other than centralizing our rules, which are in quite a few places and not very easy to find, putting the pages in this format makes the anchoring very stable. Supplementary guideline links tend to break as the SGs get shuffled and changed over time – with WP: redirects (I wanted a pseudo DYK: namespace but that's not gonna happen), that won't be the case.

The way I hope to implement this is by putting the complete almanac at Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, summarizing the few key points at Wikipedia:Did you know (possibly leaving WP:DYKCRIT mostly intact, except for the shortcut itself), and then updating the instructions pages. DYKSG will be repointed to the main guidelines page, where we'll preserve some of the more notable anchors (in particular, C6). Before we get to that, if anyone has any suggestions for improvement, I would love to hear them :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:24, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Hooks should follow the same basic format. When I read that, I asked myself: the same basic format as what? Hence my attempt to rephrase it. Schwede66 19:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, so how about Hooks should follow a standard format? Probably not a "must", because some sillier hooks will mess with formatting as part of the bit :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:07, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that would be better. Thanks! Schwede66 19:44, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I like this. --evrik (talk) 21:29, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
One thing: I'm pretty sure that the DYK rules specify 1500 characters of prose, not bytes. That may need to be fixed in the draft. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:46, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
they're used interchangeably – DYKcheck uses bytes, not characters. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:53, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
They shouldn't be. DYKcheck says it counts characters, and we should consistently be using characters at DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
ah, it's the prosesize gadget that says it counts bytes. I don't think there's a real difference, since DYKcheck relies on prosesize, but I'll make the adjustments. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Shubinator, the author of DYKcheck, will know for sure, but there should be differences between characters and bytes, as accented characters (for example) should only count as one character, though many require more than one byte. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Curious - the code is using the length property, and from online documentation, length returns UTF-16 code points, and not number of characters. Shubinator (talk) 03:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Nerdy tech tangent
Ugh. Ways of indicating the length of unicode strings fall into two broad categories: those that depend on the encoding, and those that don't. For most things of interest to humans, the later is what you want. Bytes and code units are both encoding-dependent. Characters are encoding-independent. Our rules should talk about characters.
The number of code units and the number of characters will be equal (or nearly so) for almost any articles of interest to DYK, since we're working with english language text. If DYKcheck is returning length in code units, that's technically wrong, but unlikely to cause any practical problems for us.
Some articles will contain the occasional accented letter or special character which might make code unit count differ from character count, but it's unlikely this will be a large enough discrepancy to matter. The most likely place I could see where the two might differ significantly would be quoting a large block of non-latin text, but that would typically be done in a {{blockquote}} template, so wouldn't count anyway. Maybe some highly technical articles with lots of display math or SMILES formulae?
PS: I believe Shubinator's comment that length returns UTF-16 code points is incorrect. My javascript fu is weak, but it appears from the cited mdn page that length() returns code units, not code points, which aren't the same thing; there are Unicode code points which take multiple UTF-16 code units to encode. In the perverse world of Unicode, there can be strings where the number of bytes, number of code units, number of code points, and number of characters are all different. RoySmith (talk) 16:35, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
As somebody who has lived through the i18n wars, yeah, we should be talking about characters, not bytes. If you get sloppy about stuff like this it can really codepoint you in the butt. RoySmith (talk) 16:53, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
What I'd like most is a short paragraph at the beginning for lost beginners, like this: To add a Did You Know item, first you need a qualifying article and a qualifying hook. And either you or someone else needs to nominate it (nomination instructions should be linked or included from somewhere in your system.) Art LaPella (talk) 05:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@Art LaPella: that sounds like the perfect thing to go on the main project page – and maybe we'll have a banner at the top of the guidelines saying "ready to nominate your first article? click here!" theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Sounds great! Art LaPella (talk) 05:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Rephrase to something like "Ready to first start helping here? Click this." "Your first article" and nominating it are meaningless, without first explaining that a new article is required. Even if a beginner has noticed DYK on the Main Page, he will think it consists of hooks. And he won't know they're called hooks. Art LaPella (talk) 13:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I have a query about the following in the hook section: The eleven characters in a (pictured) tag do count, but any modifying text does not. Shouldn't that be the other way around: using (pictured) doesn't count (nor does the extra space needed before it, so it's 11 characters that are omitted from the count), but any extra text beyond that does (if it indeed does)? I realize that WP:DYKSG#E5 lists this one as "lacking consensus", but ever since I came on board over a decade ago, (pictured) has been excluded from the hook count. Hasn't the consensus been established, at least for the standard version? (Do we want to penalize lead hooks for length, or ensure that they don't run longer than non-lead hooks?) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:56, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: oh, absolutely, my bad! Yeah, the "rules lacking consensus bit" is still a fair bit out of step with standard practice. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:58, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Nice work! There are a couple of points I want to query:
  • "excessively sensational or gratuitous" is an especially subjective idea that has caused grief before and frankly will again -- something like "use your better judgement in extreme cases and start discussions when you're unsure" seems to be a more careful way to put it without implying too strongly what very different peoples' judgement will be, and anything likely to fall under this should be discussed rather than unilaterally ruled
  • it might be worth explicitly saying "some people use checklists in reviews but this is not mandatory", both to note that it's popular to people who might appreciate knowing it exists, and to explicitly clarify that you don't have to and reviews that don't use them are fully valid
  • I wonder about over-interpretation of "editors active in arbitration areas" -- this could be used for some pretty painful wikilawyering
Otherwise, a great reflection of current practice. I have many more thoughts on it, but they're really thoughts about the edge cases of what constitutes current-practice. Good primer. Vaticidalprophet 06:00, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback, Vaticidalprophet! Points in response:
  • Tricky. Very very tricky. NOTCENSORED still technically plays policy king, and on top of that, the current wording was pretty much set by RfC a few years back. DYK has never really gotten its act together on offensive content – for all of the things The C of E spawned, a broad consensus on offensive content on the Main Page was unfortunately not one of them.
  • I do want to maintain a high wall of separation between the guidelines and the instructions – that'd be good for the proposed reviewer instructions, but it becomes awkward and disjointed when we start to mix how-to advice and actual policy.
  • I have no idea where that came from in the original SGs – it hasn't been a problem yet (in fact, I think that might actually help us in a few places), but it certainly has the potential to become an issue.
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Query #1 is gesturing at that, yes. I am much more pro-strong-interpretation-of-NOTCENSORED than you (I don't think "can we run this unionist hook on a day where extremist unionists celebrate murdering Irish people" is a NOTCENSORED issue -- I think it's a very different kind of problem). I think the current wording scans a little too "evidently written by someone who takes the anti-NOTCENSORED" stance. Having said that, if it came from an RfC with diversity of opinions, that's fine. Vaticidalprophet 06:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, in the interest of full disclosure – here's the RfC. The operative clause is lifted from the RfC; its explanation is not, and that's where my personal viewpoint might've snuck in. I think it does stay in-bounds, but open to other suggestions on how to word that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
The explanation is...a bit much, I think. The operative clause is worthwhile and (as noted) broadly agreed with, even by me :) I think the literal wording of the RfC that "there is consensus that DYK hooks should not be excessively sensational or gratuitous" is sufficiently clear to get across the cases almost anyone can agree are too much without straying too far into interpersonal disagreement about how to interpret the applicable policy. I don't think the next sentence particularly adds anything except possibly long, boring arguments about what "clickbait" means. Vaticidalprophet 06:37, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Mm. We'll play it close to the vest for now, then :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:39, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

"The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest."

Why would they find it intriguing if they have no interest? Needs to be reworded.

"excessively sensational or gratuitous hooks should be rejected."

So can't be boring and can't be anti-boring. So... what is it? This seems to be rather hand-waving. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: I think you're a bit out of step with the guidelines as currently written, because both of things you quoted are not just in DYK's current rules, but set by RfC. Here's the one on gratuity, and here's the one on interestingness. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:19, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm talking about the wording on the linked page, not the guidelines. The first can be read to mean "no interest", and the later only describes itself as the sum of two negatives. Surely there are better ways to describe both? For instance, for the first, "readers without a special knowledge or interest in the topic." I'm still not sure why this needs "interest", as I think the reader can determine that for themselves. As to the second, "excessively sensational" is excessively wordy while still failing to explain itself. "... hooks should try to catch the interest of the reader without being sensationalist" seems to capture the sentiment, no? Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
And I'm saying that the wording on the linked page is the exact same as current guideline, so if you want to reword it, that's a separate discussion from this. We're not changing policy here, just reorganizing it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps I am looking at the wrong pages? The first statement in "External policy compliance" for the hook states "The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change, and citations in the article that are used to support the hook fact must verify the hook." This statement does not appear anywhere I can find; the first portion does appear verbatim on WP:DYKHOOK, but the second part doesn't in either the rules or the guidelines. "verify" appears in a few places on various pages, but nothing like this context. Is this statement found on some other page? Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:42, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Is that not just 3b) of WP:DYKCRIT, put slightly wordily? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:03, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: I meant the wording of the two things you pointed out – those are the same in the guideline and linked page. Other things are different, but the underlying guidelines are always the same. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I suggested we might re-word the statements in question to improve their grammar. You said no, because we are quoting the guidelines "exact(ly the) same". I then pointed to text that does not quote the guidelines verbatim, or even particularly closely, and now I am told "other things are different". So which is it? The change I proposed is significantly "less different" from the original guideline text than the example I posted, and (IMHO) improves its clarity without changing the nature of the statement one iota. I'm failing to see a cogent argument here, but if you still don't want to change it fine, I won't argue it further. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz, I believe that the difference is that the wording of the original two quotes were explicitly defined by RfC, but the wording of the latter one was not. I might be wrong, though. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:48, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Regarding Why would they find it intriguing if they have no interest? the real art of writing hooks is to write something that intrigues a reader who would otherwise not be interested in the subject. RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

1967 Lake Erie skydiving disaster

@Vaticidalprophet, Tamzin, and RAJIVVASUDEV: I know this is too late (it ran last week), but it's worth mentioning for future reference. I wish I had noticed it before it ran. The hook places unequivocal fault on the air traffic controller in wiki voice ("caused sixteen skydivers to drown"). That's, at best, an exaggeration.

I've never seen an NTSB report which places absolute blame. They always talk about "probable cause", and this one is no different. The probable cause noted was first that of the pilot, with the controller only being included as a secondary probable cause, and the jumpers also getting a share of the blame : the probable cause of the accident was the failure of the pilot ... coupled with an erroneous radar identification ... by the FAA controller ... The parachutists ... were not without fault.

But you don't need to know anything about reading NTSB reports. The Sandusky Register used as our source for the hook got it exactly right: A government investigation ... blamed the pilot of the aircraft and an errant air traffic controller and said the parachutists themselves were "not without fault." Somehow this got turned into "air traffic controller ... caused 16 skydivers to drown". RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith I was very aware that the report didn't solely fault the controller. The article says that clearly and, when someone added an infobox to it while it was on the Main Page, I corrected their mistake. The hook was consistent with that, and consistent with the NTSB report, as the ATC error was a but-for cause of the incident, and so it is accurate to say that it caused the incident. If the hook had said that it was the sole cause, that would have definitely been an issue, but the hook did not say that. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:12, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
If the NTSB report says "the probable cause was X, Y, and Z" and we turn that into "Y caused it", that's not consistent with the NTSB report. RoySmith (talk) 00:26, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Per Merriam-Webster, the primary sense of cause as a verb is "to serve as a cause or occasion of". "A", not "the". Very few things have only one cause. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:54, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
"God is in the details" RV (talk) 03:01, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Large blank block on the noms page?

Is anyone else seeing a large empty block on the right side of the nom page with TOC at the bottom? I'm looking on Safari on the mac and Chrome on Win and seeing it. Maybe a side effect of the full queue message above? Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:06, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

By "the nom page", do you mean Template talk:Did you know? I'm not seeing anything odd there. And what do you mean by "the full queue message above"? RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

1) Yes. 2) Do you see a block in light blue titled "Did you know?" on the right near the top? Do you see another block directly below it with the text "TOC" in it? On my display, that block is quite large (running just about to the end of the queue list to the left) and completely empty. 3) In yellow-green at the top right of the page: "DYK queue status There are currently 4 filled queues. Admins, please consider promoting a prep to queue if you have the time!" Maury Markowitz (talk) 21:08, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Weird. My first guess would be something you have in some custom CSS or JS. Try viewing the page in an incognito window. You could also try adding "?safemode=1" to the end of the URL to see if that helps. WP:SAFEMODE might have some other ideas. RoySmith (talk) 21:22, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Catalina Estrada

Queue 4: Catalina Estrada (nom) I just want to publicly thank Hameltion for going the extra distance by providing English translations of the Spanish titles in the references. I wish more people would do that! RoySmith (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Yup, trans-title= is our friend. BorgQueen (talk) 20:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Nice to hear thanks, though I did pretty much just that for that article. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:45, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Well done! --evrik (talk) 22:13, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Anita Gustafson

Queue 4: Anita Gustafson (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @PCN02WPS @Cbl62 I'm not sure the hook wording (when she took office today) satisfies our "refer to established facts that are unlikely to change" rule. @Theleekycauldron any thoughts on that? RoySmith (talk) 20:11, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

mmmm. I'm starting to not love this rule. We're not a crystal ball, and the archives are all date-tagged so people can see exactly when we said something and determine whether or not that information is out of date. But by letter of the law, I suppose it would fall afoul. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:17, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith What exactly is the concern? I guess I don't understand your initial comment - do you mean we're not sure whether she'll actually take office on August 1? PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:16, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Hooks are supposed to be something that still makes sense if you read it next year, at which point "today" will no longer be "today". But, if leeky is OK with it, I'm OK with it too. RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith Ah, I see what you mean. Obviously I'm a bit biased into liking the "today" version more but I won't pitch a fit if we want to delay it a few days and go with "...when she took office on August 1, 2023" or "...upon taking office on August 1, 2023", or something of that nature - whatever you think would be better is fine with me. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:41, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of all 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 21. We have a total of 223 nominations, of which 108 have been approved, a gap of 115 nominations that has increased by 8 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than three months old

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:53, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Medical DYKs

Over at this Template talk:Did you know nominations/Viriditoxin, @SandyGeorgia: talks about Wikipedia:MEDRS in its relationship to DYK. @RoySmith: is their some way to use User:DYK-Tools-Bot to flag them with a template akin to {{Pending DYK biographies}}? If these need special attention, we may need a way to highlight them for special attention. --evrik (talk) 15:25, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

I suppose it's possible, if I knew what to look for. The code the bot uses to determine if it's a biography uses some heuristics which aren't always correct. If I knew what to look for, I could probably do something similar for MEDRS. What would the purpose be, however? RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Could you cross-reference the article and the category tree it sists in? --evrik (talk) 22:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Looking at Viriditoxin, I think the best I could do is notice that the talk page has {{WikiProject Medicine}} RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 11:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
As the one who caught this at ERRORS (and maybe, per Sandy, even then didn't come down hard enough), I think a good starting point is for everyone to remember that vague "X may do Y" claims are rarely appropriate on any article, especially science articles, especially human medical articles, where we run the risk of fuelling the next ivermectin or hydroxychloroquine nonsense. Claims about cancer in particular, even by RS, are very easy to overstate. And while MEDRS gives some leeway for reporting a single study's results without asserting them as true, that sort of thing shouldn't be on the Main Page. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 21:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Under no circumstances should DYK ever be used in this manner. Single primary-source 'X may cure cancer' (or 'cause cancer') claims belong in a Daily Mail headline, not here. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I do, however, note that "Aspartame Is a Possible Cause of Cancer in Humans, a W.H.O. Agency Says" ran in the NY Times a couple of weeks ago, and has had extensive coverage in many WP:RS recently. So it's not just the Daily Mail. RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Since the rules page is being rewritten, should any guidance on this be included? --evrik (talk) 22:14, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
i think we already require MEDRS compliance implicitly, but it's worth tossing around. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:16, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
While my comments and suggestions probably should be taken with a grain of salt, why don't we have separate rules or queues for controversial subjects like BLPs and Medical articles? ✶Mitch199811✶ 22:19, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
We do for BLPs – in fact, stricter rules than WP:BLP – but MEDRS compliance should be implicit in the requirement for RS compliance. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:20, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
I think most reviewers who are aware of MEDRS, or just generally have a healthy wariness of a volunteer-led project making front-page medical claims without ironclad source support, would assume it applies to DYK. I don't think a supplementary rule will help much, but I don't oppose it. A flag like evrik proposes would help the most, if it's possible. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Public Domain Day (1 January) 2024: Steamboat Willie

Hi, would it be possible to put Steamboat Willie on the Main Page for Public Domain Day (1 January) 2024? (specifically: the full video, which we will be able to upload on Commons just in time) (Please see @Dank's suggestion on my user talk page.) Thanks, Gnom (talk) 14:33, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

If you or someone else gets it to GA status, then yeah why not? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:49, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
This might make a great themed set. Can we identify seven other articles? --evrik (talk) 15:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
the article "2024 in public domain" lists a number of notable works. dying (talk) 19:37, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Why don't you draw up a list of interesting articles that we can use to build a set? --evrik (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
evrik, i don't have to draw up a list; there are already a number of them in the article. dying (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

What does everyone else think? --evrik (talk) 00:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

re. themed set: We really do not need themed sets for everything. re. Steamboat Willie: Gnom, I'm a scheduler at WP:OTD now, and that seems possibly suitable for it if we can get a good way to present the PD-day issue in its format. It might be better suited than for DYK, given the unpredictability of if-and-when articles pass GAN. The article will need some work to be OTD-eligible re. resolving cleanup tags, but it doesn't need to pass GAN at a set date to be eligible, so if you have it "good enough for GA" formally or informally I'm definitely interested in seeing if there's a way to work it out. It could also run DYK (by itself) as well, if it manages to pass GAN before that time -- currently the GAN backlog is quite long, so you'd want to start work very soon. Vaticidalprophet 00:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
i don't really have an opinion on whether a themed set should be run on that day (or whether, if a themed set does run, whether it should be about public domain day). i had provided a link simply to be helpful to those who were interested in nominating hooks on the topic.
the idea of posting the entirety of the steamboat willie short film to the main page sounds intriguing, but i thought i should point out that, if we are adhering to u.s. copyright law, we may also have to adhere to u.s. time zones.
Vaticidalprophet, i had also been wondering if posting the film at otd would be more appropriate, but i am not sure how it could be incorporated there. i assume it would be mentioned in an item at the end of the list of bullet points, though i don't recall seeing a bullet point for the current year before. has something like this been done at otd before for an event scheduled to occur on the day of the posting? dying (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the thing I'm thinking about. It'd certainly be a break from tradition. There may be an argument to present it as "2019: Public Domain Day, [something something] leading to the PD status of Steamboat Willie in 2024" or similar, given the whole reason this is a big deal is because there weren't any PDDs for years. Vaticidalprophet 02:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Vaticidalprophet – thanks, I will definitely not be able to get the article to GA level in time. I am just looking for a chance to have the film (ideally the media file itself!) be shown on the Main Page on 1 January. --Gnom (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
January 1, 2024 is still several months away, so with more help and a willing review, it may still be possible to bring it to GA in time for then. Though, unless there is an IAR exemption granted here, the promotion to GA status should be within six weeks of January 1 so that a special occasion request can be granted for that date. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Again, I will not be able to make the article pass GA status. However, I would still like to have the film on the Main Page. Is this possible? Gnom (talk) 03:16, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Not unless it is expanded fivefold, no. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:17, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
@Gnom: Perhaps we could IAR and hold an WP:FPC nomination on a nonexistent, yet-to-be-uploaded file? You could ask on the talk page there to see if people would be receptive to the idea. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:38, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
I like the idea of highlight PD day. --evrik (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Maybe this should be a featured article? --evrik (talk) 14:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
@King of Hearts: I'm gonna try that! Gnom (talk) 03:40, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

I don't think a themed set is appropriate, not least because "Public Domain Day" has been an annual thing for a while. A single special occasion hook on the day might be in order for a work coming into the public domain that same day, assuming the article also qualifies for DYK in all the usual ways. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Could it be better to see what news outlets write on the day and then try to use WP:ITN to post the video? Or do a Public Domain Day news item? Generally, I'm not sure posting the whole video is such a big deal. It has been widely available already; that it is now PD means people can legally make derivatives (anything from restoring the video to creative artistic use) but those are unlikely to be ready on 1 January. —Kusma (talk) 09:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Wilberforce (cat)

Queue 3: Wilberforce (cat) (nom) I like cats, but we're not really going to run back-to-back chief mouser articles, are we? RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't protest moving it down. I think we should have at least a few days break in between them. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 16:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Without cats there would be no need for the internet. Bruxton (talk) 16:49, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
And I see we've also got Template:Did you know nominations/Sybil (cat) in the wings. Are chief mousers the new hotness? RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
That one ran a while ago. Middling 6,576 views 274.0 per hour. Bruxton (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith - Chief Mousers is an aspiring GT. Peter III also ran a few days ago. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Wait, what? We're running them out of order? Won't that, like, disrupt the great feline cosmic continuum? RoySmith (talk) 19:55, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
what do we want?
Why must I work?
British cats with jobs!
when do we want 'em?
meow :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:59, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Seriously where are all the dog people. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
They all went to baja? RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Methinks an employed dog in Downing Street would end up badly (Chief Catter to the Cabinet Office?) Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:36, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
United States presidential pets is mostly dogs, if any of you Americans want to get on that? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:05, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
And for Brits, I suggest Dilyn. Tim O'Doherty (talk) 21:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Wilberforce is a cat? --evrik (talk) 22:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
among other things! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:41, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
But those dogs are unemployed. Rjjiii (talk) 23:00, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Gromit, then? Tim O'Doherty (talk) 08:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
What if they don't want to work? Cielquiparle (talk) 09:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

This Stupid World

Queue 6: This Stupid World (nom) I see the source in the nomination, but can't find where the fact is stated and referenced in the article. Can you walk me through that? @AirshipJungleman29, Koavf, and Onegreatjoke: RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

"This is the first Yo La Tengo album to not feature an outside producer" RoySmith ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Got it, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 17:13, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Ahmad Nasser Al-Mohammad Al-Sabah

Queue 6: Ahmad Nasser Al-Mohammad Al-Sabah (nom) @AirshipJungleman29, Longhornsg, and Onegreatjoke: I see two problems here. One is that the hook fact is sourced to twitter, very much not a WP:RS, especially for a WP:BLP. There's also an easter-egg aspect to the hook. When I read interrupted his studies ... to volunteer during the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait?, I assume that means he picked up a gun to go fight. But the article says he worked an office job. Actually, looking at the tweet, I don't even see that. Unless there's a better source, this one seems like it needs to get pulled. RoySmith (talk) 16:11, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

RoySmith this source was provided further down the nomination; the tweet, which clearly states "Volunteer in the Office of the Foreign Minister" is from the Kuwaiti Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which it seems a stretch to call "unreliable"; and I shortened the hook because "volunteer" doesn't have to mean active combatant. You could say "volunteer for the Kuwaiti government during the Iraqi invasion" if you must. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:17, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Special occasion idea: Women's World Cup

I had a bathroom thought that we could do a sort of special occasion for the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup in a similar way to Women's History Month. The idea is to have one (at least one, but probably one) hook about a player in the World Cup for every day of the tournament, 20 July to 20 August. Thoughts? Kingsif (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2023 (UTC)

I like it. --evrik (talk) 23:45, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
My first thought was TMI :-) RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, some people... now, saying I had a "trying not to gag on mouthwash while I stare into the depthless pupils of my own eyes in the mirror" thought would have been TMI ;) Kingsif (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
  • This has stalled a little, and given the recent discussion above I would like to see a bit more agreement before working on articles/asking for help at WiR and making date requests. While I'm here, a list of potential articles to work on, which might see some enthusiasm! There is already a nom for Giulia Dragoni - teenager at her first World Cup - that could do with a review, then: Kingsif (talk) 22:12, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

Women's football noms

Okay, the idea of one women's football hook a day from 20 July to 20 August (inclusive) for the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup hasn't seen much of a response, but since these articles are getting made/worked on anyway, it's not much extra work to give them DYK attention. So, in case users don't mind prioritising reviewing some of these, here are current related noms (I might just keep adding to this discussion, even as it moves up the page). If we're going to get one up on 20 July it would need to be swapped with a hook already in preps 4, 5, 6 or 7 (timezones and two sets a day are our friends); I know this is tight, but I did propose it a few weeks ago:

Kingsif (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

  • Kingsif, any thoughts on nominating the Auckland shooting for DYK with the ITN blurb (which doesn't seem to be going anywhere at ITN)? In New Zealand, three people are dead from a shooting in Auckland's CBD just hours before the city hosts the 2023 FIFA Women's World Cup opening game. Schwede66 05:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    That sounds pretty morbid if the intent is to celebrate the Women's World Cup. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:07, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    I agree that it's a bit morbid. I'm trying to think of a way to spin it but it's always going to mention shooting... I could nom it (or you can, take one of my QPQs if you want) but I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't taken. Complete aside, but I have to be surprised people still nom 1-death domestic-row shootings in the US but then see nothing of newsworthy merit in this event. Kingsif (talk) 06:22, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • The Carol Thomas nom is at approved if you can slot it in! I'm working on a bunch, first up Michaela Foster. If it was you who organised the potential article list, thank you. Kingsif (talk) 20:54, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @Schwede66: doesn't matter, but José Mendieta. --evrik (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    I can't see a reference for her date of birth. I'm happy to promote the hook but will delete the unreferenced content first. Ok? Schwede66 05:45, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    Issue resolved and hook promoted to Q1; I've moved José Mendieta to P7. Schwede66 05:58, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I just cleared space in Prep 2 and Prep 3, but I am not supposed to move those hooks. Can someone else do it? --evrik (talk) 22:31, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
    @Evrik: Could you not make holes in the prep sets or undo your hole-making? These can't be promoted now, and technically we now have to go to 1 per day per WP:DYKROTATE (three filled queues, no filled preps). —Kusma (talk) 07:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    I noticed the holes before the ping, yeah. I'm trying to figure out a way to sort this out without closing off the women's-soccer-hooks -- which I don't see a dire need for "running every day, including existing preps" compared to just "incorporating them into future preps" in the first place. I need to move around some hooks already because I noticed after building a prep that I'd accidentally stacked three similar hooks next to each other, but the way that things were moved makes that wonky unless we go "let's just agree to put the soccer hooks in later", because now there's significantly less free space. Vaticidalprophet 08:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    To update, I've just built Prep 6, including one of the already-mentioned ready hooks (Sheika Scott). I'm thinking about how this'll influence prep building; if we're really running one women's soccer hook a day/prep for nearly a month, that'll have significant knock-on effects on when and where we can fit in other sports hooks. This isn't a huge concern because don't have as many of those at the moment as we have at various times in the past, given editor churn, but it does stand out as another thing to incorporate. Vaticidalprophet 09:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    We'll have to alternate "soccer" and other football hooks while it's two-per-day, and hope that too many don't remain when it goes back to one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:57, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • @Vaticidalprophet and AirshipJungleman29: My apologies, but I just cleared space in Prep 4 & Prep 5 --evrik (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Can we put Template:Did you know nominations/Elene Lete in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1 --evrik (talk) 05:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • evrik I didn't get the ping because you added your signature in a separate edit, and reverted your changes because of the rotation guidelines (theleekycauldron told me about this discussion on my talk); I don't understand why you removed three hooks, when we're on a two-per-day cycle and the above discussion specifically involves one a day (I don't think Kingsif needs to bang out 60 hooks, let's put it that way). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Kingsif, so I think this whole thing may have hot a roadblock. After I tried to make space for the Women's soccer hooks, AirshipJungleman29 basically threw sand in the gears of the whole effort by reverting me several times, here in Prep 4, here in Prep 5, Prep 2, etc. I mean AirshipJungleman29, could have promoted the approved hooks for Carol Thomas, Sheika Scott or Lara Esponda above, but chose not to. Anyway, someone other than me should probably try and sort this out if this effort is to go further. --evrik (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    I can/will also build sets, (when it's not my hooks either, of course), but do I assume from a comment by Airship in reply to Vaticidalprophet above, a few minutes after yours, that this is worked out? I'd like to manage one a day, but IMO as many as we can get without fatigue and/or making DYK unbearable is the next best thing if we have to make that compromise. Kingsif (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    This is dead in the water. --evrik (talk) 23:09, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    Prepbuilders are perfectly happy to incorporate these hooks in the same way we are to incorporate the many news-station, opera, other sports, Judeo-Spanish history, etc. hooks that come through -- DYK has always been impacted by the interests of its regulars. The objection is to spontaneously rebuilding sets that already existed. We can aim for "something reasonably close to daily" in the same sense that tends to work out for other high-volume subjects. Vaticidalprophet 23:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
    I find this agreeable - I'd like to hope that prepbuilders wouldn't object too much to a like-for-like swap (sportsperson and/or contemporary woman hooks being moved out) but I also know how much work goes into building preps and can understand reverting. The current queues and preps look like we still won't miss a 24 hour period, just one in the early in the UTC day will be followed by one late in the next UTC day (if I'm reading it right). I think this issue has arisen due to there being more activity getting more preps filled in advance at the moment, which we can't really complain about. @Evrik: I don't see a major issue, if this is all good with you? Kingsif (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I don't see where evrik's pessimism is coming from either; I wouldn't say their St James day collection is "dead in the water", and this isn't either. FYI Kingsif we're back to one-a-day (see above thread). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:33, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
    The thing about the St. James Day set is that there didn't seem to be actual consensus for it in the first place, at least as far as I can tell; please correct me if I'm wrong. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:54, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I mean, yeah, at most it was a "why not?" I also don't quite get why one of the hooks is languishing in a completely different prep set, but whatever. I'm sure it'll work itself out ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
  • My pessimism is on the lack of support for the women's soccer effort. It was undone by AirshipJungleman29. We could fix it today, but no one is doing it.--evrik (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah, thanks for telling me about 1-a-day, that may make getting hooks into the (fewer) preps a little harder, but there's workable solutions. Kingsif (talk) 20:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

Would some please make the following placements?

Thank you. --evrik (talk) 15:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cielquiparle (talk) 17:12, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
@evrik, Vaticidalprophet, and Kingsif: if you want to write comments in empty prep slots to mark things for women's soccer, wrapping the inside text of the comment with a boldlink (<!--'''[[please save for women's soccer]]'''-->) should trick PSHAW into thinking that there's already a hook there. Hope this helps :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:28, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Can you use Template:Did you know/Preparation area 7 to show us what you mean? --evrik (talk) 19:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
already did, you can see it there and in the previous comment. Something of the form of <!--'''[[text]]'''-->. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:32, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks :) Kingsif (talk) 20:49, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: Pssst. --evrik (talk) 15:28, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I have seen this, yes. (I see a lot of things without explicitly commenting on them.) See my comments below regarding "why I promoted that hook there". I don't know that this works very well with PSHAW -- the hook was extremely difficult to promote and had to be done manually -- but I need a higher sample size to be sure. Vaticidalprophet 15:35, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
It's intentional. It's meant to force the promoter to make an intentional edit to include the women's hook. --evrik (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
PSHAW is an 'intentional edit'. Forcing manual edits, if that turns out to actually be what this does, just delays the prep being filled because you have to do it the hard way. (I've done ~350 of my ~400 promotions manually, so it's not The Absolute Worst, but it's certainly a mark against.) Vaticidalprophet 15:51, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm about to go to bed, so I'll just clarify: "forcing manual edits" is an euphemism for the fact my browser was completely locked up, and I couldn't use it. I really do appreciate the enthusiasm here, but I am less enthusiastic about "oh yeah, it's intentional that we locked up your browser". Vaticidalprophet 16:03, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

We're about 1/3 the way through the month. --evrik (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

  • @Evrik, Kingsif, and AirshipJungleman29: Great job making this all happen...but just wanted to say, I can't help but feel like the hook for Alexandra Pinell is really underselling her long-distance free kick that went viral...I've now cited ESPN within the article, and added a link to the FIFA video but there are plenty of other RS that describe both the goal and the subsequent reaction to it internationally. (I stopped short of quoting the person who suggested that she might be nominated for the FIFA Puskás Award.) (I would suggest an ALT hook but then I couldn't approve it.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:29, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  • I have no thoughts. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:10, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
    It could be possible to add "a long-range goal that subsequently went viral"? Kingsif (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

2023 Auckland shooting

  • I'm not sure if this is the spirit of the effort, but I don't see why it has to wait. --evrik (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
I've categorized this as "within the effort". The hook is about the cup; a very large proportion of the article is about the cup. Prep 1 wasn't well-suited for slotting in another bio hook, given the way it was already set up. The fact rules tend to be stricter about bio than non-bio hooks means it'd be nice in theory to see some of the latter, but I get that there are obviously fewer relevant non-bios. (We wouldn't be able to create or expand team-related articles?) Vaticidalprophet 15:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Older Women's football noms

  • Some of what is being proposed are very new articles. Maybe we can waive the newness rule and go back a few months and find some longer articles that maybe be newish, but not seven days old? --evrik (talk) 22:20, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
    Could we just expand them? Kingsif (talk) 02:38, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Some are already long enough, but are well past seven days. --evrik (talk) 03:48, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
    • No, if they're well past seven days, they aren't eligible for DYK. Sorry. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:31, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Working notes

29 others, plus contingency
Creation
  1. Kameron Simmonds - University of Tennessee student,[2][3] has footballing family.[4] Had a good high school[5] and Jamaica youth career.[6]
  2. Mariela Campos (footballer, born 1998) - not to be confused with fellow Costa Rican player Mariela Campos. Hard to find info based on the more prominent other player.
  3. Eunice Sakala - I can't find anything on her except the squad list details
  4. Pan Hongyan - no real sources
  5. Noa Ganthier - she's at Lipscomb University[7]
  6. Dayana Pierre-Louis - no real sources
  7. Liya Brooks - Jamaican goalie, some sources for high school at national youth football
Expansion

There's also some articles I've been working on and hoping to see through to GA, but with time constraints I'm not going to put expectations on those.

  1. Lara Larco - perhaps more often known as Lara-Sofia Larco or Lara Sophia Larco, or some variation thereof. Attends Georgetown University but doesn't seem to play much there.[8] Handful of caps for Haiti since she was first called up at the start of last year.{{{1}}}
  2. Betina Petit-Frère - no real sources
  3. Darlina Joseph - full name Florsie Love Darlina Joseph
  4. Solai Washington - uncapped, unattached, teenager whose older sister also plays but has not been called-up[9]
  5. Trinity Rodman - a candidate for GA, but there may not be enough time.
  6. Milly Clegg - New Zealand forward and only 17, she just left the Wellington Phoenix after becoming their top scorer, signing for rivals Western Sydney Wanderers.[10] Played at both the Under-17 and Under-20 Women's World Cups last year.[11]
  7. Jennyfer Limage - Haitian centre-back who plays in the French second division. Used to play in Canada, where she suffered an ACL injury.[12]
  8. Ana Seiça - got called-up for Portugal in place of Diana Gomes at the start of last year[13] but didn't really break into the squad until her next game a year later, for the play-offs that saw them qualify for the World Cup;[14] she was soon described as already a certainty in the national side.[15] Plays for Benfica, Portuguese champions.
  9. Milan Pierre-Jérôme - currently captain and a senior at George Mason University, a midfielder with a neat goal ratio,[16][17] she was previously at University of Maryland.[18][19]
  10. Nahomie Ambroise - no real sources
Vietnamese speakers?
  1. Trần Thị Thúy Nga
  2. Lê Thị Diễm My
  3. Nguyễn Thị Mỹ Anh
  4. Chương Thị Kiều
  5. Lương Thị Thu Thương
  6. Đào Thị Kiều Oanh
  7. Trần Thị Hải Linh
  8. Trần Thị Thu
  9. Dương Thị Vân - Vietnamese player
  10. Nguyễn Thị Minh Nguyệt - Vietnamese player
  11. Phạm Hải Yến - Vietnamese player
  12. Nguyễn Thị Tuyết Dung- Vietnamese player
Expansion using another wiki language
  1. Chiara Singarella - Argentine defender, can translate es.wiki article
  2. Abigaíl Chaves - Argentine goalkeeper, can translate some of es.wiki article
  3. Natalia Giraldo
  4. Maren Tellenbröker
  5. Jolanta Nieczypor
  6. Choo Hyo-joo
  7. Emma Stølen Godø
  8. Judith Soko - I don't know how reliable ZamFoot is, but they're promoting this teenager's left foot as one of the team's strengths - despite being a defender.[20]
  9. Xiomara Mapepa - The top scorer in the Zambian league, she was set for a move to Turkey over winter that stalled.[21] A short while later, she was removed from the national team for "indiscipline",[22] but it took even less time for them to take her back.[23]
  10. Génesis Pérez - Costa Rica's no. 1, currently playing at University of Central Florida;[24] unlikely to reach length requirements
  11. Mary Mulenga - I can't find anything on her except the squad list details
  12. Esther Banda (footballer) - not to be confused with Esther Banda. Again, no real sources.
  13. Dou Jiaxing - Chinese speaker may be needed
New additions
Ready to be added to a prep
Moved to a Prep

Not a good idea

Earlier today, I promoted prep 5 to the queue, not noticing the missing hook. I noticed it during my post-promote checks when I couldn't find the 8th hook to check, and backed it out. I was going to ping theleekycauldron to ask if PSHAW could be modified to catch this error and prevent accidental promotions, and now I see there apparently is that check and it was deliberately worked around. So right now we've got 4 almost-full preps, and nothing that's promotable. I'm wearing my grumpy face. RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I agree with RoySmith. If the hooks were ready, that would be one thing, but it's causing disruption at DYK when we can't promote preps to queue because there aren't enough nominations approved. I'd like to suggest that we treat this like we do for Women's History Month: if there are hooks ready to go, we put them in preps, spacing them nicely; if there aren't, then a day is skipped, or more than one. Things can still be moved around while the nominations are in prep; after they've gone to queue, it should be too late for that set. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
FWIW, Template:Did you know nominations/Daniela Solera was ready to be put in that prep, noted at least twice above, but nobody uninvolved decided to read it. And that's all I'll say on this complaint. Kingsif (talk) 23:01, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
That's the specific example I was referencing in WT:DYK#Please hold space open for women's hook? down the page -- it was starting an argument about whether Evrik had misstepped by singling out a space in a specific prep for it, and I wasn't going to promote a hook with an unresolved discussion. Vaticidalprophet 23:10, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for at least explaining the situation down there. Kingsif (talk) 23:29, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith I've removed the notice and filled the prep. Now it's ready for the queue. BorgQueen (talk) 02:52, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Since Template:Did you know nominations/Daniela Solera and Template:Did you know nominations/Milly Clegg were ready to be put in preps before this complaint (as noted by the comment directly above it), is there any chance of subbing them in? Kingsif (talk) 23:08, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Please hold space open for women's hook?

The next 4 prep areas are all missing just a single hook, with a "Please hold space open for women's hook" comment in the empty slot. Are we doing some kind of women's week thing? RoySmith (talk) 23:17, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

I believe it is Special occasion idea: Women's World Cup above. TSventon (talk) 23:36, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Ah. So another one of those "maybe we should get consensus first?" deals? Which unfortunately has become a blocker for promoting any more prep sets. RoySmith (talk) 23:45, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
Evrik got very upset when it seemed like it might not happen, so we're sort of working around it at the moment -- my suggestion was we aim for "basically daily" in a "similar but compressed timeframe" to how we do when putting through basically any other high-volume subject, except "most days of roughly a month" for the theme. This accelerated to manually adding hidden notes in the preps, which for a while made it flatly impossible to promote hooks to those slots using PSHAW, though I believe that problem is resolved. There aren't nearly enough hooks now to actually run this daily, though, so the machinery has more or less totally ground down. I was going to promote one to the prep I was building, but the only one currently in DYKNA seems to be consumed by an argument over whether it was appropriate for Evrik to "kinda-sorta-promote-it", so I decided to try wait that out. Vaticidalprophet 09:39, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't like Evrik's attitude honestly. The hidden notes sounded more like demands than suggestions. Being a prep builder doesn't mean that they can tell others what to do. BorgQueen (talk) 14:22, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I won't pretend to be happy about the notes given the issues they made for promoting hooks (and now whole preps). I'm withholding comment on much further, especially given the controversies that can erupt over things perceived to limit the project's coverage of women. Vaticidalprophet 14:41, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't have any strong feeling either way about the special project. My only objection is that if you're going to do a special project, get it done. If you're holding up the normal process flow, that's a problem. RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
There was consensus - small, but big enough considering there's limited traffic here that discusses things in advance - at the thread title that was supplied to you. I don't think your dismissive attitude up top is helpful in managing to progress it. I'd like to take your later comment as an offer to help get it done, but let's say it isn't; I appreciate your promotion work and I hope you'll appreciate it's hard to get hooks into preps when uninvolved promoters like yourself don't engage with these discussions in advance. Anyway, a level of pro-activity is needed on all fronts, so thank you for keeping DYK ticking over when faced with the gaps. Kingsif (talk) 23:37, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
@Kingsif I'm not sure who Special:Diff/1167966552 was addressed to; I'm guessing me? OK, I'll admit to being snarkier than I needed to. But it was a little frustrating to see the queue depth dwindling and not being able to promote anything because the next 4 prep sets were in limbo. RoySmith (talk) 00:25, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, as I said, it's okay, and I do acknowledge the inconvenience. Any support for DYK is welcome, whatever it looks like, for me! Kingsif (talk) 00:28, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
If there are fewer than five or so filled queues, do not leave holes in the top prep set. Keeping slots open for hypotheticals is not important enough to block p2q promotions. —Kusma (talk) 10:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
If there aren't any Women's World Cup footballer hooks in the approved list, then there is zero sense in demanding this hold. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:38, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the placeholder from the prep 6, which is the next one up. I suggest that prep builders concentrate on filling prep sets from the top down, and queue promoters remove any placeholders from whatever prep is next up. RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Talk:N.S.-Funk

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:N.S.-Funk. Haven't been able to get to this since out of town; would not object to modifying the hook. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:16, 31 July 2023 (UTC) (Prep 7)

American premieres of Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7

Queue 4: American premieres of Dmitri Shostakovich's Symphony No. 7 (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @CurryTime7-24 @Onegreatjoke the hook as currently written has a WP:SEAOFBLUE problem, but I can't see any good way to rewrite it to avoid that. Suggestions? RoySmith (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

Writing the hooks for this article was a challenge because of the issue you brought up. Unfortunately, I'm on my way out right now for the rest of the afternoon (PDT). If you can wait a few hours, I can return in the evening with some ideas. —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:28, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
It's still a few days away from hitting the main page, so there's no panic. RoySmith (talk) 20:35, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
SEAOFBLUE doesn't really apply here because one of the links is bolded. That's not something that should normally apply in mainspace prose, but at DYK, boldlinks are ubiquitous (at least, one would hope). It's easy to differentiate between the two, so there's not really a problem. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:29, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Is there anything in the rules that says you cannot do it like this:
Same thing, just less of the blue sea. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, I've updated the queue with that. RoySmith (talk) 00:42, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
@Maile66 and RoySmith: Thank you both for your work. Just one tiny issue: the ALT as currently written seems to suggest that some third party asked Toscanini this question. This is incorrect; he made the question rhetorically. Just drop the "was" and everything should be OK! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 18:32, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
@CurryTime7-24 Thanks for spotting that. Fixed. Related trivia: Toscanini used to live at Wave Hill, a few miles from my house. RoySmith (talk) 20:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

DYK's should avoid being salacious just for funsies

Look up salacious in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
  – MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:02, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

There's a DYK today which says, "that the Fox television network successfully moved to strip an Iowa TV station of its affiliation?" I was expecting an article about something evil the Fox TV network had done. Instead I find a prosaic article about how the station was a Fox affiliate but then payroll checks started bouncing and the general manager resigned so Fox said they didn't want to be associated with the station anymore. After the station declared bankruptcy, another Fox affiliated-station bought the Iowa station. The only thing notable about that is its tangential connection to the Fox network. Banaticus (talk) 01:23, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

If your immediate reaction to the word "strip" is to go to "salaciousness", I think that's probably a "you problem" and and not an "us problem". "To strip" has a lot of different meanings. I stripped a while ago. It involved woodworking tools and a six-year-old who doesn't understand not to set nail polish remover on a wooden table because it's a solvent and will remove the finish. That also has different meanings. My table is not from Finland, but it has an outer coating that's designed to protect the wood and generally look nice. GMGtalk 15:51, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
That’s quite a literal misunderstanding of what Banaticus wrote. Yes, their word choice was poor, but you have to look beyond that to see that they meant that it was the overall hook that was the problem, not the use of the word "strip". They meant that the hook unnecessarily implied that the station did something unseemly, indecent, or improper, when all that really happened is that they ran out of money. So I would agree with Banaticus that the hook is unnecessarily sensational, which is what they intended to say beyond their poor wording. Viriditas (talk) 23:21, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
Then maybe we're going for "sensationalist" and not "salacious". The latter has a pretty clear sexual connotation. You wouldn't normally share the "salacious details" of your dinner last night, unless you were doing one of those weird Japanese things where you eat sushi off a naked woman. GMGtalk 10:49, 31 July 2023 (UTC)
I agree. Banaticus may have committed a malapropism of some kind, perhaps intending to write scandalous with autocorrect changing it to salacious. I can’t tell you how many times that has happened to me, but it’s quite a lot. Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

3C 120

Queue 7: 3C 120 (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @C messier @Onegreatjoke The article says The galaxy was discovered ... to be a variable in visual light ... and was given the variable star designation BW Tauri. I may be picking nits here, but that's not quite what the hook says, which is that the designation was because of the variability. It's like you wrote ""RoySmith was found to have ten fingers and sometimes gets grouchy when reviewing DYK submissions". Both things may be true, but that doesn't imply that one caused the other. Perhaps this just needs some minor rewording in the article text? RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Variable stars are stars that change brightness.[25] They get a variable star designation if they haven't a Greek name [26]. The interesting info is that it isn't a star but a galaxy. C messier (talk) 17:39, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

nomination purgatory

i found two nominations that are currently not transcluded at either wp:dykn or wp:dykna. i thought i might mention them here so that people can figure out what went wrong, in order to avoid repeating the same mistake in the future.

dying (talk) 02:17, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Baby Gronk appears to have progressed normally until it was pulled from a prep, at which point it didn't make it back to the nom page. Jalin Hyatt was promoted for just two minutes, but that was long enough for (or should I say precisely timed for) Wugbot to remove it from the DYKA list, at which point it entered the ether. CMD (talk) 02:50, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Given no further comments, I have lifted them out of purgatory to DYKN and DYKA respectively. CMD (talk) 01:34, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

A new DYK software architecture?

The problem described in #nomination purgatory above is one we see over and over; somebody performs some complicated multi-edit process and doesn't get all the details right. I did this myself just the other day when I shuffled some hooks around and failed to fix up the credit templates (thank you to @BorgQueen for covering my back on that one).

WP:PSHAW has automated some of these tasks, but there's plenty more that need automating. For example, there's no one-click way to unpromote a hook. Or to swap two hooks between preps. Or to swap hook positions within a hookset. Or many other common tasks. And (not to take anything away from PSHAW or @Theleekycauldron) the logic in things like PSHAW (or any of the various bots) is embedded in those particular pieces of software so it's hard to reuse them.

I think where we should be moving to is an abstraction layer. There should be a server which exposes these operations as an API. For example, have an API for "promote a hook". Another one for "demote a hook". And one for "move a hook from one hookset to another". And so on. The server would be responsible for ensuring that the operations are done properly. Then we could have tools which are built on top of that layer, which concentrate on the user interface without having to get bogged down in the low-level details of parsing templates and editing wikitext. If we had, for example, a prep curation tool and somebody decided they had a better idea of how such a tool should look, they can invest their effort in the UX work and not get bogged down with the low-level details.

This sort of model is how most systems work in the real world. UI -> data abstraction layer -> persistence layer. In our case, the persistence layer is the MediaWiki API. What I'm talking about building is the data abstraction layer. What I'm really looking for here is whether the folks who are good at UI stuff would find that useful and be willing to build the front-end tools? RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Fundamentally, I do think that DYK management should be done with onwiki tools, especially when those tools make edits. But PSHAW can be made better, a lot better. Something more like Twinkle than the narrow functions it serves now. For that to happen, though, you're right that a lot of the code has to be refactored so that the logic can be reused and so that it's more ripe for expansion.
(as a side note, when that does happen, I'll probably need an interface administrator to go through and change some import links.) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Update: I'm refactoring PSHAW's code to break it into five tasks: prep building, hook moving, hook pulling, nomination rejecting, and queue moving. Whenever that's done, User:Theleekycauldron/DYK promoter.js is just going to point to User:Theleekycauldron/Scripts/PSHAW/main.js, like a template redirect. Hopefully, the new architecture makes it all easy to fork :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:44, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

George Taylor (photographer)

Queue 7: George Taylor (photographer) (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @B3251 @Whispyhistory The hook says he was one of Canada's earliest nature photographers, but the article (and the source that backs it up) only one of the earliest photographers in the province. RoySmith (talk) 23:47, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

hey, here is where the sources mentions Taylor being one of Canada's earliest nature photographers.
  • https://canadiangeographic.ca/articles/throwback-thursday-the-pioneering-photography-of-george-t-taylor/
    • "...yet, as Fred Phillips argued in a March 1956 article in the Canadian Geographical Journal, he was one of Canada’s first and arguably most important nature photographers."
  • https://tj.news/daily-gleaner/101613596 (the telegraph-journal is a New Brunswick-based news publication and is paywalled, but i have full access to it as well as their database of archived newspapers.)
    • "At the time, virtually all photographers worked in ill-smelling dark studios, posing their grim-faced subjects next to broken colums, their hands clasping unread books. George Taylor also did this to pay the bills, but his passion was venturing into New Brunswick's great outdoors, where he became one of Canada's - and likely one of the world's - first outdoor photographers."
      • This source says "outside" in the passage instead of "nature" which, if it matters that much, could be reworded, however the article also opens up with "One of the world's first nature photographers was a New Brunswicker named George Thomas Taylor, who..." so I feel like the same meaning is still retained through this source.
  • For the CBC article that mentions Taylor as being one of the earliest photographers in the province, it also includes a quote from Ronald Rees, one of the authors of a book about Taylor's photography, saying "He was the first photographer in the Maritimes and one of the earliest photographers in Canada to go into the bush". I'm not sure if that means much depending on how you interpret "to go into the bush" as, but I thought it would be worth adding. B3251 (talk) 00:12, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Forgot to ping, sorry. I hope this clears your concerns. RoySmith. B3251 (talk) 05:42, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
@B3251 Thanks, I'm good. RoySmith (talk) 13:51, 2 August 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good, thanks! B3251 (talk) 15:00, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Jarren Horton

I noticed that my DYK nomination of Jarren Horton, scheduled to appear tomorrow, has been changed from what was originally approved. The current hook reads ... that Jarren Horton's childhood dream was to serve as an American football defensive coordinator under his father, and he now does so with the Pittsburgh Maulers? but the one that was approved was ... that Jarren Horton's childhood dream was to serve as a defensive coordinator under his father with the Pittsburgh Steelers, and in 2023 he served in that role under him with the Pittsburgh Maulers? I personally thought that the original hook (that he wanted to be coordinator with his father for the Pittsburgh Steelers, but ended up doing so for the Pittsburgh Maulers) was more interesting than just that his childhood dream was fulfilled. Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

It looks like @AirshipJungleman29: changed it so pinging AirshipJungleman29. Lightburst (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
@BeanieFan11 and Lightburst: I did not feel that the phrase "Horton's dream was to serve as a defensive coordinator under his father with the Pittsburgh Steelers" was adequately supported by the source; if anything, Horton's talk about having actually "manifested a dream" implies that his dream was non-team-specific. In any case, the Steeler-Mauler contrast is comparatively less interesting for the site's international readership. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:05, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: I read in the source ...Six years of that was spent with the Steelers, where Jarren really fell in love with the sport. He served as the team’s ball boy at the age of 11. 'When I was in Pittsburgh as a ball boy, I knew I wanted to one day be the coordinator; he’d be the head coach,” Jarren said. “I don’t know that I manifested it, but it’s definitely been a dream of mine growing up.'" That, to me, implies that he wanted to be coordinator for the Steelers; I personally found it more interesting that he wanted to do it with the Steelers, but ended up doing it with the Maulers (plus my hook still mentions that his childhood dream was fulfilled in a way), although I'm fine if others disagree. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Need more admins promoting queues

I think I've done the last 5 or 6. I've been off doing other things for a couple of days and just noticed we were down to 0 queues filled, so I promoted one, but that's not sustainable. RoySmith (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

ouch. :( Bruxton (talk) 01:24, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Let's ping @DYK admins: in the hopes that some of them will be able to be more active over the next little while. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:44, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Soledad Rosas

Queue 4: Soledad Rosas (nom) @Bruxton, Gobonobo, and Onegreatjoke: I'm concerned about falsely charged. To me, that sounds like a deliberate charge which was known to be incorrect at the time the charge was made. Do we really have the sources to back that up per WP:NPOV? RoySmith (talk) 00:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the BBC article backs it up. "Soledad, la joven argentina que se unió a los anarquistas en Italia y se suicidó tras ser encarcelada bajo cargos falsos" ("Soledad, the young Argentine who joined the anarchists in Italy and committed suicide after being imprisoned on false charges"). The sabotage had been going on for a while, and the authorities were under pressure to solve the case, so they set up a sting for people in the squatting movement who had been at anti-TAV protests. After they couldn't make a strong enough case with the initial charges, they charged them with theft and arson, but the arson had occurred before she even entered the country, which is supported by the references. I can't remember which reference had it, but I remember reading that an Italian law somehow required that three people be charged for the type of case it was. gobonobo + c 01:20, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I have to imagine it's not too big a stretch from "the police tampered with the evidence to try and get 'em" to "they knew they were bringing bogus charges". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Two experimental AI scripts for DYK

Source Verification AI Assistant
WikiChatbot

I wanted to let you know that I wrote two experimental user scripts based on AI that may be of interest to DYK reviewers and nominators. The script Source Verification AI Assistant tries to help reviewers identify which sentences in a reliable source support a claim. Users enter the DYK hook in the field "Claim", paste the text of the reliable source in the field "Reliable source" and click on the button "Suggest supporting sentence". The response is then displayed in the field "Suggestions".

One of the functions of the script WikiChatbot is to come up with suggestions for DYK hooks. It is used by selecting one or several paragraphs and clicking on the button "Suggest DYK questions". The chatbot analyzes the selected sentences and suggests several hooks based on them.

Please be aware that the underlying AI technology is still in an early stage and often gives inaccurate responses. For this reason, editors should be very cautious when using these experimental scripts and not blindly rely on their suggestions. For example, the verification assistant may suggest sentences that are not relevant or fail to find sentences even though the source clearly supports the hook. And WikiChatbot may misunderstand the meaning of the selected text and provide inappropriate hook suggestions. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:06, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Image caption mistake

Hi, in Queue 4 the Hyochang Park image caption was changed to be slightly inaccurate; it should read "Golfers playing around fenced-off tombs in Hyochangwon" or "Golfers playing around fenced-off tombs in what is now Hyochang Park".

The area was not Hyochang Park at the time, which is why the hook says "at what is now Hyochang Park". toobigtokale (talk) 09:03, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@Toobigtokale  Done BorgQueen (talk) 11:46, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

solo per due

i am admittedly a bit skeptical about the statement made in this hook. although the assertion that it is the world's smallest restaurant (or that it is at least claimed to be) is mentioned in multiple reliable sources, our article on the finnish restaurant kuappi mentions that kuappi, at roughly one-tenth the size of solo per due (with an interior measuring 3.6 m2), is recognized by guinness as the world's smallest restaurant. the cnn source cited for this hook actually states that solo per due's owners "claim it is the smallest fine-dining establishment", which is a different claim, and also more plausible (as well as more nebulous).

i do not know if this means that the hook should be changed, but i thought i might bring this up because another hook was recently reported at wp:errors for stating an attributed claim that is probably not true. dying (talk) 20:45, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

The hook says "claims to be", and the article also uses the "claims to be" wording, so I think we're good. RoySmith (talk) 23:21, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Forgive my bluntness, RoySmith, but isn't it a little irresponsible to restate the PR claim of a for-profit company when we know it's incorrect? Such a claim would surely fall afoul of WP:ABOUTSELF as unduly self-serving without context. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:39, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
note: this hook has been independently raised at wp:errors here [perm]. dying (talk) 11:14, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Bluntness forgiven. Pull it. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 13:09, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Change UK

Queue 4: Change UK (nom) @Bruxton, Cielquiparle, and Lankyant: I was unable to figure out where in the article the hook fact was stated, and I see the same issue was raised in the nom. And I suspect our readers will be similarly confused. Our rules say The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article. I'm not convinced this meets that. It's more of a scavenger hunt to piece together all the bits and pieces from different parts of the article. RoySmith (talk) 01:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

I defer to @Cielquiparle: on this one. Bruxton (talk) 05:21, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Check it: New paragraph in the section Change_UK#Members_of_elected_bodies explains the DYK super literally. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:05, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. The hook would be less easter-eggy if it read " eleven previously elected", but I'm good with what we've got now. RoySmith (talk) 14:08, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Special occasion 9 August

I believe that Template:Did you know nominations/Reconquest of New Netherland, which has just been approved, was meant to run on 9 August, the 350th anniversary, would someone be happy to promote it, PSHAW is telling me I may be involved. There are a couple of slots left in Prep 6. TSventon (talk) 19:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

@TSventon: PSHAW's warning on involvement is only cautionary; in this case, I think you're fine to promote if you want to :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Done. TSventon (talk) 20:02, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron:, is there an explanation of how to use PSHAW somewhere? I think I installed it when it was discussed on this page but, as far as I can see, WP:DYKNA only has the manual version. TSventon (talk) 09:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
@TSventon: I don't recall putting down significant documentation anywhere (WP:PSHAW is not helpful), but I'm happy to answer any questions you might have about it on my talk :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:00, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Youth in the Shade

Queue 7: Youth in the Shade (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @Luminous Person @Sammi Brie I see where the hook is supported by the cited source, but I"m still left befuddled what "samples" means in this context. I assume it's some term of art in the music world, but see C2 (context): Don't assume everyone worldwide knows what country or sport you're talking about. RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

RoySmith it's a common and well known technique. You'd be very hard pressed arguing C2 applies. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:53, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I"ve linked it in the article. Linking it in the hook would be triple SEAOFBLUE problem, so I've not done that. RoySmith (talk) 18:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

yekaterina stravinsky

i do not know if it is just me, but when i first read this hook, i was trying to figure out if nosenko was the wife of stravinsky or that of his cousin. as a result, when examining the article, i was surprised to learn that nosenko was the cousin referred to in the hook. may i suggest a rewrite to avoid this ambiguity?

alt2b: ... that Igor Stravinsky said that he and Yekaterina Nosenko (pictured) – his cousin and first wife – were "closer than lovers sometimes are"?

as an aside, i am not sure if the quote actually adds anything substantial to the hook. as the two were married, i assume that they were lovers, and were therefore closer than lovers sometimes are, and also further apart than lovers sometimes are. (a more complete quote, with an explanation of the quoted description, was used in alt2, but was cut from the current hook due to length.) if it would be more appropriate to use a hook with more substance, i would suggest alt1, which was also approved, although i would add to Gerda's suggestion to strike "also" and note that "considered" could be struck as well. dying (talk) 03:27, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt What do you think of the revised hook? I'm on board with anything that gets the article to DYK, but it'd be nice to hear your opinion.
The quote is from Stravinsky himself, which is what makes it notable or interesting. At least it seems so to me. The implication of profound intimacy between Igor and Yekaterina—encompassing the social, spiritual, and carnal implications of that word—is more aptly conveyed in the full quote. As you said, however, the original ALT2 with the full quote was a bit long. If needed, I can whip up one or two more ALTs ASAP. Just let me know! —CurryTime7-24 (talk) 20:56, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
@CurryTime7-24 @Dying I personally don't think that there is anything wrong with the current hook. BorgQueen (talk) 20:59, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, I support that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:08, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
oh, i was mainly worried about the ambiguity. the quote doesn't worry me too much, as it is essentially flavor text, but i had just pointed it out because it seemed that no one had previously noted that the substantive part of the quote had been removed during the revisions.
at the time i read the hook, i knew virtually nothing about stravinsky's family life, so i had not known that stravinsky married his cousin. to me, in the quote, it looked like stravinsky was describing the relationship between nosenko and an unnamed cousin of his. i couldn't tell from the hook if nosenko was the first wife of stravinsky or of the unnamed cousin, but had guessed that she was the first wife of stravinsky because i didn't see any reason for stravinsky to mention that his unnamed cousin and his unnamed cousin's first wife were close if they were married. as a result, my takeaway was that stravinsky's wife was close to his unnamed cousin, to the point where the two could have been mistaken as lovers. if no one else was similarly confused, though, then feel free to ignore my concern. dying (talk) 22:29, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

KUCV

Queue 7: KUCV (nom) @Bruxton @Sammi Brie @BeanieFan11 Yet another radio/TV station. I think we're running too many of these. RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

  • DYK is meant to showcase new quality articles. It doesn't say there will be a large variety (though I think there is) - so if there's a lot of good radio station hooks it doesn't matter to me as long as the hooks are interesting. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
This may be the only one I will ever do that is a double DYK with a building. I did the building because of the station. And I will also point you to my prior words on this complaint, which I get seemingly every year at some point: Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_188#New articles only for DYK a problem. The pipeline of new nominations has ticked up in the last week but that's out of the backlog drive where I have a lot of pages that have finally been able to be DYK-nominated because they passed GA. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:58, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie I think it would be great if you did more of those in other countries than US. I liked the one about a station in Mexico you did a while back. BorgQueen (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea, though the sourcing availability does tend to vary quite a bit. I would write much more Mexico if I had better historical information—there are some other Mexico-specific issues. I have written one Canada radio station (plus two TV GAs and two more planned), some Argentina pages, and my 500th DYK was part of a quartet in France. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:35, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Feel It (MJ Cole song)

Queue 1: Feel It (MJ Cole song) (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @Launchballer @UndercoverClassicist the hook is sourced to {{cite AV media |title=5 April 2023 |publisher=[[Kiss (UK radio station)|Kiss]] |people=Tinea}}, which makes no sense. I see this was discussed in the nom and accepted on a AGF basis, but it's incomprehensible, so I don't understand what we're accepting or how a user could possibly use that citation to verify the fact. RoySmith (talk) 00:54, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Tinea is the name of the programme, presented by Tinea Taylor.--Launchballer 00:59, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
This is still mystifying to me. How would one go about verifying "Feel It" was Piri and Villiers' first song to be recorded in a studio given that citation? RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
@UndercoverClassicist: RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I would assume by requesting the episode from Kiss (the wikilink, as far as I'm concerned, makes it clear which Kiss it is); the BBC offer a similar service for £60, so I can't imagine Kiss would charge that much more and frankly, its cost wouldn't matter per WP:RSC. Unfortunately, I didn't take down the timestamp at the time, so I couldn't tell you when within the two hour broadcast it was (though I want to say third quarter), but I can tell you that before it went offline, the reference looked like this: {{cite web|url=https://planetradio.co.uk/kiss/shows/tinea/id-207538267/|title=Tinea - Tinea|publisher=[[Kiss FM]]|date=5 April 2023|accessdate=5 April 2023}}--Launchballer 01:40, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Given that the clock is ticking, I've unpromoted this. It needs better sourcing, but that can be done in the nom without any time pressure. RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
It's cited to a radio broadcast; the DYK guidelines say that we can promote inaccessible offline sources (that is, to which the reviewer has no reasonable chance of access) on an AGF basis, so to me this is the same. Someone who had listened to that radio show (or, as Launchballer notes, who could request it from the station) could verify that it included that fact, and it's easy enough from the citation to tell which show we're talking about. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 07:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Queues 5 and 6 mal-formed?

Queue 5 and Queue 6 are both missing the "The hooks below have been approved by an administrator..." header, which I guess is {{DYKbotdo}}. Could somebody who understands the formatting better than I do please take a look? RoySmith (talk) 01:20, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Looks like Casliber left off the tags. Casliber, would it be possible for you to tag both queues when you're done verifying them? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:24, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Oh crap...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 11:40, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
@Casliber did you verify the hooks? Are they all OK? Just checking. BorgQueen (talk) 05:04, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Yep (sorry, missed this) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 13:56, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived the other day, so I've created a new list of all 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 30. We have a total of 248 nominations, of which 116 have been approved, a gap of 132 nominations that has increased by 17 over the past 9 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than three months old

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Change to hook — Dolwyddelan Castle (queue 7)

I'd appreciate it if the hook could be changed from

... that after Dolwyddelan Castle (pictured) was captured in January 1283, its new garrison was equipped with white tunics and stockings as winter camouflage?

to

... that after Dolwyddelan Castle (pictured) was captured in January 1283, its new garrison were equipped with winter camouflage of white material and stockings?

This reflects a recent update to the page made as part of the DYK process and the British English tendency to use plurals for collective nouns.

I'd also like to point out a potential issue with the rules. The reason @BorgQueen gave for reverting my attempt to make these changes is that 'you're not allowed to alter your own hook', but I can't find that rule. (H2) and (J1) state that you can't approve or promote your own hook respectively, but if 'no editing at all' is the de facto rule this should be clearly stated somewhere.

Finally, I'd have appreciated a ping about the original post-promotion change to the hook made by BorgQueen. It's an improvement and BorgQueen was right to make it, but it's nice to be kept in the loop, you know? Thanks, A.D.Hope (talk) 14:23, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

@A.D.Hope I'd have appreciated a ping about the original post-promotion change to the hook made by BorgQueen Are you talking about delinking "camouflage"? No, we don't ping over a simple delinking; the term wasn't even directly relevant. BorgQueen (talk) 14:32, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
No, I'm talking about the overall change from

... that after Dolwyddelan Castle (pictured) was captured from the Welsh on 18 January 1283, its new English garrison were equipped with winter camouflage of white tunics and stockings?

to

... that after Dolwyddelan Castle (pictured) was captured in January 1283, its new garrison was equipped with white tunics and stockings as winter camouflage?

In this case removing the names of the two nations at war and the specific date doesn't have much impact, but I'm sure you can appreciate that changes like this could be significant. Giving the nominator a heads up is just a courtesy which could help prevent mistakes. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:37, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
@A.D.Hope I simply reverted your edit to your own hook, which is a big no-no. BorgQueen (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Well that's my point, I've had a good look at the rules and none of them say it's a big no-no — the fact the promoted lead had already been boldly edited actually gave the opposite impression. I'm not here to challenge the rule, however, just point out that it's not clearly displayed. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have been clearer that the edit was made by @AirshipJungleman29 and the revert by BorgQueen. It's not my intention to single out any one editor though, just give my perspective on the process. A.D.Hope (talk) 14:41, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
@A.D.Hope Ah, of course. I've edited the hook as requested.  Done BorgQueen (talk) 14:55, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you @BorgQueen, much obliged! A.D.Hope (talk) 14:56, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to be a pain, @BorgQueen, but would you mind swapping the current image for this one:
File:Dolwyddelan Castle, Conwy, Wales (cropped).jpg
The original is 'prettier' but this will probably be more legible at the smaller main page size due to the contrast of the towers against the sky. A.D.Hope (talk) 20:18, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 Done BorgQueen (talk) 20:36, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
A.D.Hope, the article says "an English garrison which was supplied". (You added the "was" here.) If "were" is correct for the hook, it should also be changed in the article. I'm not going to do it myself, because "were" looks so wrong to me. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:28, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
I won't change it if that's alright. The two sentences have a slightly different structure, so 'were' suits here but 'was' the article. It's one of those flexible choices of word. A.D.Hope (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Actually yeah, for the sake of consistency I'll change the article. It doesn't hugely matter either way, but why not? Cheers for pointing it out, A.D.Hope (talk) 19:37, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Centralizing the ruleset

Following this discussion about centralizing the rules and instructions, I don't see any wholesale objection, and all of the points raised were resolved one way or another. I'd like to do this informally, so if there's at least a few go-aheads and no opposition to me implementing these four pages:

Plus condensing the text currently at WP:DYKCRIT and adding a "ready! click here!" banner, I'll do so when this conversation is archived as well. If someone has strong objections, I'll throw to RfC at some point down the line. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, I didn't take part in the original discussion but this seems much better than the current arrangement. I'm sure some issues will only become apparent after the changes are implemented, but that's always the way with these sorts of things! A.D.Hope (talk) 23:02, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
This looks really good! Not having everything split out to multiple pages makes the process so much more accessible. :3 F4U (they/it) 04:58, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Yup, no objections here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:36, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Error in Prep 6

Prep 6 currently contains the "(pictured)" note in the wrong hook. @Bruxton, I think you're taking care of this prep area right now. I'd fix it myself, but I'm wildly unfamiliar with DYK, and I don't wanna break anything. I hope this is the right place to address this. Actualcpscm (talk) 14:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Already fixed. Bruxton (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Great, thanks! Actualcpscm (talk) 14:32, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Make-Do and Mend

Prep 5: Make-Do and Mend (nom) @Diary of a Dress Historian, Lightburst, and RAJIVVASUDEV: notwithstanding that this hook doesn't really fulfill supplementary guideline C2 (context)—which war? what country?—I'm thinking that a little rephasing needs to be done to comply with the source. Fashion on the Ration p. 131 only emphasises the official nature of Make-Do and Mend—as compared to the "unofficial" WI or WVS. Saying that it "cemented frugality through thrift as an important contribution to the war effort" does a disservice both to the source and to actual events, in which the campaign was only the official side of an already-cemented practice. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi! In that case, here are the alternative solutions:
  • that 'Make-Do and Mend' promoted frugality through thrift as an important contribution to the 2nd World War effort?
  • that 'Make-Do and Mend' was an important contribution to the 2nd World War effort, promoting frugality through thrift?
  • that 'Make-Do and Mend' played an essential role during the 2nd World War, promoting frugality through thrift and supporting the war effort?
  • that during the 2nd World War, the "Make-Do and Mend" campaign became the British government's beacon of hope, promoting frugality through thrift and supporting the war effort?
  • that during the 2nd World War, the British government encouraged and promoted 'Make-Do and Mend' as an essential practice, fostering frugality through thrift and supporting the war effort? Thanks RV (talk) 02:23, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
    What about
    I reckon that would reel in a few readers. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:57, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
      • Much better (although I've removed "unused" as not supported by the source). If someone uninvolved wants to switch the hooks, that would be good.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:11, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
        It's not particularly important, but this source could probably support the use of 'unused' as it states 'Men's suits left behind by serving soldiers became their wives' skirts and jackets.' Also, @Diary of a Dress Historian may be interested in this source, which is not yet referenced in the article but contains several facsimile Make-Do and Mend leaflets and a helpful introduction. A.D.Hope (talk) 17:07, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
 Done ... that during the Second World War, the British government's Make-Do and Mend campaign encouraged the public to fashion men's clothes into womenswear? Bruxton (talk) 15:09, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Prep 3 concern

I think we need a brief discussion about the hook for Behind Closed Doors (book), which is currently in Prep 3. As it stands the hook is:

I have concerns about this in respect to the biographies of living persons policy, specifically the section advising us to beware of gossip and the admonishment that, "the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment." Reading the article, it seems the cartoonists made these drawings to let off steam, and put them behind a door so they would not be visible to their employers. When the book was compiled, it used pseudonyms for the cartoonists instead of their real names. The existence of the book was revealed in 2012, but excerpts from it did not leak until last month and have been universally negatively received. I am concerned that by not exercising some editorial judgement and putting this on the front page of Wikipedia, we will be contributing to the spread of gossip that could potentially ruin these people's future careers. The article is well sourced, and I don't want to unilaterally pull this without discussion, but given the current state of preps and queues, this discussion needs to happen quickly. Pinging nominator, promoter, and reviewer (CJ-Moki—Vaticidalprophet—AdoTang) ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:27, 4 August 2023 (UTC)

I think the concern would be significant in the case of a more obscure article, but views are so persistently high, with such attention-grabbing headlines in news media less concerned about this than we are, that I don't know we'd actually do anything to raise the profile at all. Vaticidalprophet 19:29, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd have to disagree with that assessment – you can see from the background-view-adjusted stats table that DYK almost always drives more viewers to a page than there otherwise would've been. Pageviews on this are starting to recede, I think we'd be kicking back up a settled dust cloud by the time this hits the Main Page. I haven't decided one way or another on the hook itself, but I do want to note that our impact is measurably non-zero. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:35, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
Seconding this, and also noting that sources such as Dexerto state that the storyboard artists created and compiled the drawings in their own voice, not simply attributing the allegations to anonymous sources. CJ-Moki (talk) 20:48, 4 August 2023 (UTC)
@ONUnicorn: Do you still think that this is a concern that needs to be discussed more fully? If need be we can swap the quirky hook from another set to give us more time to discuss. - Aoidh (talk) 00:12, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh I've replaced it with one from prep 7. BorgQueen (talk) 00:29, 5 August 2023 (UTC)
At this stage, should the hook be moved into one of the prep areas? It is sourced and was judged to meet the DYK requirements in its nom. CJ-Moki (talk) 19:03, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Does anyone have any more thoughts on this hook? @Theleekycauldron, you said you hadn't decided one way or another. Am I off base in having BLP concerns? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 18:24, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd say this is something we probably don't need to have on the MP. Some of the sourcing strikes me as a little flaky as well; there's not a single source there outside the niche area, and some are a little blog-like. Black Kite (talk) 18:37, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

New York hotels for $100, please?

@BorgQueen maybe not two hotels in one hookset? RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith I personally don't think it's a problem but please feel free to swap. BorgQueen (talk) 22:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith Swapped.  Done BorgQueen (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

T Express and Nomination

I just promoted a roller coaster hook with the image to prep 6. I just now noticed that South Korea has no freedom of panorama. I wonder if someone can make a ruling on the image. Lightburst (talk) 01:08, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

I've nominated the photos of the roller coaster for deletion. Schwede66 07:00, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for checking it out @Schwede66:. Lightburst (talk) 15:04, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
@Schwede66 and Lightburst: if that image is a copyvio, does that also mean that the other image in the article is too? File:T Express Everland Resort.jpg is also an image of the rollercoaster. Apologies, my knowledge on freedom of panorama isn't good, and it shouldn't stop the nom from running, but if it is a copyvio, I guess it should also be nominated for deletion on Commons? Joseph2302 (talk) 15:16, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
It has been, Joseph2302. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:21, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Joseph2302: Yes, I do not see any exceptions for these images or any others. Very restrictive FOP. Our article states: South Korea's law, limited to non-commercial uses, is not sufficient for Commons; and it is straight up all Xs: South Korea ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗. Lightburst (talk) 15:25, 1 August 2023 (UTC)
@Lightburst and Schwede66: The image is not copyrighted as South Korean FoP law provides an exception for non-building structures (such as bridges, dams, tunnels, etc.) See this Commons page Specifically, this is because South Korean law only protects copyright of Architectural works including buildings, architectural models and design drawings. :3 F4U (they/it) 04:39, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. That's much appreciated. Schwede66 06:03, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
@Freedom4U: Thanks. It looks like one of the images is of buildings with the coaster in the background. Lightburst (talk) 04:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Whoa... I did not notice this thread until now. I was kinda wondering why my hook got the image removed from it when it went in the queue and I guess this was the reason. I myself am completely OK with my hook appearing on the main page w/o the image, but then again I still wanted to know if the DYK queue will have to get the image updated or something.... — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 01:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Hotel Normandie

Queue 3: Hotel Normandie (nom) I wrote the hook, so somebody else needs to review it. RoySmith (talk) 02:20, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith I couldn't access the paywalled NY Times piece, but I'm going to AGF. BorgQueen (talk) 04:12, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 1

@EytanMelech and Longhornsg: articlc creators, @Peaceray: reviewer, @AirshipJungleman29: promoter: I cannot find in the article where it says there are "130,000 speakers worldwide". Can you quote in the article where this is said, or add it to the article with a citation? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 15:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This article from NBC states the 130,000 statistic. I can add it to the template article for the ANdL. EytanMelech (talk) 15:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
EytanMelech, This article says it may be 11,000, 130,000 or 400,000, I am not sure how to reflect so much uncertainty in a hook. TSventon (talk) 15:58, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
The number of Ladino speakers isn't mentioned anywhere in the article, so there's certainly no reason to mention it in the hook. Why not just:
or even just:
RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I think that the 130,000 is somewhat important as it signifies the lack of modern-day speakers of the language. EytanMelech (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
@EytanMelech: If you want a figure in the hook, you will need to add the cited number to the article. With TSventon's observation above, it might be difficult to put an exact figure in the hook. Z1720 (talk) 16:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
The fact that there are few modern-day speakers is implicit in the dedication to preservation. RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Then sure, we do not need to include a figure in the hook. EytanMelech (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Neverthless, to avoid confusion & to address Z1720's concern, I changed the initial text in the History section to read In 2019, Ethnologue estimated that there was over 130,000 Ladino speakers in the world, whereas others sources [...]. I also added archived source "Ethnologue 2019-02-25" with |url-status=deviated. Peaceray (talk) 14:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
That sounds like the right move. Be short and pithy (but accurate) in the hook, and expand on the level of detail in the article. RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 2

@Dahn: nominator, @Pbritti: reviewer, @AirshipJungleman29: promoter: The hook says the quoted information was about Michael's financial status before the marriage, but the article says these quotes are from a 1817 report (5 years after their marriage) and that the information is talking about events that happen after the marriage. I am also concerned that the hook, while bolded to Roxani Karatza, is entirely about Michael. Is there a better hook that can be used? Z1720 (talk) 16:26, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Z1720: Please read the whole quote in the article: "[he] barely had the means to support himself; since his marriage, he receives from his father-in-law a monthly stipend of seventy thousand piasters, and at times extraordinary installments of another fifty to a hundred and twenty thousand piasters each." It is a report on things that had happened before, going into things that were happening in 1817. There are other hooks to be made from the article, but why go through this cycle when reviewers at the actual review-and-selection stage found it both interesting and non-problematic? (And yes, her historic role was decorative in many ways, as such were the times. In this context, she was used by Michael as a meal ticket, and I think that is historically relevant, even from a purely feminist perspective -- that was the generic status of Istambuliote women in 1817.) Dahn (talk) 16:31, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Perhaps the translation or phrasing is a bit stilted, but "barely had the means to support himself; since his marriage [...]" reads to me as "he was impoverished before his marriage; his marriage helped fix that". I would appreciate Dahn providing the original language of the source so we can maybe hash that out a bit more. It's an imperfect hook but I (generally) prefer approving an interesting hook that the nominator found interesting rather than requesting an alternative. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I can provide the quote, I guess, but it would make little sense to add to the article, since I have it from a Romanian book that translates a German original. I think I rendered the quote exactly as it appears there, translating a translation. I'll check. Dahn (talk) 16:38, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
C12 in the supplementary guidelines says "The bolded article should generally be the main or at least a major factor in the hook". I am not sure this hook fulfils this criterion, but I am interested in others' opinions. Z1720 (talk) 16:41, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
She was presumably not a major factor in her own marriage. Dahn (talk) 16:51, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Here's the quote (as usual, I'm made to jump through hoops). I was wrong above, it isn't in German translated into Romanian, it is in French, which the compiler left untranslated (for reasons that shall remain mysterious): Le sieur Michel Suzzo est un jeune homme singulièrement beau, d'environ trente ans. Avant d'épouser la fille du prince de Valachie, il avait à peine les moyens suffisants pour subsister; depuis son marriage il reçoit une pension de son beau-père, de soixante et dix-mille piastres par mois (other perks of the marriage are mentioned over the following paragraph). Dahn (talk) 16:50, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
French version confirms to me that this hook is wholly accurate (all those Bs in high school finally paid off). I saw the article subject as the primary actor in the hook but this could be accentuated by dropping the "singularly handsome" bit. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:53, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to dropping it, I just thought it would make the hook a tad funnier. Dahn (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I clarified in the article when Michael barely had the means to support himself, per the quote above. I am still concerned about C12, even with the handsome quote dropped, and hope other editors will give their thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 16:55, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Since this hook is being discussed, it did strike me as odd that the article being promoted is Roxani Karatza but the hook is about her husband. Does the article contain any facts about Karatza which could be used? A.D.Hope (talk) 17:00, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
  • As much as I find the objection contrived:
  • ... that, commenting on her support for the egalitarian Greek Republic as a Phanariote dame, Roxani Soutzos (pictured) said it was "[b]etter to be a servant in Greece liberated than a princess in Greece enslaved"? Dahn (talk) 17:49, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
@Dahn: At 202 characters, that hook might be a little too long. Perhaps replace "observed" with "said"? Z1720 (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
@Z1720: "Said" it is then. Dahn (talk) 06:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I have replaced the hook. If there are any concerns, please post below. Z1720 (talk) 14:59, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Z1720 Please rmemeber to change the image caption, which says "Roxani Karatza", while the new hook refers to her under the married name. Dahn (talk) 19:46, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Done. Z1720 (talk) 19:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Proposal: Themed sets

Proposing adding at Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines:

Supplementary prep guidelines

Themed sets should gain consensus before being built.

  • Support as proposer. Valereee (talk) 17:28, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Support This is just common sense. I don't actually mind themed sets and I think we should actually have more of them, particularly focusing on non-Western events like Eid, etc. if only to counter our systemic bias. However, we really need discussions on them, and more importantly, consensus. We want to make sure such sets are within process and don't simply happen just because one or two people wanted them and did them themselves. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:15, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Neutral not thrilled with the word, "consensus". --evrik (talk) 01:20, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
    Too much of what we do is "voting" so getting consensus is tough, especially when so many of us hold strong views. I'd like to update the guidelines to say that someone can propose the set, and propose the day and the potential articles they want to run. Personally, when I started building the Santiago set I looked for guidance, and their was none. So I started writing articles to see if I could get the set together. I started requesting they be held, and then I was going to make the proposal. Holding them seemed like the easiest thing to do. I think we're overthinking this. --evrik (talk) 22:21, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose I find Special Occasion hooks and themed sets to be pretty cool and fun to work on. I think they should be encouraged. The coordination of three independent people are already required — the nominator, the promoter, and the queuer — and in many cases the reviewer adds a fourth vote of support. Among those three or four users, there is already agreement that the themed set should run. Requiring explicit consensus from even more than three/four editors is against WP:BOLD and would discourage new ideas. Of course, BOLDness works both ways, and opposing editors are free to revert and ask for additional discussion, per WP:BRD. Edge3 (talk) 02:12, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Support As somebody who moves preps to queues (including the one that started all this), I don't see my role as approving the special occasion. I did raise a concern about the last one, but I think I would have been totally out of line if I had said, "I don't approve of this special occasion, so I'm not going to move it to the queue". I'm basically looking that the hook facts verify and there's no copyright problems. That's about it. RoySmith (talk) 02:21, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
    PS, I think special occasion sets are fine. We should do more of them. Just talk it up and get people on board first. RoySmith (talk) 02:24, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Support requiring clear, explicit consensus for full themed sets, which have knock-on effects well past those already present for date hooks as a whole (e.g. taking longer for all-nominations to make it from DYKNA to the main page). Vaticidalprophet 03:48, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Support requiring clear, explicit consensus for a full set as per all my previous discussion on this matter. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:28, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Why not allow people to try out themed sets – with the understanding that they could still be rejected down the line if they somehow don't "work" following evaluation and discussion? As a reader, I find the themed sets very exciting and illuminating – the "coronation" sets this year were a particular highlight. In theory, it would be nice if you could build consensus prior to assembling them, but that's just not how content creation works on Wikipedia – it's volunteer-driven, and the direction and pace of creation is often unpredictable. We often talk about what motivates promoters in particular to perform such a thankless task, and I find it exciting that promoters who also happen to be prolific quality content creators like Dumelow and Kingsif and evrik find so much joy and payoff in the way the themed sets come together. In theory, we could have bots assemble prep sets per pre-defined parameters; it takes humans to perform these feats of creativity and insight in a dynamic and at times unexpected way. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:40, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
    Just to make it clear, the discussion isn't intended to prohibit themed sets. No one is suggesting that themed sets are not allowed. What is being discussed is if themed sets require express approval via a discussion before they are done, particularly if they aren't the usual already-have-long-standing-consensus sets like Christmas and IWD. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:14, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
    I'm not even sure that this proposal requires "express approval via a discussion". The proposal as written only requires "consensus" for themed sets. Consensus can be reached naturally (WP:CONACHIEVE), and "an edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted" (WP:EDITCON).
    I'm with @Evrik. The word "consensus" in this proposal is vague because it doesn't necessarily carry the meaning that people seem to think it has. Plus, we shouldn't have to seek explicit approval for every BOLD idea. This is exactly why we have WP:BRD. Edge3 (talk) 16:26, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Support what consensus means is that something is broadly supported by the community, and monopolising the whole of ITN, DYK or any other MP project by one editor who happens to think a particular theme on a particular day is "cool" flies directly in the face of that. It also does a disservice to the WP:READER (our ultimate target, people: we do these things for them not because we think they're "fun") by giving a false impression as to the breadth of our coverage. There will also be WP:NPOV issues: it is sometimes hard enough to find a broad enough selection of topics to maintain a detached spread of articles without purposefully limiting ourselves. As noted above, this proposal wouldn't prevent hook sets, it would merely go some way towards preventing such shenanigans as we saw recently with an obscure religious figure from an even obscurer part of the globe. SN54129 12:09, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Support I do like some of the themed sets we've seen so far, but some prep builders don't seem to be aware that a set requires a certain degree of variety. BorgQueen (talk) 12:26, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Coming down off the fence as a support, on the condition that it's made clear that consensus be obtained at a discussion at this page. I really like themed sets, and I think we should do more of them – but the two fiascos we're going through as a result of unilateral themed set building have subjected a lot of community volunteer time and effort towards building a set the community didn't really agree to. I'm not super okay with that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:58, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
    also, exceptions for Xmas, IWD, and AFDay, of course. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:01, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
    I think this summary is rather harsh. --evrik (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
    Agreed. I wouldn't call this situation a "fiasco". Edge3 (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
    My bad, maybe I could've chosen my words more carefully. The fact remains, though, that putting together a themed set or other project actually takes a lot more work than one person slotting in hooks. Admins have to rearrange sets when we shift DYK's output speed; other preppers have to work around the holes in the preps but still make sure we have bullets in the chamber; volunteers need to fast-track reviews and promotions; nominations need to get moved to the SOHA; in this run-through, PSHAW needed to be updated to accomodate an edge case – all of that is actually a fair bit of work, and not all of it can be done by the people who came up with the idea in the first place. We have enough problems just making sure that DYK runs as normal that being able to call an "all hands" for a novel idea no one really agreed to doesn't work for me. That could pretty easily end up messing with the project workflow, and that is more important to me than whether the sets run in the first place. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:24, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
    update: one of the special occasion projects couldn't continue at current pace because it was holding up admin queue work. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:30, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
    We agreed that the pace was ambitious and it wouldn't be too harmful to miss a few, which I think is definitely the right attitude for an attempt at a month-long theme... of course, there were available hooks, which highlights the bigger issue here: there's plenty of voices chiming in at this thread to say there should be discussion and consensus, but there's very few actually contributing to those discussions/even just acknowledging them. Whether we signpost at the top of the talkpage that there's discussion for a themed set going on, or an edit note at preps asking if the promoters checked for themed hooks, perhaps we can address that to help make sure there are fewer tensions, even if not less work. Kingsif (talk) 23:48, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
    That's fair, Kingsif. My ideal guideline would be something like any themed set needs to be announced at WT:DYK by at least four editors in good standing, at least one of whom needs to be an administrator. If the theme is challenged by an editor in good standing, consensus is required to proceed with the proposal. That would resolve my concern about workload, without getting in the way of themed sets too much. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:54, 30 July 2023 (UTC)
    I don't think it's necessary to require a strict minimum of four editors, and also to require that one of them be an admin. The numeric thresholds feel unnecessarily bureaucratic and restrictive. It's also unclear what it means for an editor to be "in good standing". Edge3 (talk) 02:55, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Leaning oppose on this, as I don't think there are processes in place. Many posts here get few participating editors, conversations are almost never closed (the "explicit consensus" calls feel like they'd need something like that), there's no coordinator system. The simple "gain consensus" wording feels like it is open to a similar number of disputes given these factors, and a new guideline without much clarity adds another muddle to the way things already muddle along here. CMD (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Discussion

From what I see, there seems to be an assumption that someone, other than the nominator, is supposed to move approved special occasion hooks into SOHA. In practice, this rarely happens and instead the nominator ends up moving the hook.

Suggestion: Add a new, optional parameter to the DYK nomination template for the nominator to request a specific date two-six weeks later for their hook to run. The nom's reviewer would be required, as part of approving the hook, to determine if the special occasion request is valid (a clear statement for the date would need to be given by the reviewer, or the review would not be considered completed). If the reviewer approves the date, anyone (including the nominator) can move the approved hook to SOHA. The prep builders, as part of their review, will also determine as part of their review if the date is valid. If three or more hooks for an occasion are approved for a date, one of the hook nominators will have to open a discussion on the DYK talk page or risk only having two hooks per set running for an occasion, as chosen by the prep builders. A clear consensus, as determined by someone not part of the discussion, must be determined before the themed set can run. Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes to the review parameter, no to lengthy discussion if there's more than two for one date. Just put them all in (provided there's not more than will fit). Prep builders are unlikely to notice early enough that substantial discussion occurs, at least when we're running one set a day. Kingsif (talk) 20:34, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@Z1720, the nominator should never be moving the hook, currently. You think in practice nominators are moving hooks? Valereee (talk) 20:35, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Well, that's what evrik did, and honestly I can't see a practical reason why that should be forbidden (obviously moving to prep is a no-no). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee: Absolutely I do. Checking the past 500 edits to WP:DYKNA, here are three examples from different editors: [27] [28] [29]. And I don't blame them: if I looked back another 500 edits, I would probably find three more editors who have done this. There is no set process to determine who moves the hooks to SOHA, so the hook usually isn't placed in SOHA unless the nominator moves it. This is why I think adding a requirement that the reviewer approve the date request will allow the hooks to be "approved" for the date and allows the nominator to move the hook to SOHA. Z1720 (talk) 21:18, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Is there some way we can set up the SOHA to have an edit notice reminding people that they shouldn't be moving their own hooks there? RoySmith (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29, nominators moving to prep is what we're talking about. Valereee (talk) 23:57, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Hang on, Valereee, we're not talking about prep. We're talking about the WP:SOHA. Evrik did admit to moving his own hooks to the latter, but not the former. I can't find any nominations that evrik both created and moved to prep. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:02, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I think we should concentrate on what we're going to do in the future and not get all wound up about who did what in the past. RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we need to add a new widget. Let's clarify the guidance and educate everyone as to what is possible. --evrik (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Ugh, my bad. Valereee (talk) 10:35, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
You could go strike those accusations ... --evrik (talk) 15:31, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
One strikeout, LMK which other diffs should be edited. Valereee (talk) 17:52, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, @Valereee:. Thing is, the dame is done ... now @AirshipJungleman29: is using your against me. Oh well ... --evrik (talk) 22:00, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
??? Are you saying you didn't move hooks to SOHA inappropriately evrik, as I and leeky told Valereee above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:35, 29 July 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate the attention paid to this, as I have been in the situation of having promoted a hook prior to the special request date, in part because no one had moved it to the SOHA section – so I had understood the matter to be "optional" – but got yelled at later for doing so. I just worry that this is opening us up to more long, gnarly discussions at DYK Talk, mainly because there are special dates that have way too many nominations (e.g., International Women's Day, April Fool's Day), and we shouldn't have to have a huge free-for-all about which hooks should be chosen. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
Question: Has DYK defined what a themed set is? How many hooks on a topic have to be in the set before it is considered "themed"? Z1720 (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
No. If you look at this part of the guidelines, Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Date_requests where we talk about, "DYK special occasion projects," that's all we say. --evrik (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
  • Despite some people saying "opposed" and some saying "support", I don't think there's actually much difference between the two camps. Nobody's saying "we can't do special occasions", and nobody's saying "anybody can go off and do a special occasion whenever they want". The difference is that the "support" people are saying, "get consensus before you start a special occasion set", and the "oppose" people are saying, "it's ok to start a special occasion set on your own, but be prepared for other people to shoot the idea down". RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 27 July 2023 (UTC)
    #2 shifts the burden from "person who wants a themed set (that is, to dedicate a quarter of the main page to a single subject, and to delay other DYK promotions for it) has clear affirmative consensus" to "any one of some number of possible objectors unpromotes hooks". This 1. will cause drama, as is common for the intersection of "promotions seriously held up" with "date request", which 2. will produce bystander syndrome because no one wants to be the guy in the middle, resulting in even more "turns out too late there wasn't consensus" incidents. The whole of DYK is the process of the nominator getting clear affirmative consensus for something to run on the main page -- I'm not sure why getting 8 of the same thing to run would be any different. Vaticidalprophet 17:44, 27 July 2023 (UTC)

Time to close?

There hasn't been discussion of any kind in several days and it seems like discussion has died down naturally. Is it time to close this and make a decision based on what's been discussed? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:02, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

David Webber (basketball)

Queue 7: David Webber (basketball) (nom) @AirshipJungleman29, TonyTheTiger, and Legoktm: The hook seems overly complicated, with three different people mentioned (Chris Weber, his brother David, and Larry Bird). Why do we care that Chris is David's brother? It also doesn't seem interesting; records get broken all the time. What's so special about this particular record? Also, the citation is to a 55 page PDF file. It really needs a more specific citation, i.e. a page number. I tried searching the PDF to find how it supports the hook, but couldn't find anything useful. RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Why do we care that Chris is David's brother? It's more that David is the brother of a hall of famer. I wouldn't be against cutting this part if people wanted to.
What's so special about this particular record? It's that the record was originally set by Larry Bird, who's one of the best basketball players of all time. Breaking it is not necessarily a big deal, but it's certainly a neat factoid IMO.
And I'll look up the specific page number. Legoktm (talk) 18:38, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: The source that he broke the record is actually this one. The giant PDF is to cite that he and Larry Bird still hold their respective records, which is on page 19. I've moved the cites around in the article to try to make that clearer. Legoktm (talk) 18:43, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Even as a basketball fan myself who knows who Bird is, without additional context, the hook doesn't make much sense. The hook as currently written probably violates WP:DYKSG#C2 and I would suggest pulling it or moving it to a prep while a more globally-understandable hook is written. @RoySmith: Given that the circumstances, is a pulling probably in order? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:41, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

David Webber (queue 7, hook 2)

Sorry to raise this quite late in the day, but the wording of the second hook in queue seven strikes me as a bit convoluted:

that Basketball Hall of Famer Chris Webber's brother David broke one of Larry Bird's records?

As I understand it the hook is trying to draw people in by making them wonder which of Larry Bird's records was broken, as he's considered one of the greatest players of all time. On that basis, perhaps it should be rephrased:

that former basketball player David Webber broke a record previously held by all-time great Larry Bird?

Given David is the subject of the sentence it makes sense to mention him first, as does dropping the mention of Chris to allow more to be said about Larry Bird. Basketball can be quite US-centric, so that extra context (which I've paraphrased from Bird's article) is helpful for wordwide readers. The exact wording may need to be changed, and David's article should probably be tweaked to note that Bird was one of the greatest players of all time. Thoughts?

@TonyTheTiger, @Legoktm, @AirshipJungleman29 A.D.Hope (talk) 15:27, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

I noted the same thing above, and Narutolovehinata5 concurred. I'm deep in other stuff right now, but could somebody go ahead and pull this? RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
Oh I'm sorry, that's my fault for not checking. Queue 7 won't go live for three full days, so perhaps there's time to save this hook? If everyone can agree on a new form of words it's a fairly simple fix. A.D.Hope (talk) 15:37, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
@A.D.Hope: your hook suggestion sounds good to me. (P.S. I merged the two sections so it's easier to follow.) Legoktm (talk) 06:40, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I'd be fine with the hook since it gives more context and why Bird is significant. @RoySmith and Legoktm: Since the hook is going up in a couple of days, would it be a good idea to change the hook now? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:16, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I've been tied up with other stuff for a while, so I'll leave this to somebody else, but the proposed replacement looks good to me. RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
Is it OK if I do the hook replacement given that I was also the approver? There are 3 other people in favor of changing the hook but I don't want to do the wrong thing. Legoktm (talk) 01:57, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 4

@BorgQueen FYI in queue 4, the hook ... that according to the Source-Message-Channel-Receiver model, all forms of communication are attempts to influence the behavior of the audience? needs to use en-dashes. The link is currently a redirect (to the page which uses en-dashes in its title). :3 F4U (they/it) 12:47, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@Freedom4U 수정했습니다  Done BorgQueen (talk) 12:51, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Infinity Stones

The hook was recently modified to unlink Infinity Saga for some reason even though it should be linked because it shows the group of films that the Stones played a big part in. Can someone please relink it? -- ZooBlazertalk 17:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

@ZooBlazer The hook was overlinked. Please note that the hook is just to get our readers to click on the bolded link. BorgQueen (talk) 17:22, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
Besides, we do not allow redirect links on Main Page. See Wikipedia:MPNOREDIRECT. BorgQueen (talk) 17:33, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Can't edit hooks section

Recent changes by theleekycauldron have made it impossible to perform a section edit on the actual "Hooks" section of preps. You can get there if you have the "Add an [edit] link for the lead section of a page" gadget installed, by clicking to edit the previous section, but that's obviously very unintuitive, and not everyone has the gadget enabled. Is there any reason why ==Hooks== can't be restored to where it was, instead of in {{Did you know/Clear/header}}? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:16, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

my bad! feel free to move. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:35, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
I haven't been around for a few days. I took care of it now. I only moved ==Hooks==, which means that {{DYKbox}} is one line higher, but I like it better this way. If others prefer it the other way, that could be moved too. The currently-filled queues now have no Hooks heading. If an admin wants to add them, they can, but it's okay for a few days without the heading, which will return as preps are promoted. This shouldn't affect the bot's functionality, as it looks for <!--Hooks-->. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:41, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

Approved nomination not getting moved by the bot

Hello, I had my DYK approved nearly 24 hours ago, but it still hasn't been moved to the staging area by the bot, so I assume something isn't marked properly? I did a separate nomination earlier today and once it was approved it was moved by the bot during its next update. I brought it up with the reviewer earlier today and they said to just wait, but like I said, I think something is marked wrong so it's not being auto moved. -- ZooBlazertalk 04:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

I've moved the post-review conversation outside the {{DYK checklist}} template; I think that should do it, but I can move it manually if it doesn't work :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:04, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron Awesome, thank you! -- ZooBlazertalk 05:07, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Unbundling

I have a busy watchlist (it's pushing 10k items) and have thus some reluctance to add "busy" pages to it. One page that I'd like to watch is Template:Did you know (as part of my work at WP:ERRORS) and what's stopping me is that Template talk:Did you know (i.e. where new nominations end up) is busier than my tolerance level. I'm not aware that there's a way of suppressing a page's talk page from your watchlist (wouldn't that be great?). If there's ever big structural change done at DYK, maybe it could be considered to unbundle the nomination page from the page that gets transcluded onto the main page. And to be honest, that one is the talk page of the other feels a bit artificial.

This isn't the most pressing item by a long shot. Maybe this idea could just be filed away under "if we ever do big structural changes, let's throw this idea into the mix". Schwede66 05:04, 11 August 2023 (UTC)

yeah, Schwede66, some time ago, i was worried about the same, but i ended up adding the page to my watchlist anyway. after a few weeks, it turns out that i was okay with it. i also find the location of wp:dykn confusing, and think it should be moved to "Wikipedia:Did you know nominations", as the shortcut suggests (or possibly either "Wikipedia:Did you know/nominations" like "Wikipedia:Today's featured article/requests", or "Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations" like "Wikipedia:In the news/Candidates"), but until something like that happens, i'd suggest that you just try adding it to your watchlist and see what you think of it after a few weeks. you can always remove it from your watchlist later on if you don't like it. dying (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
haha, scratch that, Schwede66. i just had an idea and looked at the html code for the watchlist, and it turns out that you can suppress a specific page's talk page on your watchlist with some custom css code. if you add "li.mw-changeslist-ns11-Did_you_know {display: none;}" to your common.css file, you should be able to avoid displaying edits to that talk page on your watchlist. admittedly, i haven't fully tested this, since i just came up with the idea, but it's difficult to see how the code can interfere with anything else. please let me know if this doesn't work for you. dying (talk) 03:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Very clever, Dying. Thanks for that. It works, although the CSS page was moaning about the script and suggested to leave off the leading "li". I did so and voila, the offending talk page is suppressed. Schwede66 04:30, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
oh, great, Schwede66! i'm really happy that it worked for you. i added the "li" just in case something else outside of the watchlist used the same class, but didn't think it was necessary. thanks for letting me know about the css page complaining about it; i will keep this in mind when suggesting similar css code to others. dying (talk) 17:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
A year or so ago, my watchlist got up to about, IIRC, 13k. I decided to trim it down and discovered that when your watchlist is that long, it's very difficult to edit because the various watchlist editing tools timeout. So you might want to get on top of that before it gets any bigger :-) RoySmith (talk) 17:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Roy. The quantum has been stable for at least a couple of years; I’m already managing that. Schwede66 18:22, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Vatican Hebrew MS 133

Queue 7: Vatican Hebrew MS 133 (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @Davidbena @Llywelyn I suspect most of our readers won't know what "emending" means. I think that's OK for the hook by itself, but it's also not explained in the article, which I think will leave many readers scratching their heads. Maybe add to the article a short explanation of what an emendation is? RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

pinging reviewer LlywelynII. dying (talk) 02:16, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I suggest: rectifying, amending, or correcting. BorgQueen (talk) 01:53, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Oy, what a fix we'd be in then. RoySmith (talk) 01:54, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I mean, rewording it only in the hook. But perhaps the term can't be replaced like that, having read Emendation (textual). BorgQueen (talk) 02:05, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Oh, that's where it is. I tried looking for Emmendation and was surprised it didn't exist. That we have Emendation (textual) but not Emmendation is probably a violation of some WP:MOS rule. RoySmith (talk) 02:11, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, we have Emendation, and that has the correct quantity of the letter "m" (that is, one only). Schwede66 04:34, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
@Schwede66: He's not wrong that it's sometimes helpful to have redirects from likely misspellings. On the other hand, it may be helpful to leave it redlinked to force people who might mistype it to notice and correct their running text. Thoughts? — LlywelynII 04:39, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I had thought about it for a second to set up that redirect but then decided not to. You are correct; there are two sides to that. Schwede66 04:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Oh my, one m, not two. OK, I've gone ahead and wikilinked "emendations" in the article. That addresses my original concern. It might be worth also linking it in the hook, but I don't feel strongly about that either way. RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Whatever is agreed upon is fine with me. If it will make reading any easier, you can use "correcting," instead of "emending."Davidbena (talk) 18:49, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

Can I temporarily put citations after a "Good Article" lead sentence for a hook?

I worked on an article that has recently passed a Good Article review. I was not thinking about a DYK hook and it occurs to me now that the only sections of the article that make sense for a hook are in the lead. Is it acceptable to temporarily add citations into the lead of a recently passed GA just for the purpose of DYK verification? I don't see this prohibited in the rules, but I also don't see it allowed. If this is not kosher, I'll just skip the DYK for the article. Rjjiii (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

That's what is sometimes necessary for DYK purposes. It's kosher. Schwede66 04:35, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Generally, content in the lead is in the body, per MOS:LEADCITE:

Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material.

I assume this is an unavoidable exception?—Bagumba (talk) 10:41, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Redundant citations are sometimes added in the body, I don't see why the lead would be different per se, but like Bagumba I'm wondering how something that can be independently sourced in the lead is not in the body. CMD (talk) 11:21, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
There's also the point that MOS:LEAD states: Apart from basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article. Since that's part of the GA criteria, it seems odd that any hook facts are in the lead of a GA yet not also in the body of the article and cited there. BlueMoonset (talk) 12:42, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Given that the question is about a new Good Article, the problem may be that the lead summarises cited information from different parts of the article and the hook is picking up information from the lead which is sourced in two or more different places in the main article. TSventon (talk) 14:46, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis and Bagumba, it is sourced in the body. Perhaps it's not clear what I was asking. In the lead of Ängelholm UFO memorial, I have summarizing sentences like "The monument reflects the account of Swedish entrepreneur Gösta Carlsson, who attributed his success in life to encountering a UFO in 1946." but in the body these are expanded in ways that would not make sense as a hook. For example, "Carlsson attributed his success to a May 1946 encounter with a UFO in the woods near Ängelholm, though he did not speak publicly about the events until the 1970s." and "Cast in Carlsson's Välinge factory and based on his sketches... and so on, are sourced but wouldn't work as a hook.
Since this is seems controversial, I will just skip the nomination. Rjjiii (talk) 16:47, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I see no reason to skip this; the lead is supposed to summarize the article body, and if you're using such a summary for a hook, just supply the various citations in the nomination.
That said, I want to note that CITELEAD does not prohibit citations in the lead at all, and I for one routinely use lead citations, and always do so for controversial articles. There's absolutely no reason not to include citations in the lead if you believe they would make the article stronger or more stable. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:58, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree, there is no reason to skip. The hook does not need to copy the exact wording used in the article, and you can use the body citation and/or duplicate it in the lead. CMD (talk) 02:28, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Helpful reminder to identify quirky hooks

Just a reminder that it would be helpful if a {{DYKsmirk}} template was added whenever an editor comes across a hook that may be quirky. It transposes like this: This might make a good quirky hook.(?). Thanks! Bruxton (talk) 19:55, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Maybe WP:Did you know/Create new nomination could include a checkbox for this? RoySmith (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon That is a terrific idea. And it may be good for reviewers, and promotors to drop it in the nomination for now. Bruxton (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
  • While I think the idea is fine, it probably should be pointed out that quirky hooks are not mandatory. It's okay if a set doesn't have one especially if we're running low on quirky hooks. We don't need to delay making sets just because a quirky hook is unavailable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:16, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't know that this is super-necessary -- generally people can tell from reading the hook if it's a candidate or not. (It also risks the problem of funny-hooks-with-images being delegated to quirky when they historically do really well in the image slot.) Vaticidalprophet 02:29, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: the idea was that {{DYKsmirk}} actually has a tracking category (Category:Pending DYK nominations with potential quirky hooks), so promoters can find quirkies much more easily than sifting through the pile for 'em. As for quirkies in the image slot, that's promoter discretion either way. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:10, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination Medway Branch

CLOSED
Manually moved (non-admin closure) Lightburst (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

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

When I red x {{subst:DYK?again}} a nomination is there a bot that moves the nomination back to the "Awaiting approval" page? Or must it be done manually? Thanks Lightburst (talk) 18:37, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

|I saw that BlueMoonset moved the nomination manually. Lightburst (talk) 22:38, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Special occasion request

Please consider Template talk:Did you know/Approved § 2023 United States FIBA Basketball World Cup team for a special occasion post on 26 Aug, which would coincide with the US national team's opening game of the 2023 FIBA Basketball World Cup. Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems like a reasonable date request to me. It would (currently) need to be in Prep 1. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
 Done Bruxton (talk) 14:42, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Pigache at Errors

Pigache is currently on the main page. An issue has been raised at Errors. Could interested parties please assemble there to get this resolved? Don't start a discussion here; let us have one discussion only (at Errors). Schwede66 04:57, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Seems it was never resolved but now off the main page in a natural changing of the set. Bruxton (talk) 19:09, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Nope. It was pulled; the set has 5 hours to run. Schwede66 19:13, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon sorry thought it was over and now I have us posting in two threads. Bruxton (talk) 22:24, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Adopt a new user/output?

Lāhainā Heritage Museum

I've been hooked, and devastated by the fire destruction of Maui these past few days, as I'm sure a lot of Wikipedia is. While doing a routine scroll through "New pages", I found the above created by new editor JaliscoPine. This is a pretty decent piece of work for a newcomer, and I like the images. Earwig copy detector doesn't seem to find any issues. Last minute squeeze here, but is there room in the next few days or weeks for someone (other than me) to create a nomination for this? — Maile (talk) 20:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Book/binding

In Queue 3: ... that librarian Paul Needham has been called "the most vociferous voice from within the rare book world" in support of the rebinding of books made of human skin?   Nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Needham (librarian)

Vaticidalprophet, do you think this hook adequately represents the facts? It's saying that he wants to rebind books made of human skin, which to me implies the whole book is that material. But my understanding of the article is that only the bindings are made of human skin.

Also, I do not consider such a hook as appropriate for the uplifting/quirky slot. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:48, 12 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Um, hang on, the original nom was " ... that librarian Paul Needham has been called "the most vociferous voice from within the rare book world" for the destruction of book bindings made of human skin? (my bold). Surely the hook suggests the opposite - it certainly doesn't suggest (to me, anyway) that he wants to rebind the books in something else than human skin. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
Optimal wording here is hard. "Book bindings" is probably best, let's go with that. (I don't agree that 'quirky' and 'uplifting' are synonyms, nor that every prep set has one.) Vaticidalprophet 23:02, 12 August 2023 (UT8C)
I never thought, said, or in any way implied that they're synonyms.
No, not every prep set has to have a quirky hook, but many sets can end with an upbeatish one, and every set can at least end on a neutral hook. A final hook shouldn't be about what the subject of this hook refers to as "postmortem rape". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:26, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure "quirky hooks can't be about dark(?) subjects" is entirely accordant with practice. (Trying to find a word that won't feel mischaracterizing.) I've generally both taken and seen the practice taken as meaning more like "offbeat" than "upbeat". I didn't anticipate this would be placed in that slot, but I wasn't shocked by it or anything. Vaticidalprophet 03:06, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I selected this hook for the last slot as I thought it fell under "quirky" i.e. unusual in especially an interesting or appealing way. WP:DYKSG notes that the final hook should be one of upbeat, funny, or quirky, not necessarily all three. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:17, 12 August 2023 (UTC)
    Just to emphasize an important point, DYKSG doesn't say that the final hook should be one of upbeat, funny, or quirky; it just says that prep builders should consider choosing such a hook if there is one available. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:50, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Agree with "book bindings", but would also note the hook wording leaves it ambiguous as to whether Paul Needham wants to rebind them in new material or is advocating for rebinding in some restorative way to preserve the current material. CMD (talk) 02:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Yes, this was my point above. The whole point of the hook is that Needham is the most vociferous voice in favour of removing human skin bindings and replacing them with something else, and the current hook does not suggest that at all. Black Kite (talk) 10:43, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
    Ah, I missed that. I would support your suggested wording, assuming the aim is clarity. CMD (talk) 14:20, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Since the hook is presenting the opinion of a specific person, it's important to be accurate about the claim the person is making. Do they say that Needham is "the most vociferous voice" in support of rebinding, or in support of the destruction of the skin bindings, or (as the article has it) in opposition to the preservation of these books? Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:45, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I have access to the source now. The quote about Needham is in the context of a discussion about the binding of one specific book, an edition of Arsène Houssaye's Des destinées de l'ame. It says that Needham was the most vociferous voice from within the rare book world for the binding's destruction. It is going beyond the source to say anything about rebinding, or to talk about the vociferousness of his opinions about skin-bound books in general. I've edited the article to reflect this. Queue 3 is due to go live in a few hours, so this hook should be pulled as a matter of urgency. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:41, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm working on that now. RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
OK, I've swapped it out to prep 4, which should give us plenty of time to work on it. RoySmith (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
err @RoySmith, Sojourner in the earth, Black Kite, Vaticidalprophet, Mandarax, and Kusma:, this was never actually worked on and is now back in the queue... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:48, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
No good deed goes unpunished. OK, I'll unpromote it. RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I had seen this discussion at some point, but thought for some reason that it had been resolved when I did the prep tp queue. Would it work to say
That seems to be confirmed by his letter to the New York Review. Could we do something like that and then put it back? @RoySmith, Sojourner in the earth, Black Kite, Vaticidalprophet, Mandarax, AirshipJungleman29: thoughts? —Kusma (talk) 21:18, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Given the controversy this created, I think it best if it goes through a full review cycle again. RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Albert Bahhuth

Queue 5: Albert Bahhuth (nom) @Bruxton @Maximilian775 @Tim O'Doherty the hook says "a subway", but the sources say it was two subway stores. RoySmith (talk) 01:18, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

The name Subway is ubiquitous, but yes we probably need to state "Subway restaurant". Bruxton (talk) 01:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I was mostly referring to the discrepancy between one and two, not whether you say "store" or not (although "restaurant" would be more accurate). RoySmith (talk) 02:10, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Or "franchise" Bruxton (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I've added "franchise" to the hook. RoySmith (talk) 12:46, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list the first 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 4. We have a total of 240 nominations, of which 74 have been approved, a gap of 166 nominations that has increased by 34 over the past 8 days! Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations; we’re really falling behind.

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:30, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Methodology

To be fair, I think most of the increase is because we now have 6/7 filled queues, rather than the normal 1-3, which means that between 25 and 50 approved hooks are not at WP:DYKNA anymore. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:04, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29, the increase BlueMoonset highlighted is in the number of unapproved nominations and means that the number of unapproved nominations added in the 8 days exceeded the number of unapproved nominations removed (by being approved, failed, etc) by 34. Moving approved nominations to prep or preps to queue does not affect the number of unapproved nominations. TSventon (talk) 09:59, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I hate to be pedantic TSventon, but the increase of 34 is for the gap between nominations at WP:DYK and WP:DYKNA (last time around was We have a total of 248 nominations, of which 116 have been approved, a gap of 132 nominations that has increased by 17 over the past 9 days.; 166-34=132). If five prep sets were returned to WP:DYKNA, that would be an extra 40 hooks there, meaning that the gap would have decreased by six. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:09, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29, I will also admit to being pedantic. If five prep sets had been returned to WP:DYKNA, that would have been an extra 40 hooks there and an extra 40 hooks at WP:DYK. Hence the difference between WP:DYK and WP:DYKNA would still have been 166. TSventon (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Speakng as the person who creates the page, the gap is the number of nominations that are awaiting approval. As TSventon notes, promotions do not affect the gap, because each promotion reduces both the total nominations and the total approvals by one. The problem here is that we don't have as many reviewers doing extra reviews to make up for those new DYK participants who don't have to do QPQ reviews until they've gained experience, and for those nominations that require extra reviewers. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

2023 British Athletics Championships

Queue 5: 2023 British Athletics Championships (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @Joseph2302 @Bagumba Given the thread above about hooks being interesting, I gotta wonder if there's anything interesting about an outdoor event being held in the rain. RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

You ever been event staff on a rainy day? It's the only thing anyone's interested in. Vaticidalprophet 01:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have to disagree here. Even as someone who isn't into athletics, it does seem odd that an athletics event would be held out while it was raining heavily. I don't know if it's a common thing or not but it does catch my attention at least. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:37, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I would agree if it was plain rain, but "heavy rain" crossed the threshold for me. It varies regionally, but I'm from parts where parents think kids will virtually melt or likely catch cold from being in the rain, and would find it peculiar that a mere sporting event would continue. Some sports have rainouts for player safety. —Bagumba (talk) 01:48, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Maybe there's a better wording to demonstrate that it was extreme rain- just look at the image on here for how ridiculously wet it was. Maybe we could change the hook to "torrential rain" or "extremely heavy rain"? Joseph2302 (talk) 08:14, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Could add to the article and hook that the winner Zharnel Hughes was soaked and called it the "the worst ever" conditions.[30]—Bagumba (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
How about "... that the men's 100 metres at the 2023 British Athletics Championships was run in an epic downpour?" (https://www.runnersworld.com/news/a44495010/zharnel-hughes-100m-win-in-rain/). RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
My dictionary says that use of epic, "particularly impressive or remarkable", is informal. —Bagumba (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
One way to get around that would be to attribute "epic" as a quote. Maybe state it "described as an epic downpour" or something like that? Otherwise the heavy rain aspect still seems appropriate. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:01, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Quotes are abused in DYK. Ideally, quoted text should have WP:INTEXT attribution to who said it. But the amount of rain is not anyways contested, and quoted attribution makes it seem like a biased opinion. Also, quotes without attribution can mistakenly come off as a WP:SCAREQUOTE (for clickbait). —Bagumba (talk) 02:50, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
personally, i would hesitate to use "epic", as the word only appears in the headline of the runner's world source, and headlines are usually not considered reliable sources, according to wp:headlines. as an alternative, the runner's world source also uses the description "torrential weather". in any case, i had thought that the phrase "heavy rain" was fine, and either of Joseph2302's suggestions of "torrential rain" or "extremely heavy rain" would work just as well. dying (talk) 03:28, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
torrential and heavy are synonyms. There is a tendency for some to want to sound more "scholarly", but I also see some copyeditors "downgrading" to plain English. —Bagumba (talk) 05:53, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
My thought would be torrential (as that often means very heavy rain), but not convinced whether average reader would know what that means. Maybe "very heavy rain" or "extremely heavy rain" would be clearest to readers? Joseph2302 (talk) 10:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I would go with "torrential rain". The Cambridge Dictionary defines it as "very heavy rain", and the US National Weather Service uses the term similarly, as something beyond "heavy". RoySmith (talk) 14:18, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

John Sterling (American football), etc

Queue 5: John Sterling (American football) (nom) @Lightburst @Gonzo fan2007 @BeanieFan11 I have two comments here. One is that the three articles are all almost identical. This looks like some cookie-cutter football player article where you just fill in the blanks with the team they played for, where they went to school, etc. That's not strictly at DYK issue, but it certainly doesn't make for interesting reading.

More to the point (and germaine to DYK) is that this is another "hookiness" issue. This was a year with a player's strike. There were lots of replacement players signed by lots of teams. What makes it interesting that these three players were signed as replacements? We could probably write hundreds of "... that X was signed by the Y Team as a replacement player because of a player's strike during the 1987 NFL season?" hooks, and likewise for various combinations of players on a given team. What's makes these three special? RoySmith (talk) 01:31, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I liked the nomination for several reasons: first we are entering the American Football season, and second I like the Green Bay Packers. Also I am followijng the "interesting" discussion above and will note that three of us found it interesting. we could probably write hundreds of "... that X was signed by the Y Team as a replacement player because of a player's strike during the 1987 NFL season?" But we only have this one hook, and I see no more in the pipeline. There have been dozens of paintings, and radio stations and buildings with semi-interesting hooks. Lightburst (talk) 01:52, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Barely interesting enough in that a player strike is rare and the league carrying on with replacement players is even rarer (at least in the NFL). Is there evidence that this type of hook occurs too regularly? —Bagumba (talk) 02:00, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Good point @Bagumba: I think it may be the only time I remember. Lightburst (talk) 02:02, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith, thanks for the subtle jab at the articles I wrote. These articles are part of Wikipedia:WikiProject National Football League/Football biography cleanup, a task force focused on improving one-line stubs that were created using pro-football-reference.com or NFL.com data. All three of these articles were heavily researched using Newspapers.com, literally the only available reference source for these three players. Like literally, if not for the hard-to-find sources in these articles, they probably go to AFD. I'm sorry that these three people didn't do anything notable outside of college football and NFL, but what am I supposed to do about that? I figured one grouped hook would be more interesting then three separate hooks about replacement players.
I personally think the hook is interesting enough for DYK, considering some of the hooks I see on the main page every day and the fact that NFL replacement players are super rare. That said, if you really are in too unhappy about it, is this better:
ALT1: ... that after playing just a few games for the Green Bay Packers as replacement players after a players' strike during the 1987 NFL season, John Sterling, Anthony Harrison and Chuck Compton never played in the NFL again? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
Off topic
How about all of you get a real job? Therapyisgood (talk) 15:55, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
What, the sportspeople or the Wikipedians? If the latter, then "et tu Brute?" (heh a Latin pun). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:06, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
I think the original hook was sufficient, and this proposed one is somwhat winded, if not also over the usual hook character limit. It'd be another issue if there gets to be too many replacement player hooks, but there is no evidence this has been the case.—Bagumba (talk) 10:25, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
This is also remarkably similar to the not particularly interesting hook on today, which basically just asserts that 7 people played for the Packers at some point: {{Did you know nominations/Jug Bennett}}. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:55, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Replacement player tidbit is somewhat intriguing, and a soft spot for a multi-page hook, but I agree with you about today's. —Bagumba (talk) 11:58, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I see this as having exactly the same problem as the John Sterling hook. During the 30s and 40s, there must have been hundreds of players who played for Lambeau. You could pick any random group of them and write the same hook. What makes that group of 7 players special? RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
According to 1987 Green Bay Packers season#NFL replacement players, they made a whole new team of around 55 players due to the strike. Listing three of these players like this is completely arbitrary and not at all interesting. @DYK admins: can we pull this, pending a consensus on this or a new hook? Joseph2302 (talk) 11:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Here's the thing - we don't require the cited hook to be a thing that happens only once, but rather that it's interesting. There are issues with things being at DYK too often. But, things like the World War or COVID effected lots of people and events, it doesn't mean you couldn't include a hook that was interesting regarding these matters. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 11:40, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't think any hook that has ever been on DYK can't be defined as "completely arbitrary". That's the point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:37, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 6: Delresto (Echoes) (nom)

@ULPS, MaranoFan, and Bruxton: the phrase "dream collaborator" isn't from Scott, it's from Complex, which seems to be overstating it quite a bit. To go from that to "his dream to collaborate" is even more of a stretch. Can the language be reigned in? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:14, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Could "was a fulfillment of his desire to collaborate with Beyoncé..." work? Also, I am new to DYK, should I make the edit or wait for someone else to agree on it? ULPS (talk • contribs) 00:43, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
@ULPS: I'd do something more like:
Once it's been promoted, you aren't allowed to edit it per WP:DYKTRIM, so I'll swap in a wording once we agree on it :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:50, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I like that hook.
Thanks for explaining that process :) ULPS (talk • contribs) 00:53, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Happy to help, swapped in! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Totally unrelated query

Was that your first admin action, Theleekycauldron? Schwede66 05:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Moving the set to queue was indeed my first swab with the mop :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:25, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
That must feel so good. Welcome to the team and well done with your rather convincing RfA! Schwede66 05:44, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
:D thank you! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Well let me offer my congratulations after such a divisive RfA 😉 ULPS (talk • contribs) 14:48, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Yes congratulations on your successful RFA. I bet it feels good to know that you are trusted by everyone. I just installed @Novem Linguae:'s editor highlighter and I can confirm that your name appears in the appropriate blue color. Lightburst (talk) 15:00, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Lightburst! ridiculous, I can just highlight my own name: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
So rude of my opponent (nothingness) to not give a concession speech, ULPS :P theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:11, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
Most definitely, I understand the sadness after losing by only 300 votes, but we must all be graceful in defeat. ULPS (talk • contribs) 18:13, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I am happy for you, for DYK and for the project as a whole. Thanks to @Beeblebrox: for nominating. I wish you could have gotten more !votes. It was such a lackluster showing at 300-1-1. Bruxton (talk) 18:56, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Alexander Armatas (prep 7)

@Bruxton: Can we verify that Armatas is indeed featured in the Blue Angels video accompanying this hook? I can see that the date of the video lines up with his commandership of the squadron, but if we can't directly verify it I think we should probably reword the caption to omit his name. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 23:55, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping @Ravenpuff:. Yes he is plane number one in the front which you cannot see from the video angle. Amanda Lee is in number three Left Wing. Here is a short article where he was interviewed before the show. "I'm typically not looking at them... There's other things to focus on -- other than the crowd," said Commander Alex Armastas, who leads the Blue Angels formations. If there is still a question we can omit his name in the caption. Bruxton (talk) 01:01, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Alexander Armatas

Queue 7: Alexander Armatas (nom) @Lightburst @Maury Markowitz @Bruxton Needs an end-of-sentence citation for gunslingers. RoySmith (talk) 18:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the ping @RoySmith:. I Moved the April 2022 reference which states: Currently, Armatas is commander of Strike Fighter Squadron 105 (they are known as the "Gunslingers"). Bruxton (talk) 18:26, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Three Bards

Queue 7: Three Bards (nom) @Lightburst, Piotrus, and RAJIVVASUDEV: I don't see where the article calls them "the most celebrated poets in the history of Polish literature". RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Piotrus can you clarify where this appears in the article? RoySmith (talk) 17:02, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I want to acknowledge that I have seen this. I am waiting for @Piotrus: to respond as well. Lightburst (talk) 17:11, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Quote: "overshadowed by three earlier literary 'giants' long celebrated both in exile and home". I've also added some sources with quotes, and the expression, clearly, to the body. This is common knowledge to anyone familiar with Polish literature. @Nihil novi, @Volunteer Marek, @Marcelus for sanity check. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:08, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Sorry to be a pain about this, but we do need WP:RS, not "common knowledge to anyone familiar with Polish literature". The two quotes you provided (thank you for those!) only talk about (paraphrasing) "most celebrated romantic poets", but you've turned that into "most celebrated poets" without the "romantic" qualification. That should be clarified. RoySmith (talk) 00:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Will this work? In terms of my own personal opinion I wouldn’t mind the “romantic” qualifier in there since I think the more general case is very disputable (off the top of my head Herbert, Tuwim and Milosz are all better known and more widely read than at least Krasinski). Volunteer Marek 02:21, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Mickiewicz, Slowacki, and Krasinski are the most prominent Polish Romantic (Polish Messianist) poets, conventionally called the "Three Bards". I would no more constrict attention, in the history of Polish literature or poetry, to these Messianist poets than I would, in the History of philosophy in Poland, to Poland's Messianist philosophers.
Nihil novi (talk) 03:01, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

How to pull a hook?

Could we add something to WP:DYKAI which describes how to pull a hook from the main page? Based on today's pull of Pigache, I'm guessing it's something like "If feasible, replace it with another hook, but it's also OK to just delete it and run one hook short. But if you're deleting the image, that always needs to get replaced with another image"? RoySmith (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not really something that's made clear. A lot of admins like to replace any hook, but WP:DYKA isn't set up to log that change. That puts the hook that gets swapped in at a disadvantage with respect to the stats tables and leaves inaccuracies in the log. On the other hand, pulling a hook without replacement might leave the Main Page off balance. I'm personally more sympathetic to "replace as little as you have to", because we don't have a way of alleviating the logging concerns at the moment and the Main Page is frequently off balance anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I assume by "off balance", you mean "DYK has fewer errors than the other sections"? :-) RoySmith (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion on the replace/don't replace spectrum, but if we do pull together instructions, it would be good to remind administrators not to add images until they've been protected at Commons. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I would prefer that a hook, if it is pulled, is not replaced because it adds an extra step that might delay or break the process. Running 7 hooks for a couple hours is not a huge net-negative. Adding this to the instructions (and maybe putting a hatnote to the instructions on top of the DYK section in WP:ERRORS?) would be a good idea. Z1720 (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
@Z1720: In this case it was the image slot, does that change anything in regard to replacing? Bruxton (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
having a backup image is ideal, but I don't think there are enough candidates for that. Lemme go on a dive and see... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Okay, it does seem like most sets have at least one non-image hook with a freely licensed image somewhere in the article that I would feel comfortable putting on the Main Page. So that's a good solution, if it can be wrangled, but it does have to either be locally uploaded or protected on Commons... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
It might. Would it be good to have a bank of 3-5 hooks that could be used in the image slot in case this happens? Perhaps we can put together some hooks from GAs that did not appear on DYK so that no one gets short-changed when their hook is used to replace the image slot, or pick popular image hooks from the past 5 years. Z1720 (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
The problem I see with replacing a hook is that the new one doesn't get the same level of scrutiny as it normally would (i.e. Next DYK and Next-but-one DYK). It would be sub-optimal to replace a defective hook with another defective hook. RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Here's what I would suggest:
  • Step 1: Pull the hook.
  • Step 1a: If it's the lead hook, pull the image that goes with it, too.
  • Step 2: If you have time, use a hook that ran a month ago to fill the gap.
  • Step 2a: If you pulled the photo, use a lead hook from a month ago but protect the photo first before you post it.
With regards to this particular case, I wasn't sure why we didn't just substitute with one of the other approved hooks. Substitution should always be considered first. Schwede66 04:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm curious why you would want to recycle a hook from a month ago? I remember this happened with Dorothy Olsen; apparently for main page balance by Vanamonde93. I don't see any evidence it replaced a pulled hook. Were things just done differently back then? RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Replace "one month" with your chosen length of time. Recycling hooks has these advantages:
  • No checks needed as that was done previously
  • it’s not fair on a new hook to run for just a few hours
  • if you do run a new hook as a replacement, it muddles the stats
Schwede66 18:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
running an old hook as a replacement also muddles the stats, but if we did that and somehow had a <!--noStats--> tag, I'd be happy (except that'd be very difficult to make standard practice). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
It's easy to tell from the Template:DYK history if a hook was added as part of the original hookset promotion or if it was added later. No need for magic HTML tags. RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Sure, but then, what's the point of having an archive page at all? Let's just let people dig through the history of that template for everything. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
When I was more active at DYK I would routinely recycle hooks; sometimes to replace pulled ones, but more often to deal with whitespace below the DYK section, sometimes but not always in response to a post at ERRORS. My reasons for using an old hook are all the ones Schwede mentions, and I'll emphasize that at that point there were quite a few conversations about "fairness" with respect to hours on the mainpage that made me not want to risk using a new hook. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Licensing of photographs of copyrighted sculptures

I am planning on nominating a hook about a (presumably) copyrighted sculpture on display in the US, and I believe it would be a good image hook. In short, it appears to be unclear whether (a) as the copyright holder, the sculptor can choose to authorize the licensing of specific derivative works (photographs not taken by the sculptor) under a CC license, while still retaining otherwise unlicensed copyright on the original work, and (b) if this were the case, those photographs would constitute free images that can be uploaded to Commons and used on the main page.

Perhaps this is better suited for Commons, but there has been previous discussion here too. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 184#Copyright violating image in prep 4? and c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/07#Sculptor wishes to donated images of copyrighted sculpture for some more in-depth discussion of this. I'm asking again since it seems that none of these discussions have come to a definitive conclusion. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

In general, we assume that it is possible because it works out better for everyone and we get more images that way. It's also common to have screenshots of copyright software donated this way as well. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
In that case, if they were to agree, how should the copyright owner indicate to VRT the specific circumstances? As far as I can tell, c:Commons:Email templates and the release generator only cover the case where the copyright holder would be licensing the entire work, which is not correct. They would merely be authorizing a specific derivative work. Is it sufficient for them to explain that situation in an email? —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 20:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Einebillion, that's a rather interesting copyright question. I wouldn't call the photo a "derivative work" but that's just a technicality (and maybe I've got that wrong anyway). As a copyright expert, do you have time to think about this and provide a perspective? Are you still on annual leave or has your busy job sucked you in again? Schwede66 22:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
My understanding is that with 3D works, the angle of the photo, lighting, etc. constitutes sufficient originality to be considered a derivative, at least in the US, but by no means am I an expert either and could be wrong.
In thinking about this further though, US law only provides new copyright protection to the new elements of a derivative work. The elements from the existing work are considered part of the derivative but don't get any new copyright. So, that makes me wonder if it would be insufficient to just get the authorization of the derivative, since the photographer can license the "photographic elements" but there is still unlicensed material (the actual work that is the sculpture) in the photo. Would it then be necessary for the sculptor to freely license the specific expression of their own work (which seems unreasonable)? I may be completely missing something here, though, that would make this unnecessary and make just the derivative's authorization sufficient. Maybe this is a bit pedantic, but at the same time, this image would be appearing on a highly visible page and I would obviously like to avoid the possibility of any potential hook getting pulled as much as possible. Would greatly appreciate any opinions from Einebillion or anyone else who has more expertise in this area. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States, sculptures and other works of art have copyright protection, so assuming the work is still covered by copyright, then a photo of a sculpture will have *2* copyrights, the sculpture artist's , and the photographer's. Now, if I as a Wikipedian took a photo and uploaded it to en.wiki, I can license my photo under a free license - it still means the image is copyrighted due to the sculpture, but when that copyright is expired, then the entire work has a free license. So if the sculpture can be photographed in a public place, then we expected per NFCC#1 that we want a freely licensed photo of the sculpture to be used even though it remains non-free until the sculpture is out of copyright. Masem (t) 01:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Hm. I think that's probably the correct interpretation – that, absent the licensing of the sculpture and even with the sculptor's permission for a "freely licensed" photograph, the photo would not be considered free. I guess the next (last?) question to ask is whether the sculptor could license just the rights to reproduce the copyrighted material depicted in the photo, but not to allow derivatives of that material. Clindberg makes the argument that there's no reason why that shouldn't be good enough for Commons, as it's basically the same as if the photo were taken under freedom of panorama (I'm guessing an FoP image could run on the main page, even though not fully "free" in the sense of allowing derivatives of the underlying 3D work). —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 03:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Urm...

What happened to the idea of leaving at least half of the last prep area empty? All preps are currently full. BorgQueen (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton BorgQueen (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: I usually fill a couple slots in the last set if all preps are full. Some other editors filled in the rest. We have some eager prep builders at the moment and that is a good problem to have. I appreciate all you do for this section and I understand your concern. Bruxton (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton I've pinged you because you're the one who filled the pic slot of the last prep, which was supposed to be left empty. But anyway, pinging @AirshipJungleman29 too. BorgQueen (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
BorgQueen I put the fire basket hook in because the set was already full and that one had been at the nominations hook since May. Apologies if I should've waited. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 no apology needed. But if we're to scrap this rule, perhaps it needs to be said clearly. @Theleekycauldron any input? BorgQueen (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
The rule is fairly recent, and it wasn't rare at all to see all preps built out before it. It was sometimes a problem, but I don't know if it was that big of one. More generally, at the moment we have many noms coming through from the successful GAN backlog drive, but prep-to-queue promotions are only just recovering, so it'd be expected we have a lot of preps built. Vaticidalprophet 15:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen and Vaticidalprophet: This became standard practice largely at the request of promoting admins, who wanted to be able to have a backup place to move hooks when issues arise (i.e. special occasions or errors).
Speaking with my prep builder's hat on, I think it's a pretty hacky solution; anything that makes us have to bug new preppers with unintuitive social norms isn't a great workaround. What I would like is a psuedo-prep set with indefinite length. This would pretty much address admin concerns about needing a place to dump hooks, plus it would let preppers separate the verification step from the prep building step of actually putting the set together, plus it allows the prep building team to store surpluses when we have more editor-hours than we need (instead of just letting the preps be full). Leaving the back prep set half-empty, though, is current best practice until the community agrees to a better solution. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
My solution is "double the number of preps", but a lot of people and I have been on that for a while. (I'm not super clear on the use case of the pseudoprep compromise -- the fun part of prep building is building preps, a staging area lacking that just seems like DYKNA 2.) Vaticidalprophet 22:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: I'd actually be fine with that, honestly. The pseudoprep isn't really DYKNA to, because you have to verify a hook to move it from DYKNA to the pseudoprep. From there, the same promoter or anyone else can schedule it how they like. I personally don't really prefer one step to the other – putting sets together is fun, having to do it at the same time as verification isn't. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Global perspective on the main page

There's a thread at WP:VPR#Global perspective on the main page which folks here might be interested in. RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The gist of that thread is that yesterday's DYK was overly US-centric. RoySmith (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
What is US centric is subjective but I checked the first three queues and found US hooks in Queue 2 4 to 7 and Queue 4 4 to 7. TSventon (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I've shuffled Q2. BorgQueen (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
I shuffled Q6 – i can do reshuffles of sets before they hit the main page, too. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Reopen nom

Hi, please let me know if I should post this elsewhere.

I had a nom for an article rejected previously, and I wanted to try reopening it now that I've gotten it up to GA. Please see Template:Did you know nominations/Budae-jjigae. I made a post on its talk page too. toobigtokale (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

nvm solved by opening a new request toobigtokale (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

alternative pages of approved nominations

as wp:dykna has now exceeded the peis limit (and i acknowledge that i am partially responsible), i wanted to follow up on my earlier suggestion of creating twelve alternative pages each transcluding approved nominations from a specific month. i thought i might provide some code to show how this could be easily implemented. to avoid cluttering this page, i have placed my code in an invisible comment underneath this bunny: 🐰.

if this seems like a good idea, i think it would make sense to create these pages at locations such as "Template talk:Did you know/Approved/07" or "Template talk:Did you know/Approved/July", and have an informal navigation box near the top of wp:dykna and the monthly pages to provide links between them. (the box might not show up if the template is placed at the bottom of the page.) there probably shouldn't be much else in the monthly pages, in case any of them are in danger of breaching the peis limit.

i recently realized that we could also easily transclude all the nominations from the most recent week into one page, and do the same for the second-most recent week, and so on. sample code to implement this idea is in an invisible comment underneath this hamster: 🐹. this idea seems to have less of a chance of breaking the peis limit, as the alternative pages only include nominations from one week. it also seems to address the problem more directly, since the nominations that might not show up on wp:dykna are the most recent ones. i admittedly don't have a good suggestion for what to name these alternative pages, though. dying (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me- though does this need a change in the bot code to move the approved noms to the specified pages rather than WP:DYKNA? If so, I imagine there will be some work required (as the bot would need logic added to know which page to put them onto). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Joseph2302, no, i do not believe any change to any bot code is required. wp:dykna will still work as it normally does, with the bot moving approved nominations to wp:dykna as usual, and the alternative pages will simply transclude nominations from wp:dykna. note that the process of transclusion does not involve moving code around; nominations that would normally be found on wp:dykna will stay on wp:dykna, and the code i am proposing would simply copy a subset of them to the alternative pages to get around the peis limit.
accessing the alternative pages is completely optional; no one's workflow will need to change if this option is offered. if the option is available, then whenever wp:dykna hits the peis limit, you can simply click on, say, the alternative page that transcludes the nominations from the most recent week, in order to review just those nominations if they are not showing up on wp:dykna. just earlier today, wp:dykna was not showing the nominations from the last few days, so the option of clicking a link to review just the nominations from the most recent week, or just the nominations from august, would have been useful. however, if you prefer to not use the alternative pages, you can continue to use whatever method you have been using so far to view those last few nominations, or simply continue to ignore those nominations if that is what you have been doing so far.
note also that the code i am proposing does not require a bot to update it. the code for the proposed alternative page for july simply copies over all the nominations filed under dates from july, and the code for the proposed alternative page for the most recent week simply copies over all the nominations filed under dates from the most recent week. i think, if you copy the sample code i posted in the invisible comments above and preview it in your sandbox, you should get a better idea of how this code would work.
anyway, please let me know if there is anything else in this proposal that could use some additional clarification. thanks for raising the question. dying (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Eh, I think going above the PEIS limit is a problem that is always rather quickly resolved, and anyway as a promoter I prefer to focus on the older hooks, not the newer ones affected. Obviously, there's nothing stopping you from creating the pages, but I honestly don't think they'll be used that much. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
The core problem here is that we have more submissions than we can handle. The solution to that is to be more selective about what we accept. Working around the WP:PEIS limit just kicks the can down the road. Eventually we'll need to switch to two sets a day to work through the backlog if we aren't willing to be more selective about which submissions we accept. Given that we barely have enough bandwidth to process one set per day, switching to two per day isn't a good plan, so we need to start rejecting submissions that aren't good enough. RoySmith (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
yes, RoySmith, this idea admittedly merely kicks the can down the road, but seeing that no one appears to have proposed an acceptable way to deal with the issue for years, i thought it would be better to kick the can rather than have us trip over it every so often. if you can think of a good way to limit what we accept, i would be on board. meanwhile, i thought this workaround could be useful. i'm not sure i understand what your stance is regarding this proposal. would you rather the option not be offered? dying (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
you're right, AirshipJungleman29, i could probably just create the pages, and no one would likely complain, but i thought it would be a good idea to get feedback first. i don't know if i will be the only one using these alternative pages, but as i review approved hooks not only to promote them, but also to try to catch any issues that may have been missed, i thought these alternative pages might be helpful to others that do the same.
working through the actual details of implementation, i am thinking of creating four pages, each with one week's worth of nominations, and naming them "Template talk:Did you know/Approved/week", "week-1", "week-2", and "week-3". to link to them from wp:dykna, i was thinking of using something like the notice below, to be placed immediately below the lead and above the hook count template.
due to how the wp:dykna page is implemented, this code would be added to {{DYK nomination header}}. i was thinking of implementing it in a template called {{DYK approved overflow nav}}, to conform with the names of other templates in the category "Wikipedia Did you know navigational boxes". a simplified version would be placed on the alternative pages themselves. would anyone object to such an implementation? are there any suggestions for improvement? dying (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  • i have now implemented the alternative pages. note that i ended up naming the navigation template {{DYK recent approved nav}}, as i realized that this was a more appropriate name whenever wp:dykna did not exceed the peis limit. also, i was having trouble getting the {{notice}} template to appear only on wp:dykna, so i ended up emulating it with a div instead. please let me know if you encounter any issues. thanks, all! dying (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Post-promotion hook change notifications

Each DYK nomination nowadays contains the text: Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/XXX; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Considering that post-promotion hook changes are a fairly rare occurrence, does this deserve a mention in every single DYK nom? Also, considering that if you add the nom page to the watchlist as suggested, you would anyway see the change in watchlist even if the bot didn't post a message to the talk page. So, does it make sense to instead have the bot log all such hook changes on a central page which can be watchlisted once? (Ping @Theleekycauldron as botop.)

In any case, I'd suggest removing the small-text message as it doesn't seem important enough, and likely confuses newer users. Nominations created via DYK-helper/DYK-wizard are automatically added to the nominator's watchlist. – SD0001 (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That was meant to be a temporary notification – it's totally something we can remove if we want to. The intent of it was to make sure users didn't remove pages from their watchlists when noms are promoted. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Fairly rare occurrence? That can't be true; I probably trim a not-insignificant proportion of all nominations I promote. I had a look at one random prep set (not by me)—the first two hooks have been modified.≈ ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I reckon nine out of my 34 hooks in the last nine months have been edited post-promotion.--Launchballer 23:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
It's actually quite easy to look up how often GalliumBot creates nomination talk pages for documenting hook changes. And when you look at that list, it becomes very clear how frequently that happens. Schwede66 23:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
Is it not possible to automate "watching" a DYK nomination at the point of creation? Cielquiparle (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Under Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist, check "Add pages I create and files I upload to my watchlist" RoySmith (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
What I meant is: Is there not a way to force all submitters to "watch" their DYK nominations by default? (Also... Why is it that users aren't automatically notified/pinged when their articles are nominated?) Cielquiparle (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Because Mediawiki. RoySmith (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
It should be possible to include watching the nomination in the helper scripts that most nominators use. —Kusma (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
And a notification for article creators. —Kusma (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: I'm pretty sure nominators do watch their noms, by virtue of having created the page... as for automatic notification, that doesn't seem too difficult. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
Cielquiparle, i don't know for certain, but i am guessing that this is because a notification is generally sent to a user when an edit which includes a new link to that user's user page is signed by an editor using four tildes, and the script that automagically creates dyk nominations does not include such a signature, opting instead to include a link to the nominator's user page and talk page, and a timestamp. i assume that a notification of the nomination can be sent to an article creator if a signature made using four tildes is explicitly included somewhere in the nomination, but i have never tried this myself.
perhaps it would be a good practice to simply add a comment like "courtesy pinging the article creator. ~~~~" in the comment field of nominations where the nominator is not the sole creator. dying (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Is every qualifying article "entitled" to be on DYK even if there's nothing hooky?

I am not as active at DYK as I once was. I rejected a hook at Template:Did you know nominations/William J. Ennis. The submitter (User:Ergo Sum) objected on grounds that "I think it is implicit in the structure and rules of DYK that every article is eligible by virtue of that article being notable for inclusion on WP" even if it is "a relatively uneventful article, as this one is." In the end, Ergo Sum came up with a hook that appears to be accurate ("...that William J. Ennis was the first vice principal of Loyola School in New York City?"), but the proposed hook is terribly mundane. Am I wrong in thinking that we enforce the hookiness requirement? Or is Ergo Sum correct that every qualified article is entitled to be featured on the Main Page even if it is "relatively uneventful"? Cbl62 (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Right then, everyone to their battle stations; ready the supplementary guideline cannons; study the manuals of previous skirmishes (the seven million battles of classical music and the three fisticuffs of other stuff); and three, two, one, FIGHT! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
For sure, the rule is that hooks need to be interesting. I think I'm in the minority in that I can't get too worked up over that. My personal opinion is that DYK exists to promote our best new articles, and it's unfair to gate that based on whether the nominator is good at writing catchy hooks. With the current example, I would write:
... that William J. Ennis only lasted two weeks as prefect of studies at Loyola College in Maryland?
Which I suspect people will find hooky. But just because I was able to come up with some click-bait doesn't mean the article is any more or less deserving to be showcased on the front page. It's a well-written article. Probably wouldn't have any trouble at WP:GAN. I'm totally uninterested in Catholic education, yet I still found enough while reading the article to hold my interest. It would be a shame if it was kept out of DYK just because somebody didn't write a catchy hook. RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
That might actually be a good hook compared to the previous proposals. However, the original point still largely stands that not every article is a good fit for DYK and if there's nothing suitable for a hook, there is no shame in letting nominations fail or even not nominating them for DYK at all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

As someone who has had a painful experience before of an article being rejected for lack of a hooky hook, the ideas of "every article fits DYK" and "we must nominate every article we create/expand/improve to GA status no matter what" have to die with the force of a thousand suns. Technically speaking, Ergo Sum is right: there's nothing in the rules that says that no article is explicitly banned from being featured on DYK just because it is mundane. However, we do have a particular DYK criterion (which I may add we reached after thousands of characters of discussion and a whole RfC): The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest. Admittedly, there can be a wide interpretation on whether or not a hook is considered specialist or not, but the point is, there is already a mechanism in the rules for rejecting articles if no suitable hook exists. We already reject nominations for failing other rules like length or creation date, or even sourcing and paraphrasing issues, so why ignore the "no specialist hooks" criterion?

The main point is: not every article is a good fit for DYK. An article could be newly created/expanded/promoted to GA status, be long enough, be free from close paraphrasing, and be properly sourced, but if the material is just not there to make a good hook, don't bother. Don't try to squeeze a hook out of it. Don't try to force every single article you write onto DYK even if it is tempting and even if it is on a subject you are passionate about. Focus all that effort instead on an article that has an actual possible good hook. DYK is already backlogged as it is, and trying to nominate articles that are not a good fit can make the problem worse than it already is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Amen, though hookiness should be viewed very liberally. In 15 years of reviewing hooks, I've not previously rejected one on hookiness grounds, but even under the most liberal interpretation, the fact that someone was the first vice principal of a high school (even one in NYC) seems unhooky. Cbl62 (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • IMO "hooky" is entirely subjective, I don't think we should make a judgment about what the larger community will find noteworthy. If someone is unique enough to receive the sort of significant coverage which would make them notable then presumably there is something at least vaguely hooky that can be said about them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
    In theory that would be a good idea. In practice, not so much. In my years of reviewing DYK nominations there have been several nominations whose hookiness objectively doesn't make much sense outside of experts or fans. I would even be the first to admit that some of my own hooks in the past have been guilty of this and sometimes I still regret making those hooks. Basically, from experience, not every article has something even "vaguely hooky" about them. There are articles that are just simply bad fits for DYK, and this is not necessarily the fault of the creator or the article, or even the subject, but it could just be due to the sources and information available.
    As for the "not every article has something even vaguely hooky about them" point, unfortunately, this does mean that there are some subjects, particularly technical or niche ones, that are at a disadvantage since they may involve themes, terms, and context that may not be widely known or understandable to laypeople. This of course does not mean that these subjects are a bad fit for DYK or even that it is impossible to make hooks about them, but how technical or specialist they are can admittedly put them at a disadvantage when it comes to making good hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
    Personally, I'm much less bothered by hooks that may take the reader into unfamiliar, very technical or obscure areas than ones that run "The fooist Fred Foo did [something that's exactly what one would expect a fooist to do] in date/place". Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
    If it "doesn't make much sense outside of experts or fans" then it is by definition "unusual or intriguing" and hook worthy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
    Maybe we have different interpretations of how "unusual or intriguing" is meant to be interpreted, but based on experience that to some extent have been backed up by view statistics, hooks that don't make sense to non-specialists have tended to vastly underperform among readers. That does not mean we should not have hooks that focus on unfamiliar topics, but making them as obtuse or as specialist as possible doesn't seem to help. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • We can have a discussion on what the answer to that question should be, maybe in a more well-structured way somewhere down the line (I have some ideas that I think will be win-wins for nominators and curators), but the answer as a matter of current guideline is "no", and the current nomination should proceed under that assumption. The interestingness criterion is just as binding on every nomination as the newness criterion, and if a nomination can't pass it, it can't go forward. There have been a good many nominations that have, in the past, been rejected for lack of a viable hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • WP:DYKCRIT says

    The hook should...likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing...

    —Bagumba (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I agree with the general sentiment that the answer to "Is every qualifying article entitled" is a clear no. I will often deliberately avoid nominating otherwise-eligible articles when I feel that they are too specialized or technical to have content or hook that could interest a general audience. Most recent example: BIT predicate, promoted to GA yesterday. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
    ...that the German–British mathematician Richard Rado used the BIT predicate to construct the infinite Rado graph? would be an example of a Johnbod hook, because the average reader (and those within three standard deviations of the mean) won't know what a BIT predicate or the infinite Rado graph are, but it will definitely take the reader into unfamiliar, very technical or obscure areas. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
    Indeed - go for it! Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
    I don't think there's anything wrong with featuring niche topics on DYK and in fact I will be the first to defend them from the idea that DYK should never include them. It is just a fact that they're often at a disadvantage when it comes to possible hooks. Having said that, the line between "just technical enough to raise curiosity" and "so technical/obtuse it drives away readers" can be pretty fine and experience shows there's no concrete answer as to where that line is and when one hook is appropriate and another isn't. It's all very subjective. About one thing many can agree on is that, as pointed out by Johnbod above, hooks that are basically "Did you know that this person, who is a [job], did [something mundanely job-related]?" are often not very good. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
  • No opinion on this specific article, but I frequently do not bring otherwise-eligible articles here because I don't believe they have anything hooky in them. Not all topics have enough detail to make that possible (our reams of short bios, species accounts, and geography articles come to mind) and we should be okay rejecting an article based on that without it reflecting badly on the reviewer or the nominator. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)
    Simply seconding this. I've held back on sending a number of pages. (One of them was WUBC, which is actually now linked from my WVIR-TV hook which is interesting...) In part this is because I recognize my station hooks tend to behave strangely, but also it's because there are stations that, once you write them, turn out boring. (WLAX, for instance.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

The nomination was Storye book's and Narutolovehinata5 reviewed and approved the hook - and this am I promoted it. I find it hard to follow multiple conversations across three pages regarding the hook in the Nomination. I am putting this here to have one spot we can respond to and evaluate or workshop a hook. Pinging the involved: @Gerda Arendt, Storye book, and Narutolovehinata5:

Relevant conversations

I needed a biography for prep 3 and this one fit. I am now seeing if other editors think we should yank this out of Prep 3. Bruxton (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Today is the anniversary of the first performance of Götterdämmerung:

Marie Lehmann,
one of the Rhinemaidens
at the first Bayreuth Festival
(13–17 August 1876),
sang the soprano solo
in Beethoven's Ninth Symphony
for the groundbreaking
of the Bayreuth Festival Theatre.

13 August 2018

(from User:Gerda Arendt/Stories)

Please look at the nomination first if you want to comment. If if had not been closed - prematurely if you ask my - no other discussion would have happened. - I have to work now on Renata Scotto, and her article looked even worse (yes long, but no citations) than Lindholm's was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Speaking as the reviewer, I have no idea where this idea that the hook wording is "offensive" comes from. As Bruxton mentioned on their talk page, the talk about "bottom" was referring to Lindholm's voice, and the full quote shows that, far from being offensive, it was intended to be a compliment. It's worth noting that Storye book said on her talk page that, even if there was indeed a double entendre with the quote (which I somewhat doubt and feel that suggesting it was one may be assuming bad faith), SB also said that Lindholm would have probably not thought of it as offensive either and may have even grinned. My point is that I don't see the hook as offensive at all. Finally, I should note that the hook was proposed by SB herself, so if Gerda has an issue with it, she should discuss it with SB too. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
I can see Gerda's point but I think the context of her being a musician, and its wikilink to vocal range, makes it clear what was meant. I would argue it might be hookier to end it at "extension", but this is otherwise fine.--Launchballer 08:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) First of all, my apologies to Gerda Arendt for the offence of drawing her attention to the vulgar second meaning, and my apologies to Bruxton for not striking out the hook myself. This mess is all my fault, because I should never have written ALT1 - or - having written it, I should have struck it through immediately. It was there for fun, but it has upset Gerda, and that is no good. Yes, it is true that those without British humour would not notice the vulgar double entendre. The whole point of a double entendre is that those who do not wish to notice a vulgar second meaning will not be looking for a vulgar second meaning, therefore they will not notice it. My sin was to let Gerda notice it.
I cannot understand why the other two ALTs were struck out - there is nothing wrong with them in my opinion - but I am the nominator and not the reviewer, so I have no say in that matter. I would like to see (1) the ALT1 hook removed from prep 3, (2) ALT1 struck out on the nom page, (3) the other two ALTs un-struck on the nom page, and (4) we start again, with either the two remaining ALTs or a new ALT. I feel awful about the fact that my silly bit of fun has caused distress. Let us please try to rescue what we can from this. Storye book (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
@Storye book: I do not blame you for anything and no apology is needed. Noting that we have seen similar problems when Gerda's articles are nominated by a party who does not have the actual power to act as a proxy. I think we would be better served if Gerda nominates her own articles. We have too many moving parts and drawn out hook tweaking sessions. Just thinking out loud. Bruxton (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)
Given the issues with ALT0 and ALT0a, having them unstruck is a non-starter. As expressed in the nomination, both hooks were too specialist and how intriguing/hooky they are isn't obvious to a non-opera fan. To paraphrase what Johnbod said in another thread on WT:DYK right now, hooks that are basically "The fooist Fred Foo did [something that's exactly what one would expect a fooist to do] in date/place", which what ALT0 and ALT0a basically boil down to, rarely make for good hooks. If anything, TSventon's suggestion might work better if there really is an objection to ALT1. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
This feels like a Michael Scott reading of the hook. But if others agree that it is problematic we can explore another hook. Bruxton (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @TSventon: I'd be open to a hook based on the Isolde/Soviet Union thing, but it's not currently mentioned in the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @Narutolovehinata5:, I have added the fact and reference to the article. TSventon (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks. Can you propose a hook on that and see if the nom and article creator approve? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    @Narutolovehinata5: I probably would not click on it, but it may be the best we can do. And at least it is slightly better than: "The fooist Fred Foo did [something that's exactly what one would expect a fooist to do] in date/place". Bruxton (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
    The hook idea is good. I couldn't believe it because the Soviet Union existed since 1922, but Storye book explained well. However, we either link soprano or dramatic soprano, not an Easter egg. We would usually not link Wagner but perhaps it's needed for the Main page. Also I like to show off his new infobox. What do you think about his wife not having one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
    The citation in the article is fairly weak for a "first" claim. —Kusma (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @Kusma: What are your grounds for saying that the citation for "first" is weak? Storye book (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
    @Storye book: The obituary of a Swedish singer is not a particularly great source for the claim that Tristan und Isolde was not performed anywhere in the entire Soviet Union before 1971. Generally, for the claim "A was the first person to do B" I prefer sources that study B and mention that A was first to sources trying to make A sound like an exceptional person. Such sources often exaggerate claims or leave out important context. —Kusma (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @Kusma: There are times when we have to show good faith. Can you demonstrate that such a performance actually did take place in the USSR between 1920 and 1971? Can you demonstrate that the source of the citation has a history of wilful dishonesty? If not, then I'm afraid we must accept secondary, peer-reviewed sources in good faith, as per WP guidelines. Storye book (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
    @Storye book: are we looking at different sources? I am talking about SVT, which seems to be a news site. Experience shows that "first" claims in news sources are incorrect about half of the time. I am assuming good faith (so I assume the SVT authors believe the claim), but doubt that they really fact checked this thoroughly enough. "First" claims are wrong very often, so we should source them to impeccable sources for the claim. In this case, we should have a source that can be trusted to know opera in the Soviet Union in detail. —Kusma (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Can anyone please explain to me why the link bottom extension has been removed from the hook? Without its original context, the phrase doesn't make musical sense without that link to vocal range. Storye book (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
    Hopefully @Ravenpuff: can explain the change here. TSventon (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
    @Storye book: This was a slight case of MOS:EASTEREGG: the link goes to an article about vocal range in general and not about "bottom extensions". It's preferable not to surprise readers with link targets that don't quite match the text, and I judged that the meaning of "resonant bottom extension" would already be clear enough from the hook, plus the bolded article is always available to readers to find out more. But the foregoing discussion seems to imply that the link would be useful to avoid misinterpretations on the Main Page, so for that reason I would be happy to keep it – although in general we should best avoid using links in that manner. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you, Ravenpuff, for agreeing to replace the link, although, as I write, it hasn't been replaced yet. I disagree that the link to "Vocal range" would be an easter egg, though. The "bottom extension" in this hook is an extension of the vocal range.
    To put it simply, within the vocal range of all the regular operatic singers, (bass, tenor, alto, soprano) the soprano sings high to very high. But Lindholm has extended the bottom of her vocal range so that she can sing much lower notes in a useful manner as well. For example, many sopranos could sing most of the tenor Pavarotti's famous songs (such as the football favourite Nessun Dorma), but not good and loud like he could. However Lindholm could probably do that. So she had a bottom extension of the vocal range, i.e. she could sing some of the low notes that a tenor could sing.
    So that link is an explanation, not an easter egg surprise. The misinterpretation that we want to avoid here, is the inappropriate idea that we are talking about Lindholm's fanny. We are not talking about fannies, we are talking about vocal range - aren't we? Storye book (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
    @Storye book: Yes, that was indeed what I gleaned from reading the hook and article myself. I've now re-added the link (and also included the preceding word "resonant" for a bit of extra clarity, which I hope you'd be fine with). In general, a link shouldn't perform the function of explaining on its own (see e.g. the parton example in MOS:EASTEREGG), but I think an exception can probably be justified here for the reasons above. Thanks! — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
    That works. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Ravenpuff's changes improved things, but we're still - less blatantly now, but still - making a juvenile pun. If you take away the specific terminology used, we're saying she has a good vocal range. But that isn't any more interesting than any of the other suggestions. The thing that makes it "interesting" is the double entendre. Please, let's not do that to someone who recently died. (for transparency, I was made aware of this by Gerda.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @Storye book and Kusma: I have found an interesting obituary here in Tidskriften OPERA, which says that Lindholm was proud of being the first Isolde in the Soviet Union and that her first director famously asked ”Vad ska jag göra med den där j-a folkskollärarinnan?” "What shall I do with that damn public school teacher?" via Google translate, however folkskola seems to be primary school, so
  • ALT3: ...that opera singer Berit Lindholm was described as "that damn primary school teacher" by her first director? TSventon (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
  • @Gerda Arendt and Narutolovehinata5:, see also Lindholm's autobiography, Hovsångerska - eller vad ska jag göra med den där jävla folkskolelärarinnan? here. TSventon (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
    I like the Isolde in SU idea, but think the quote says much more about that director than about her. How would it hook someone to learn about her? - I am also not sure if he was director of the opera house, or the stage director of the Mozart opera, please clarify in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
    Lindholm, or at least her publisher, seems to have thought that the quote would get people to buy her book. I have clarified that Gentele was the director of the opera company. TSventon (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
    Given issues with "first" hooks and considering the sourcing seems to be stronger for the primary school teacher quote, I think we should go with this hook instead. I actually think it's better and more eyecatchy than the bottom extension hook if you ask me. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
    To avoid the issue with "first":
    ALT2a: ... that the Swedish dramatic soprano Berit Lindholm was proud to have been the first performer of Wagner's Isolde in the Soviet Union in 1971?
    which leaves the "first" to her perception, on top of that it seems to be true, and is quite some information. also about culture history of the SU. The director quote could probably be repeated for hundreds of beginners, - what does it tell us about her, and why put him to shame? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Because this discussion looks likely to continue for a little while, and per Floq, I've pulled the hook from prep. Discussion can continue at Template:Did you know nominations/Berit Lindholm. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
    Thank you. Can you perhaps copy the new alts there, with just a link for context? - What I came for is: TSventon , can you please add to the director's article that he managed the Royal Opera? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
    Was already workin' on that, now  Done :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
    wow i feel understood, on this page! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Special date request

A suggestion was made on the nomination page that the article could run on August 30, the date of Lindholm's funeral. Would this count as sufficiently special for a special occasion hook? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron thank you for promoting, I have added a hidden special occasion note. TSventon (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Prep 4: Philip Sherman (cantor) (nom)

@Longhornsg, Narutolovehinata5, and Bruxton: this'll need some kind of attribution per WP:INTEXT. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

How's this:
Longhornsg (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
works for me :) swapped in. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Much less fun but doable. See relevant discussion. Bruxton (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 3

@Z1720: hooks 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 all seem to be U.S.-based – could hook 5 be swapped with a non-U.S. hook, preferably a biography? Courtesy pings to Bruxton and Lightburst, who built the set in prep. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've moved hooks around, please check to ensure that everything is good. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Q3 looks good :) P2 now has a couple bios next to each other, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination?

Is someone interested in nominating this? I can't as an IP.

"... that before Lindsey Halligan became a lawyer in a criminal matter, she was an insurance lawyer?" "... Lindsey Halligan, a Florida insurance lawyer that handles residential and commercial claims....".

If you think this is OK, please submit it and I will do a qpq. Many thanks.

2603:7000:2101:AA00:CCC9:7E7B:26A9:1834 (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done.--Launchballer 19:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! --2603:7000:2101:AA00:CCC9:7E7B:26A9:1834 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Felicia Schroeder

Queue 5: Felicia Schroeder (nom) @Bruxton @Dwanyewest @Sammi Brie The hook uses "sign" in two different ways: to sign up for a team, and to use sign language to communicate. This is clever, but I think it makes the hook jarring to read. I had to stop and go back to make sure I understood what was being said. Maybe this would work better in the quirky slot? The hook fact also isn't supported by the article, which says the school hired an interpreter for her. RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I had to bolster it with a second citation for sourcing reasons. Maybe some rewording would be a good idea... Quirky possibility:
... that Felicia Schroeder signed with South Carolina, but they had no one to sign for her?
Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 15:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
According to the source South Carolina had no signers when they had no deaf students and recruited one when they recruited their first deaf student, so the hooks are a bit misleading. The source also says the signer had to drive for three hours, hopefully not each way, so they may not have been at their best when they started work. TSventon (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Carlos Alberto Sonnenschein

Queue 1: Carlos Alberto Sonnenschein (nom)@Lightburst @Krisgabwoosh @Onegreatjoke This needs an end-of-sentence citation for the hook fact. RoySmith (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no single sentence in the article that this hook is derived from. For that matter, all sentences containing information mentioned in the hook: his three elections ("easily prevailed"; "a position he won"), lack of attendance ("missed ninety-eight percent of all sessions ..."; "Sonnenschein, who?"), have end-of-sentence citations. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 6

Marc Tay (nom)

@Kingoflettuce, Sammi Brie, and Bruxton: The lead of eye surgery seems to imply that eye surgeons and ophthalmologists are distinct; was Tay one or the other? Also, is there a reason the fine amount for the non-disclosure isn't included in the article? I'm also not the most comfortable with the amount of sourcing to The Straits Times (WP:RSP yellowlit), since his coverage seems to relates to military service and sports (two places where governments quite like to look good). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Harvey Meyerhoff (nom)

@Longhornsg, Kingoflettuce, and Bruxton: The Baltimore Sun attributes the hook fact to Meyerhoff's daughter, Lee Hendler; we'll need to do the same in the article and hook. Also, ref 5 appears to be a WP:BURL, could that be tightened up? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hook edited above, attribution added to the article. Unfortunately couldn't find another RS that we could use without attribution. Longhornsg (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
@Longhornsg: thanks, i'll swap it in :) in the future, please do copy/paste to preserve the original in the discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
And I see that the BURL has been fleshed out, so we're good to go on that :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Tolui (nom)

  • ... that a Mongol army commanded by Tolui was alleged to have killed three million people in less than two months?

@AirshipJungleman29, RAJIVVASUDEV, and Bruxton: I think boiling down the estimates to three million falls flat for me. Getting to the three million requires relying entirely on the account of Juvayni, who was writing a few decades after the fact – contemporary chronicler Ibn al-Athir offers a lower estimate for Merv. On top of that, "was alleged" is really only appropriate where the allegations are still considered credible. The fact that these estimates have fallen out of favor is something the hook needs to at least allude to. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  • Yes, according to Juvayni, three million people were killed in six weeks. Specific attribution can be made to that effect (al-Athir's contemporaneousity is somewhat irrelevant, as he lived 2000km to the west and relied just as much on reports as Juvayni did). I am unable to find any support for what you have said "alleged" means theleekycauldron—could you please provide a dictionary definition to that effect? All those I have looked at include "without proof" as a central point of the definition. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
    @AirshipJungleman29: The "alleged" thing is mostly a consequence of DYK's use cases. We usually say "alleged" for pending, credible allegations (which have yet to be proven or unproven), because WP:BLP prevents us from going any farther than that. To say "alleged" for something that has been proven false would undercut that. How about:
    • ... that one 13th century estimate found that a Mongol army commanded by Tolui killed as many as three million people in less than two months?
    theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I fail to see the relevance of BLP theleekycauldron, as these estimates were made eight hundred years ago and have not been conclusively disproven. Your proposed hook is fine; I would substitute in "a contemporary chronicler estimated" for "one 13th century estimate found that"—simpler. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
    Okay, I'll swapped in:
    • ... that one contemporary chronicler claimed that Tolui's Mongol army killed as many as three million people in less than two months?
    theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to theleekycauldron and AirshipJungleman29 for your help in concluding the issue. I think we can wrap it up here.RV (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The Buffalo Club

Queue 1: The Buffalo Club (nom) @Bruxton @TenPoundHammer @Sammi Brie The hook verifies, but could I interest you in something like:

RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

    • Not a bad option... Might not be as immediately interesting though. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Sienna Shaw

Queue 5: Sienna Shaw (nom) @Bruxton @The Baudelaire Fortune @Ergo Sum also @Vacant0 who did the GA review. I'm concerned about the large amount of of direct quoting, vis-a-vis WP:OVERQUOTING. Somebody who is better versed in WP:MOS than I am should take a look. RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Fix Vacant0 ping. RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
the lengths of the quotes are fine to me, but taking a closer look, it's a violation of MOS:PQ to quote box information that's already in the article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Although I'm not the contributor, I've removed pull quotes from the article. Vacant0 (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
That should work, unless the nom objects :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

moved back to Prep 6, since it doesn't feel right to move all the way back to DYKN despite no response. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Piri Reis map

Queue 1: Piri Reis map (nom) @Bruxton @Rjjiii @ITBF The hook says "likely contains", but the article states that as fact in wiki voice. That needs to be clarified. RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, Earwig lights up like crazy. I've pretty much convinced myself it's OK; i.e. just some quotes that are properly attributed. But Earwig links to baixardoc.com/documents/out-of-place-artifact-conservation-and-restoration-pseudo--5cb63b7698151, which I suspect is some crappy SEO fodder site, so I'm not too worried, but still, somebody else should take a look just to make sure. RoySmith (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
@Roy Smith: Regarding the hook, I would say that sources most clearly support the first DYK option and the content of the article; there are excerpts from the sources in the DYK page.
Regarding Earwig, part of the similarities come from quotes but there are quite a few sites engaging in copyright violations. Earwig should highlight many older parts of the Wikpedia article (still existing and present when the violation occurred). I broke down a section of the lead in the GA review. If there are other sections highlighted by Earwig that you would like me to break down, let me know. I can go through any parts that you feel concerned by on the talk page and ping you when done. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
User:Roy Smith the "likely contains" is a judgment call made by the promoter and was not in the original hook, the sources used in the article don't hedge their bets and clearly attribute Columbus as a source - as stated in my review I would prefer the original hook. With regard to the Earwig issue, this was looked at in the GA review here and I feel has been adequately explained as an issue with Wikipedia mirrors. ITBF (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
@ITBF, Roy Smith, and Rjjiii: I see an educated guess in the given source, and equivocation with the language of "diverse claims", and that is why I suggested "may be" but I am happy to be wrong. Bruxton (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
On the copyright/mirror stuff, I'm totally satisfied we're OK. On whether to say "likely", my inclination is that there's enough uncertainty in the sources that we should say "likely", so the article should be changed to match the hook. RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
@Roy Smith: I have changed the reference in the article. Hopefully this is less confusing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piri_Reis_map&diff=1172398713&oldid=1172125042 Rjjiii (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to provide a satisfying answer. I'm (far from) an expert on this subject matter, and my scanning of the references and other literature that I could find leaves me unclear what the right answer is. RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Below 6 preps/ queues

Three days after moving to 2 a day, we have 4 queues and 1 filled prep, so we will need to switch back to 1 a day soon unless more preps can be filled. There are 139 approved hooks, so hopefully that will not be necessary. TSventon (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I've promoted a prep to the queue, but that doesn't help the overall count. I will renew my oft-stated objection that since we don't appear to have the bandwidth to support it, moving to 2 sets per day is a bad idea. It just results in a rushed scramble to keep up which inevitably introduces errors. RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
We were doing OK before the switch, but over the past few days the number of preppers has dwindled. If an editor is thinking of trying this out, now might be a good time. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I built a lot of July's but have been busy this month. Will go pick some up. Vaticidalprophet 15:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
And I'll renew my suggestion of "more than eight hooks". My maths says there are 300 sets currently in this year's Wikipedia:Recent additions, so 2400+ hooks, which it's taken 237 days to run, and there's usually a gap of varying sizes at the end of the Did you know section.--Launchballer 15:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
We're now in the enviable position of having six full preps with part of a seventh; it would be great if an admin or two could promote some of these to queues. Pinging @DYK admins: in the hopes that this can happen soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I can pull some in in the UTC early morning :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Transcluded text

Does the partial transclusion in Virtual Dining Concepts count for the bytes of readable prose? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

No, and it requires the rest of the text to be five times its length per WP:DYKSPLIT. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Sammi Brie: No, and it arguably makes the article ineligible per WP:DYKSPLIT. The text does need to be new. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I thought not. The article has a real weighting issue anyway. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Query

On 19 August, one of the DYK hooks stated "that the crusading movement defined concepts of warfare throughout medieval Europe". After I requested a quote from the article's text to verify the hook ([31]), AirshipJungleman29 who proposed the hook answered that "Literally the entire article verifies the statement, as is apparent to all who read it and not cherry-picked parts." ([32]). According to the relevant DYK rule, "The hook needs to appear in the article with a citation no later than at the end of the sentence." Can we indeed interpret this rule that it allows readers to present their impression about the whole article in a hook instead of verifying it by a quote from the article's verified text? (Let's forget that in this specific case the hook contradicts section "1.1 Christianity and war" that makes it clear that the Catholic concepts of warfare developed before the start of the crusading movement. Now, we can also forget that the hook is unclear as it can be interpreted as if the crusading movement had defined concepts of warfare not only in Catholic Europe, but also in the Orthodox and Islamic states in Europe.) Borsoka (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Help?

I'm trying to nominate a DYK for plant, but Template:Did you know nominations/Plant already exists (it failed review). What do I do? Thanks in advance! Cessaune [talk] 02:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging SD0001, this is a thing that does keep coming up. @Cessaune: the best thing to do is continue as normal, and when the script throws an error, copy and paste the text to Template:Did you know nominations/Plant (2nd nomination) and transclude that to WP:DYKN. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Done. Thanks! Cessaune [talk] 03:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 7

Kabwe mine (nom)

@Larataguera: regarding the crystals, does a modern source verify that there actually were crystals found at the mine, or was it just contemporaneous accounts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

They are discussed in this 2019 source (and others). Larataguera (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
coolcool, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thai typewriter (nom)

@Paul 012, BorgQueen, and Bruxton: this cited source doesn't seem to be willing to go as far as the hook, saying that the typewriter "aided" in the process. Is there a reason that the hook and article use stronger language? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, the wording might have been an oversimplification. The two consonants had seen a long gradual decline in use, and lack of inclusion in the typewriter is usually regarded as the final nail in the coffin that made them completely obsolete. It's sort of implied in the article, but I can see that the hook's lack of further context could mislead the reader into thinking that it's the sole reason. Would changing to "contributing to their obsolescence" be better? It's more accurate, but does carry less of a punch. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
@Paul 012: Hmmmm. If we wanted to make it punchy, we could do something like:
  • ... that the first Thai typewriter left out two letters, which eventually became obsolete?
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron sounds good to me. BorgQueen (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
(E/C) That's also good. I guess it could also work with the original construction:
which gives a clearer image of the alphabet having too many letters to fit, but your suggestion is punchier. I'm fine with both; whichever fits better in the queue. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron, I think you might have forgotten to implement the change? --Paul_012 (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
@Paul 012  Done BorgQueen (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Tan See Boo (nom)

  • ... that Chinese missionary Tan See Boo moved to Singapore to work for the Presbyterian Church, but later returned to China to persuade Christians to leave the Presbyterian Church?

@Kingoflettuce: I should ask, is "become the Chinese cathechist of the recently-established Saint Andrew's Church Mission, which was supported by both Presbyterian and Anglican missionaries" the same as "work for the Presbyterian Church"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I'd say so and multiple RS explicitly state that he "worked for the Presbyterian Church." KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 00:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

2013 Midwestern U.S. floods (nom)

@Tails Wx, Ergo Sum, and Bruxton: "WTHR-TV reports that officials at Indianapolis International Airport say a lightning strike damaged..." (source) is pretty different from "a lighting strike damaged..." (article and hook) as far as sourcing goes. Can attribution be added? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron, I think this hook should work:
I've added the attribution, thanks for bringing this up! Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 21:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
@Tails Wx: works for me, but it's a bit long. Any objection to me shortening it to:
  • ... that during the 2013 Midwest floods, a plane got struck by lightning on the runway, according to officials at the airport?
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
No objection, but which airport? And I'd tweak "got" to "was". Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 21:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
@Tails Wx: doesn't really matter for the purposes of the hook? If the readers are curious, they can click through to find out.
  • ... that during the 2013 Midwest floods, lightning struck a plane on the runway, according to officials at the airport?
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. The hook's good! Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 21:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll swap it in :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The first rule ...

In Prep 6: ... that the metacognitive explanation of the Dunning–Kruger effect states that low performers overestimate their skills because they are unable to recognize their incompetence?

Nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Dunning–Kruger effect

The nominator's first hook – ... that "the first rule of the Dunning–Kruger club is you don't know you're in the Dunning-Kruger club"? – is clearly hookier, but the relevant passage has been deleted (and restored and redeleted) from the article, for now.

I would like to request that this be removed from prep and the nomination put on hold until Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect#To quip or not to quip is resolved. (And if the current hook is used, I think the first part should be removed because, let's face it, lots of people will just stop reading it once they hit "metacognitive".)

Since this is about a quip, pinging our resident quipmeister for his opinion. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I like this hook per my essay on attribution at DYK (shameless self-plug!). I also think the quip belongs in the article: on the most basic level of "does this thing help the article", I think it neatly sums up a very complicated idea for readers in an engaging way. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
I participated on the article's talk page. In a nutshell: I prefer the promoted ALT as it is a good article we are talking about and I think putting the quip in the article may be fun but is not encyclopedic. Bruxton (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
I also participated on the article's talk page. I'm undecided about including the quip in the article (in terms of whether it improves the article or makes it worse), but as far as hooks go the quip is much catchier. The promoted hook describes an interesting phenomenon but is rather wordy and kind of requires the reader to think about what it means, which doesn't seem like the best approach to get people to click the link and check out the article. TompaDompa (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
  • I restored the quotation using a source attributing it to Dunning himself, together with context making the meaning clear. ALT0 is now supported just right. Meanwhile, I reached into Prop 6 and pulled the old hook out by the roots. Hope I didn't break any of the crockery in the process. EEng 06:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
    Great, we get quip-hook after all. We have to slightly adjust ALT0 since the quip from the interview-quote is worded a little differently. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
    I already took my melatonin so my lids grow heavy. What's the difference? EEng 08:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
    previous quote: the first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don't know you're in the Dunning-Kruger club
    current quote: the first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don't know you're a member of the Dunning-Kruger club.
    Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
    Roger, thanks. Funny I missed that since I've always considered myself better than most people at spotting differences. A fluke. EEng 08:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks @EEng: that works. I am looking for the hook in our preps but I cannot see it. Is it moved from prep 6? Perhaps it was de-promoted? Bruxton (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
    I pulled it out of Prep 6. Not sure I did it right though. EEng 14:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
    I don't about the correct prep area procedure. The consensus seems to be that the following should be the hook:
    ... that "the first rule of the Dunning–Kruger club is you don't know you're a member of the Dunning–Kruger club"?
    I guess it qualifies as a quirky hook for the last spot. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
    Thanks @EEng:. I will put it in quirky Bruxton (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
    i've conformed the hook with the source. dying (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

KYOU-TV

Queue 3: KYOU-TV (nom) @Lightburst, Sammi Brie, and Siroxo: I know I've said this before, but we're really running too many TV station hooks. RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/August 2023 has passed on average one TV station GA a day. Sammi writes fast, but she doesn't usually go that fast, so I imagine there'll be a slower pace once all the drive GAs run through. Vaticidalprophet 00:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I have held back from sending any other pages to DYK except for a timely topic (Wendy McMahon (television executive)) and an AfD rescue 5x (KAGI). I have exactly two more to send (KHNL and 1989 South Florida television affiliation switch), and then I have, at this moment, no pending GANs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 2

Gauthierite (nom)

  • ... that the mineral gauthierite (pictured) has only been found in one location, and only on very few specimens?

@Klaproth and Pbritti: Large parts of this article seem to be unsourced? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll also ping AirshipJungleman29 for a nitpick on the hook: do we have any source in the six years following discovery that says we haven't found any new samples in other mines? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I went through the article and checked uncited statements when I initially reviewed. I remember finding all material being present in the references, if not cited in the body; given the brevity of the article and the requirement that only the hook be cited, I figured that this article didn't meet the GA standard of every statement cited (which was a rule I think you pushed for, for which I thank you!) but that it was sufficiently verifiable to be featured as a DYK. If you'd like, I can go through and provide citations for those statements that lack them. That's not that big an ask but I really don't have expertise in the subject area so, if asked, I'd appreciate someone verifying I did it correctly. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
@Pbritti: I am sure it all does verify :) the GA standard does pretty much match WP:DYKPOL these days, so we'll need end-of-paragraph citations. Once that's cleared, we'll have to take care of the hook, but that should be all. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Would you mind taking a second look? I think it should look a tad better now, but I did have to remove some content that I could not locate in my limited access versions of references. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
@Pbritti: that looks good, thanks! I think the earlier point still stands, though: the paper announcing discover can't verify that no further specimens have been discovered since. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Klaproth: pinging you so you might see this discussion and perhaps provide additional commentary. I think the sourcing is sufficient for the hook—the particulars of the material requiring a unique environment, so a single origin-point makes sense—but I want someone who knows what they're talking about to answer these good questions. Sorry I don't have good answers, leeky :/. ~ Pbritti (talk) 06:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
yeah, I could see this going either way, but it is technically OR by strictest letter. Thanks as always for being on it, Pbritti :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Lil Tay (nom)

  • ... that nine-year-old rapper Lil Tay called herself the "youngest flexer of the century" during a three-month period in 2018 and had 2.4 million followers on Instagram?

@TDKR Chicago 101, Tails Wx, and Bruxton: I am... a little grumpy about the quality of the sourcing on this very negative BLP, particularly Insider and TMZ. I also can't make heads or tails of this quote, much less why it's the second sentence of a two-line lead. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

bumping to a later prep on lack of response. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
actually, since the preps are filling and I'd like this thread to be archived when the set appears, I'll be pulling it. When it's fixed, I'll put it back myself. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thelma Bates (physician) (nom)

  • ... that when Thelma Bates established the first palliative care team at a British hospital, her colleagues tried to dissuade her from "ruining her career"?

@GGT, Kingoflettuce, and Bruxton: it seems from the source like "ruin her career" is not a quote from her colleagues, and the narrative tense of the hook seems off – they warned her right when she established it? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Theleekycauldron. My understanding is that much of the warnings were during the consultation phase, and after they saw the effects they retracted their opposition. We could rephrase it as "when Thelma Bates was establishing" or "was working to establish". And frankly I'm not sure why it's an issue that the "ruin her career" may or may not be a direct quote from her colleagues - clearly that's the general tone of the warnings she's received. We can remove the quotation marks if you're concerned about giving a false impression but... I think we're splitting hairs too thinly here. GGT (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Well, I do think we should generally try to avoid the use of quotes around things that aren't quotes. How about:
  • ... that Thelma Bates' colleagues tried to discourage her from establishing the first palliative care team at a British hospital, saying it would ruin her career?
that is technically CLOP, but i'm too tired so I'll just call it WP:LIMITED. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
But it is a quote from the BMJ. Anyway, what you're proposing is also fine, I'm easy. GGT (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
all righty. I'll make the similar to the article and swap this in :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron is there some reason this hook is indented? RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
well, it was 1am local, so there's your reason :) looks like BQ fixed it up. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Unrelatedly, I've turned Thelma Bates into a dab page, I don't think the character is the ptopic. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
Had been on my to-do list for a bit, thanks for that. :) GGT (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

WVIR-TV (nom)

@Sammi Brie: I'm sure you're right, but was there a source for the fact that the Greensboro station was WUBC? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted the offending bit from the article for now, so this can go through. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Fulton Street station (New York City Subway)

Queue 3: Fulton Street station (New York City Subway) (nom) @Bruxton @Epicgenius @Onegreatjoke The hook verifies, but isn't the usual style to attribute quotes to the paper rather than to the reporter? I.e. "... The New York Times said the station ..."? RoySmith (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith, sorry, I didn't see this earlier. The reason I worded the hook this way is that "might be a good spot for M.C. Escher to set up an easel" is less a fact than one reporter's way of describing the complexity of the station. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm good either way. RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hanhart syndrome

Queue 3: Hanhart syndrome (nom) @Bruxton, Etriusus, and Soman: The hook says "diagnosed", the article says "reported in literature". Those are not the same thing. I see this was discussed in the nom and noted as "fixed", but it doesn't in fact appear to have been fixed. Am I missing something? RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Good catch. I see your distinction and I guess I missed it. I checked the reference and it surely says "reported" so I suggest changing the hook to reported instead of "diagnosed". Bruxton (talk) 16:48, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Done RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived minutes ago, so I've created a new list the first 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 11. We have a total of 288 nominations, of which 132 have been approved, a gap of 156 nominations that has decreased by 10 over the past 9 days even as the total number of nominations has increased by 48! Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations; we’re still behind.

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Heads up, I just split Charlotte Haining in two, so I've taken the liberty of adding House Gospel Choir here.--Launchballer 08:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I've written my first ever DYK review for Your Choice, and would appreciate if a more experienced reviewer could have a look at it, especially since I'm questioning the licensing of the image used with the hook/article. Thanks for any help you can give. pinktoebeans (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thai typewriter

Who would think this article about a Thai typewriter with no image would garner 117,478 views at 9,789.8 per hour. Congrats to @Paul 012: for nominating the article. Bruxton (talk) 16:55, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. It seems to have been received fairly well by Reddit, which must have contributed to a lot of those views. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:29, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Diamandi Djuvara

Queue 3: Diamandi Djuvara (nom) @Vaticidalprophet, Dahn, and Krisgabwoosh: There used to be a rule about not having hooks for their shock value. I'm wondering if this violates that rule. I can't find the rule now because the supplemental rules got rearranged and I haven't found my way around the new organization yet :-( RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:DYKINT: At the same time, excessively sensational or gratuitous hooks should be rejected.? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that one. RoySmith (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
The rule here – I feel – is a bit subjective. Is it a blanket ban on all hooks mentioning salacious and/or gruesome material? Does it only ban hooks whose text content is overly gratuitous? If the former, then I think this hook violates the rule. If the latter, maybe not so much, as – while gruesome – it doesn't go into unnecessarily gory detail. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 16:45, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
It's a case-by-case thing, but my reading is that it's the latter. There is no blanket ban on "violent" or "disturbing" hooks, only that they aren't sensational or gratuitous. So basically a hook that merely mentions cut tongues would be okay, but any more detail (like how the tongues were cut or the gory details) would be too much. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:46, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that makes sense. That case, I say it should be fine to keep as is IMO. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 23:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Note the alt. Also: the man was a ruthless killer and was ruthlessly killed. Such was the era. Dahn (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

We need to go back to 1 per day

Right now, we're down to one filled queue and four filled preps. In WP:ERRORS, we provide a place for editors to review not just the current main page set but also "Next DYK" and "Next-but-one DYK". If we can't even keep two queues full, we're impacting the ability of other editors to check our work. That's not a good situation. I know I'm a broken record on this, but if we don't have the bandwidth to be pushing two sets per day without degrading quality, we shouldn't be doing it.

Oh, I see Z1720 just promoted another queue, but that doesn't change the total number. RoySmith (talk) 16:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree. BorgQueen (talk) 16:02, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@DYK admins: hopefully some admins to promote to queue over the next few days, especially while we are at 2-a-day. Z1720 (talk) 16:04, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith, BorgQueen, and Z1720: Rats, I am happy to slow down. We either sprint or walk and whenever anyone suggests jogging it falls flat: but enough with my editorial. So about two hooks: I keep moving two September 1 hooks so let's all keep an eye on theme. They are in Prep 3 now. They are Revival Vintage Bottle Shop and WPSG. We will need to jog them around again and it may involve queues soon. Bruxton (talk) 16:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
There is also a 30 August hook, Berit Lindholm in Prep 6. TSventon (talk) 16:53, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Yep, agree with Roy. If there aren't the admins available (and I'm not currently available unfortunately, as I mentioned the other day, I'm on vacation) we shouldn't be at two per day.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
We seem to have consensus; I'll flip the switch after the current run. Any objections? BorgQueen (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. Most of my wiki time these days is devoted to ritual abuse character building at WP:FAC RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:51, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm looking at it now, and there are three queues and four preps, more than we need to sustain two a day (which will remain true after midnight), and we're at 293 nominations with 132 approved hooks, which is very high. If we could sustain the two-a-day rate for the rest of the month, that would be nice. Otherwise, we'll be switching back to two per day in another week or so, with the last big push from the GA backlog drive continuing to add nominations at a rapid clip through the end of this week: once we get another rush of prep building, we'll be above ten sets. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
 Done BorgQueen (talk) 00:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 5

Crown Princess Gonghoe

Pinging @George6VI, Piotrus, and Lightburst:. DYK nom for Crown Princess Gonghoe.

I have changed the wording of the hook because, as noted in the DYK nomination, the grammar and phrasing of the hook was incorrect. I think this happened because too much information was trying to be said in one sentence. I took out information about being a descendent of Confucius and moved some of the wording around. Please comment below if you would like something else. Z1720 (talk) 18:49, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: Thanks for that! Lightburst (talk) 18:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Z1720 Fine with me. Thank you! Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 00:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

List of awards and honours received by Angela Merkel

Pinging @Hey man im josh, Actualcpscm, Oltrepier, and Vaticidalprophet:. Template:Did you know nominations/List of awards and honours received by Angela Merkel.

I could not find in either source where it states that Forbes has named Merkel the most powerful woman 14 times. Can you quote the source below so that I can find it? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 19:00, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Z1720 I believe it is a simple matter of adding four+ten, as the first source describes the years 2006–09 and the second the years 2011–20. See Forbes list of the World's 100 Most Powerful Women. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:11, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Z1720: @AirshipJungleman29 is correct. The two sources provided in the nom reflect these two streaks. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:16, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Sources:
"At No. 1, for the fourth consecutive year, is German Chancellor Angela Merkel." (2009),
"German Chancellor Angela Merkel claimed the No. 1 spot for the tenth year in a row..." (2020)
Hopefully this answers the question. Hey man im josh (talk) 19:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Z1720 I co-sign everything that's been written above.
To be fair, I was initially afraid of WP:OR, but I think those two sources combined are clear enough to validate the hook. Oltrepier (talk) 19:27, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks everyone! It's a little WP:SYNTHy but I'm not bothered by the logic above. I'm glad we have this conversation to point to if this goes to WP:ERRORS. Z1720 (talk) 19:28, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
WP:CALC explicitly allows for this kind of thing; we‘re well within the limits of policy with this calculation :) Actualcpscm scrutinize, talk 20:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020

Queue 7: Germany in the Eurovision Song Contest 2020 (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @Grk1011 @Onegreatjoke The way the hook is worded ("... that Slovenian-born singer Ben Dolic was set to represent Germany at Eurovision in 2020?") leaves you hanging. There's an obvious "but..." coming up which should be stated. RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Binion Hoard

Queue 7: Binion Hoard (nom) @Lightburst @Bruxton @Maury Markowitz The article says arrested and convicted but the hook says charges. I guess if you've been arrested and convicted, that sort of implies you were charged, but I think saying somebody was "charged" implies that you don't yet know what the outcome of the prosecution will be. RoySmith (talk) 16:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: do you have a suggestion? The two who were charged with murder had their convictions overturned by the Nevada Supreme Court and both were subsequently acquitted when retried. But all six were arrested and convicted of grand larceny and burglary. Bruxton (talk) 18:52, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

WFXR

Queue 4: WFXR (nom) @Vaticidalprophet @Sammi Brie @Epicgenius The hook says a Florida man was approved, but the article says NewSouth Broadcasting, a company owned by Timothy Brumlik. That's not quite the same thing. RoySmith (talk) 16:34, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith Added the city of residence to the article, and you can change the hook to "a company owned by a Florida man..." Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
That's not quite right either. The company wasn't arrested. Could you come up with something that works for both? RoySmith (talk) 17:49, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Possible options... The 200-character limit and the extra precision are causing issues. It does not exactly help that the "TV stations in..." part is more verbose than would be needed. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:09, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
... that in the span of three days, a Florida man was approved through his company by bankruptcy courts to buy TV stations in Roanoke and Lynchburg, Virginia, and then arrested on charges of laundering millions in drug money?
... that in the span of three days, bankruptcy courts approved the sale of TV stations in Roanoke and Lynchburg, Virginia, to a company owned by a man arrested on charges of laundering drug money?

United States Marine Hospital (Lahaina, Hawaii)

I've merged this with the previous thread about this hook. RoySmith (talk) 21:16, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Feel It (MJ Cole song)

There are currently some issues with the article regarding sourcing. Specifically, the hooks proposed so far are reliant on audio broadcasts that currently are not archived anywhere and cannot be accessed by an independent reviewer. The nominator, however, has vouched for their reliability, has listened to said broadcasts, and states that the relevant information was indeed mentioned there. Given the earlier discussions we've had about encouraging offline sources to include the page number for verification purposes, can we AGF the reliability of the broadcasts used as sources in the article, or given that they cannot be independently verified, they are not sufficient? Courtesy pings to nominator Launchballer, reviewer UndercoverClassicist, and discussion participant RoySmith. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

AGF only goes so far. It's one thing to believe that the nom is being honest about what the reference says. But normally in an AGF situation, you can ask the nom to go back to the source and provide additional context, or a quote, or an English translation, or verify that they read (or heard) it properly the first time, etc. But we can't even do that here; the source was completely ephemeral. This clearly fails WP:BURDEN especially in a WP:BLP context. RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
What's the nature of the broadcast? If it's an interview of some kind, and the information is essentially sourced right to piri & tommy, then that's one thing. But I can't imagine that broadcast talk radio is a reliable secondary source. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
For context, it's the 5 April 2023 broadcast of Tinea, and it's an interview with Piri. The interview started at around 8pm (i.e. halfway into the broadcast), and took up around 25-30 minutes, with Updown being played in the middle; they talked Updown in the first half and Feel It in the second. The BBC offer archived radio programmes for £60, so I'd be very surprised if Kiss don't do the same.--Launchballer 08:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I've asked about this at WT:RS#Can listening to a radio broadcast be a RS?. RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
If a reader cannot access the "source", it isn't considered published for Wikipedia purposes, and isn't a source at all. It isn't necessary that the source be available online, or that it be free, but it does have to be available. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Indeed, it must be verifiable in order to constitute a RS. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's safe to assume that because the BBC archives its programs, a for-profit entity would do the same. I can't find a website for it; this only goes to 2015 for Tinea. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 14:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
If you made a recording of the broadcast yourself such that you have the appropriate timestamp and direct quotation, and you can confirm (say via email or screenshot) that the BBC indeed has that particular broadcast archived and available for purchase, or else you have yourself purchased an archived copy (and note it may also be available at a London library if you dig around; once you think you've found a library you can email the reference librarian and later, if missing the timestamp, request a local get it on WP:RESOURCE), then you should present all of that detailed information at the respective article's talk page. This is not so unusual -- emails, screenshots, photos and the like are sometimes presented in discussion pages to demonstrate that such-and-such object exists for purpose of verifiability or copyright release. It's more between you and the other editors of the article to agree whether in the end that's all sufficient for verifiability for the article. If several editors on the subject matter agree, then I'd personally say that's sufficient for DYK. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I didn't think to record it.--Launchballer 13:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I second Jc3s5h and Orange Mike. Per WP:Verifiability, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. But per WP:SOURCEACCESS (if applicable), "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible."
Emphasis, it should be a reliable source. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I knew there was a policy that said "do not reject", but couldn't find it. I would describe an interview with Kiss as reliable.--Launchballer 13:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what you would describe it as. What matters is whether it meets the requirements laid out in WP:RS, specifically, an archived copy of the media must exist and you have not demonstrated that. RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Then my suggestion of ALT3: ... that the "Feel It" guitarist Tommy Villiers is the great-great-great-great-grandson of the British Prime Minister John Russell, 1st Earl Russell? stands - that hook, minus "Feel It", was approved at Tommy Villiers, and its offline source definitely exists (I read it at Fulham Library).--Launchballer 14:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks to @RoySmith for posting at WT:RS. The rule for this is explained at Wikipedia:Published#Accessible. You can't use "but I heard it on the radio last week". You can use "the radio posts recordings of their broadcasts on this website" (or "in this university library", or wherever they want, so long as members of the general public can theoretically go listen to them). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:43, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan's alleged hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia

I've listed 668 St. Cloud Road at WP:ERRORS and suggested that it be pulled for wider discussion. The hook is "... that Nancy Reagan was hexakosioihexekontahexaphobic?"

There are/were several potential problems with this:

  • Unless WP:MEDPOP applies, it's problematic for us to ascribe a phobia to a religious-based dislike of a number without strong WP:MEDRS sourcing.
  • "Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia" is virtually unknown among readers. While its unusualness makes for a sensational DYK hook, it also means that it's not an appropriate descriptor within the article itself. That means that DYK would be using a word that's not found in the article.
  • The sources supporting the use of this particular word/disorder were not in the article at the time of its DYK promotion. Some were later discussed in the DYK nom without being cited in the article directly (WP:DYKHOOK).

The promoting editor Bruxton spoke to what I've put as bullet point 1 above: "I still have difficulty giving a person any sort of medical diagnosis like this based on a journalist's opinion. I hesitate to say someone who is religious and fearful of the number of the beast has a disorder. If I promote it it may end up at errors. So be ready to defend the diagnosis." Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 13:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Not everything that is called -phobia is a medical diagnosis. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Tanner Brown

Queue 7: Tanner Brown (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @BeanieFan11 @Bagumba The article says "best placekicker", the hook says "best kicker". My understanding is that "kicker" is the union of placekickers and punters, so they're not the same thing. RoySmith (talk) 17:18, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

  • From what I've seen, "kicker" almost always refers to placekicker - I can't recall ever having heard in modern sources a punter being called "the team's kicker". BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:20, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
    • Of course, I'd be fine if it were changed to "placekicker" in the hook. BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:23, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
      Done RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
  • From the placekicker page, kicker is a synonym. From basic English, technically both a placekicker and punter can both be called kickers as people who kick a ball. I dont see it as an error either, but can use the more formal and verbose placekicker too. Though I thought plain kicker makes the hook a bit more interesting to guess what sport the hook is about.—Bagumba (talk) 01:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
    I don't have any strong feelings here. If another admin wants to change it back to "kicker", go for it. RoySmith (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 5

Imsil Cheese Theme Park (nom)

@Prodraxis, TenPoundHammer, and Lightburst: The fact that there is a cheese theme park is pretty hook, but I'd like to see the fact around that try a little harder. Maybe talk about its cost? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Perhaps "... that a cheese theme park was created to boost tourism in Imsil County in South Korea?" (source: https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/001/0004816420?sid=102) might work out. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 13:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Better! How about:
theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I think that would be good. Way better than the original hook from the nomination. #prodraxis connect 19:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC) If you get confused as to who is replying or anything right now, I changed my signature fyi. This is still Prodraxis commenting here.
IRC themed? that's really cool :) I'll swap it in. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Felicia Schroeder (nom)

@Significa liberdade, Sammi Brie, and Bruxton: I'm not sure that a quote from the subject in a school newspaper constitutes enough due weight to be included in the article, but if it does, both the article and the hook will need to be fully attributed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the article seems to be heavily sourced to school newspapers. I would think that a BLP should probably rest on stronger sourcing? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

If the school newspapers don't state contentious or uncontroversial information, I don't see why it's not acceptable in this case. For all we know they may have been the only ones to cover her in such detail. That wouldn't establish notability of course but that shouldn't rule them out as sources information. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
Assuming that I'm not going to be able to convince the entire project that school newspapers aren't the most fit to cover school athletes per an inherent bias, I'll let that one go :) But that doesn't cover due weight or attribution. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Found a Journal and Courier article that says she did not have an interpreter at South Carolina. Source is now in article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Works for me :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, @Sammi Brie! Significa liberdade (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

KELO-TV (nom)

@Sammi Brie, Premeditated Chaos, and Lightburst: this'll need some kind of attribution per WP:INTEXT. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it seems best to go with something else entirely. Repeating the claim of an advertisement without secondary significance seems pretty dodgy to me. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

... that the founding owner of a South Dakota TV station became nationally known for industry ads calling him "a helluva salesman"?
@Sammi Brie: Hmm, well, I don't think a local paper is a strong enough source to make that claim. Is there another source for the notoriety? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron [33] (added to article too) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: I'll AGF that the source is reliable, noting that either i'm too tired to read correctly or the English of the source is very poor. But it doesn't say "national notoriety" as much as it just says that it was a thing he's known for, if that's a hook you want to write. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Let's try... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
... that the founding owner of a South Dakota TV station became known for industry ads calling him "a helluva salesman"?
@Sammi Brie: works for me, thanks! swapped in :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Abortion in Taiwan (nom)

  • ... that while abortion in Taiwan is legally accessible, it is still a crime under the country's penal code?

@MSG17, Epicgenius, and Bruxton: Since, in the United States, abortion mostly tends to be legal in some cases but not others (without broad allowance for case-by-case exceptions), I think there should be some clarification that abortion in Taiwan is legally accessible in nearly any case, but there are still technically criminal penalties. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Alternate phrasing suggestions:
... that abortion in Taiwan is still technically a crime despite being broadly legalized?
... that despite being legally available in most cases, abortion in Taiwan is still criminalized under the penal code?
MSG17 (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
I'll swap in the second suggestion, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 5: Abortion in Taiwan (nom) @Bruxton, Epicgenius, and MSG17: I think I've convinced myself that the sources support the hook statement, but given that anything related to abortion is a third-rail topic, I'd appreciate additional eyes on this to make sure we've got it right. RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I also welcome more feedback on this topic given how sensitive it is. (Also, here is a link to the specific section of the ROC Criminal Code on abortion.) MSG17 (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Maggie Tokuda-Hall

Queue 7: Maggie Tokuda-Hall (nom) @Cielquiparle @Significa liberdade @Mr Serjeant Buzfuz I see two problems here. One is that "Scholastic" in the hook is mysterious. I happen to be familiar with the company so I recognize it as the educational book publisher, but I suspect many people won't have a clue. Why not just say "the publisher" in the hook? The other issue is that the article doesn't mention (as far as I can find) anything about an Author's Note. RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for the input, @RoySmith. I've added the phrase "Author's Note" to Tokuda-Hall's page as there was a section discussing this incident, though it didn't include the phrase. As for your second point, it wouldn't be accurate to say "the publisher" as Love in the Library wasn't published by Scholastic but Candlewick Press. Scholastic wanted to include Love in the Library in their collection but requested Tokuda-Hall remove content from the book, which she declined. I'm thinking through some possible rephrasings, but they're all a little clunky. Do you have any suggestions? Significa liberdade (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Might I suggest just trimming the hook down to avoid the complicated parts:
... that Maggie Tokuda-Hall was asked to remove the phrase "virulent racism" from the Author's Note in her children's book about Japanese-American internment camps? RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
After giving it some thought, I think a better way to fix this is to give the subject of the hook (and the main article) more agency, so:
... that Maggie Tokuda-Hall refused to remove the phrase "virulent racism" from the author's note in her children's book about Japanese-American internment camps?
(Publishers Weekly didn't capitalize "author's note" and I wouldn't either.) Cielquiparle (talk) 02:16, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I like that version better than mine. RoySmith (talk) 02:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
This never got changed in the end...but probably just as well. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:34, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Administrator need to move two hooks from prep 3 to queue 6

@DYK admins: The two September 1 hooks are Revival Vintage Bottle Shop and WPSG. They were moved a few times because of our changing run times. Can I ask an administrator to swap them from prep 3 to queue 6? Bruxton (talk) 13:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Revival VBS's date tie-in is National Bourbon Heritage Month. I don't see the need for it to run on a specific date in that month. An for WPSG, I thought we weren't doing any more "today" hooks, since they violate some rule (which I can no longer find) about hooks needing to be timeless. RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
ok I will leave this to others: will ping the interested parties. @Valereee and Sammi Brie: Bruxton (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith That is a new rule on me. Can you point me to it? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:37, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Sadly, I can't. The history of the current Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines starts at Special:Permalink/1165861003. I assume there was a page move which has hidden the earlier history, but I can't figure out where it is. RoySmith (talk) 16:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith were you thinking of "a definite fact that is unlikely to change" from WP:DYKHOOK? TSventon (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that's the one. RoySmith (talk) 16:54, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Ah, I see it now, but I still don't think it applies to WPSG. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:56, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
The hook says today is independence day for Philly 57?, That will be true on September 1st. But it won't be true on September 2nd, or September 3rd, etc. It's not just "unlikely to change", it's guaranteed to change. RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Nope, pretty sure that's genuinely the first revision of me drafting the thing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:05, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
We've had a great many "today is the anniversary of X" hooks as special occasion ones over the years (or the variant, "fifty years ago today"). The assumption is that it runs on the anniversary date, so for that "today" that it appears on the main page remains true, which has been the understood intent over the years. It seems a shame that the hooks won't run on September 1 as planned, and as would have happened if those eager to go back to one hook per day had properly finished the proceedings. Pinging @DYK admins: , in the hopes that something can be done to fix this in the next 90 minutes before midnight. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:26, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
A little late, but I've done it anyway. We're doing 24-hour runs, I'll take care of the credits and stuff. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:15, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset and Theleekycauldron: Thank you both for all you do! All is right with the world. Bruxton (talk) 01:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Image slot William D. Hoard

I am wondering why the image slot was swapped for the William D. Hoard hook (runningnow). I see @BorgQueen: swapped it after Therapyisgood asked a question at errors. Nobody was notified and the image is free. It saddens me to see an admin move so swiftly without discussion or pings after so much work went into the GA, and the nomination. I was trying to get the editor's work featured here to hopefully get them into contributing at DYK. Lightburst (talk) 00:13, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Wrong ping: Therapyisgood Lightburst (talk) 00:33, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I know it may be disheartening to have a nom with a picture not have the picture when it's promoted, but isn't being featured on DYK at all the important thing? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:21, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I am sure you are right @Narutolovehinata5:. Just noting that one only has to read this page to see that we are all happy to discuss and work together. Lightburst (talk) 00:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I recall the image did not have the correct license tag. Do you have any evidence the image is "free"? If so, the image can be reinstated as I believe @Theleekycauldron has moved the hook to another queue. BorgQueen (talk) 06:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@Lightburst OK I was mistaken; the hook she moved was another one. Anyway, the current license tag of the Hoard image says: You must also include a United States public domain tag to indicate why this work is in the public domain in the United States BorgQueen (talk) 06:06, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Bad rule wording

WP:DYKNEW says that an article is "ineligible if it has, within the year prior to nomination, appeared as a boldlink at In the news (ITN) or in the prose section of Selected anniversaries (OTD), or as Today's featured article (TFA)".

So, according to this, an article is DYK-eligible as long as you nominate it before it hits the Main Page elsewhere, and we could end up with an article appearing on DYK at the same time as, or shortly after, it's on ITN.

I had left a note on Template:Did you know nominations/2023 Tver plane crash based on what the rule is supposed to say, and CJ-Moki correctly replied that the article actually is eligible according to the existing rule wording (even though it's currently an ITN item). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Considering the opposite possibility (TFA or OTD shortly after DYK) is totally within-bounds and has the same consequence, and that the purpose of the newly-current wording is "minimum viable bureaucracy to avoid discouraging articles that are more likely than chance to be interesting", this seems fine to me. I guess I might not be representative going by that nomination, though. Vaticidalprophet 21:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Taking a step back from what the rules say, I think the intent is (or at least should be) that the limited and valuable main page real estate be parcelled out to as wide a variety of our content as possible. If you look at it that way, then it's dumb to run the same article multiple times, just because the rules aren't worded quite right to prevent it. RoySmith (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
We can change it to: It is also ineligible if it has, within the year prior to nomination or between nomination and promotion, appeared as a boldlink at In the news (ITN) or in the prose section of Selected anniversaries (OTD), or as Today's featured article (TFA). A nomination must go on hold if the article has pending nominations to appear at any of the same. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
The one thing I'm intentionally leaving open is that if we go through the entire approval and promotion process and then someone successfully submits it to ITN, that's not our problem anymore. Other sections of the Main Page should be making leeway for DYK too. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
So basically, if an article is on ITN and has already been promoted to a prep/queue, that's okay and we don't need to pull the hook anymore? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
"Not our problem" seems like a sub-optimal way to manage the main page. We're all in this together. RoySmith (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
In this hypothetical, either:
  1. the hook sitting in a prep/queue was promoted before the ITN nomination started
  2. or the hook was promoted after the ITN nomination.
If 2, then yes, we should pull the hook under tlc's new rule formulation. If 1, then I agree "we're all in this together" and I'd be likely to pull the hook, but I'd probably follow up with a discussion with the ITN folks about instituting something like this proposed rule so that there's some reasonable symmetry. Maybe we should start that conversation now? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm wondering if we're straying into solution-in-search-of-a-problem territory here. Are there any past examples of DYK-approved articles appearing on ITN that wouldn't be covered by the proposal? --Paul_012 (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm rethinking. Considering how slow DYK can move, it probably makes sense for ITN items to go ahead. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
(E/C) I think the intent is quite clear that should an article appear on ITN first it should become disqualified for DYK. Maybe adjust the wording to It is also ineligible if it has, within the year prior to nomination and until it appears on DYK, appeared as a boldlink... We shouldn't discourage starting DYK and ITN noms at the same time, as plenty of ITN noms fail with comments that it's better suited for DYK. ITN moves much faster than DYK, so in the majority of cases, by the time a DYK review is begun it will already either have passed or failed at ITN. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron's wording is of course clearer, and should already cover the majority of cases. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Last November's RfC about whether to relax the ITN/OTD rules was closed as follows: There is broad consensus that we should relax this guideline, but nearly all !voters mentioned concerns about the exact timeframe and which MP appearances should be included. I suggest a followup RfC to gain consensus on these issues. Looking at the discussion, there wasn't any that specifically suggested eliminating the previous requirement that an ITN appearance renders a current DYK nomination that hasn't hit the main page ineligible. While it can be disappointing not to have a DYK run because of an ITN appearance, the fact remains that the article will typically get longer play at ITN. It's regrettable that the revision to the rules after that RfC was not as clear as it should be, but there's no time like the present to fix it and give our regrets to the nominator for the lack of clarity; I think that a prepped or queued DYK should still be pulled if the article goes up at ITN absent an actual consensus that it shouldn't, so a modification of theleekycauldron's proposed rewording is in order, perhaps something like or prior to its scheduled DYK appearance on the main page rather than or between nomination and promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: if the previous guideline provided that we always pull if it appears on ITN, I'm happy to just slot the your modification of the rewording in right now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
That sounds good to me. I was surprised to discover what the current wording allowed, and the suggested revision seems to adequately take care of it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, were you waiting for confirmation from BlueMoonset? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:38, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
yeah :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:40, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Sorry; I've been away, and I don't have time to recheck the actual wording from the beforetimes. If you're happy with my suggested modification, theleekycauldron, then please feel free to go ahead: whatever the wording was back then, the practice was that a DYK nominations was either pulled from prep or queue or closed if the article appeared at ITN, assuming someone noticed said appearance. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:20, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
  • Given that there has been confusion about this guideline and how to treat articles that were nominated for DYK and also nominated for ITN (and for that matter OTD), maybe we need to have further discussion of this? Like, should we allow an article to theoretically run on both DYK and ITN at the same time? We already allow Recent deaths articles to appear on DYK so it doesn't seem like a major difference to me. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:34, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 6

Jewish astrology @Davidbena, No Swan So Fine, and AirshipJungleman29:

The article has numerous places where the text is not cited, which makes this article ineligible per WP:DYKCITE. I've indicated these places in the article with citation needed tags. While I'll give some time to get this fixed, there are a lot of places and I'm not sure if it can be fixed quickly. Please ping me if the concerns are fixed or if this should be pulled from the queue. Z1720 (talk) 13:50, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720:, When you say "numerous places where the text is not cited," do you mean the hook is not cited? If you look at the section that reads: "Proscription against idolatry," you'll see that the first sentence repeats what is stated in the hook. Is there something else that needs to be done? Please clarify.Davidbena (talk) 21:19, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
@Z1720 and Davidbena:, Queue 6 is due to go live at midnight UTC and the citation needed tags have not been dealt with, so this should probably be pulled. TSventon (talk) 09:53, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
I have pulled the hook. Z1720 (talk) 13:35, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Catholic Tübingen school

Queue 7: Catholic Tübingen school (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @M.A.Spinn @Gerda Arendt No need to AGF on the source; it's in Open Library. The phrase " longest-running Catholic theological journal in the world" is a direct quote from the source so needs to be quoted in the article and hook. RoySmith (talk) 17:14, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

RoySmith, I have added quotation marks to the article, can you update the hook? TSventon (talk) 09:07, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Hmm, the one in the hook isn't actually a direct quote (contrary to my statement above), so I guess the hook is OK as is. Thank you for fixing the article. RoySmith (talk) 14:01, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Good grammar not required?

I expressed a concern about the grammar, style, and orthography issues of the Crown Princess Gonghoe article after it appeared in the Main Page's DYK section yesterday (and after I fixed most of them). When I inquired how the nomination ended up approved, the reviewer, Piotrus, who has a considerable experience with the DYK process, pointed out that good English is not actually required by the Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines. Is this a deliberate omission? Am I wrong to deny approval to nominations with such issues? Surtsicna (talk) 06:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Standard practice is that particularly bad cases of prose quality are held IAR (see WP:DYKCRIT#D14) – venues that explicitly require good prose, like GA and FA, spend 80% of their time on grammar and spelling, which is really not what we wanna do. Admins are also encouraged to copyedit articles upon queueing them. Reviewers are encouraged to use common sense when assessing whether or not an article is fit for the Main Page, and requiring that submissions receive a good copyedit has historically been within their jurisdiction. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I think we should say something about this, but yes, in my experience and understanding, we are much lax here than GA and FA are. I think this is related to and the rule-of-thumb view that DYKs need to be beyond stub level (see WP:DYKSTUB shortcut). That also implies that start-level article are acceptable as long as they pass other DYKREQs (for example, we want everything to be referened, which is a B-level requirement). But we are much more lax when it comes to issues of grammar/ortography/style, or comprehensivity (it is very common for DYKs not to be comprehensive). In this, I think we are not requiring DYKs to be B-class in those areas. To put it from another perspective, articles do not need to be at B-level to be eligible for DYKs, anything from start level and above is accepted, although realistically, in some aspects (referencing) we have B-level standards. I hope this clarifies things a bit (or at least my understanding on it, and I'd be happy to hear from others who find it lacking). PS. Re: " a considerable experience with the DYK process" - indeed, my understanding is based, for better on worse, on my 10 years writing and reviewing DYKs... (i.e. practice) much more so than on written (but not always enforced) reviewing rules. PPS. What is "good English" is hard to define. Note that B-class explicity states that even B-class are not required to have "brilliant prose", linking to Wikipedia:Featured_article_criteria#1A, which notes that FA level content requires "professional standard". DYKs are far from FA level in that regard, and it would be impossible for us to enforce this given most reviewers are not able to do so. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:16, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
From experience, we don't need to have extremely good grammar, but articles that are very ungrammatical tend to be put on hold until they receive a copyedit. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Per WP:DYKCOMPLETE, DYK articles are required to be presentable, "There is a expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be reasonably complete and not some sort of work in progress." If the grammar is so bad that it would make the article look too crude and unfinished then this would require attention. This shouldn't be a big deal because fixing grammatical errors is usually easy. And that's what happened in the example given by the OP, "...I fixed most of them". Andrew🐉(talk) 10:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
The guideline presented by @Andrew Davidson: really relates to an article's "completeness". What I like about work that is featured here is many of the readers of our front page are editors and so Surtsicna did what they were supposed to do when they said, "after I fixed most of them". But the headline of this section does not really describe what I see in Surtsicna's edits. It looks more like a content dispute than grammar corrections. One edit they erased genealogy with the edit summary: "Absolutely excessive genealogy". Next a helpful lesson in capitalization with this edit. Next another content dispute they erased the genealogy again with this edit. Then a very minor correction with this edit. Lightburst (talk) 14:54, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Gage and Tollner

Queue 3: Gage and Tollner (nom) @Epicgenius @Zeete @Lightburst The hook verifies, but the photo is poor quality (significantly out of focus). If we can't find a better image to replace it, I recommend this hook not get the first slot. RoySmith (talk) 14:47, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

That's a good point - I couldn't really find any other freely licensed images of the interior. Perhaps the hook could be moved down instead. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: The image renders well at this size and illustrates the train car like interior. I think some of the grainy poor quality images that we have featured here are significantly worse. Yesterday's image for example File:Lindholm Portrait2.jpg is quite blurry. But I understand your concern. Lightburst (talk) 14:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
@Epicgenius We're in the enviable position that the restaurant is still there, and we have many wikipedians with cameras who live in the vicinity. One possibility would be to pull this pending somebody getting a better photo. Moving the hook down would mean bumping some other hook, which doesn't seem fair, and my understanding is that this would also be contrary to DYK policy since it would require running an image that hadn't gone through the full approval process. RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I see your point. I wonder if some of our NYC folks like @Rhododendrites (who took the original image) would be able to take pics of the interior. Otherwise, I think the nomination could just be pulled for the time being, and I could suggest an exterior photo. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:43, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Yep I uploaded some lousy phone cam photos. Figured they'd be better than nothing, but I didn't have my camera and was decidedly in people's way for the short moment i snapped them. :) probably unlikely to get more as I was frankly underwhelmed by the food for the price. Cool place though. Might go back for the nautical themed bar upstairs someday. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:45, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the response @Rhododendrites.
@RoySmith and @Lightburst, unfortunately, I'm too busy these days to head out to Gage & Tollner's. I can't spend two hours commuting from Manhattan and back just to snap a picture of the restaurant's interior. Maybe we can either hold this nomination until a non-image slot becomes available, or we can suggest another image such as File:Fulton St., Gage & Tollner restaurant, 1987 (7998320161).jpg. – Epicgenius (talk) 17:24, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I started pulling this before this latest comment, so I'll finish up the loose ends on that. It can always get re-promoted if we find a better image, or decide to go without, but better to sort that out without the ticking clock over our heads. RoySmith (talk) 17:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Transpose issue William J. Ennis I cannot access the nom

Need help, it is a second nomination I. think. It did not transpose correctly. Lightburst (talk) 22:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Somehow the template's nompage link was pointing to a mis-spelling of the page (extra "l"). I think I've got it fixed now. RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
 Fixed That worked! Lightburst (talk) 23:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Queue 1

Patricia Mancilla (nom)

@Krisgabwoosh, Sammi Brie, and Bruxton: I know that DYK plays things a little fast and loose sometimes, but I'm having a rough time getting on board with this hook given that the article doesn't include any commentary on the intersection of Mancilla's faith and politics. If there's a source that makes this connection, can it be added to avoid the WP:SYNTH issues? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Official Catholic doctrine – which Mancilla would've taught as a catechist – opposes abortion in all forms. I figured that this was common enough public knowledge that the connection between 'catechist' and 'supported abortion legalization' could be made using the given citations – without a source explicitly linking them. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
@Krisgabwoosh: I'm with you, and I think it's an interesting connection to make, but I also think that making it ourselves is OR. Is there another hook that can be used? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: How about something like: ... that Patricia Mancilla (pictured) pushed to have restrictions on abortion in Bolivia expunged from the legal code – even after her party's leader, Evo Morales, referred to it as "a crime"? That's more directly stated in the article itself. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@Krisgabwoosh: I think that's a bit mischaracterizing Morales's position if he remained largely neutral, but we can say that the push divided the party? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I question whether "did [x] despite party's contrasting position" moves the hook away from WP:DYKINT's request that tidbits be unusual or intriguing – politicians going against their party's on certain policies is pretty common.
I could see about writing an entirely new hook unrelated to abortion; would that require a re-nomination or re-review? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I think it's less common for politicians to lead a hot-button cause in contradiction of their party, but I'll defer to you.
If you suggest a new hook here, I can just swap it in :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Ok, let's settle with: ... that Patricia Mancilla (pictured) pushed to have restrictions on abortion in Bolivia expunged from the legal code – even after leaders in her own party came out against it?
Whereas Morales kind-of-kind-of-didn't express opposition, sources in the article do state party leaders in parliament as having come out against it. Krisgabwoosh (talk) Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Revolution+1 (nom)

@Morgan695, Maury Markowitz, and AirshipJungleman29: I was almost gonna not bring this up, but on the balance, I think it's important to note that MOS:PLOTSOURCE doesn't cover works of nonfiction, and it certainly doesn't cover claims about living people. Is there a way to hedge the synopsis or source it? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The entire section is covered in Ref 1: "It covers the major events in his life, such as when his father killed himself, his older brother lost his vision and his mother joined the Unification Church, now formally known as the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification.". The only thing it does not explicitly state is the issue of affordability of treatment. Perhaps worth noting: there is no living person here, the main character is fictionalized and the non-fictionalized character is dead. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I've added a word to make it clear that the synopsis covers the character, so that should cover our bases :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Murder of Yadira Arroyo (nom)

@Lettler, Epicgenius, and Cielquiparle: For the May 2022 deeming of unfitness, CNN doesn't verify it in its own voice, instead attributing to the statement of the district attorney. Can I add a "reportedly" to the hook, and can attribution to the DA be added to the article? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Added "according to the district attorney's office" per the CNN article. @Theleekycauldron Please go ahead and add "reportedly" to the hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
awesome, will do :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Marcus Junius Gracchanus (nom)

  • ... that the Roman historian Marcus Junius Gracchanus adopted his last name to show his support for Gaius Gracchus (pictured)?

@LlywelynII, Elias Ziade, and AirshipJungleman29: The article seems to mismatch the hook somewhat. It says that Gracchanus was an agnomen, which (from its Wikipedia article) seems to be distinct from a "last name" in the modern sense for a while. I'll also be moving this hook out of the image slot; i think it'll divert readers to the article on Gaius Gracchus. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

this cited source calls it a "cognomen", but it cites Pliny the Elder... do we consider that a reliable source, or maybe reliable with attribution? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Thank you for specifically pointing out someone mistakenly added the wrong link to the hook. Absolutely that shouldn't've been done. It's a good image, though, and will send readers to the right article as long as the other isn't mistakenly linked in our hook. I'm fine with or without the image but no there should never be any other link in the DYK for any article I created, QPQed, and took through this process. The initial post already said as much, it should be removed here, and ideally promoters should stop doing it entirely. Anyone wanting more info can always click through and the point is always to bring eyes to the new articles, not random others.
Apart from that, no, the article and hook are correct and your points are understandable but poorly taken. Short version: (a) This was (properly) his agnomen, a personally assumed but fully legal last name that creates a sub-branch (clan) of his larger gens (family) assuming his family and society like him enough to maintain it; (b) even if they don't it's still part of his personal last name; (c) his family did maintain it at which point its inherited rather than descriptive nature made it a cognomen anyway; (d) plenty of people apply the term retroactively and/or entirely subsume agnomina into the idea of cognomina; meanwhile, some scholars are ready to die on the hill that they should maintain the entirely misleading Early Modern English idea that the cognomina of clans were "surnames" and the nomina of families were "clan names" or some other concept; (e) avoiding that ambiguity and mess is precisely the reason it's better to just call it a last name, which is unquestionably correct in every sense. — LlywelynII 05:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
[Edit:] It doesn't change any of the above but if you needed to see the Pliny source that's going to be what any modern scholarship on this point is based off Perseus for some reason mislinked it. This is the English version and the Latin can be loaded on the top right.
@Theleekycauldron: If that still isn't enough for you, I provided numerous other hooks. The DYK shouldn't fail: it should just be sent back for a new review of one of the other proposed hooks. — LlywelynII 05:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@LlywelynII: I've unlinked as suggested, we should be good to go now :) thanks for the explanation! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (season 1) (nom)

@MyCatIsAChonk and NoonIcarus: I think I'll have to ding this on interestingness grounds – one show beating another isn't super interesting on its own. You can always include, of course, that Maher's been around a lot longer (the cited source does make that connection), and/or that Oliver was in a bad time slot. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron:
ALT1: ... that the first season of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver received more average weekly viewers than its longtime HBO counterpart Real Time with Bill Maher?
ALT2: ... that Last Week Tonight with John Oliver received a Peabody Award in its first season?
ALT3: ... that an episode in the first season of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver caused the FCC's website to crash?
ALT4: ... that comedic bits were used to split up episodes of the first season of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, so the audience did not have "to hear anybody talk ... for a half an hour straight"?
MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
@MyCatIsAChonk @Theleekycauldron I like ALT3! Cielquiparle (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Could you please swap out the existing hook for ALT3 here? Time is running out. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle and MyCatIsAChonk: someone, someday (in fact, probably you, MyCatIsAChonk), is gonna get Net Neutrality (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver) to GA, and I'd like them to have a hook similar to ALT3 when that happens. I think we stick with ALT1, so I'm gonna update the article and slot that in. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Humayun Shah

Queue 3: Humayun Shah (nom) @Cielquiparle @AmateurHi$torian @AirshipJungleman29 The source (and the article) only talk about a "legend" but the hook says "popular legend". I'm not sure it's legitimate to assume the legend is popular, per WP:OR. RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith The word "popular" has two definitions: 1) admired by many people; 2) involving "ordinary" people (as opposed to "experts"). The term "popular legend" is just using the word "popular" in the "everyday" sense (the second one). Cielquiparle (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Supplemental guidelines reorg: not loving it

Maybe it's just me, but I'm finding the reorganized version of the guidelines to be much more difficult to use than the old bullet-list of one liners. I used to be able to scan the list and find the rule that I knew was there somewhere. With the new organization, not so much. Is there any chance we could go back to the old format? RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It does make sense to me to have all the guidelines in one place, though. Regarding your issue noted in the previous talk item, maybe our newest administrator could learn how to do a history merge; that would overcome that problem. 😁 Schwede66 17:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: handily enough, if you're having trouble, any link to the previous supplementary guidelines will point you to the correct place in these guidelines. WP:DYKSG#C6, for example, goes to the same place as WP:DYKFICTION. Schwede66, I considered doing a histmerge, but thought it was more convenient to create a separate page and make sure that history was preserved (i wasn't the only person to edit it). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
The problem is, I don't know what I'm looking for most of the time. I have a vague memory of what rule I was thinking of, but don't remember the shortcut, or even any specific words that I could search for. But, scanning down the list of bullet points made it easy to find. RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith and Theleekycauldron: I also get lost in the new reorganization. I had a good grasp on the old list with D2 etc. Lightburst (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I like it, and I suspect any newcomers to DYK will as well. Perhaps a link to the old guidelines could be added somewhere? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron and RoySmith:, I agree that a single set of guidelines is an improvement and that a link to the old guidelines at WP:DYK and WP:DYKSG would be helpful, perhaps on the talk page of the new guidelines. I think I saw a discussion about consolidating the guidelines, that could be linked as well. TSventon (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
Having everything in one place is good. But I think the bullet-list presentation was easier to read vs laid out in prose form. RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
the bullet lists kept breaking old links every time rules got added, deleted, or swapped – something we should definitely be able to do. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
  • The last time I counted, DYK had over 60 rules and that was just the "unwritten" ones. It's news to me that they have been reorganised but I shall try to avoid looking because I made some reviews recently without any difficulty and it's our long-standing policy that we should ignore all rules. And if you have so many rules that even veterans can't find their way around then it's clear that you've got far too many. See WP:BURO and WP:CREEP... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Agree 100% with @RoySmith:, another unneeded change conducted by @Theleekycauldron:. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I would retain a summarized list of criteria on the main WP:DYKCRIT page, in addition to having a more detailed list of rules in WP:DYKSG. I agree in theory that the guidelines should remain in one place, but it is still good to have a short, handy list to refer to. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Deshong Art Museum

Queue 5: Deshong Art Museum (nom) @Cielquiparle @Surtsicna @Dwkaminski The hook fact accuses a 15-year old boy(who is presumably still alive) of committing a felony; this needs to be sourced to something better than www.uncommongood.com which is a blog. I see this was discussed in the nomination, but never got fixed in the article. Less importantly, the photo from the infobox is a much superior image; if nobody minds, I'm going to swap that one into the hook. But the sourcing really needs to get resolved. RoySmith (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith It already was corrected (if you re-read the nomination discussion, you'll see that the Philadelphia Inquirer article is mentioned). You can find the citation in the "conviction" sentence. The direct URL is here: https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/local/20100110_Languishing_Deshong_property_frustrates_Chester.html Cielquiparle (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
The ProQuest version of the same article is here – works if you log in to ProQuest via Wikipedia Library. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
The statement The heist was carried out by 15-year-old Laurence McCall is cited to uncommongood.com RoySmith (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
The crime is also mentioned in Delco Times newspaper article "Former art thief could really use a job" https://www.shapell.org/manuscript/abraham-lincoln-seal-appointment-edward-joy-morris-minister-resident-turkey/ and New York Times article https://www.nytimes.com/1979/10/18/archives/the-city-us-gives-4-million-for-harlem-center.html Dwkaminski (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I have no problem with you swapping out the image. I found it after I submitted the DYK. Thanks! Dwkaminski (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Done. The sourcing issue still needs to be resolved. RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I added the Philadelphia Inquirer article to the fact. It does quote the thief as being 16 years old rather than 15 so I updated it in the article. It should be updated in DYK also. I don't know how to do that at this point. Dwkaminski (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm getting increasingly concerned about the WP:V aspect here. We've got two sources which quote different ages. And the third source (The New York Times) says, The 17 paintings ... have been identified as canvases stolen over a period of time from 1976 on. It doesn't say how long a period of time, so it's unclear that assigning any one specific age to the thief is justified. I don't see how we can run this without a more definitive statement in a WP:RS. Preferably several, since the ones we have disagree.
I'm also seeing so much copy-paste without attribution between Alfred O. Deshong and Deshong Art Museum that I don't see how WP:COPYWITHIN isn't a problem (@SunDawn: who did the NPR). And while I haven't done a careful count, I suspect if you took out the copied text, this might not meet DYK's "1500 characters of original prose" requirement. My recommendation is that this be pulled. RoySmith (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
It's worse than the 1500 characters rule: since the copied material was old, it must be 5x expanded. The article is currently 3124 prose characters; if at least 625 of those are copied from another article, then further expansion will need to be done for it to be eligible for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Good point. The first revision of this is Special:Permalink/1167616538. It appears to be almost entirely material copy-pasted from Alfred O. Deshong and DYK Check says it's 2685 readable prose. So clearly this fails. There's just too many problems; I'm going to pull it. RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: When I check the article length (excluding infbox, section headers and photos) I get 8,423 characters in the javascript kit character counter. Dwkaminski (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't see the relevance on the age of the thief as the most important part of the DYK hook. Maybe once you do a careful count and your suspicions are confirmed, this can be reconsidered for DYK. Dwkaminski (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@Dwkaminski The problem isn't the hook...the problem is that DYK doesn't count content cut-and-paste from existing articles as "new". Anyway I've removed/replaced "Uncommon Goods" (a shopping website) completely as a source on both the Alfred O. Deshong and Deshong Art Museum pages now, so at least that's fixed. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Sometimes we IAR here as is wp policy. But I have yet to see us IAR in regard to the 5x rule. Several times I have come up just shy of 5x as a nominator and the rule was invoked. Sadly it forces editors to needlessly pad articles in some cases. In my case it caused me to withdraw the nominations like in this case. Lightburst (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
One of the lessons is that if you're a fix-and-expander, it's better to cut all the problematic content out of the article first. And then wait a day before expanding. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: weirdly enough, no, you can't do that, per the old SGs. It's from the last version before you started working on it. I personally think that's fairly stupid, but what can ya do. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
But you can if someone else deleted it, right? Not by proxy obviously. But if someone slashed and burned, for example at AfD. (I might...have some experience in this area. Rightly or wrongly.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I think there was an exception given for copyright violations, and of course there's always the option of nominating an article for GA if it's good enough. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Fine. Let's kill it and I'll work on submitting it as a GA. Thank you @Cielquiparle: for the strong changes to both Deshong Art Museum and Alfred O. Deshong. Dwkaminski (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@Dwkaminski please note, whatever you do with GA, you still have to address the WP:COPYWITHIN problem. This is not just a nice-to-have, and not just a silly DYK rule. It is a legal obligation of providing the proper attribution to comply with our licensing requirements. RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not clear on how to address the copywithin problem. I created Alfred O. Deshong years ago and finally decided to separate out the Art museum as it's own page. I would think changing the text enough would address the concerns but any other guidance is greatly appreciated. Dwkaminski (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Optimally, it would have been done at the time of the original copying, but since it wasn't, you should follow the procedure described at WP:RIA. RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@Dwkaminski I've described what you need to do to fix the COPYWITHIN issue. I see that you've nominated this for GA without fixing this problem. Copyright issues are one of the quick fail items listed at WP:GAFAIL. Please don't just keep ignoring this. RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Image license question for Fernando Henriques

I have raised questions at Template:Did you know nominations/Fernando Henriques regarding the image of the subject. Input from anyone is welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your qualms. The licensing metadata is obviously incorrect. I have tagged it with the "wrong license" template on commons. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Eko Patrio (nom)

  • ... that while Indonesian politician and entertainer Eko Hendro Purnomo was well-known to his constituents, he was mostly known by his stage name instead of his legal name?

@Juxlos, Grnrchst, and Lightburst: Given that a good number of entertainers become politicians, and that a good number of politicians go by nicknames (Jeb Bush, for one), I'm not sure that this hook says anything very unusual. If it does go through on that, it'll need to be attributed to Eko as it is in the article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 5: Eko Patrio (nom) @Lightburst, Juxlos, and Grnrchst: I don't see anything interesting about an entertainer mostly being known by their stage name. That's the whole point of a stage name; it's intentionally designed to be what people will know you by. An objection was raised in the nom that the hook needed to be modified, but was promoted unchanged. RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I raised a similar issue in queue promotion – you can see it in the Q5 section. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Ugh! I must need more caffeine or something. I promoted prep 1 -> queue 1, but I reviewed queue 5. I'll go back and review queue 1 now. Sigh. You are in a maze of twisty little DYK queues, all alike. RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
When is the DYK Nethack fork coming out? Vaticidalprophet 18:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
Need to find a little dog first. RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
altq: ...t..h...@.d...%..!.....|####|....> dying (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
OK, I've been totally outgeeked. Slinking off somewhere to quaff a potion of healing. RoySmith (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)
oh, sorry, RoySmith! i didn't mean to outgeek you. your remark about finding a little dog triggered many fond memories, and i just wanted to "yes, and ..." your comment in appreciation. (i even found the little dog for you!) anyway, let me grab some comestibles and join you. dying (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

pulled: no response from nominator and the queue is next in line. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith and Theleekycauldron: I am not sure we need a new hook here. From what I read in the nomination there is not an objection. The reviewer simply was thinking out loud, Hook could be rewritten slightly to better communicate why his name was an issue. But I very clearly understood why the name was an issue or I would have suggested changing the hook. I remember going to vote in the 1990s and William Jefferson Clinton was on the ballot. I paused while I figured out that it was Bill Clinton - same last name. Now imagine if the name on the ballot had even less of a connection to the name you knew? Like an entirely different last name. Lightburst (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
@Lightburst: There wasn't an objection in the nomination, but promoting admins and uninvolved editors are allowed to raise their own objections, which need to be resolved. As for the hook itself, if that's the angle you're going for, maybe center a hook around the campaign to get voters to know his legal name. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I had in mind. A more interesting hook would be something along the lines of "... that entertainer Eko Hendro Purnomo's political career suffered because voters didn't recognize his name on ballots" (assuming there's sources to back that up). RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I like your idea above. Lightburst (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 1

Posthumous publication

Article: Posthumous publication, DYK nomination. @Mgp28, Damian Vo, and Cielquiparle:

I added two citation needed tags to the article that will need to be resolved before this appears on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Biblioteca Gabriel García Márquez

Article: Biblioteca Gabriel García Márquez, DYK nomination @Kippelboy, Victuallers, Ergo Sum, Lightburst, and Cielquiparle:

I have added the word "public" to the hook, as that word was missing from the quote in the source. Please comment below if there are any concerns. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Display problem in WP:DYKN

Erm, is it just me, or did the template display get screwed up for the nominations in WP:DYKN after Sep 1st? See here. S5A-0043Talk 08:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a part of the post-expansion inclusion size limit – it happens when we have too many nominations. Hopefully we can alleviate that soon! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
What we need are more nominations reviewed and passed, so they get moved off the nominations page and to the approved page. If that happens, especially with the longer reviews, more transclusions will become visible. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about an hour ago, so I've created a new list the first 34 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 19. We have a total of 304 nominations, of which 127 have been approved, a gap of 177 nominations that has increased by 21 over the past 12 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations; with those 177 unapproved noms we are overflowing the Nominations page, so each one reviewed, when it is eventually approved, helps more reviews to transclude fully by reducing the overflows.

More than three months old

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Prep 6: Sinéad O'Connor on Saturday Night Live (nom)

@Thriley, Maury Markowitz, and Cielquiparle: I've moved this out of Queue 2, as I believe putting it in the image slot would divert viewers to the article on O'Connor – no prejudice against it being put back in the image slot in p6, because it is O'Connor, but I feel like another hook should get a chance at that slot. Also, I've tagged the lead image as having no valid fair use rationale. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron I've removed the image deletion tag after filling out the "Purpose" line in the Fair Use Rationale template for this particular article (but not the other two). As the image illustrates the main topic of this article, specifically, it seems non-controversial in this case. (Not sure about the other two instances of use.) Cc: Randy Kryn Cielquiparle (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Cielquiparle! I think it does need fair use rationales for every article, but that's not a DYK problem. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree that a proper rationale is needed for each article. I added a purpose in the rationale for the biography but the SNL article also needs one. The need for this specific image is less clear in the SNL article, but maybe one could argue that it's the most iconic of the controversies that the article describes and that any other image of any of them would be equally unfree. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Thank you for catching that. I am confused why the 2014 image is not appropriate for the front page? Thriley (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thriley: per WP:DYKIMG, try to avoid images that divert readers from the bolded article into a side article. This probably wasn't the most clear-cut case of that, so again, I'm happy for a promoter or admin to put it back in the image slot if they want it for their set. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are no decent available photos of her from around the time the performance happened- which would make more sense than the 2014 one, but I still think it is appropriate. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this done a few times in the last year or so. Thriley (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
@Thriley I'll have to agree with @Theleekycauldron that the image in question is unnecessary. Besides, taking the picture slot is a privilege, not a right. Whatever happened in the last year is irrelevant to this case; people make mistakes all the time. BorgQueen (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I understand it is a privilege. I rarely nominate articles with a picture, so I was excited for this one. Thriley (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Prep area 6 - Amphitheatrum Johnsonianum

Prep 6 Amphitheatrum Johnsonianum

just double checked the quote and it should properly be "an invitation to regicide" [no "do"]


Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=NESibcqnsPgC&pg=PA190#v=onepage&q&f=false


also we had a case of double-word blindness and there are two as present, one inside and outside the quote. One as should go, don't think it matters which.


so sorry didn't catch before & thanks for all you do. jengod (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the hook :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
TY! jengod (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

WHENNOTCITE vs DYK

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources on a contradiction between that guideline (which forbids repeated citations on consecutive sentences) and our DYK rules (which sometimes requires them, when needed to support a hook claim). I am not proposing to change our rules; I just think that the contradictory wording should somehow be resolved. Please comment there. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@David Eppstein The guideline doesn't technically "forbid" repeated citations on consecutive sentences. It just says they "aren't necessary", which leaves it up to individual editors. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill. (Many of us belong to the "repeat citation" school on Wikipedia, even outside of DYK, mainly because we're all too aware that long paragraphs with only one footnote often get mangled inappropriately over time and become hard to track and fix later.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
i agree with Cielquiparle: i believe "It is not necessary to include" does not mean "It is necessary to not include", i.e., is not equivalent to . i also do not think dyk's practice contradicts wp:cite. if wp:cite does not require something while dyk does, that just means that it is required in dyk, and is not necessarily required outside of it. (similarly, if a fancy restaurant has a strictly formal dress code, it does not necessarily contradict the local jurisdiction's standards of decency.)
i do, however, recognize that some editors equate "It is not necessary to include" with "It is necessary to not include", so i think it is fine to add an explanatory footnote clarifying that dyk's practice is acceptable, as long as the footnote is not worded in such a way that suggests dyk's requirement is an exception to the guideline. that way, those who do not equate the two phrases will interpret the footnote as redundant (rather than be confused as to why it is an exception), and those that do equate the two phrases will interpret the footnote as an exception.
another possible solution is to simply add a footnote that explains that "It is not necessary to include" does not mean "It is necessary to not include", but you might get pushback from editors who consider this a substantial change rather than merely a clarification. dying (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Group notice?

What would folks think about trimming Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Did you know nominations way back? The "Please use the following criteria when reviewing the nomination below." section is just yet another copy of the instructions, which means it's yet another copy that needs to be kept in sync (and the current version is already out of sync in some ways). I find it just something I need to scroll past to get to the meat of the nomionation and doesn't add any value. RoySmith (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a very convenient check/aide memoire while you're reviewing to remind you of the criteria: it sits right there in the editor while you're typing. Also very important: the icons ({{DYKSymbols2}}), which should be copy/pasted into the reviews (a few people still type their own, forgetting the subst:, which keeps the bots from recognizing the icon), and the copy/paste DYKproblem template strings. I don't think you're going to save any space most of the time: the {{DYKbox}} DYK shortcuts box alone is taller than the edit notices, and it's stacked under the {{DYK tools}} box. If Wikipedia:Did you know/review criteria is out of sync, then it should be brought back into sync. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the table of symbols is useful; I copy-paste from that all the time. But the rest seems excessive (and out of sync with the newly-reorganized "everything in one place" guidelines page). RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
If the problem is that some components are not quite in sync with the guidelines page, perhaps theleekycauldron could update what is no longer perfectly accurate. However, especially for new reviewers, it is useful to have the reminders right there: too many forget the close paraphrasing/copyvio/plagiarism check and the other "within policy" checks (including neutrality), so I think it would be a mistake to remove something that remains useful: there are always new reviewers. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith and BlueMoonset: I've changed the editnotice so that it transcludes the relevant section of Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions, so that we're not responsible for maintaining more than one page. By the way, BlueMoonset, what's to stop me from having AnomieBOT substitute every transclusion of {{DYKyes}} and related templates? Seems like that would be a boon, unless there are places we don't want it substed... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
would it be helpful to add an anchor at the bottom of the editnotice and a link to jump to that anchor near the top of the editnotice? i admittedly don't recall ever editing an editnotice before though, so i am not positive that this would work. dying (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination - article Mimodactylus

There is a question about the copyright status of the image (File:Mimodactylus in life.png) that I raised in the nomination. It is a lovely image but I am not satisfied with the copyright status of the image. I wonder if someone here can look at my concern in the nomination and comment here or there. I do not want to hold up the nomination if I am incorrect. Lightburst (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I should send out pings to @Hog Farm, FunkMonk, and Elias Ziade: also. Lightburst (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
  • The article is licensed as CC-BY-4.0 (see here) so it's fine. Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
  • Hmm .. although it also says " The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material." and that image has a credit line ("Artwork of Julius T. Csotonyi.") - which I think means that's just a credit and not indicating otherwise, but others may want to pitch in. Black Kite (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Since it doesn't say anything like "copyright by" or "courtesy of", it just seems like a common artist acknowledgment. Note the image is in relatively low resolution, and sometimes artists "donate" low res versions of their work for CC licensed research articles. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@Lightburst @FunkMonk Sorry for the late reply. I agree that the artist mention is to acknowledge their work. el.ziade (talkallam) 08:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Horror aequi

Queue 7: Horror aequi (nom)

@AjaxSmack, Surtsicna, Dying, and Cielquiparle: Maybe this is a convention that I'm not familiar with, but why are there question marks at the beginning of the sentences of the last two examples? - Aoidh (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It appears to be a standard convention in linguistics to mark examples that are dubious, questionable, or relatively unacceptable. A related notation uses an asterisk at the start to mark something that is ungrammatical or incorrect. See https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/338/meaning-of-star-asterisk-in-linguistics —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Ah okay, I understand. I looked and that is also mentioned as the third definition at wikt:?. I don't know if this usage is common and I've just never been exposed to it, or should a note or something perhaps be added to the article to explain why the mark is there to avoid confusion for readers unfamiliar with that usage? - Aoidh (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I tried adding a note about that to the article. You might not have noticed but the same convention was used earlier with some asterisks. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I did notice those but I am more familiar with asterisks being used in that way, but maybe that's my bias showing that I assumed that convention would be more recognized because it's the one that I recognized. - Aoidh (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
​​I used the question marks and asterisks at the beginning of the sentences in the article because the sources for the article do, as do similar Wikipedia articles. I'm not entirely comfortable with such usage in a general work like Wikipedia, though, as such usage is not transparent and/or is counterintuitive to a non-linguistic audience. This is probably not the place for an extensive discussion, but at a minimum, a boilerplate explanation of the meanings of ? and * should appear in these articles (e.g. "An asterisk before a form indicates an ungrammatical or impossible form, while a question mark indicates that the form is questionable, but not outright ungrammatical.") I added some explanation of the uses at Question mark § Linguistics and Asterisks § Linguistics and opened a discussion section at WT:LING § Explanation of linguistics use of * and ?. —  AjaxSmack  18:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Prep 7: United States Marine Hospital (Lahaina, Hawaii) (nom)

@Antony-22, SL93, and Bruxton: I've bumped this back from Queue 2 so I have time to ask: I don't see something resembling "in the 1970s due to neglect" in the article, could someone point it out to me? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you are right that the word "neglect" is not used. The neglect is assumed. I think we can omit "due to neglect" from the hook and it works. Bruxton (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: forgot to ping. Bruxton (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: "Neglect" is kind of implied. Let me recheck the sources to find a word that's more directly supported before re-promoting it. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)
How about this? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

combining two threads...

Queue 7: United States Marine Hospital (Lahaina, Hawaii) (nom) @Bruxton @Antony-22 @SL93 The article doesn't say anything about "neglect" RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, I'm inclined to say the amount of copy-paste exceeds what's allowable by WP:CLOP. I'd appreciate a second opinion on that. RoySmith (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Partially discussed above. Maybe nobody fixed the bit about neglect? Bruxton (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
If it meets other people's approval (@Theleekycauldron @Bruxton @Antony-22) I'm OK with the ALT above. I'm still concerned about the WP:CLOP issue. RoySmith (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
well I'm also not seeing 1970s, but other than that i'm good with the ALT. Haven't looked into the CLOP, may or may not take a closer look. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
The sources are a bit inconsistent about the exact date of the collapse: some say 1980, some say mid-1970s. I used "by 1980" in the article but that's a bit awkward for the hook. I think the CLOP is from the HABS report which is public domain because it's a National Park Service publication. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
Yes, the sections in question do appear to be from the Historic American Buildings Survey, but you still need to comply with the attribution requirements of WP:CLOP#Public domain or compatibly-licensed content which in turn invokes WP:PLAGIARISM#Public-domain sources. In short, you can do close paraphrasing, but it's not enough to just cite the source as you normally would. It needs to be attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation. RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
This was in the top queue and not resolved, so I swapped it out to prep 5 to give us more time to work on the CLOP issue. RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I added Template:Source-attribution to that citation. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, RoySmith, Bruxton, and Antony-22: I just promoted the prep that this hook was in and wanted to check in on this. It looks like this solves the CLOP issue unless I'm overlooking something else, but I have the same concerns about first in the 1970s due to neglect. This source says it collapsed "in 1980" but this one says the collapse happened "in the mid-1970s". From reading those sources the deterioration was certainly a contributing factor but they frame the construction as being what I would call the proximate cause of the collapse so I agree with the alt above and have changed it accordingly, but I wanted to doublecheck and see if "in the 1970s" was acceptable giving the conflicting dates in the sources? - Aoidh (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Getting the easy stuff out of the way first, I'm good with the Source-attribution template.
When we've got two sources that give conflicting dates for something, there's never a perfect solution. One possible interpretation of the sources would be "There was construction nearby in the mid 1970s which led to the building finally collapsing in 1980", but that would be pure speculation. If a more authoritative source can't be found, I would be up-front about the problem and say something like, "The building collapsed sometime around the mid 1970s or 1980; sources differ on the exact year" and cite both sources. If that's the best we can do, at least we've made the reader aware of the issue and they can make up their own mind which source to trust. RoySmith (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
In the article I wrote that it collapsed "by 1980". That doesn't work well with the wording of the hook, though I could reword it to omit the date entirely if it's an issue. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I tried finding a contemporary newspaper article that would put a firm date on when it collapsed, like a paper talking about it right after it happened, but I could find nothing on Newspapers.com. I can't think of a good way to reword it to account for 1980 being a possible (likely?) date without making it awkward sounding. - Aoidh (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I did a bit of poking around, but didn't find anything useful that you didn't already have. One thing I did see is that the address is sometimes listed as 1038 Front Street and other times as 1024 Front Street. Perhaps searching on both of those might turn up something useful. RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I've actually been giving this a lot of thought and the best I can come up with is first around 1980 due to vibrations from neighboring construction. Any objections to that? - Aoidh (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

This possibility omits the date entirely. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  • Your ALT2 suggestion works as well as my suggestion, so if someone else will check off on ALT2, I'll make the change. - Aoidh (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm good with ALT2, but I'll leave it to someboy less involved to issue the check mark. RoySmith (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Given that it's in the next queue I've gone ahead and updated it to the ALT2 wording so that way it doesn't contain the problematic year phrasing and more accurate. - Aoidh (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Prep 6 Picture hook Jack the Ripper Stalks His Victims

Not my area and @Premeditated Chaos and @Epicgenius are far more experienced than I...but are we certain that this eye-catching early Alexander McQueen design is not covered by a fashion design copyright? (I'm always skittish with 3D art objects.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: I was not pinged, however This was an image I promoted. I will show you my thinking: I promoted the image based on the fact that Alexander McQueen is British and the United Kingdom has FOP for 3d art. I am glad that raised the question here because this image seems to have been taken at the MET in New York and the US does not have FOP for 3d art. So now I think we need an image license expert to review this. Lightburst (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle, thanks for bringing it up. My impression is that, according to c:COM:CLOTHING, "Images illustrating clothing styles or articles of clothing are normally acceptable". Additionally, fashion is not copyrightable in the U.S. (clothing would only be copyrightable if it featured a work of art, such as a print, that is copyrightable), and like Lightburst said above, the UK has freedom of panorama for 3D art as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
c:COM:CLOTHING seems to clearly say the image is allowed. Thanks for that link Epicgenius! Lightburst (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
This comes up every time I do an image of clothing. Do I need to start putting a disclaimer? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't be surprised if someone is going to complain at WP:ERRORS when it's on MP. BorgQueen (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Is it possible to put an invisible comment in the actual queue directing people to check COM:CLOTHING first? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
@Premeditated Chaos Sure. Done. BorgQueen (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Nice, hopefully that helps. Many thanks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
@Premeditated Chaos For future, it would be helpful if this was stated as a comment in the DYK nomination itself. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I did already mention putting a disclaimer. I do wish people would check Commons to see if they have any guidance about copyright status of things before assuming it's a problem, however. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Not sure how UK freedom of panorama applies at all in this particular case (as the work is not on permanent public display), but it sounds like the fact that it was photographed in the US makes us confident that there are no copyright issues. Thanks everyone for the explanation. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Freedom of Panorama definitely does not apply: even if this would be covered as a "work of artistic craftsmanship" (poorly defined!) it's not on permanent public display. It's not clear to me that the photograph was taken in the US: the caption says that it's at the Victoria and Albert Museum (London, UK) and was originally uploaded to flickr in July 2015 - when the exhibition in question was indeed at the V&A. But whether or not it was taken in the US, COM:CLOTHING says "care must be taken not to infringe the copyright of any printed or woven design that may appear on the clothing's surface" – is the thorns design copyrightable? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Portrait of a Creole Woman with Madras Tignon

Prep 4: Portrait of a Creole Woman with Madras Tignon (nom) @Cielquiparle @Chidgk1 @Tcr25 The image is kind of dark. I uploaded a new version to File:Portrait of a Creole Woman with Madras Tignon (Catlin) adjusted.png with the exposure pushed up a bit. From a technical standpoint, I think it's an improvement. I'm not sure which is better from a aesthetic point of view, or which is more true to the original painting. I'll leave it up to you if you want to switch to the adjusted version. RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I think your exposure adjustment could be used if whoever is minding the queue prefers it. ——Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
Done. RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
We should not be replacing museum scans of artworks with "corrected" coloring made to aesthetic taste rather than as accurate reproductions of the originals. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, that was the point of my original question, and the nominator said it was OK. But, why do you call this a "museum scan"? The commons description page lists the photographer as "Brunk Auctions". RoySmith (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Ok, but it's still a scan calibrated against the original artwork by the people taking a scan, versus calibrated later by some Wikipedia editor who didn't find the dark tone pleasing enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I get where you're coming from and I'm not entrenched on this. I've asked at WT:WikiProject Visual arts#Post-processing photographs of paintings for additional opinions. RoySmith (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, @David Eppstein. You raise a good point. There is a history of portraits of Creole women having their skin tones lightened as part of restoration/"cleaning" efforts, so I tried to be sensitive to that in looking at the adjusted version and comparing it to the later Schneider version. I agree with Johnbod's assessment that RoySmith's adjustments help make elements of the painting more visible than the photograph Brunk Auctions took without overdoing it. The Richmond Museum of Fine Arts has not posted an image of the painting, so it's not clear how they have adjusted a photograph of it yet. (The only picture of the original painting at The Cabildo I can find is in black and white (and it appears small in the back of the frame.) All that said, while I'm okay with the adjusted version, I think the original version was fine too. Maybe the balance would be to use the adjusted version with the DYK (since it will run pretty small) and the unadjusted version on the article page. ——Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm responding from the visual arts request, although my opinion is not that of an expert. I just spent ten minutes comparing the two images, and I don't think RoySmith's mods are that big of a deal. There is something to be said for the neutrality of the Brunk Auction image, but it is slightly dark. I think the only critical thing I can say here is that RoySmith's changes went just slightly too far, as I found them just a touch too bright, but I doubt anyone is going to notice. I also think it's not uncommon to tweak museum photos for display purposes when it's needed. Finally, to address David Eppstein's interesting claim, I don't think we really have accurate reproductions of original paintings, but the pros who take the best images will probably try to achieve a neutral approximation that approaches accuracy, but this is very difficult unless they have ideal conditions, which is unlikely for most of our museum photos on commons. Personally, I'm fine with RoySmith's changes, but I think an argument could be made that the change went slightly too far. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree - the changes were relatively discreet. It is often an alarming experience to go round a museum comparing their official images, especially in printed form, against the original works, so sadly I don't think "museum images" (which this not) can be taken as much of a gold standard. Oil paintings are normally photographed rather than scanned. Johnbod (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
@Johnbod: it's been a while, so forgive me if I get this wrong, but I remember reading in a photography textbook that neutral images (or photos of things that we might loosely call "accurate") often need to be adjusted for presentation on an electronic display for human eyes. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Very possibly. Someone was asking recently if a British Library image of a miniature actually had a gold ground. It did, but the BL had chosen (presumably) to downplay the shiny gold in their photo. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
This is something that has always worried me about images, and why they shouldn't be treated as WP:RS. If I write "The sky is blue", it's unambiguous what that means. Even if I reproduce it in a different font, or render it as "THE SKY IS BLUE", or translate it into another language, the meaning is still clear. But with images, not so much. Even if you AGF, there are many ways that images get processed which can change color rendition. It's not just how you play with color balance in a photo editor, it's the color gamut of the media (a computer monitor may be able to create colors which simply cannot be created in paint, or printer's ink, or vice-versa. And monitors differ. I'm using a consumer-grade monitor right now, with ambient lighting supplied by sunlight through my window. If you're using a different monitor with color calibration and carefully controlled ambient lighting, you'll see different colors. People who really care about color rendition include color calibration cards (example shown). And different people perceive colors differently.
I ran into this not too long ago (I can't remember if it was a DYK or a GA review), where the author was looking at a photograph of a military award ribbon and using that as a source to say what colors were in the ribbon. It was a lot of work to get them to find a real WP:RS which described the colors. RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith yes it was a DYK nom... about Sudanese awards. I remember that one because giving women pink ribbons struck me as sexist. BorgQueen (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
My day job is in the museums sector, and often the best colour digital images we have of a work do not remotely resemble what that work now looks like, either because the original photograph was not correctly white balanced or because it was scanned from a negative or print which has degraded over time or because the work itself has faded or otherwise changed colour over time. The photo in this case is a modern one taken presumably by a professional photographer (auction houses can afford to pay for proper photography!) so you would hope that it is an accurate reflection of the work but I find it hard to get too concerned about a minor change to exposure levels here. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

clicks to an article not linked in hook

I found this very interesting. Vintage spirits wasn't even linked in the hook (... that when Kentuckians discover unwanted bourbon, there is something they can do with it?), it was simply a link within the background section of the target article. Over 1600 people read the target article closely enough that they clicked to a second article from it. Valereee (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

People are quite interested in the bourbon and spirits. Bruxton (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Apparently so! Valereee (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Queue 3

Thwaites Glacier

The hook is rendering as ... add 65 cm (25+1⁄2 in) to ..., where the +1/2 is apparently generated by {{frac}}. Is there some reason we can't use {{convert}} in hooks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 20:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe that {{convert}} calls {{frac}} in such cases anyway. That template usually styles fractions correctly by transcluding <templatestyles src="Fraction/styles.css" />; perhaps there is something on the queues page or the Main Page that prevents its proper display. Otherwise we could simply change the unit conversion to 26&nbsp;in? I'm not entirely convinced that the vulgar fraction is necessary. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I changed it to use {{cvt}}, letting it default to no decimal digits. RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The Librarian (version control system)

The hook verifies, but this has so much potential for a better hook. @Cielquiparle, Airborne84, and Wasted Time R:. Some ideas:

  • ALT3: ... that if you were having trouble keeping track of your source code, The Librarian could help?
  • ALT4: ... that a program's source code was once saved from a fire by The Librarian?
  • ALT5: ... that The Librarian could help audit your code?

RoySmith (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

ALT4 is good. I think ALT2 is a little more intriguing than ALT3 or ALT5, but I am okay with any of these. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Rock Diver

This needs a WP:RS citation for it being his first short story. RoySmith (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Reigate

This needs end-of-sentence citations for the facts. RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Diggin' Dogs

This would be a stronger hook if you left off the with design input from Edmund McMillen? part. RoySmith (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Pub test

The hook fact is sourced to a news report which uses the term. I think it's a bit of WP:OR to generalize from that. RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't our hooks do justice to the subject?

I read on the Main page today

I don't have good words to say how inadequate I find that type of hook, catering to some general interest in sensation but saying in no word who the subject was, and did where and when. I thought someone French, because of the name. I tried to avoid to even click, not to raise the count, but hovering over it found that he was German, so I feel responsible, and would normally take the hook to Portal:Germany. This one, as it is, I will not take there, because no indication of relevance to Germany is provided. He was minister of finance in Bavaria, professor of economics, from a Jewish family with a long history, but readers interested in such topics get no clue, and will probably miss him. Shouldn't our hooks at least provide some context to indicate why a subject has an article, to not hook only readers who won't care beyond the little sensation mentioned? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It is “hooky” and that’s the problem. Do we need so many hooks that point out minor irrelevant details? I like a hook that allows a reader a glimpse of the more profound/meaningful aspects of the subject of the article. Thriley (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
The hook reveals something about the person. Maybe not an exemplary hook, but I would not second guess the good faith work of the volunteers and promoting admin who I think is @RoySmith:? Some other volunteers who were involved in the nomination should know this is being discussed. @Cielquiparle, Susmuffin, and Narutolovehinata5: Lightburst (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Or maybe @Z1720: was the queue promotor? Lightburst (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I think <throwing under the bus mode>it was Z</throwing under the bus mode>. FWIW, however, when I'm promoting a queue, I'm basically looking that the hook fact appears in the article and is reasonably sourced, and that there's no copyvio issues. If I see something else I'll query it, but I rarely get beyond the basics. So, despite my bus-throwing-under, had I promoted that queue, I probably wouldn't have said anything either. RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
That's not how hooks work. The main point of hooks is to encourage people to find more about the subject by reading the article, and in many cases, highlighting an unusual or interesting aspect about the subject is more effective in doing so than telling on the spot what the subject is best known for. For example, a hook that says "Did you know that John Doe played the lead role in a performance of Wagner's Ring Cycle at the Bayreuth Festival in 2023?", while undoubtedly impressive, may not make people want to learn more about Doe since the hook may not make much sense to non-opera fans. However, a hook that goes "Did you know that John Doe, who performed at the Bayreuth Festival in 2023, studied computer engineering before starting his opera career?" would be more effective since an opera singer having a background in something other than opera would make people curious and make them want to find out how that happened. It's the same thing with other subjects, not just opera. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Can we please stay with this topic, which is not opera? The hook says nothing about the subject that I see, but gladness about his death, expressed to the widow. I don't think we should run such hooks, - it's unfair to the subject, almost indecent. Imagine that was about a person who recently died. Another - minor - problem with the hook was that (in your terminology) it "relies" on knowing who Lawrence was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I mostly agree with Gerda on this. The hook is more about Lawrence than about Jaffé. Hooks should be about the main subject (i.e. bolded link). It's also a bit of an easter egg because the (missing) context of Lawrence being Jaffé's brother-in-law is important to understanding the hook. RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
For reference, I did suggest hooks that were related to his descent from the Jaffe family, his work with Kurt Eisner and his editorial role in the Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik. They were regarded as having been less interesting than the remaining one, so I chose to work with the one that had a chance to be promoted. As far as I know, the promoted hook broke no policies and did not contain anything that might break them in the future. ―Susmuffin Talk 01:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
In truth, the most intriguing hook was ALT0 (!)...the one about his wife having an affair with Max Weber (and Alfred)...but I agree with the assessment that it wasn't appropriate to run...and given all the options, it seemed OK and it was definitely hooky in that it got 12k views (!). In hindsight maybe it would have been better to insert the descriptor "economist" before the name, but for sure, fewer people would have clicked because all the questions they would have had about the fact would have been answered at that point. (I too have occasionally succumbed to putting too much information in the hook when I feel that the topic is extremely important, but have realized in hindsight that fewer people read the actual article because of it.) Cielquiparle (talk) 04:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
  • If the hook were about someone who died recently, I would agree that the hook was insensitive or in bad taste. However, given that Jaffé died over 100 years ago, I don't see a problem with the hook ... and on the plus side, it attracted 12,000 sets of eyes to a very well written article on an important person and as a bonus drew significant extra views to other important topics, including:

Such extensive secondary viewing shows that the article was read closely and inspired considerable interest and curiosity. IMO having a "hooky" hook was key to drawing eyes to all of these topics, and in attracting so much attention, it did justice to the subject and should be rated as a tremendous success! Cbl62 (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Cbl62 good points. Lightburst (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, that hook actually got me to the article of someone I had never heard of (and have no particular interest in) because I wanted to know why. So for me that's a hook that has done its job. Valereee (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I see that the hook was attractive, but at the cost of painting the subject as someone whose widow would not object to gladness when he died. I wish that kind of tabloid hinting at some mystery would not replace what in some past time was called "Did you know? I also think if something is in bad taste for someone who just died, it is in bad taste, period. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for how to handle themed set proposals (related to above discussion of promotional hooks)

Observations and suggestion

  1. Quick deadline/pressure of Themed Set causes rushed article updates
  2. Quick deadline/pressure of Themed Set causes insufficient reviews
  3. Previous Themed Set-gate causes involved users to not want to intervene with issues for fear of being seen as prejudiced to Themed Sets
  4. DYK encourages inexperienced users to review. Uninvolved users (in Themed Set-gate) are more likely to be the involved parties of Themed Set reviews. Uninvolved users were typically those who were not active in discussion, which has significant overlap with inexperienced users; it may be more likely that inexperienced users are taking on Themed Set reviews, and they are less likely to notice — or feel empowered to challenge — article issues.
  5. Presumption of all Themed Set nominations needing to be promoted may cause reviewer to give less attention to article issues.
  6. Presumption of all Themed Set nominations needing to be promoted may cause reviewer to not challenge the hook quality.

I have one overall suggestion to help combat this: start a sub project of DYK for Themed Sets, like task forces of WikiProjects. We have had successful Themed Sets before, Museum Day and Women's History Month come to mind, and these involved other projects. It clearly needs an exerted effort to make sure the coordination allows for quality content — or stops non-quality content. This isn't a suggestion to offload the issue; the subproject would, first before anything, need enough active users to agree on and handle Themed Sets or they just won't happen. I suggest its coordination would involve planning well in advance and to handle nominations effectively as a group. Open communication with the whole DYK project would hopefully prevent other users feeling that bringing up issues Themed Set noms would be taken badly. Kingsif (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, not following why we're veering off into themed sets? Valereee (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Based on @Vaticidalprophet: and others' comments at that discussion, and my experience in nominating the article, I observed issues in the process that relate to it being a themed hook, issues that would not be as prevalent if it wasn't themed, and issues that collectively contributed to it getting through. Kingsif (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Ah...maybe we should just make it a separate discussion, and note that it's related? Valereee (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Costco hot dog Nomination Prep 7

Just a quick check on the hook I promoted. Could be considered promotion because it makes me want to try it. Asking for a second opinion. Lightburst (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lightburst Seems OK. I mean, the most famous thing about the hot dog is the price...which seems especially topical at the moment given the state of inflation in the US and other countries.
While we're on this subject, I wanted to ask for a new reviewer to take a look at the hooks I wrote for Template:Did you know nominations/Grimace Shake and/or come up with new ones. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
No problem with this hook being too promotional, but I'm glad LB brought it here. Valereee (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

CACP in P2

CLOSED
Redundant discussion. Valereee (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

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


  • ... that the Costco hot dog and soda combo deal has cost $1.50 since its introduction in 1984?

And that is everything that, in my judgement, would fall into the class of CACP that is currently in prep or queue. Valereee (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I must admit I do not know the acronym. But I think this is about promotion? If it is, I asked the question about the hook a bit farther up on this page. Lightburst (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Currently available commercial products. :D Valereee (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Available: A Big, Juicy Review.

In exchange for a fast review of Script Ohio, I will do an on-demand review of any hook you fancy and give you a premium barnstar. Interesting trades also considered. (I'm trying to ram this through before the Ohio State-Youngstown State game.) I hope I'm not violating decorum or guidelines by making this offer. If I am, please strike. Chetsford (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Working on it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Done! Thanks for the interesting article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
Firefangledfeathers - thank you so much! I'll make the suggested updates you mentioned on the Talk page right now. Please let me know if you need me to do any reviews in return! Chetsford (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
I think that Queue 7 is the one set to run on September 9. Any chance we can swap this one in? Pinging the main prep-maker Cielquiparle and the queue-maker Aoidh. No pressure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
@Chetsford For next time: The right thing to do would have been to call out the special date request explicitly when you first posted to this Talk page 5 days ago. As it stands, it seems our admins are overstretched at the moment, so I'm not sure if this could get slotted in as a last-minute swap request. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
But @Aoidh...if we were to swap one of the current hooks out, I would swap out the Costco hot dog one and we'll build a really nice new set around it. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle:  Done, Costco hot dog is now in Prep 2, Script Ohio is in Queue 7, set to run on 9 September. - Aoidh (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
@Chetsford, as an Ohioan with roots in Y'town, I just have to ask: Why the Youngstown State game? Valereee (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
It's their first game of the season at home. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Ah. I'm camping on an island in the middle of Lake Erie with a bunch of Youngtowners, and most are at least mild fans of YSU, and they know it's a ridiculous matchup, but they still want to watch and are rooting for OSU (pardon me, TOSU) becuz OH! Valereee (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not much of a football person and am missing a lot of Midwestern cultural context, so I feel much as I would if I were camping in the middle of Lake Erie: somewhat lost but trying to make the best of the experience! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't sports. But I make the best of game day by focussing on having fun making food in unusual conditions, which is always fascinating for me. Today it's bread and pizza (friend brought a propane-powered oven). Also drinking wine helps. :D Valereee (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Queue 5

List of cranes (nom)

@AryKun: I've copyedited the hook somewhat, I hope it's to your liking :) technically, this hook is SYNTH, but it's not of the misleading variety.

Barry Windsor-Smith (nom)

@FlairTale, Onegreatjoke, and Vaticidalprophet: This cites Windsor-Smith himself in an inteview, where he claims that "Some observer somewhere said in print" the claim. That's not gonna pass muster as a reliable source. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I generally watch rather than directly comment on prepbuilder-pings because I feel the nominator and reviewer are better placed to suggest alt hooks, but given I'm here anyway: Flair and OGJ, do you think something from He has also claimed to be an uncredited co-writer on the majority of his comics work might work? (There might be better in the article, but that's the first interesting-enough one I spotted.) His unusual degree of creative control on Monsters (per the Guardian: In an industry dominated – at least at the commercial end of it – by what Windsor-Smith has called the “chain-gang system”, he has carved a rare niche as an auteur; he wrote, drew, inked and lettered every page of Monsters himself) maybe also, from the same source as that bit of the article. Vaticidalprophet 10:00, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Except that the comic book fans will say "well, duh." The process at Marvel at the time involved the writer giving a plot synopsis to the artist, who would then draw, and it would be returned to the writer who would add captions and dialogue, often keeping what the artist wrote. So the artist normally co-wrote the stories uncredited. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:26, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: Unless there's a better source for the claim, I'm probably going to remove it from the article as undue weight, so I don't think that an attributed hook would work. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:20, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, I suggested two things and the other hasn't had any criticism yet, so hopefully at least something works :) Vaticidalprophet 22:27, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: Ah, I see where I slipped up – thought you were proposing the original with attribution. In any case, if you want to put something into hook language, I can take a look at it – otherwise, I'll pull this if it gets too close to the Main Page. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
ALTsomething: ...that comic book artist Barry Windsor-Smith wrote, drew, inked, and lettered every page of his graphic novel Monsters by himself?
If FlairTale doesn't have any objections, hopefully we can get this one in under the wire? (They don't seem to have edited for a few days, so I'm not holding my breath for actively endorsing it.) Vaticidalprophet 10:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
The source I can see just says he won a few Eisners for this: "Windsor-Smith on the other hand walked away with Best Graphic Album, Best Lettering, and Best Writer/Artist, all for his 2021 release Monsters" so I'm not 100% convinced.
How about something involving his work for The Hand:
I agree we need to settle this soon (under eight hours to go). —Kusma (talk) 14:44, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7, do you have any "interestingness" comments for the ALTs we suggested here? —Kusma (talk) 14:49, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
It's currently ~1am local time (I am an outlier), so I wouldn't rely on a response from Hawkeye before showtime. Vaticidalprophet 15:14, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Given it's looking at the moment that this'll probably be pulled -- this is a four-bio set, and we currently have few enough bios at DYKNA that we're running a lot of less-than-four-bio sets, so it's probably better to swap a non-bio in if we pull rather than turn a set with only e.g. two bios in the first place into one that'll probably only have one. Vaticidalprophet 15:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Oops, for some reason I thought we were closer to the 10:26 when Hawkeye posted yesterday. —Kusma (talk) 16:00, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: your hook just needs the corresponding (cited) statement to be added to the article. —Kusma (talk) 16:09, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
 Done Vaticidalprophet 16:13, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@FlairTale, I have now implemented @Vaticidalprophet's hook in the queue. Unless someone else pulls it, it will go live at midnight UTC. —Kusma (talk) 16:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

In Eutropium (nom)

@Graearms, Onegreatjoke, and Vaticidalprophet: it rather bothers me that this article makes heavy mention of the "effeminate" descriptor as an insult, uncritically. I also don't like that we're sourcing this directly back to the poem itself – seems like we're mixing primary plot summary and secondary analysis, or worse, engaging in secondary analysis off a primary source. This is also technically afoul of WP:DYKFICTION, but given the historical significance, I'm gonna just ignore that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:41, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't know I'd say the article endorses Claudian's positions. I think there might be some better hooks in that article, but it's a marginal enough improvement that I'm not reopening a nomination for it (if I drew the bar that high I'd kick 80-90% of DYKNA to DYKN). My opinions of high-reading DYKFICTION are on the record, and any marginally-better-hook would still fall afoul of high-reading DYKFICTION (as would, bluntly, basically any tolerable hook for a work of fiction). Vaticidalprophet 09:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I dunno, I'm really not comfortable with this. Reading the passage, I'm being asked to agree that the main point of this criticism is effeminacy (which I don't quite see, even though it's a major factor), and that making that inference isn't OR or undue. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
I've pulled this nom before it hits the Main Page, discussion can continue at nompage. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

William J. Ennis (nom)

@Ergo Sum: I'm sure that Woodstock Letters are a great resource, but are they really in and of themselves reliable sources? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

I've used them extensively in GAs and FAs and never encountered an issue with them. They're pretty much the authoritative (and sometimes only) resource for detailed histories of Jesuit institutions and biographies in the eastern United States before the mid-20th century. And when I do use them, I always use them to support purely factual, non-controversial statements. Ergo Sum 11:34, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@Ergo Sum: Okay, I'll defer to you on that :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:18, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Ur Mum (nom)

  • ... that "Ur Mum" has an eleven-second scream?

@Launchballer: Would we consider saving this for April Fools' Day? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:50, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I'd consider reducing it to "that ur mum has an eleven-second scream" though.--Launchballer 09:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@Launchballer: I've pulled the hook from queue – I'll leave it up to you as to whether you want to reopen the double nom or create a new one with a backlink. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
theleekycauldron and Launchballer, It screams Halloween to me. JennyOz (talk) 03:13, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

Queue 2

Models of communication (nom)

@Phlsph7, Onegreatjoke, and Cielquiparle: Can't quite convince myself that the hook is broadly accessible/intriguing, although I do see what it's trying to do. Maybe something on the fact that Aristotle developed one of the earliest models, or that he thought it an art or tecnhe? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: The following would be possible Aristotle-related hooks:
Personally, I prefer ALT0 and ALT1. But I can also live with ALT2 and ALT3. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
@Phlsph7: I can slot in ALT2; what would you think of this, out of curiosity?
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: It would also work but this hook is more about the concept of communication and less about the model of communication (roughly simplified, models are the visual diagrams and the corresponding explanations while "concept" is a wider term). And we would have to check whether "trade" is the accurate translation of techne in this context. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
All righty, we'll go with ALT2 then. I mean, I could argue that Narula 2006's statement of "the earliest" can't be hedged to "one of the earliest" just because encyclopedia.com isn't as sure, and we should have to note that disagreement, but I'll defer to you re: consensus of reliable sources, I haven't looked through most of 'em. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I also thought of that option. But it's probably better to use the weaker claim to be on the safe side here. ALT2 works fine for me. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ a b Narula, Uma (2006). Handbook of Communication Models, Perspectives, Strategies. Atlantic Publishers & Dist. p. 25. ISBN 9788126905133.

1973 Brooklyn hostage crisis (nom)

@AdoTang, Sammielh, and Cielquiparle: the quote comes from The Guardian (citing a documentary?) citing an unnamed NYPD captain. That claim isn't quite as dubious as I would have guessed, but it'll need in-text attribution in both the hook and article. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter, among several other sources, states it was from an interviewee in Hold Your Fire (the Guardian article is also about the documentary, which brought a lot of attention to the incident). The blog Black Girl Nerds specifies that this is NYPD Captain Al Baker, who is quoted by several other sources as one of the interviewees in the documentary. However, the blog is the only source I know of that specifically quotes Baker as saying this, and it's a blog, so I don't really know what to cite here, especially seeing I've never actually watched the documentary and can't confirm this for myself, but I can mention it was "an NYPD captain" and maybe also mention he said it in Hold Your Fire. This in mind, I would prefer to rewrite this hook as "...that an NYPD captain called the 1973 Brooklyn hostage crisis the "birthplace of hostage negotiation"?" AdoTang (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
@AdoTang: I'm good with that, I'll swap it in :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Akiho Suzumoto (nom)

@Narutolovehinata5: the article and hook seem to disagree on whether she is able to do so or merely claims it. Which is correct? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Both of the sources for the hook say it as fact, I went with "claims to" since I thought it was safer since the sources were her agency profile and the profile on her old radio program and thus thought it might need attribution. If you think it would be more accurate to omit the "claims" part from the hook to better match the article, since neither source say it's a claim but present it as fact, I'm okay with that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
all right, I'll update the hook to match. I'll also add "from memory", because, well, the number of digits of pi i can recite decreases drastically when you take away my cheatsheet. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: One more thing, sorry – I was gonna AGF on the sourcing, but I took a peek out of curiosity, and one seems to be from her agency (which would arguably fall afoul of "unduly self-serving" in WP:BLPSPS) and the other doesn't seem to contain the claim. Is Google Translate failing me on the latter one? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

It's in the picture of the second source (the radio one). Here's the direct link to the picture if you need it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Castello di Santa Eurasia (nom)

@No Swan So Fine, Whispyhistory, and Cielquiparle: Do we trust the dongle claim enough to make it in wikivoice? If so, the article shouldn't attribute inline. Also, I'm not seeing where the article says that it's owned by a billionaire? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Theleekycauldron:...Added citation to billionaire. Could add "according to Sands", but looks okay to me as it is. Philafrenzy might give a better reply. Whispyhistory (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, Sands is certainly a reliable source, and the book was published by a reputable publisher. No Swan So Fine (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Looks OK to me. It's just a last place amusing combination of words and nothing controversial. Dogs eat stuff like that all the time. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
given that it's a firsthand account (and that Sands has worked at papers owned by Lebedev) I'll attribute the hook inline. I'm not entirely sure that the billionaire source gives due weight, since it's not related to the castle, but since it's just background I'll let it slide. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Is it important that the wolf's name was also Boris? Cielquiparle (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
alt1q: ... that Boris the Wolf reportedly ate Boris the Pfeffel Johnson's dongle at a Russian billionaire's Italian castle?
by the way, was the dog named after the wolf? dying (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)

Queue 4

Women in Etruscan society (nom)

@JeBonSer: I rephrased the hook, as I thought it was a bit clunky. The latest version is in queue :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Pinging also Chidgk1, who proposed the approved version that was modified. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Great Chidgk1 (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Still good for me. JeBonSer (talk | sign) 01:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Education (nom)

@Phlsph7, Golden, and Cielquiparle: The article seems to say that some consider indoctrination completely separate from education, while others view it as a necessary supplement in the early stages. So, it doesn't seem that anyone's arguing that indoctrination is a form of education, more that it might be useful for that. How to rephrase the hook? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: From our article: An important discussion in this regard is about the role of critical thinking. It asks to what extent indoctrination forms part of education.
If you think this formulation is better, we could use:
Phlsph7 (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
By the way, the original indoctrination-hook is ALT0. Golden suggested in their review that ALT2 should be used:
I understand that that's an informative hook, but it's the kind of hook that doesn't compel anyone to read the article, because all the facts you need are right there. Also...I would have thought that many people know this, so there's nothing unusual intriguing about it. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the indoctrination hook is more intriguing. We can use the human-rights hook as a plan B in case we can't get the indoctrination hook to work. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Give Me Your Hand (nom)

@Sammielh, Nathan121212, and Cielquiparle: Seems to fail verification. Both the article and the source treat Trump as mostly coincidental to the writing of the novel, a temporal curiosity. I'm not seeing anything to suggest that this inspired her – I mean, I think she was already writing the book by that time. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Thanks for spotting that, I was trying to keep it short for the hook. I'm happy to amend to "... that Megan Abbott's 2018 novel Give Me Your Hand uses menstruation as a metaphor, paralleling comments made by Donald Trump during the 2016 election" or to change to ALT1. Sammielh (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Right. I thought about it, and thought the word "while" is what finesses the hook, as "while" clearly signals that it was already "in progress". Cielquiparle (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Nancy Brown (columnist) (nom)

@Gobonobo: I can't access the book source, but I trust that it verifies that Brown took part in the fundraising, and not merely that her readers raised the money in her honor? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron Basically, yeah. Here's the bit from the Detroit News:

In 1929, The News began a campaign to reforest huge swaths of Northern Michigan that had been clear-cut by loggers. The News, in partnership with the state Department of Conservation, offered plots of 40 acres to be seeded with new pines for a $100 donation. A letter writer going by the name "Andy" proposed that Experience readers raise their own $100 to seed a plot. Readers raised enough money — in small sums, 10 cents here, a dollar there — to plant 14 plots, a total of 560 acres reclaimed. Each plot carried a sign that read: "These 40 acres planted in 1930 by the Experience Column in honor of Nancy Brown."

As the columnist, Brown was presumably responsible for selecting the initial letter from "Andy" for publishing. This source and the book source both credit the "Experience community" (the readership) with organizing around these fundraising activities. Additionally, her columns were later reprinted as books, and the introduction to one, it says that for a couple of years, the profits from the books went towards the reforestation project. I haven't delved into the individual columns, but my sense is that she actively encouraged the fundraising there as well. gobonobo + c 22:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
gobonobo, maybe this would be more accurate:
  • ... that readers of Detroit columnist Nancy Brown funded the reforestation of 560 acres of land in her honor during the Great Depression?
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron I suppose it is accurate, but it crucially denies her agency. Also, the "crowdfunding" in the 1930s is what makes this interesting, IMHO. My understanding is that you don't think that publishing the 'call to fundraise' letter and donating proceeds from her book are sufficient for the claim made in the hook, that "she crowdfunded". Is that right? If you give me time, I can dig into some references that might shed more light on her role in the fundraising. gobonobo + c 22:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
@gobonobo: fair point, please do dig :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron @Gobonobo As the reviewer of this nomination, I should have paid more attention to this aspect, admittedly, but I didn't: sorry for it... Oltrepier (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Since this is on the Main Page, gobonobo, I'm gonna have to go with the revised hook. It's still her community, she still implicitly did something, and it's the most we can say with the current sourcing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:05, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
That's okay. I was unable to access the sources that would have helped anyway. gobonobo + c 09:39, 11 September 2023 (UTC)

Castle in the Sky (nom)

@TechnoSquirrel69: easy fix, but hook fails verification. I'll update it to clarify that not all of the 143k tweets were from the audience. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Good catch! I believe I just looked at the headline when writing this; I'll fix the wording in the article as well. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: If the number isn't being mentioned, then it might be worth noting that the film actually caused the record to be broken twice, the first time being in 2011. Source: [34] —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
I'll add it in! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_194&oldid=1189663570"