Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 198

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 195Archive 196Archive 197Archive 198Archive 199Archive 200→Archive 203

DYKHousekeepingBot

Is there a reason DYKHousekeepingBot randomly yeeted nearly 300 noms?--Launchballer 13:17, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

BlueMoonset's query at User talk:Shubinator#Odd DYKHousekeepingBot issue: isn't including main nominations page may be related. TSventon (talk) 14:02, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
┬─┬ノ( º _ ºノ) Shubinator (talk) 02:10, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Template on nomination page

The nomination page review template has not been updated for DYK repeat appearances "Note other general eligibility problems here (for example, article previously appeared on DYK); leave blank for none" should be changed so that the word "previously" is replaced with something like "recently" or the phrase "in the last 5 years" needs to be worked in.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

The One (Los Angeles)

  • ... that The One (pictured), a private residence in Los Angeles, has 21 bedrooms, 49 bathrooms, a 30-car garage, a four-lane bowling alley, a casino, a nightclub, and five swimming pools including a moat?

@Muboshgu, Gatoclass, and AirshipJungleman29:: Article and hook says 49 bathrooms, but the source says "There are 42 bathrooms" Is this an error, or is there an extra count somewhere? Also, I don't think the AD source include the moat as one of the swimming pools, so the end of the hook might need to be modified. Z1720 (talk) 16:27, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Some sources have said 49.[1][2] I see that the source used inline there says 42. I'm okay rounding down. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Those sources actually say the place has 49 baths, which is not the same thing. I have corrected the hook to say 42 bathrooms - I originally AGFed on this hook as the source required a subscription, but curiously enough it's available to me now. Gatoclass (talk) 16:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Lol shows how little I know about architecture, and the need for these checks. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:04, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Hannah Grae

Perhaps this is a nit, but the article just says "lyrics about sexual harassment" which isn't the same thing as "anti-sexual harassment". RoySmith (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

Source says "In 2021, she shared an updated version of Aqua’s ‘Barbie Girl’ featuring pointed lyrics like “they think that they can stare, undress me anywhere. ‘It’s just romantic, stop being dramatic’.”", so updated article.--Launchballer 00:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Cherry blossom

@Lightburst, Reconrabbit, and Generalissima: the hook has "young soldiers' sacrifice for the emperor" in quotes, implying it's a direct quote, but that doesn't appear in the article. RoySmith (talk) 23:31, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

The quote comes directly from the source and was reworded to fit the structure of the paragraph in "falling cherry petals came to represent the sacrifice of youth in suicide missions to honor the emperor"; this is my first time nominating something so it's my bad for misinterpreting that requirement. Reconrabbit 00:03, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I Want You (SB19 song)

@Queen of Hearts, Abacusada, and Gatoclass: The article says "depicts SB19 in seductive scenes, drenched and underwater", which isn't quite the same as "shot underwater" RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 3 March 2024 (UTC)

@Relayed; failed ping (Abacusada got a rename). Queen of Hearts talk
she/they
stalk 23:42, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith, parts of the video were definitely shot underwater; the sources not only state as much, but include some images of the underwater shots. Nice catch though on the lack of clarity in the article text; I have corrected it now. Gatoclass (talk) 02:52, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

Proposal: 9 hooks a set

This is a proposal to increase the number of hooks in each set from 8 to 9. If the consensus here is to increase the number, a formal RfC will be proposed and advertised in the appropriate places, including the other areas of the Main Page.

I think this increase would be a net-positive for a couple of reasons:

  • This will reduce the number of days that DYK runs two sets: With more hooks on the Main Page in every set, it will take longer to activate the 2-sets-a-day and will make it quicker to trigger the one-set-a-day criteria. Reducing the number of days DYK has 2-sets-a-day will reduce DYK admin burnout and more hooks will be on the Main Page for 24 hours instead of 12.
  • There is space to run an extra hook: During February, I have been tracking the length of the DYK vs OTD template on the Main Page, and published the results here. Out of 37 sets (because DYK was at 2-sets-a-day at the beginning of the month) 21 had an OTD hook removed, usually for Main Page balance, and the OTD template was longer than the DYK template for 28 sets. Adding an extra hook would help with Main Page balance, allowing OTD to run 5 hooks more often. There were only 3 sets during February where OTD ran 5 hooks and was still shorter than DYK, and in all these instances OTD was only a line or two shorter, which is negligible. There was one instance when OTD ran a sixth hook, and OTD was still shorter, but this shows that if there is an imbalance OTD can add hooks.
  • DYK can pull hooks without replacing them: Right now, if a hook is pulled last-minute, there is sometimes a scramble to replace it. If it is not replaced, OTD might have to drop to 3 hooks for Main Page balance, which is not ideal. With this proposal, if a DYK hook needs to be pulled from the set last minute an admin can pull a hook from OTD instead and still have 4 OTD hooks running.

Thanks for considering this and I look forward to your thoughts. Z1720 (talk) 19:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I would support this, though I don't have much else to add. Eddie891 Talk Work 20:07, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
+1 good thinking @Z1720:. Many different proposals have been shot down over the years but this one seems to be just right. Bruxton (talk) 22:34, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I actually did some analysis at the start of the year which can be found at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 196#Hook duration dynamics. Ignoring the years when there was a pandemic on, we do (very roughly) between 433 and 456 sets per year, roughly 9.5-10 hooks per day. 9 hooks per set would help, but 10 per day minus pulled hooks should even it out.--Launchballer 22:39, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
My immediate concern when I started reading this was about main page balance. But given that's addressed and my concern was unfounded, I can easily get behind this. Schwede66 00:35, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I would like to hear from those who build prep sets and those who promote them to queues. If changing from eight to nine is the straw that breaks the camel's back, then it's not worth it. Otherwise, I have no feelings either way. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm fine with it (I've promoted over 60% of hooks this year). If it helps have less 12-hour periods, it's definitely preferable. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm not opposed to this, but I'd rather see us do some more general thing that lets us adjust as needed without having to run another monumental RFC. Maybe just leave it up to prep builders if they want to do 8, 9, or 10 for a particular set and trust their judgement as to what cadence we should be at based on the backlog. If there's not enough room for 10 most of the time, maybe only allow 10 if they're all quite short, again, leaving it to the judgement of the prep builders to not overflow our allotted space. I especially like the fact that we can pull a hook without having to replace it. That saves a ton of busywork. RoySmith (talk) 23:28, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I agree that DYK should avoid monumental RfCs. What if we set the default to 9, and give discretion to preppers and DYK admin to reduce/increase the number by 1 if needed? Some discretion reasons I can think of are: a lack of approved hooks, too many approved hooks on certain topics (so it is hard to fill sets with different topics), a set that uses a lot of short or long hooks, or a special occasion set. I would prefer to not have an RfC about how many approved hooks should trigger 8-hooks-a-set or anything like that: I trust preppers to have discretion and post concerns on WT:DYK when they arise. Z1720 (talk) 01:51, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Fewer rules, more faith in people doing the right thing. Works for me. RoySmith (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I would encourage any prepper who wants to do this do to it! Standard practice is the only thing that governs set length; you are free to pioneer a new path. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:54, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: By changing the default to 9, I think this will signal to prep builders that they can have 9 hooks in a set. Also, PSHAW doesn't allow a prep builder to add a ninth hook, so right now if a prep builder wants to add it they will have to do it manually, which discourages additional hooks. Can the PSHAW code be modified for an option to add additional hooks? Z1720 (talk) 15:32, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
PSHAW can add an additional hook if all of the current slots are full – I could make that available at any time? Probably couldn't add an insert... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:44, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
I can support this one. In parallel, can someone help with some numbers. What is our inflow rate? i.e. avg. number of hooks being nominated daily. What is our approval / rejection rate? If avg hooks * approval rate is greater than 9, this one is a simple one to approve, given that mainpage balance is not an issue and the awesome PSHAW tool can be tweaked to allow for 9 hooks. Ktin (talk) 15:50, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

Hooks do seem to have gotten shorter these days, possibly because people are taking DYKTRIM more seriously than they used to (which is certainly not a bad thing). And it's clearly not good to have whitespace regularly under the set. On the other hand, more than eight hooks tends to start looking cluttered. Importantly, it's also a lot more difficult in my experience to avoid topic repetition with more than eight hooks. And of course, it means more work for set builders and set verifiers, and more possibility of errors.

So I personally would be reluctant to standardize on nine hooks. On the other hand, if the current crop of set builders/verifiers are happy with the idea, it would seem a little churlish to oppose. So I guess we could trial it. However, I think it important that sets that turn out to be too long be corrected before going to the main page by removing hooks back to prep. Gatoclass (talk) 03:40, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

A bot that detects if a QPQ is needed or not?

Per some discussion at #QPQ tool raised above, I wonder if it would be feasible to have a bot (perhaps using the existing DYK housekeeping bot for this purpose) that could automatically do basic QPQ-related checks. It could do any of the following tasks:

  • If a nomination is done by someone with five or less nominations, it would automatically fill in the QPQ field with a note that a QPQ is not required. In addition, it's also possible that a counter could be included (i.e. something like "1st of 5 free nominations") for tracking purposes.
  • If a QPQ is needed, and one has not been provided within seven days of the nomination, a note or comment of some kind could be added to the nomination, along with a message and/or ping to the nominator.
  • If a QPQ is still not provided after another seven days, the nomination will be marked for closure by the bot.

Note that such tasks would not replace manual checks by reviewers regarding QPQs, and they are not intended to replace full reviews. They're just intended to lower the workload for reviewers. The advantage of such a task would be that nominations do not have to wait to be dealt with regarding the QPQ requirement. For example, if a nomination is already specified from the start to not require a QPQ, any prospective reviewer will know it from the start. In addition, the QPQ notes/warnings can also raise attention for reviewers while also allowing for the nominators to resolve matters as quickly as possible.

Would such a task of series of tasks be feasible from technical or practical perspectives? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the above discussion, I submitted the bot idea to BRFA and I was suggested to simply change Module:NewDYKnomination, which I agree with. So the desired result of the "bot" would change to: when someone uses the wizard to create a DYK nom, from the get-go the tool will say whether a QPQ is needed or not.
Of the 3 tasks you gave above, the 1st wouldn't be needed anymore if the appropriate changes are made to the module. The last 2 would be welcome improvements, but I personally would be spending my time trying to improve the module; if someone would be able to add this to one of the existing DYK housekeeping bots, that would be great. Mokadoshi (talk) 14:57, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

Rolling two separate noms into a single?

Is it possible to roll two separate noms into a single nom for a proposed double hook? Here's the unusual situation:

  1. On January 29, User:Lajmmoore nominates Template:Did you know nominations/Leeds 2023.
  2. On February 29, Lajmmoore nominates Template:Did you know nominations/Hibiscus Rising.
  3. Both proposed hooks (ALT2, Leeds 2023; and ALT0, Hibiscus Rising) are almost identical.

It would make sense to merge ALT2 and ALT0 into one double hook. Not sure if this is even allowed. Otherwise, we can't have two similar hooks, so we would need to strike one or the other. Thoughts? @Gerda Arendt: since she is working on the nom for Hibiscus Rising. Viriditas (talk) 23:39, 4 March 2024 (UTC)

I really wouldn't say they're almost identical; just because a hibiscus sculpture is prominent in both doesn't mean they're the same hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:38, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I would rather propose another ALT for LEEDS 2023 - I'll get on that now. Lajmmoore (talk) 16:05, 5 March 2024 (UTC)

 Done

Hook length

I made an oops. I promoted a 210 character hook. Need a volunteer to trim and I am not sure what is essential. Pinging the nominator and reviewers @Onceinawhile, Makeandtoss, and Launchballer:

Lightburst (talk) 00:24, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Perhaps this? 196 characters, if my count is right.
P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:36, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Three options, all ok with me:
  1. delete "initially " (unnecessary given the earlier word "during")
  2. replace "International Court of Justice" with "ICJ"
  3. delete "against Palestinians"
Any one of these three will remove the required 10+ characters. I would vote for #1. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:37, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Edit conflict. P-Makoto's version works well. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
 Done, I will change the hook to P-Makoto's trim. Thank you. Lightburst (talk) 00:45, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

Sodankylä Old Church (nom)

@Juustila, Ktin, and AirshipJungleman29: I don't think the sources the hook cites aren't reliable for the claim the hook is making. Something with peer review or an editorial process would be much better suited – pulled this one for now. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:34, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

theleekycauldron I disagree. There is no WP:EXCEPTIONALity which requires high-quality sources; it is a simple claim, and one backed up by other citations in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:41, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
It's not about high-quality sources, it's about passing a bare minimum of reliability at all. Blogs, tourism websites, and other blocks of text that lie around aren't reliable, as WP:DYKHOOK requires they be. If other sources verify the hook, use those. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:43, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
If this was a US site, I wouldn't use it as a source for a hook. Such sites are notorious for errors. Viriditas (talk) 22:47, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree with @Theleekycauldron:'s note in spirit. In fact I had noted that in my review. That said, the revised hook is a very basic one which is hard not to prove. The hook basically says, the church is one of the oldest preserved wooden churches. The fact is so-basic, that the mere existence of the church (in whatever active capacity) is sufficient to prove the hook. And, the tourism department website proves its existence, in my opinion. That said, if folks want to get a WP:RS source other than the tourism department website, and the nominator is willing, I will not stand in the way. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 04:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: can I check if you are concerned about sourcing in general, or just the sourcing of the hook? TSventon (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
@TSventon: Mostly the sourcing of the hook, but any unreliable sources should be removed from the article as well. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
@Ktin and Juustila: I have removed the disputed sources, does the nomination look OK now? TSventon (talk) 19:09, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it's okay for me. Juustila (talk) 01:48, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

QPQ tool

The DYK Toolbox shown on noms lists this tool for checking QPQs. Is this still the best tool for this purpose? Does anyone have a better one they use that we might want to add to the DYK Toolbox? The tool doesn't help you verify whether the review linked in the nom has already been used as a QPQ in another nom (for some reviews, checking the nominator's contribution log is not easy). The tool sorts its results alphabetically which makes this more difficult. If there is no better tool, does anyone know who maintains this tool for improvements? Or, does anyone have any ideas for a bot that can post QPQ verification comments on noms? I'd be happy to develop such a bot, if I could get some input on how people would find it helpful for it to work. Mokadoshi (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

If we want to go in this direction, this is the idea I had for the bot: when a nomination is posted, it would leave one of the following comments: "No QPQ needed" or "QPQ review needed" or "Linked QPQ looks good" (or something similar). This would not only be a convenience to the reviewer but would also solve a tiny problem some people have faced where an old nom get rejected for QPQ even though none was needed when the nom was first created.
I'd like to know if anyone would find this helpful before I actually start writing a specification for this and submitting this for bot approval. Mokadoshi (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
The current QPQ tool only came into use pretty recently, after the old one broke. While kudos are due to whoever got a replacement working, the old one seemed markedly better.
I think this would be a great task for a bot, if we could get that working correctly. However, over time the QPQ tool transitioned for a lot of editors from purely something meant to check whether you needed to do a QPQ or not into something more like a log of one's DYK credits. If we go the direction of having a bot do the QPQ check, it'd be nice to also build out a better tool for listing one's credits (which would ideally include the hook used, pageviews garnered, etc.). Cheers, Sdkb talk 23:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I think for now I will focus on automation that directly assist DYK reviews. For listing credits, I think it makes sense to add that functionality to the current tool rather than making a whole new one. @Sohom Datta: Would you be interested in taking this on? I could potentially contribute some code to this when I have more time. Mokadoshi (talk) 02:26, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
@Mokadoshi My intial tool was more a bandaid implementation given that the original tool had been taken offline by it's creator. I've gone implemented basic credits for the tool. (Can be accessed at https://qpqtool.toolforge.org/credits/<username>) and fixed the ordering to be cronological. I can work on this further to integrate page views (any maybe hooks) in a while (say a week?).
Regarding your idea of automating QPQs, while this is something I have considered looking into, I'm personally of the opinion that this probably isn't a good task for a bot, since judging if a QPQ meets the threshold of a proper review will probably need human intervention (for example, a simple tick with no comments might not be considered a adequate QPQ by some editors, especially if issues are discovered with the article at a later date). I'm however open to being convinced otherwise, and will be happy to help with any such automation. Sohom (talk) 03:56, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I think, at the very least, a bot task that states whether or not the nominator requires a QPQ or not could work. Sure, we'd still need to manually check the QPQ reviews if needed. Still, it should least it should save us time if, for example, the QPQ field is left empty and we know from the start that a QPQ was not needed, instead of it being a case of a veteran forgetting to do a QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:27, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the reduced scope mentioned by Narutolovehinata5 would be a nice starting point for a bot. :) Sohom (talk) 12:37, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
I submitted this bot idea to BRFA and I was suggested to just change Module:NewDYKnomination which I agree with. It would be a better user experience if the nomination wizard told the nominator right away that a QPQ check was needed, and if they don't give one, it could just say so right away when the nom is submitted. But I don't have any experience changing modules, so I'll need to do some research. Mokadoshi (talk) 14:59, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
@Mokadoshi The nomination wizard and the module are different components, so if what you want is to determine whether a QPQ is required at the nomination Wizard stage (a good idea) you'll want to talk to SD0001 about modifying MediaWiki:DYK-nomination-wizard.js. I haven't looked at it closely, but it shouldn't be any harder than loading the json page and displaying a message. The module is what is used when the DYK templates get substituted either by the wizard or manually, and if the goal is to have some publicly visible comment on QPQ requirements, then the module is the way to go. If you're new to Lua, I recommend the reference manual on MediaWiki. As SD0001 mentioned at the bot request, a lot of the code is already written: see this diff for the relevant changes. The module has changed a bit since then, so someone will need to merge it into the main template and run a few tests. I have limited time at the moment, so I can't commit to doing that, but it's a good project for someone interested in learning about module editing. I'm happy to explain the code in the draft if that's helpful too, just email or ping me. — Wug·a·po·des 22:48, 5 March 2024 (UTC)
I think modifying just the module is good enough. The wizard provides a preview button which invokes the module - so anyone who's previewing the nomination would already see the QPQ requirement. Modifying the wizard as well to convey the same in a better way, without having to preview, is probably still an improvement. I can review the changes if someone works on that but can't commit to doing it myself. – SD0001 (talk) 17:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I will commit to continuing this work, although it won’t be done immediately. But it is on my radar for the next few weeks. Mokadoshi (talk) 17:08, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

For many hooks about things like creative works, we have the option to use two different formats:

  1. ... that [interesting fact] in [creative work]?
  2. ... that in [creative work], [interesting fact]?

My current nom is an example (of #1), but there are many others in many different areas. I'm wondering, is there any accumulated wisdom about which option leads to better performance? If so, it might be good to record it in a hook tips document (if that hasn't already been done). If not, we might want to AB test it (although that'd require us to run the test hooks twice, given that pageview data is only available per-day). Sdkb talk 19:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Conventional wisdom says to put the boldlink as close to the beginning of the hook as you can, but I don't know that there'd be any hard data backing it up (someone comb through WP:DYKSTATS). RoySmith floated AB testing at DYK a while ago – I'd been turning it over in my head for a long time, and would really be interested in trying it, but i don't think we've ever come to a consensus on it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:40, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
My personal opinion, without any evidence to support it, is that there should only be one link in the entire hook, and it should link only to the article. I realize that's going to be controversial, but from now on, that's how I'm going to construct all of my hooks. Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
That is indeed how I construct my hooks as well :) it's not an unheard-of rule, we do it for DAB pages. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
If the goal was solely to get as many views on the hook article as possible, then yes, that would be the optimal approach. But see Goodhart's law (relevant xkcd) — driving views to other articles that readers end up finding interesting is perfectly alright. Sdkb talk 19:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
It's not solely that, but DYK exists to highlight new and interesting articles, which is best served by focusing reader traffic. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:51, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm pretty much a one-link-per-hook guy. I know I've told this story recently, but don't remember where... There's a truism in the software world; the more options you give the user, the more chances you give them to do the wrong thing. That's usually said with respect to configuration screens (the user will inevitably find some combination of options you never thought anybody would use). I think the same goes for hooks. If you want them to click on the bolded hook, don't give them any distractions. RoySmith (talk) 21:35, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
If we decided to run the A version of a hook set from noon to midnight and then the B version of the same hooks from midnight to noon of the next day, we could gather some imperfect data without giving an article more than 24 hours on the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 19:47, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
@Kusma: There's a significant pageviews bias between the A and B sets, so this wouldn't be ideal. I'd prefer a {{random item}} where either just the B or both sets link to redirects, and then we measure the views of the redirects. Bonus: if we do the redirects strat, the pageviews will be much more reliable and we won't have to guess what the "background" views are. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's better. We should probably fully protect the redirects to avoid the WP:BEANS of WP:MPNOREDIRECT if we do that. —Kusma (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
That sounds like a very good approach, @Theleekycauldron. If anyone wants to compile a set that'd allow us to test, I'd offer my support. The additional effort it'd take seems worth it for the information we'd glean (so long as we bother to document that info — is there any page compiling advice about how to make a high-performing hook beyond the one FAQ answer I wrote?). Sdkb talk 19:57, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
WP:DYKSTATS and User: Theleekycauldron/Essays/Assessing DYK hooks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:02, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I support that type of testing combined with the measures suggested by Kusma. Schwede66 21:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
is there a way to track views for a specific anchor? if so, i would suggest using links such as "[[example article#hook x|link text]]" to avoid having to use redirects. also, the main page is cached, so i think, in order for this to work with a decent amount of accuracy, the main page should be purged every t seconds, where t is small enough to generate reliable data, but large enough to avoid putting undue strain on the servers. dying (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
@dying: specific anchor tracking doesn't work, no; data dumps are published by page and day. Good point about purging; I'd say 30 seconds? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:17, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
oh, that is good to know, theleekycauldron. my second suggestion would have been to use links like "{{plain link|url=https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/example_article?hook=x|name=link text}}", but that idea seems to suffer from the same issue. regarding the timing of the cache refreshes, to me, requesting a refresh every 30 seconds seems a bit demanding on the server, but i might be too old to determine what would be a reasonable time interval nowadays, as i remember a time before ddos attacks were common. for reference, generating the main page takes about 500 ms of real time, so refreshing the cache every 30 seconds over one day would cost maybe about 24 minutes of real time.
by the way, here's a radical idea: what if dyk sets were replaced at 23:00 every day instead of at 00:00? if page hits are only published for each day, i believe we normally wouldn't be able to implement RoySmith's idea of using the results of the testing during the start of an article's appearance at dyk to determine which hook to use for the rest of the appearance. by having a set's appearance span over two different calendar days, we could use the testing results of the first calendar day to determine which hook to use during the second calendar day. there are, admittedly, many reasons why we shouldn't implement this, but it's such an interesting possibility that i thought i might mention it anyway. dying (talk) 19:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Although it's often been suggested that putting the subject earlier at the front is better, I think it's more of a case-by-case thing and depends on the hook itself and the hook fact. Sometimes, it's better if it's at the front to immediately get attention, and other times it's better if the subject is a punchline. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:29, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
definitely true in certain circumstances – see Gay Jesus film hoax. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not sure I see the point of running different variations of the same hook to see whether or not they work better with the bolded link nearer the start, except as an academic exercise, because trying to engineer hooks that way would decrease set variety.

With regard to the question of number of links in a hook though, I am strongly in favour of multiple links where appropriate, because our primary purpose is education, which means allowing people to click on topics they are actually curious about, rather than trying to force them to contribute to DYK page hits. Gatoclass (talk) 10:15, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes. I think that links should be included for side topics that might be interesting to readers. If the purpose of DYK as a whole is to increase interaction of readers with the encyclopedia, that purpose is served when they click on a link, even if it is not the main link of a hook. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)

Did You Know Dataset

If anyone is interested I dumped the archives of Did You Know and it's now accessible via a searchable interface here. I also included traffic statistics in the dump going back to 2018 if anyone wants to do analysis. We're nearing 100k DYKs total (and the count in my table is low because I filtered out DYKs with multiple bolded words... for my own reasons). BrokenSegue 07:03, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Prep 6

Asakusa Culture Tourist Information Center (nom)

Based on the discussion above, I wanted to grab this hook as the replacement. But it doesn't check out. Only ALT0 appears to be correct. Not that the hooks are numbered, but if we were to number them, ALT1 and ALT2 are incorrect as it's not the floors that are slanted, but the roofs. I couldn't verify ALT3 either as the source simply does not say anything about perspectives. I wonder what else is wrong; maybe this should undergo another review. Schwede66 00:20, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Just had a flick through. I would not even have approved ALT0 because its cite is well past the end of its sentence. (My review would have gone something like "Long enough, new enough, every para cited. No neutrality issues found, no maintenance templates found. Earwig picks up on the phrase "on top of each other", although I can't think of another way of wording that, so I think you'll be alright. QPQ unnecessary and image CC-BY-SA 4.0. Only ALT0 checks out to the source, and even then you'd need a cite at the end of the sentence; the source mentions that the roofs were slanted rather than the floors, and does not mention perspectives. Please fix this.")--Launchballer 08:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Hook has been pulled for now; discussion, including the new review, can continue on the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7

New World Department Store (Bangkok)

@Lightburst, Paul 012, and MaranoFan: This is not a good image for the main page. It fails "must display well in the small size" from WP:DYKIMG. RoySmith (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith Might be my Fault for promoting the full photo instead of the nom image. Lightburst (talk) 19:55, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
There was a crop but it didn't show enough of the structure. I've produced a new crop and I suggest that photo is fine. What do you think, RoySmith? Schwede66 19:59, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Sorry to be a downer, but it really is a poor photo. Low contrast, dark, nearly monochromatic. I just don't see it working. RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm happy for you to use another hook for the lead. Schwede66 21:19, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, to be honest, I feel I did my bit by reviewing 9 hooks, so I'm hoping somebody else will rise to the occasion and find a replacement. RoySmith (talk) 21:47, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I'll deal with it. Schwede66 23:35, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Much appreciated. RoySmith (talk) 23:38, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
All sorted. Schwede66 00:39, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Schwede66, please add a space before "that" on the new lead hook, to separate it from the initial ellipsis. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:45, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 Fixed and apologies for slackness. Schwede66 02:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list of older nominations was archived a few days ago, so I’ve created a new list of the first 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 15. We have a total of 312 nominations, of which 100 have been approved, a gap of 212 nominations that has increased by 32 over the past 11 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 19:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Assistance with a copyedit on Jumalan teatteri

If someone has a moment, it would be hugely appreciated if someone could assist with a copyedit on Jumalan_teatteri. The nominator isn't a native speaker. I'm pretty happy with the nom itself and I think I'm happy with everything else. If people don't think this is necessary then it would be useful for me to know that as well. Seddon talk 13:47, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Rjjiii and I have done some copy editing. I think that is sufficient. TSventon (talk) 23:06, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

Lovro Šitović

@Lightburst @Governor Sheng @AirshipJungleman29 there's a sentence ("Both he and Babić are credited with adapting Latin grammar ...") that's almost word-for-word from http://hrcak.srce.hr/en/file/446981. That should get reworded. RoySmith (talk) 01:49, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

It looks like JimKillock made many copyedits later on 10 March, but none of them addressed this particular issue. There are only nine hours until this gets promoted to the main page. RoySmith, should it be pulled pending a copyvio fix? BlueMoonset (talk) 14:43, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes it should be pulled, but unfortunately I don't have the time to do that now, so perhaps another of the @DYK admins: could take care of it? RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Or, perhaps one of the editors here can reword that sentence? Assuming of course there are no other issues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:03, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I have modified the offending sentence in the article. Feel free to make changes. Z1720 (talk) 15:13, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, that works. My first thought had been to just turn it into an attributed quote, but the article uses a citation system that I don't know much about so I was unable to make that work. RoySmith (talk) 15:19, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I modified it a little further to capture the original meaning Jim Killock (talk) 21:16, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
I wasn't looking for copyvios but for non-native English phraseologies, such as minor errors relating to definite object and general flow. I may even have inadvertently rephrased to cory phraseologies that turn out to be close to prior art for all I know. There's a tool for detecting copyvios (which screws up as it knows nothing about CC-0 licensing and bulk copying of WP for example) - if someome could point me to that I don't mind having a quick look and making edits. Jim Killock (talk) 17:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Jade Armor

The first sentence is identical to https://m.famousfix.com/list/chinese-mythology-in-popular-culture. I'm reasonably sure they copied from us, but another pair of eyes to confirm that would be appreciated. RoySmith (talk) 01:53, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a cause for concern; it's a user-generated site which almost certainly copied us. Cheers, Bremps... 04:14, 10 March 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

When moving a set from Prep to Queue, I made alterations to hooks 6 and 7 in Queue 4 because I felt the approved hooks did not fully adhere to the article and source. Feel free to revert these if they are not satisfactory. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:23, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

COI case in front of arbcom

It might be useful for DYK regulars to look at Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Conflict of interest management/Evidence. DYK is mentioned in a few places. I'm not trying to stir up trouble by mentioning this, but it would be good to stay aware of how the community feels about these issues. RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 12 March 2024 (UTC)

Seven earliest

I commented at the seven (I think) earliest DYK's to possibly shift them along a bit. I got as far as the rapper, if anyone wants to carry on. Get in there. ——Serial Number 54129 18:49, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Hiss (song)

Despite the block of text on this nomination, it is a perfectly eligible article and the hooks are all more or less fine. Would appreciate anybody who can help with approval since it has sat for nearly two months.--NØ 22:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Manual update of main page needed; DYKUpdateBot did not run at midnight

Pinging @DYK admins: DYKUpdateBot did not update the main page at 00:00, 13 March 2024 (UTC), so a manual update will be needed. Please move Queue 3 to the main page as soon as possible and do all the other steps needed (see instructions at Template:Did you know/Queue/3#Manually posting the new update (if the bot is down)). I have just posted that the bot is not running at Shubinator's talk page, but I have no idea whether he'll see it tonight. Thank you very much! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:47, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

done, except for credits :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
user credits done, talk tags still needed :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:36, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Nudged the bot to tag the article talk pages, and resurrected it to normal operation. Thanks both! Shubinator (talk) 06:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: The credits seemed to sent incorrectly for Toobigtokale's hook about Gogi-guksu - the credit message contained the Fran Foley hook instead for some reason. Prodraxis (talk) 12:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Prep 7 and Prep 6 - nine hooks each

Since Prep 7 is about 100-200 characters shorter than other preps I want to try a ninth hook in that prep. Without objection and with fingers crossed that I do not break the whole thing. Bruxton (talk) 18:27, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

Found that Prep 6 was short on characters so I also placed a ninth hook in that prep. Bruxton (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Usually, I can keep an eye on the hooks ticking over as it's 1pm local time for me when that happens. However, I'm travelling this weekend. Not sure where I'll be when Q/P6 goes live, but I'll definitely be out and about (and away from a computer) for Q/P7. Fingers crossed that it goes well, with nothing breaking. Shubinator, can you keep an eye on things, please? Schwede66 21:41, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
Here's my suggestion from a software engineering point of view. Let's not make any more 9-hook preps until these get through the entire process onto the main page. I don't expect anything will go wrong, but if there is some unexpected problem, better to find it out when we've just got 2 preps to deal with. RoySmith (talk) 22:10, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot doesn't care about the number of hooks in a set; it can handle an arbitrary amount, until it starts running out of memory (which would be well over a thousand hooks, if not millions). Shubinator (talk) 00:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Noted. I too will be traveling starting tomorrow and may not be back until around the 18th. But I will monitor by hand held device. Bruxton (talk) 04:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I see 9 hooks on the main page, and doesn't look like anything blew up. Cool. I'm half expecting somebody to pop up on WP:ERRORS saying we ran too many hooks :-) RoySmith (talk) 01:38, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
Since we seem to have managed to run nine hooks without problems and nobody appears to have any issues with doing so, can you please amend PSHAW to allow for that increased number, theleekycauldron? Schwede66 23:00, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Glad to see it was smooth. For now we can use the extra hook in Pshaw. There is an option for a ninth hook. Promotors may have to move hooks if the eight quirky hook is replace by a ninth hook. Bruxton (talk) 03:25, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah ok. I'll have to have another look; couldn't see that the other day when I tried it out. Schwede66 04:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Hook format

I was just looking over the DYK hook format rules, and it occurs to me, that unless I missed it, nowhere does it say the hook has to be one single sentence. Am I misreading this? Have we run hooks that are multiple sentences or sentence fragments? Thanks to Coretheapple for stumping me. Viriditas (talk) 21:04, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

You're correct; in fact, iirc, in the old Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines, a note that read "does the hook have to be a single sentence?" was listed under the category of "'Rules' sometimes invoked but lacking consensus". However, you'd need a very good reason why you want to break from the format we've been using for a very long time, it shouldn't just be on a lark. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: this is in regards to ALT2 here. Any suggestions on how to proceed? Viriditas (talk) 21:58, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
seems like you could just turn the period into a colon? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:17, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that was my initial thought. Still, it reads funny to me even with the colon. But, on the other hand, I do like its novel approach. Do you know off the top of your head of other hooks like this? Viriditas (talk) 22:30, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
Would it be too much to change the formatting of the hook quite a bit while still trying to lean into this hook fact by having the hook read, "Did you know...?"
Partly inspired by the hook for "Well he would, wouldn't he?", which ran like "Did you know...
Though—I don't mean to be a spoilsport, but I'm wondering a little about the sentence that provides the hook fact in the article. Is that cited only to the memoir itself? If so, I'm worried about it being accidental original research extrapolating from this interaction with Dr. Farkas, or if Debreczeni actually goes out of his way to say that the prisoners he knew in general spoke of themselves in the past tense. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 22:43, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I haven't completed the review yet, but I think it's assumed the secondary sources cover this. Viriditas (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2024 (UTC)
I think that'd be discouraged by the interactions in this thread. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:07, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes a secondary source is cited among the sources in small print. Coretheapple (talk) 13:38, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
I added a cite from the sourcing in the article as well, with a snippet from the source.("'was' was the crucial word") Coretheapple (talk) 13:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Resolved

All queues are empty

I am not an admin, but someone should really promote Prep 5... except I'm involved with Angelle/Sarah Bennett and Paula Arai, Mosque of Ulmas al-Hajib (@R Prazeres and TheLonelyPather:) does not check out at all ("flat" is not in quotes in the article and I can't find the word 'first' in the article) and I can't see a monetary amount given on Bow Lake (SeaTac, Washington) (@DirtyHarry991 and 4meter4:). Can these be addressed/replaced?--Launchballer 10:10, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

why oh why must i get myself into these things in finals week? promoted one queue :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer I fixed the issue at Bow Lake. I had checked the hook fact was in the reference but must have forgot to double check that the entire form of the hook fact was properly in the article. It was sort of there, but without the specific monetary value. I have modified the text to match the hook with an inline citation. It's all good now.4meter4 (talk) 15:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
If the quotation marks matter at all, I've added them in the article for now ([3]) to avoid further confusion. (They didn't seem necessary in context there, I added them more instinctively in the hook.) As for "first", this is explained in the same paragraph of the article: "This is the earliest known example of this kind of muqarnas canopy in Cairo [...]" R Prazeres (talk) 16:23, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Both fine.--Launchballer 20:03, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Queue 6

Fanny Steers

@HouseOfChange, Josh Milburn, and PrimalMustelid:

The first paragraph in the "Career" section needs a citation. I have added a citation needed template to indicate the location. Z1720 (talk) 18:08, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I added citations needed. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
My concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 20:05, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Prep 4

Hermann Collitz

Looking at this hook again, I'm not sure about this. Firstly, the hook doesn't actually seem to be primarily about Collitz given that it seems to be somewhat tangential (he's mentioned along with other names). Secondly, the hook doesn't seem all that interesting given that if a reader isn't familiar with the college, they won't get why teaching or becoming president there is a big deal. Yes Wilson is mentioned, but still. An ALT1 was proposed, which the reviewer wasn't a fan of. Can that be revisited or is something else needed here?

Courtesy ping to the nominator Wugapodes, reviewer SeoR, and promoter PrimalMustelid. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:28, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

The hook is about teachers at Bryn Mawr in the 1880s later becoming presidents of the USA, the Linguistic Society of America and Bryn Mawr College so perhaps it should have been in the quirky slot. TSventon (talk) 14:27, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Firstly, the hook doesn't actually seem to be primarily about Collitz Honestly this was a hesitation I had when proposing it, but I decided it was fun enough to propose and see where others land on it. While not solely about Collitz, it highlights one of his accomplishments as well as his professional associations (important enough that they were mentioned in his wife's biography of him). As the author of the Collitz article, I'm happy to share the lime light as long as the hook is interesting and the other content is good. I think it's fun, but if others have other suggestions of good hooks I'm open to ideas.
Secondly, the hook doesn't seem all that interesting given that if a reader isn't familiar with the college, they won't get why teaching or becoming president there is a big deal. Yes Wilson is mentioned, but still. I think it's interesting, and whether the reader is familiar or not I think it drives traffic to the articles; it leads to the obvious question "presidents of what?" The mention of Wilson is meant to contrast with Collitz and Thomas (one of these things is not like the other) on the assumption that most readers would recognize Woodrow Wilson as a US president, but recognize Collitz and Thomas were not, prompting readers to actually go to the articles to learn more.
I think an interesting hook does more than just give a reader a random fact, it prompts engagement with our content and gets them deeper into the website. The proposed alt was essentially "German linguist knows lots of languages" which doesn't elicit much more than an "okay" from me. I don't see how it drives reader engagement. It's certainly more straightforward, but I wouldn't call it interesting. — Wug·a·po·des 21:21, 14 March 2024 (UTC)
Maybe it's a limitation of certain Western audiences, but even as a non-American, I got the point of the hook without prompting. I did think, "maybe the subject should appear first of the three?" but it is clear why Woodrow Wilson leads in - he's the instant-recognition, "what's the trick here?" catch. I liked the idea of "three presidents of what?". On the alt, I just didn't see the point as very special or "hook-y". I will take another look at the article for other potential, but I think this hook still has merit. SeoR (talk) 00:14, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

iwd?

I know I've been on hiatus for too long to say crap, but, man, sucks we didn't do an International Women's Day set this year. hopefully next year, we get back on that horse. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:47, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Would it be useful to have a "planned special sets" thread/work group? Kingsif (talk) 16:45, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I saw the same, and would like the same. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm not opposed to a IWD special, but tomorrow is apparently National Barbie Day and after that we've got National Freelancers Day, followed by National Napping Day (which I can totally see myself celebrating IRL). We could do a special every day. Where do we draw the line? RoySmith (talk) 23:44, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
We draw the line at holidays and commemorations that are well established. The article on IWD says it has been ongoing for more than a century in various forms. Viriditas (talk) 23:51, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
We have previously done IWD for many years running, and also Black History Month and Women's History Month, but it requires someone to propose or request these, and no one did this year. It isn't too late for the latter, though we'll have missed the first third of the month at this point. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:51, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
It would be nice to have auto-reminders a month or two out from bots for these kinds of things. Viriditas (talk) 00:56, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
 what if we adopted a dark theme during earth hour later this month? dying (talk) 01:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC) 
What timezone? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:58, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
good question. i assume utc. our observation of international women's day (and i believe most other dates of note) is based on utc. dying (talk) 05:59, 9 March 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good. What if we also did that for the entire time the solar eclipse of April 8, 2024 is visible? That would be dope. Bremps... 04:12, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
oh, that's an interesting idea! maybe, if we can get another section of the main page on board, we can simulate the eclipse's shadow moving across the face of the earth. dying (talk) 05:59, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
If somebody was really into hacking, they would figure out what cities are in the path of totality and black out each city's article at the appropriate times. I was in Nashville for Solar eclipse of August 21, 2017 and I'm planning to be in Dallas for Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024. RoySmith (talk) 15:50, 10 March 2024 (UTC)
UGGG!!!!!!!! Can we please nuke these hideous "dark modes" from orbit. They make it exceptionally HARDER for me to read. I really can't believe that anyone would ever choose to use these butt ugly things. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:35, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
Just because YOU can't stand it does not mean nobody can. IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 12:51, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
As somebody who also finds dark mode screens difficult to read, I get where @Khajidha is coming from. The bottom line (despite my joke about the eclipse pages) is that we should leave presentation issues like dark mode up to the end user who can configure their browser and/or wiki skin any way they want. RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
i see, I agree. IonlyPlayz2 (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7

Time Still Turns the Pages

@Prince of Erebor, Geardona, and PrimalMustelid:

The source used to verify this statement (archived version here) does not mention the audience award. Can another source be used to verify this information? Z1720 (talk) 16:37, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720:That's strange. I checked the sources before submitting the DYK nomination, and the hook in question is actually an alternate one that I didn't intend to use. The first hook I submitted was related to the film's title, and it was approved during the review process. Here is another source from Taipei Times that backs the alternate hook,[1] but may I ask if it would be possible to use the original hook instead?--Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 17:43, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "HK films win Golden Horse audience and critics' awards". Taipei Times. November 26, 2023. Retrieved March 16, 2024.
Hello,
If I recall correctly, I approved the first hook; (on good faith, because it required translation, I translated it, but not sure about the accuracy) so using the first may well be ok. Geardona (talk to me?) 17:50, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
The evidence supporting the hook can be found in the introduction of the source, where the key words (the film title, band name, and song name) are written in English. The last line of the first paragraph translates as follows: "The English film title is "Time still turns the pages". Director Nick Cheuk mentioned that the inspiration came from the song "So Far Away" by the American avant-garde metal band Avenged Sevenfold, dedicated to their deceased drummer and teammate."--Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul） 17:57, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
ah, I just copy-pasted it into google translate, so guess I missed that. Geardona (talk to me?) 17:59, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Calendargate

@Daniel Case, David Gerard, Gronk Oz, and PrimalMustelid:

The word demonic has been put in quotation marks, but does not appear in the article. This will need to be resolved, either by adding the word to the article and citing it, or rephrasing the hook. Z1720 (talk) 16:49, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Must have got lost on the way. I've put it back in, with two cites. Thanks for catching that - David Gerard (talk) 17:13, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

How lenient should we be regarding the IAR exemption guideline?

Right now, WP:DYKG states that a nomination that is late by one or two days, an IAR exemption can be granted. For longer cases, it is advised to instead ask for an IAR exemption here, or sometimes at the nomination page (at the reviewer's discretion).

With this in mind, around how many days extra is considered too much? Our guidelines suggest that 1-2 days with the nominator requesting is fine, and in practice, we tend to accept articles that are just over 7 days old but younger than 8 days. So in practice, the actual limit is around nine days. Would ten be considered extra, eleven, twelve, or is this something that should be considered on a case-by-case basis? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:54, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 I support IARs, with justifiction for new editors or special cases. We already have a well estabilished exemption for special occasions (we accept nominations, then wait to display "new" content for months). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:59, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Special occasion hook 4 April

I have a special occasion hook at DYKN/Singh v Canada that needs a review; I would like it to run on 4 April (3 weeks from now). Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 13:34, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Hook was reviewed and approved by Gerda Arendt (talk). After the bot moved it to the approved page, I manually moved it to the special occasions holding area (diff). Hope that is correct. – Reidgreg (talk) 12:36, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Complete rewrites (TNT) and DYKs

I think we should address the issue of complete rewrites and DYK. The problem is that current rules reduce motivation for rewrites; I find they affect among others my choice of topics to work on. Here are two very recent examples (that I was not involved in from the content creation) that I am aware of. In both cases, I feel the involved content creators should be allowed to have their work displayed at DYK, but I was just adviced by @BlueMoonset that they are likely not eligible. I find it, well, unfair.

Example 1: existing crappy article is about to be deleted at AfD (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Inertialess drive (2nd nomination)). User:Lubal created a new version in their sandbox that likely will replace the existing content. Yet both articles are roughly equal at size/readable prose/etc, so Lubal is not eligible to have his commendable efforts recognized at DYK.

Example 2: As part of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tachyons in fiction (2nd nomination), the old mess of an article which was about to be deleted was rewritten by User:TompaDompa and User:Daranios into a totally new but correctly written encyclopedic article. But as the old version was a bloated list of trivia, the new version is not an 5x expansion, but a 4x reduction :> It is also stubby, but I know that TompaDompa or I can easily expand it to beyond the stub lenght. Yet, while I cannot speak for TompaDompa, I know that the current DYK rules make me not particularly motivated in doing so :(

Bottom line, I think in cases of WP:TNT rewrites of existing content, new articles should be treated as, well, new. Or in other words, content that is deleted from an article should not count towards expansion requirements; it is ridcolous that some bloated pieces of garbage stand in a way of improving content and displaying it on the front page, deying recognition to folks who improve Wikipedia in this fashin. We need to fix our system of motivating folks and encourage more rewrites of old, bad bloats. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:55, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

While I see where you are coming from, I think our restriction of rewrites to expansions and GAs is needed to avoid flooding DYK even more. —Kusma (talk) 06:13, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I have to agree with Piotrus that this disincentivizes fixing articles. It's not a decisive factor for me—for instance, WP:Articles for deletion/Time viewer led to me rewriting the article from scratch and then bringing it to WP:Good article status thus making it eligible for DYK anyway, and WP:Articles for deletion/Loch Ness Monster in popular culture (2nd nomination) led to me rewriting the article from scratch without bringing it to DYK—but I can definitely see it being so for others. I'll admit I'm not sure how to formulate a hypothetical new rule for this, however. One way of doing it might be to say that if the page is blanked, or nearly so, during the course of a rewrite then that counts as the "old" version from which 5x expansion may be counted—but this might not be the best solution. TompaDompa (talk) 06:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Fixing articles is also its own reward, and many people (those who do not take part at DYK, GA, TFA etc.) do so without any extrinsic motivation. We should not make people expect an additional reward for everything good they do. —Kusma (talk) 11:16, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree that it is its own reward—I've fixed a fair number of articles myself without bringing them to GA/DYK/FAC—but I think there is an imbalance of incentives. Lest we forget, fixing an article both removes a bad article and creates a good article. Should we not—both out of a sense of fairness and to encourage fixing poor articles—incentivize this as much as we do creating new articles or expanding short ones? TompaDompa (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
On the contrary, both examples can still appear at DYK, if they pass a GA review. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:49, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
I get the sentiment this idea, but many articles are just not good fits for GA. Either that or it would just be too difficult to bring them to GA for various reasons. This is a shame since it would meant they're deprived of a chance to be on DYK if they weren't already nominated when they were initially eligible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Right. And many were never eligible initially because they were a mess from day one. That said, everything can be theoretically GA/FAed. The thing is, current rules make it (slightly) less likely some topics will be, because they deny the incentice that some editors like to get the process started. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:00, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
If you first remove all the bad content, greatly reducing the article size, can't you count that as the 'starting point' prior to expansion? Then perform the edits to put in the good content to get the 5× expansion. Legitimate removal of bad material, particularly if it's been tagged for a while, shouldn't be arguable. (On another note, if you do go the GA route, prior AfDs would qualify for Deletion to Quality Awards.) – Reidgreg (talk) 13:11, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Such as? Everything except lists can be GA'd. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Donald Trump is currently in the middle of a presidential election, multiple criminal court cases, and civil court cases. His page has been protected for years and likely will be for the foreseeable future since people take the time to make edit requests to ask for clearly disruptive modifications.[4][5] It would be a waste of time to nominate that article for GA regardless of the page's content. Another example would be someone notable for a wrongful conviction where the initial trial/conviction was heavily reported, but reliable secondary sources did not cover how it was overturned. However, messy cases like that would require a lot of scrutiny, and the whole idea proposed here runs the risk of duplicating GA once it's thought through. Rjjiii (talk) 15:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Donald Trump can be GAed in the future once he is a historical figure. As for duplication, I'd assume article DYKed after TNTed would be ineligible for a second DYK when it reaches GA level - just like normal articles which can be DYKed once, not twice (correct me if I am wrong...). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 23:05, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Not really, there's a gap between the breadth of sourcing GNG provides as a minimum and the breadth of sourcing required for a GA. All of my articles would be GAs if it weren't for that thin sourcing. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:25, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

Idea for April fools day

Hello
Here is my idea for one of the April fools day hooks
“Did you know that Wikipedia’s Main Page (pictured) is not eligible for did you know?”
Ideas? Geardona (talk to me?) 01:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

While a fun idea, the main page already had a joke DYK nomination a few years ago. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:09, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply, I guess I have to wait for a few more years then. Geardona (talk to me?) 02:11, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Although this one did not pass, so could this possibly still make it on the main page? Geardona (talk to me?) 02:14, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Code red: all queues empty again

First five preps are all full, though – if (an) admin(s) could look them over and make sure they're ready for raking to the queues, it would be greatly appreciated. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:52, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I really wish I could, but I'm far too swamped with finals coming up. A week from now, I'll handle things, promise. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:58, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I feel your pain leeky – take however much time you need to focus on what you need to do. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
I think we should ping the @DYK admins: , just to make sure they know about this. Epicgenius (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
If we're going to keep doing these 9 hook sets, I gotta start charging more. RoySmith (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Moved one in that Schwede reviewed - reviewing another that I just moved in as well. —Ganesha811 (talk) 01:19, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Ganesha811, just for clarity, I reviewed the last hook in that set only. Schwede66 07:55, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Ah, ok, I'll check the others, thanks for clarifying. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:07, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

QPQ backlog mode

Is there a formula or set of rules to assess when we are suppose to be in and out of backlog mode?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:47, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, per WP:DYKROTATE we rotate to two sets per day "if we are at one set per day and immediately after the midnight (UTC) update finishes there are more than 120 approved nominations while at least ten prep/queue sets are filled". We're at two queues and five preps currently.--Launchballer 23:55, 15 March 2024 (UTC)
that's the wrong kind of backlog mode. qpq backlog mode is started and ended by community consensus :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
What is this "community consensus" you speak of? I don't believe I'm familiar with that concept in the context of DYK. RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
:P theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:45, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Oops, did not see the word 'QPQ' in the header.--Launchballer 07:14, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
It's nomination date.--Launchballer 11:02, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Also, editors who have nominated twenty or more articles are required to provide an extra QPQ for every new nomination so a triple subject hook would only need one extra QPQ. TSventon (talk) 20:32, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

QPQ backlog issues

this set of edits represents my findings in Approved hooks that seemed to have slipped through the cracks. I did see User:Launchballer passing along info to many that had slipped through.

The lead hook in the set that will be hitting the main page in 13 hours also seems to be an at issue nomination. I did not chime in on its DYK talk, due to its pendency on the main page. I would hope this one submits another QPQ. User:FatCat96 is the nominator in violation of the WP:QPQ backlog. I am about to check the preps, but am reporting in because of the short clock on upcoming lead hook.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:31, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger Do you mean Joseph Bosworth? That article was nominated and approved back in February, so it shouldn't be subject to the double QPQ rule. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:40, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

I misread Feb as March in my haste. False alarm. Nothing in the preps or queues at issue.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:39, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

@TonyTheTiger I made mistakes in the other direction and found myself donating QPQs to prolific DYK nominators who didn't need them, so I think it all comes out in the wash. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:41, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
As pointed out above TonyTheTiger, you have misunderstood something. Please take the time to check whether the nominators you notified have less than twenty QPQs, in which case they do not need to provide double QPQs. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:54, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Given the number of errors I have discovered in his QPQ requests, I would like to strongly suggest that TonyTheTiger refrain from requesting any further additional QPQs. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
In hindsight with my nom, Launchballer had already left a note there that an extra QPQ was needed, but Tony slapped on another notice anyways, which I had orginally just thought was an AGF oversight at the time, but now...—Bagumba (talk) 04:41, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
I understand the issue with the tool's start date. Also, now understand 1 per nom, not per nominated article. It seemed that there were a bunch of QPQ backlog oversights, but there were just a couple.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:32, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

Xu Garden, Yangzhou

@LlywelynII, AirshipJungleman29, PrimalMustelid, and Ganesha811:

I suggest replacing

  • ... that Xu Garden was created by benevolent members of the public grateful for their local warlord? with
  • ... that Xu Garden was created by local residents grateful to their local warlord?

Alternatively the nomination could be pulled.

The source used to verify this statement

  • Zhang Xiaohui (2015), "An Analysis of the Gardens Reflecting Democratic Revolution in the Republic of China" (PDF), International Conference on Arts, Design, and Contemporary Education, Amsterdam: Atlantis Press is poorly translated and appears to be a student paper so it may not be reliable. It says there also existed gardens to memorate warlords. Such as Yangzhou warlord Xu Baoshan, he cared masses and did practical things for them, so they built Xu garden to memorate him. and does not explicitly mention benevolence or members of the public.

TSventon (talk) 13:37, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

I think that's fine, I had noticed that the source was not in the world's best English, and your suggested modification is probably a little safer since the source is not 100% clear. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Modified with 'community residents' instead of 'local' to avoid redundancy. —Ganesha811 (talk) 13:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
@Ganesha811, it looks like you accidentally removed the bold markup from the link when modifying the hook: Special:Diff/1214358526. An admin is needed to add it back. Liu1126 (talk) 14:44, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
Done. —Kusma (talk) 14:55, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

Backlog at WP:DYKN

At over 200 nominations, the backlog of nominations at WP:DYKN has grown so large that the WP:PEIS limit has been breached, and nominations are no longer transcluding. I would recommend activating the "emergency backlog mode" mentioned at WP:DYKQPQ, where nominators of more than 20 articles are required to provide two QPQs. Do other people agree? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 05:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection if other editors agree. For new editors: I do not want to go off the rails, but I have always thought 5 free noms before a qpq was too many. I think my own experience is that I got the hang of it somewhere between my second and third nomination. Bruxton (talk) 15:07, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
One problem aggravating the size of the DYKN page—though not a large part of the issue—is the switchover from {{DYK conditions}} to {{DYK tools}} in each nomination template: the former would only place the DYK tools box at the top of the page when viewing the page directly, while the latter also includes the tools box when the page is transcluded. We have over two dozen transclusions here so far, and a few on the Approved page as well. I've posted the issue to Template talk:DYK tools, where the change was discussed; hopefully it will be taken care of by them. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:50, 6 March 2024 (UTC)
@DYK admins: , any objections? The WP:DYKN backlog has been reduced slightly, but will continue to grow until it breaches the WP:PEIS limit again. I think activating the emergency mode from 00:00 UTC 8 March would be beneficial. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:27, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Go for it. The worst that could happens is it's a disaster and then we undo it. RoySmith (talk) 18:29, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Seconded. —Ganesha811 (talk) 18:42, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: When will it be receeded? What is the benchmark to go back to 1 QPQ for everyone? Z1720 (talk) 19:20, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The discussions (see the top section and one further down in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 182) were before my time; looking at those discussions, I don't think a consensus was reached. As this is the first time the mode will be implemented, I think it's a matter of crossing the bridge when we come to it (in fact, EEng said something very similar in those discussions). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Will it be possible to count how many extra QPQs are used due to backlog mode? Presumably nominators and reviewers may not notice we are in backlog mode immediately, so prep builders will have to double check. TSventon (talk) 20:15, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Another question: could there be support for backlog mode in the nomination wizard? I've done double QPQs on an informal basis for several recent nominations but have done it by going back to the nomination template page and manually adding the second QPQ. If it were in the wizard it might help make it more obvious to nominators that it is expected. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
leeky? Gatoclass (talk) 23:14, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm thinking it's time for the nomination wizard to moved out of SD0001's userspace. Either that, or I should go get WP:INTADMIN perms and become a maintainer. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:32, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
The nomination wizard is not in my userspace and anyone who knows JS can propose edits. (The DYK-helper is, however. I suggested back in '21 to eliminate this alternate interface by just making it a link that opens the DYK-wizard in a new tab. But not everyone was aligned.) – SD0001 (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Is the deficit a function of waived reviews for 5 or less DYKs being a higher frequency than rejected reviews? Are there additional factors? Would lowering the waiver to 1, 2 or 3 make the backlog mode unnecessary?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:57, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
    I'd be in favour of lowering the waiver to 3 (and personally I feel if people are participating in the Wikicup, I'd put it to zero). Seddon talk 21:28, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    Yes, the deficit builds up over time as a function of the waived nominati0ons rule for first time participants. Regular participants in the project are swapping 1:1 reviewed for unreviewed. Barring rare extenuating circumstances (eg multi-nomination hooks), the only increase in backlog is the new editors. I agree with Seddon and Bruxton that 5 is possibly too many and dropping down to 2 or three would slow the problem down.--Kevmin § 22:38, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    With my DYK admin hat on, I am opposed to any move that lowers the quality of reviews, as poor reviews cause a lot of work later on in the process. The current 5 freebies mean that newbies are likely to have experienced a decent review before they need to contribute one of their own. It is better if experienced reviewers do more work than if beginners have to do work that they do not have the necessary experience for. —Kusma (talk) 22:46, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    I wonder if then it makes sense to up the minimum character amount bar? Seddon talk 23:42, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
    Minimum characters in the article? I'm all for an increase in the length requirement, but there was a lot of opposition last time this was discussed (people were concerned this would lead to useless filler text instead of better articles). —Kusma (talk) 09:11, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
    @Kusma: I couldn't agree more – DYK is very insular on Wikipedia. Most of the power over shaping it is wielded by its regulars, not from the wider community, and because of that, we're a layer of impenetrability on top of the already existing layer of impenetrability that is getting involved onwiki at all. Weakning the five-freebie rule steepens the learning curve and makes it harder for newer editors to get hooked on Wikipedia through DYK. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:28, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
    That's another good point. We should try not to have any unavoidable barriers to participation, and QPQ reviews are in effect such a barrier. Let us try to not make people hit this barrier too early. —Kusma (talk) 10:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
    @Kusma and Theleekycauldron: both make great points regarding lowering the QPQ threshold. I'm wondering what other levers we have at our disposal? Seddon talk 19:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Is anyone noticing how much slower new nominations have been coming in since people have become aware of the backlog mode. Probably once we take backlog mode off, there will be a stampede of new nominations.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
    Nope, not true. We've gotten ~90 new nominations in the past week, which is slightly more than we got the week before. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:32, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
    The WikiCup probably has a bigger influence on the nomination rate than the double QPQs. For WikiCup participants, it is also in their own interest to help clearing the backlog (the backlog makes it hard to predict when noms will actually appear and be eligible for points). —Kusma (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Also, do we have any stats on whether the deficit is being impacted by fewer rejected nominations than in the old days when reviewers were more crotchety?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
    Not borne out by the data. The average DYK nominated in 2012 had a 92% chance of passing. For 2023, that number is 91%. If there's a trendline, it's a weak one, and we've been trending downward since 2018 (trending up before then). And even then, the only time this contributes to the backlog is when a nominator needs to provide a QPQ and does not, while in the meantime a full review is done on the article, generating a QPQ credit. That's a small fraction of the small fraction. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:44, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Someone should propose lowering the waiver in a vote format to formalize the discussion. I would support 1, 2 or 3.-— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 04:20, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
    Given that review quality currently isn't great (for me, this is the main reason DYK admin work is so stressful: so many problems are detected only at the prep to queue stage when they are a pain to fix), any such discussion would need to show how such a move will improve the situation at DYK overall. Piling more work on the admins (many of whom are already burned out or on strike) is not an option at least until somebody manages to fix RfA. —Kusma (talk) 09:16, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Last minute DYK shuffle

Template:Did you know nominations/Sean Jackson (basketball) has been waiting to figure out how to time this Princeton basketballer with a Postseason Princeton game. Last night game times were announced. The 2023–24 Princeton Tigers men's basketball team's next postseason game would coincide with Prep4/queue4. Is it possible to swap something out and get this in Prep4/queue4? Its not an urgent date request, but it would be nice.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:43, 18 March 2024 (UTC)

He's got no involvement with the current team, nor does the hook even mention Princeton basketball or even Princeton.—Bagumba (talk) 05:00, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
OK.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list of older nominations was archived a few days ago, so I’ve created a new list of the first 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 25. We have a total of 352 nominations, of which 200 have been approved, a gap of 152 nominations that has decreased by 60 over the past 9 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

QPQ checker

Of course, this is a useful script. It's a shame that we don't have one for how many QPQs a nominator has already done, though. Or is there? ——Serial Number 54129 14:57, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

@Serial Number 54129: It is the nominator's responsibility to link the article they are using for the QPQ in every nom. Adding a script like this, then asking the reviewer to check, is putting more work on the reviewer which I do not agree with. Z1720 (talk) 17:17, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Well, that's dandy Z1720, because neither do I.
Now, back to the question I actually asked: is there a way of finding out, or could a means of finding out be put in place, to find out how many QPQs a nominator has already done, in total. Put it another way: if—for example—someone has (or claims to have done) more QPQs than DYK noms, how could that be ascertained? ——Serial Number 54129 17:26, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Can't, unfortunately. No automatic way to tell which comments on a DYK nom are full, qualifying reviews and which aren't. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:54, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
That is true, the tool has some limitations and does not capture all of the qpqs. Also, maybe not related to this but sometimes I use the "what links here" from the side menu to see if a qpq has been used. Lightburst (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Queues are empty

Pinging @DYK admins: all the queues are empty, and the preps are basically full. Please promote a queue or two (or more!) if you can. Thank you very much!

We also have a backup on the Approved page that the prep promoters can't do anything about until some preps open up; at the moment, there are 42 approved nominations that aren't transcluding. This is good news, in a way: it means that the review backlog reduction currently in process is working, though it has more work to do. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Pulled Sophie Richardson due to a notability tag and posted at her nom; I have not replaced it, would not object to any other editor doing so. Additionally, there's one paragraph in Cobb Power Station (nom) which is uncited (pinging @Marshelec, Dahn, and PrimalMustelid:).--Launchballer 08:44, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The only uncited paragraph seems to be the lead paragraph, which is actually not supposed to carry citations (as a general rule). Dahn (talk) 18:02, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
That was added after I moaned. I have no further complaints other than 'Sean Jackson could be moved to replace it', see below.--Launchballer 18:07, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I am not clear what the problem is with citations for Cobb Power Station. Can you clarify please and I will try to address promptly. Thanks Marshelec (talk) 21:45, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Already addressed, but thank you. (I missed "with this set" after "complaints" and should have put "Sophie Richardson" instead of "it".)--Launchballer 21:52, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
The Sean Jackson (basketball) hook date request for that set a couple of threads up would fit in her place well as a BLP for BLP swap.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
It would put basketball in the same set as American football however.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:08, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
I wish I'd seen that, I'd have moved it.--Launchballer 17:13, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
Not really a big issue. As User:Bagumba noted above not as date-relevant for the date request as we would like. It is more that months ago with the WP:CBBALL regs asked me to create the article as part of the annual POY focus, I said, if Princeton was looking like they might do something during March Madness, I might try to create his page and do a date request. I have about 10 or 12 basketball nominations working their way through DYK right now and it might even be unfair to give this guy a March Madness date priority and none of the other ones. The Sean Jackson (basketball) rabbithole was a fun research endeavor that led to 4 DYK and GANs. I 5xed his former teammate Dave Jamerson then created Gary Bossert and Todd Leslie as related subjects that needed articles.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 23:25, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Serendipity

Looking for a new article to author? Tiber Valley has more than 50 redlinks. (447 B (71 words)) You're welcome. --evrik (talk) 00:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Anyone want to share author credit?

Serena of Rome is eligible for a DYK, but I feel it could be made better. Anyone want to take a crack at making it better? I'll share author credit. --evrik (talk) 02:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

change to hook in prep

Hey, Launchballer, I don't understand this hook change? (Was on vacation when it was changed so didn't see it go by). I felt like that's part of what made it hooky. Are you objecting because of time zones?

Also it was changed to a non-US date format; if it needed to be changed, why that format? I don't think it's worth taking to ERRORS, but it's a bit weird to have such a clearly US hook use a non-US date format. Valereee (talk) 09:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

No, I'm objecting because of the phrase "on this date" when "this date" will change and readers will already have the information that today is 21 March. The date format is a fair cop though, and I would not object to it being changed. I might have flashed my biases with that edit, as I'm English, write predominantly about English people, and loathe the mdy date format with a burning passion (there should not be two numbers next to each other). I suspect that's not really relevant to DYK though.--Launchballer 10:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Meh on the date changing, I get the objection but I'd have liked to discuss, and if you'd pinged me in the edit summary I likely would have seen it. (I don't know why more people who clerk preps don't at minimum ping the nominator in their edit summaries. I routinely open a section here and ping nom, reviewer, and promoter when I make any but the most obviously-needed changes in prep or queue.)
Like you I dislike the US date format, which makes no sense to me even though I'm in the US, but as you say it's policy to use the appropriate date format. Valereee (talk) 10:18, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Prep 6 30 Mar

Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Filosofova

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

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

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

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

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

Billy Garrett Jr.

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

Prep 2:

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

@TonyTheTiger, Sims2aholic8, AirshipJungleman29, and Ravenpuff:

  • that the only NBA player with sickle cell disease: The source says "As the only known person to have played in the NBA with sickle cell disease".[6] "known" or similar is missing from the hook (and article). It's also unsourced that he remains the "only NBA player" still. The source was from 2019.
  • nearly died of a crisis while on a flight to a game: The source says "After last January’s near-death experience in a Newark, N.J., hospital, where DePaul trainers took Billy Jr. as soon as the team landed, the Garretts never again will underestimate the affliction."[7] It seems the flight perhaps spurred the episode.[8] It's unsourced for the hook and article to say it was during the flight.
  • The hook seems to misleadingly imply that the flight was during his NBA career, while it was years earlier in college.

—Bagumba (talk) 18:06, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

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

@Bagumba:

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

QPQ backlog mode being selectively enforced

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

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

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

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

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

Date request

A beer for Schwede66

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

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

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

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

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

Queue 1

Texas Hold 'Em (song) and 16 Carriages

@ModulationBend, MaranoFan, TonyTheTiger, and Cielquiparle:

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

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

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

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

WWXL (Illinois)

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

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

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

Queue 4

Hidden Letters

@NotAGenious, Sammi Brie, and Sdkb:

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

Queue 5

Hubertus, Hereditary Prince of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha

@Therealscorp1an, Gonzo fan2007, and AirshipJungleman29:

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

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

References

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

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

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

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

Queue 2

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

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

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

Can you clarify how a conductor "made Offenbach's music sound "lean, dry, delicate" Gerda Arendt? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I seem to have a language problem: "He played a lean, dry, delicate Offenbach". What's "lean, dry, delicate" is Offenbach, not Januschke's conducting. Offenbach's music that is (short for). My understanding. And I don't know what a dry conducting would be ;) - When a winemaker makes a dry wine, it's the wine that's dry, described as dry, not the process of making is. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
So would it be possible for Offenbach's music to not be "lean, dry, delicate" Gerda Arendt? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand the question. Yes, of course. In his conducting, with a small orchestra, it was. In someone else's, with large forces, slow tempos, lack of dynamics, it would loose that quality, and could perhaps sound rich, powerful. It's the conductor who shapes the music, but "conducting" speaks - at least for me - of his signals to the orchestra, movements, eye contact, such things. The reviewer didn't refer to that, but described the result. I believe that we should do the same if we quote him. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:33, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 and Gerda Arendt: I think the shorter hook is preferable, but agree that bthe adjectives describe the music, not the conducting. Would it help to replace "conducting" with "version"? TSventon (talk) 17:41, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
I'll be honest, I'm pretty confused as to the difference, so I'll bow out here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
Yes, "version" would be better. I do have a language problem if the analogy of making the wine and the wine doesn't work. "Conducting" describes the process, or what he does to achieve the sound, - what does it mean to you, AJ? - The hook still doesn't tell us that this was a life performance, not a recording ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
To me, it encompasses everything, like a filmmaker's "directing". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:04, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

Time to go to two sets a day?

According to WP:DYKROTATE, If we are at one set per day and immediately after the midnight (UTC) update finishes there are more than 120 approved nominations while at least ten prep/queue sets are filled, we rotate to two sets per day. Immediately after midnight an hour or so ago, we had five full queues, five full preps, and 169 approved nominations (144 on the list plus 25 that aren't transcluding and thus aren't counted by DYKHousekeepingBot in making the list). Many thanks to PMC and Z1720 for loading up the queues, and AirshipJungleman29, Bruxton, and Rjjiii for filling preps (the remaining two preps only have two blank hooks each).

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

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

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

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

Which admin are available?

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

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

Special occasion, again

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

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

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

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

More than one month old

Other nominations

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

Queue 7

Petik and Sanos

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

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

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

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

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

White-winged tapaculo

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

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

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

Easter Prep 6

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

As it isn't Easter-related, there's no reason for it to be a special occasion hook on that date. Not every religious holiday needs to be celebrated at DYK. Three days before is not the time to go hunting for special occasion hooks for a particular date. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:52, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the message - does not have to be my hook. Since the holiday is still days away and there are 2.4 billion Christians in the world... maybe we can scare up one hook for the set? We spend quite a bit of effort for non-secular topics - but we made a great effort for Xmas. It is short time until Easter so I understand - admittedly I only just thoughtof Easter recently. Lightburst (talk) 23:17, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
I was asked on my talk, lengthy answer of frustration there. While I think I supplied a hook for each Easter so far since 2010, I still feel quite distant from DYK, so didn't this year. I looked over the nom page searching for something to approve, and the only one I found was Sodankylä Old Church. That seems to be close to an approval, and would make a better lead into an Easter set than something starting with "Hell", of all titles. If you like you can swap the Januschke hook (see above) into the Easter set, - it's not specifically Easter, but uplifting music, better suited to Easter than Good Friday (where it only landed because of the 2 sets per day). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:59, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Alternatively, the above section ("Older nominations needing DYK reviewers") lists several Christian or Christian-related hooks that we could also use. This would not be celebrating any religious holiday, but simply pushing up older topical hooks to an Easter-themed set in acknowledgement of the holiday. Viriditas (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm opposed to the idea. If they were about Easter, it would be one thing; this feels like deliberately pushing a religion on one of its holidays, which is something else. However, I'm one person, and one of the 70% of the world's population who isn't Christian, so perhaps I see things differently. As for the Januschke hook, I hardly feel that any hook about a "cheerfully amoral" Offenbach opera (per the article on Die Banditen) is appropriate for Easter! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I suppose that’s one way of perceiving it, but it’s not how I view it. I don’t see "Easter" as purely Christian, but rather as a shared cultural event rooted in pluralism that has many different interpretations, ranging from scientific (Spring Equinox), to pagan (Ostara), and all other interpretations found around the world. The ideal DYK set would not be focused on Christianity but would rather celebrate and highlight our global heritage in relation to this holiday from many different traditions, secular and religious. Viriditas (talk) 04:36, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Agree that Easter is a rather significant holiday. Like Gerda, I too think we risk looking a bit clueless by leading with hell on Easter Sunday. I also remember that last year several editors talked about a Ramadan set. It is Ramadan now, and it will end on April 9, 2024 with Eid al-Fitr. Maybe we can get a few hooks together for that date? Bruxton (talk) 14:01, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Update: I moved the church to the prep 6 lead hook, and I moved Hell to Prep 4. Bruxton (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Process

I added Savika to Prep 4, but I’m pretty sure I did it wrong. Can someone step in and take a look? Zanahary (talk) 14:40, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed it as you can't promote your own hook. Another user will come along and do it properly for you.--Launchballer 14:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I have checked the article and promoted it to prep. Bruxton (talk) 22:51, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Weird glitch at Template talk:Did you know/Approved

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

That is due to the page exceeding WP:PEIS, which is why we're on two sets per day.--Launchballer 23:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
~190 nominations on a single page will do that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
4meter4, there are a set of links near the top of wp:dykna that will allow you to view a subset of the approved nominations whenever the peis limit is exceeded. specifically, your nomination is currently viewable at the "Template talk:Did you know/Approved/week-2" page. dying (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Marcelle (musical) prep 6 hook error

This is one of my nominations. I didn't see the alt hook which was proposed by someone else and approved. It isn't accurate. The mention of a male character must be in the hook or it doesn't make sense factually. A barmaid isn't a partial trouser role. A barmaid masquerading as a male soldier is a partial trouser role. As it it stands I would call the current hook in the prep factually inaccurate and confusing. It should be pulled and alt hook that I proposed approved rather than this bad hook. @Bruxton I notice you promoted this. Could you please swap out with a different hook? 4meter4 (talk) 03:32, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It was a trim of your hook by Cielquiparle, but I will remove it as you request. Your hook had TMI and I agreed. Bruxton (talk) 03:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
@Bruxton It was trimmed to the point of being confusing and factually inaccurate. The whole thing about the male soldier was cut which was essential to the factual accuracy of the"partial trouser role" fact. There's no such thing as a barmaid trouser role which is what the shortened hook was claiming. (that is a clearcut factual error) You can't trim out essential content when doing so transforms a hook from being accurate and precise into essentially nonsense with no intelligible meaning. In the trimmed version it was no longer clear that the character was switching gender roles, which was the whole point of the hook and what made it hooky.4meter4 (talk) 03:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the explanation; Cielquiparle and myself were mistaken. Hopefully it gets sorted by the next promotor. Bruxton (talk) 14:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for resolving by proposing ALT hooks, @AirshipJungleman29, and hold your line next time @Bruxton. There is always a subjective element to DYK and I think your each having promoted ~1k of them counts for something. Appreciate you both. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Ramadan Eid al-Fitr WP:DYKSO

I am hoping to get several hooks for a Ramadan set or partial set. The date of April 9, 2024 (Eid al-Fitr) marks the end of the holy month. Last year we discussed doing a set or partial set. We have eleven days to get any articles through our processes and promotion. We may have just enough time to spiff up an article or write new content. Bruxton (talk) 22:50, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Bruxton: Any thoughts on articles you want to put into the set? Z1720 (talk) 22:59, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) There are some articles we can clean up in the template. {{Ramadan}}. Several are short enough to expand. Bruxton (talk) 23:02, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I worked on expansion of Jumu'atul-Wida and I learned a few things. It will occur this year April 4-5. But I will likely nominate it and hope for April 9. Need to do a few QPQs to noiminate. Bruxton (talk) 01:43, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I am not an expert in Islam, so if any of our editors can look the article over that would be helpful. I just 5x expanded it and nominated it for April 9. The actual last Friday of Ramadan is April 5 but I was not sure we could get this through our processes and checks in time. Bruxton (talk) 16:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I have also expanded a second Ramadan related article about a television variety show. Fawazeer Ramadan. Bruxton (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Blacking out the page locally on eclipse day

A few days ago on this page (I can't find it now), I suggested the DYK part of the main page be blacked out in North America for the solar eclipse on the 8th of April. I got a few positive responses. Are there any admins here on board with my plan? Bremps... 11:47, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm opposed to having a localised Main Page. Also, isn't an eclipse more for ITN? —Kusma (talk) 16:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, it's not as if Solar eclipse of April 8, 2024 is even anywhere near to Main Page quality, let alone new/expanded 5x. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Oppose as this isn't a worldwide event, doesn't actually showcase DYK or benefit readers, and the article for this event isn't even DYK eligible. Also, pretty sure that different main pages for people based on location isn't even possible (or if it is, it's a lot of work and way outside the remit of DYK). Joseph2302 (talk) 00:07, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
At first glance I thought it may be interesting to black it out for the exact moment of greatest eclipse (UTC) 18:18:29. The article is not in ship shape as AirshipJungleman29 has said, so this may not work well. Lightburst (talk) 01:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I think this is a cute idea; however I'm against it on technical grounds as it would affect readability and could inconvenience readers (I'm already not a fan of how many of our current dark mode appearances look). In addition, the other editors have a point in that this isn't a global event. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

April Fools'

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

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

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

@RoySmith:

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

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

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

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

how about we do a random item where either we have the dog in lead and the cat no. 2, or vice versa? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
That would be a better idea given that, unless the animals spread across two April Fools' sets, then they would only get half as long on the front page.--Launchballer 09:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I've boldly implemented this. Feel free to revert.--Launchballer 19:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
This implementation is breaking DYKUpdateBot User:Launchballer User:theleekycauldron. Shubinator (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Reverted. Shubinator (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Not an admin, so I can't help with things in queue, but that template was there before I started playing with it, all I did was adjust it so that both hooks appear at the same time (it didn't seem on that they only got "twelve" hours rather than 24).--Launchballer 23:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Now that the set has been moved to the Main Page, can the randomizer be put back? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 00:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
If the randomizer is added now, DYKUpdateBot may crash on the next DYK update; it parses the outgoing set as part of archiving & tagging the outgoing image. Shubinator (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I've removed the randomizer. There should only be one picture hook per DYK rules, it risks breaking things as mentioned above, and it's unclear what this is adding.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
People liked both images, so this was the compromise that had consensus. Why not just leave the randomizer up and then take it down around 23:45? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 00:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
OK fine, I'm just waiting for protection to kick in on the second pic, then I'll reinstate.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Note that I've also increased the timer to keep this set around for the whole day, we can flip it back to two per day tomorrow. If some people like the dog pic we can swap it in half way through the day (remembering to protect it first).  — Amakuru (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

colin mackay

i'm sorry for putting a damper on the fun here, but i wanted to note that i have misgivings about the current colin mackay hook. i am not sure if it is a good idea to make light of a living person mourning the death of a predecessor whom he respected, and although i understand that the phrase "very sad" is in quotes because those were the words that mackay used, the quotation marks could easily be misinterpreted as scare quotes mocking his grief instead, especially considering the date the hook is scheduled to run. to be clear, i don't think the hook needs to be pulled, but i think it could use a good reformulation. below is one possibility.

alt2a: ... that Colin Mackay, the political editor at Scottish Television, had words of praise for Colin MacKay, a former political editor at Scottish Television?

dying (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Nah, this is overthinking it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I do think that putting "very sad" in quotation marks reads oddly. As MOS:QUOTEPOV explains, Use of quotation marks around simple descriptive terms can imply something doubtful regarding the material being quoted. I might suggest the following:
Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
ALT2B works, but it'd be better with a very Bremps... 05:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I did wonder if it was worth ending with the second Colin, so something like: "... that Colin Mackay, the political editor at Scottish Television, was saddened by the death of the former political editor at Scottish Television Colin MacKay?"--Launchballer 06:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
If we specify that one is the current and one is the former that would ruin the hookiness IMO. :( Bremps... 11:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Fair cop, how about "... that Colin Mackay, the political editor at Scottish Television, was saddened by the death of the political editor at Scottish Television Colin MacKay?"--Launchballer 13:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

A 10th for April Fools'

I approved/ticked Template:Did you know nominations/Obsessed (Olivia Rodrigo song) for 1 April. It either needs to be moved to Prep 7 if it can run in that set (which already has 9 hooks, most of them short), or sent back for re-review as the hooks are inappropriate for any other day. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Instead of having 10 hooks, I would support moving Lianxing Temple, George E. Mylonas, or February 1983 North American blizzard to the quirky slot of another set as, to me, they are the weakest joke-y hooks in the set. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@Z1720: I will move George E. Mylonas to prep 3. If anyone objects we can move it back. Bruxton (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
I agree, Mylonas was by far the weakest of the set. I've promoted Obsession in its place.--Launchballer 15:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, all! BTW, I have another decent hook: ... that Ukrainian Sheriffs went to summer school after being shot?. I'd been expanding it for a contest and hadn't thought about the DYK until a few minutes ago. Needs review. It'll run on other days, though, I'm okay either way. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
Looks like the set came together. Good work to all concerned. Bruxton (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Prep 2

Krisztofer Mészáros

... that in 2021 Krisztofer Mészáros became the first Hungarian male gymnast in 22 years to qualify for a world championship all-around final?

If I look at Gymnastics World Championships, there are multiple types of gymnastics world championships. Is the hook suppose to imply he was the first of any (generic) world championship, or specifically the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships (which is what the hook links to)? If the latter, showing only "world championship" without any other qualification seems incorrect. Notifying DYK participants Riley1012 and OlifanofmrTennant—Bagumba (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The second one. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
OK. I've updated the hook to unpipe and just display "World Artistic Gymnastics Championships".—Bagumba (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5: Peter Patton

  • ... that Peter Patton was given the nickname General Patton by the father of his college coach?

Nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Patton (basketball)

Minor point probably, but the article says "He attended a camp by Ray Meyer in Wisconsin as a 6th grader, earning the nickname General Patton"... i.e. doesn't directly say that it was Meyer himself who gave him that nickname, it could have been a fellow campmate for example. I can't access the source, so not sure what that says... assuming it was Meyer who gave him the name, we probably want to clarify in the article. Pinging @4meter4, TonyTheTiger, Premeditated Chaos, and Bruxton:  — Amakuru (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll leave it to Tony to clarify as I can't access the source either.4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Special occasion again

It looks like we moved back to 24-hour sets which has knocked Template:Did you know nominations/Singh v Canada out of its special occasion of 4 April again. Would appreciate if someone could move it from Prep 6 to Queue 3. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Reidgreg I believe we should be moving back to 12-hour sets on 2 April, so Prep 6 should still hit main page on 4 April. It is good that you are watching out for last minute changes. TSventon (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Okay, thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Not only that, but Prep 6 (now promoted to Queue 6) is actually best for a Canada-based April 4 hook, since it will run during the day there. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

Biodiversity Impact Credit

@Pinkchiken, Silver seren, and AirshipJungleman29:

There are several uncited passages that will need citations. I have indicated these in the article with citation needed tags. Z1720 (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I've added a few more tags in the lead for uncited facts mentioned there that don't seem to be in the body. This was a fairly glaring error IMHO, and no doubt just a rare oversight... but as a reminder it's the job of everyone: reviewers, prep builders and promoting admins alike, to ensure the hooks and articles meet the quality criteria. This triple check should ultimately provide some redundancy in ensuring the hooks are as good as we can get them, but ideally issues are spotted before they're in the queue and subject to the final check. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Time to pull this hook? The hook's still on Queue and the tags remain unresolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Pulled. Schwede66 23:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2: Thambi Naidoo

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Thambi Naidoo)

A couple of points here - firstly, I think "register" is a bit confusing here, and should probably be expanded to "register as an Asian" or similar. Secondly, the "sent outside of" part is also a bit confusing. The wording is unusual, and there seems to be a small discrepancy between the article text

  • "Later that year, he boycotted the mandatory registration and was forced outside of Transvaal, and was arrested in January of 1908 along with Gandhi"

and the source text

  • "On December 28 that year, he was charged for refusing to register and sent out of Transvaal> When he refused to obey the orders, he, along with Gandhiji, was arrested on January 10, 1908 and sent to jail"

The latter suggests that he wasn't actually "sent out" but instead refused, and he was subsequently arrested for that refusal. Whether he actually left Transvaal isn't stated, but he was back there again by 1913 anyway. Maybe it's all fine, but just Thought I'd raise this. Pinging @Ktin, Grnrchst, and Hilst:  — Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with expanding the registering part, no comment on "sent out", though we could just omit it if needed. – Hilst [talk] 00:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Agree with the above. Ktin (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Unprotected image

@DYK admins: DYKUpdateBot couldn't update the template due to File:The old church of Sodankylä.jpg not being protected. Can someone fix this? – Hilst [talk] 12:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, on it.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@DYK admins: @Hilst: actually, I can't be "on it" unfortunatley as it seems Krinklebot is down. We'll need a COmmons admin to protect the image. Does anybody know of one? I've uploaded the set with no image for the time being. About to have lunch so will do the credits later if nobody else does. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
@DYK admins: red alert, the April Fools' set is on the main page for some reason! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
Fixed by Amakuru! In other news, the church image can now be used safely. – Hilst [talk] 13:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I've rolled that back, so the intended set is there again. It looks like Krinklebot kicked back into life again, and that prompted DYK bot to do an update. I'm not sure if I was supposed to do something to tell it not to act? I haven't done a manual promotion for a while... Anyway, since the pic is now protected I've added that in too. We'll need to wind back the queues again too before the next update, I'll do that shortly.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
For future reference:
  • If performing a manual update, please follow the steps described in the "Manually posting the new update" section of the DYK queues. Not doing so can result in collisions between humans and bot, or between humans and other humans.
  • As described by DYKUpdateBot, please follow these instructions if KrinkleBot is down - there's no requirement for a Commons admin to be around.
  • The "random item" template in Queue 7 is crashing DYKUpdateBot. I'll start it back up, so the bot will update T:DYK, but will again crash before distributing credits for this set. Communicating special sets ahead of time can help us avoid these situations in the future.
Shubinator (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
I've reverted the "random item" template in Queue 7, so DYKUpdateBot should stay alive. Shubinator (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Shubinator, any idea why the bot hasn't updated the main page with the new DYK set? Q1 was supposed to go live 20 minutes ago. Schwede66 00:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I see that there's a discussion below. Schwede66 03:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

DYKs are archived by the time :) they're taken off the main page theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
For the record, you're not the only one who finds this confusing, especially considering the talk page banners. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
It is super confusing I think I've actually reported this as a bug in the bot at some point. I understand why we have to do it this way, but we might need to try to document this better. —Kusma (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
JMF, if you are interested, more details on this issue can be found at wp:whyisrecentadditionsonedayoff. dying (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Kusma For historical context, the current setup is a DYK community choice that predates DYKUpdateBot and its predecessors DYKadminBot & DYKBot. DYK started adding timestamps to the archives 15+ years ago in June 2008, before DYK updates were automated.
I agree the current setup is confusing, and would love to fix it. My understanding of what we're waiting on (full conversation at wp:whyisrecentadditionsonedayoff):
  1. Establishing consensus on the change, including its tradeoffs. (My sense is there is consensus that it's not ideal the archive links don't point to the "correct" set. I'm not sure we have consensus the proposed change is a net positive.)
  2. Specifically, the tradeoff around increasing difficulty of manual updates is an important one. Both of the last two manual updates made mistakes, which indicates the manual update process is already too confusing.
  3. Before floating a proposal to establish consensus, aligning on whether we would prefer to break continuity with the historical archives (not ideal) or recreate the historical archives (time consuming). If we don't want to break continuity, the historical archives should be recreated before we switch over behavior for the latest sets, and this will likely take weeks if not months.
Shubinator (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

A-Channel

@Sammi Brie, RickyCourtney, and Hilst:

I added a cn tag to a sentence that should be resolved before it goes on the Main Page. Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

A bit off-topic but I was a bit disappointed this wasn't a GA about the anime A Channel. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Forgot to ping @Z1720 but I decided to fold the intro sentence (it's a summary of the next two paragraphs) in for now. I disagree it needs a citation; it's basically a one-sentence lead for the next two paragraphs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
My concern has been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Randy Travis

@TenPoundHammer, Lightburst, 4meter4, and Bruxton:

I added two cn tags that will need to be resolved before this appears on the Main Page. Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I removed the first sentence that needed a citation. The second one, under "Awards", I feel does not need a citation as it is a summary of content both found elsewhere in the article and on the subpage mentioned above. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 17:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you @TenPoundHammer: Bruxton (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 6

Hesperocyparis guadalupensis

@MtBotany, Kevmin, and Bruxton:

I have added a citation needed tag to a sentence in the "Conservation and restoration" section that will need to be resolved before this goes on the Main Page. Z1720 (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This was a promotion that I depromoted in order to move and then promoted with pshaw. I have erased the uncited sentence. Bruxton (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that problem. I remember seeing that sentence when I started editing the page and thought, "I need to find a source for this or delete it," and then forgot about it. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Aleksandra Waliszewska (Prep 6)

Untitled (2012–2013) by Aleksandra Waliszewska
Untitled (2012–2013) by Aleksandra Waliszewska

@Apocheir, Lajmmoore, and Hilst: Looking at the nomination page, this hook's "media marker" seems to have been added rather awkwardly, as it explicitly self-references the accompanying image rather than subtly through an italic "(pictured)". I don't think that this is particularly helpful here, so I suggest that a more usual phrasing would be something like the following:

— RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Since it's no longer in the running for April Fools, I'm going to change it back to the original ALT2. Apocheir (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok, no problem. – Hilst [talk] 00:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you @Apocheir that's great Lajmmoore (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Are those hooks interesting for anyone?

See Template:Did you know nominations/Swift Orange Line. I hate to fail this but I find the hooks very boring, which goes against DYK concept. But maybe someone will be more positive, I don't mind if it is passed, but I cannot do it myself, since, as I said, I find all proposed hooks very boring. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The landfill hook is the most interesting of the options, IMO. I would be fine with running that hook. The rest are pretty boring and typical of a rail line. Z1720 (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Is boring and typical for rail a good or bad sign given the article is about a bus line? A new ALT5 passed by Piotrus works well for me too. CMD (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree that ALT3–5 are sufficiently interesting, and ALT5 highlights an edge that makes the detail pop. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2: Aisling (book series)

  • ... that the novel series Aisling is based on a character archetype elaborated upon by users of a Facebook group?

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Aisling (book series))

Not sure if it's just me, but I found this hook a bit misleading. It gives the impression that the Facebook group actually had a hand in developing the story or the character in some way... However, the article has a weaker version of this, with no sense of the group having "elaborating" the character, but merely discussed. The sole secondary source for this is [9], which credits the group as having given the authors the inspiration to go ahead and public, but doesn't say that the published character was actually "based on" anything that had been discussed within the group.

Pinging @AirshipJungleman29, Bogger, Lajmmoore, Narutolovehinata5, and Launchballer:. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Would ALT3a solve the issue? I was actually surprised ALT3 was the version that was promoted as I preferred ALT3a, but the hook got promoted before I could give my opinion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm happy with ALT3a too Lajmmoore (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
ALT3a for me too. [The point being that the "character" was recognisable, the people bought into it, added to the lore, in a sort of fan-fiction way, but the rights to this particular Aisling and her story belong to the authors.] -Bogger (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Are we really not on mobile?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T360689
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T221993

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

I can confirm that there is no DYK on the Android app. From the top, the order of Main Page sections is:
  • TFA
  • "Today on Wikipedia" (small body text hyperlink to the normal Main Page)
  • "Top Read" (presumably the articles with the most pageviews in the last day or couple days)
  • PoTD
  • "Because you read" (related articles to one that I was looking at last time I had the app open)
  • ITN
  • OTD
  • "Random article"
  • "Suggested edits"
  • then it loops back to the previous day's TFA.
jp×g🗯️ 17:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
Similar on Apple devices. If I had to guess, our occasional twelve-hour periods are rather annoying to deal with for a page that is structured on a day-by-day basis. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)
@The wub told me a while ago not to worry because mobile app uptake is so poor anyway. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)
The mobile apps (iOS and Android combined) made up 2.3% of pageviews on English Wikipedia last year [10]. Mobile web was 65.5%, and desktop was 32.2%. That said, the app audiences are slowly growing, and it would be nice to have DYK shown to them as well. the wub "?!" 00:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
Which is bizarre, since the website version on the phone has a DYK section. Bremps... 11:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Sometime back, I had a chance to engage with the WMF team that was building the iOS app. I was making a case for WP:ITNRD and WP:DYK be added to the iOS app. I was not successful. Ktin (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Btw, I have a random hypothesis, as follows. The homepage of the iOS app versus the mainpage of the mobile / desktop site as a percentage of views in that category will be a closer comparison than 2.5%: 65.5%: 32.2%. My hypothesis is more app users start their app journey with the app homescreen (mainpage equivalent) compared to mobile / desktop users starting their journey with the mobile / desktop mainpage. Ktin (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
MediaWiki Thread that I had started sometime back. Ktin (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Tagging @Julle:, who was helpful the last time by connecting me with the iOS app product manager. It seems like the product manager may no longer be with WMF. Ktin (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I've pinged ARamadan-WMF, who should be able to get you the right answers. /Julle (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, @Julle, for pinging; hello all, this is Amal Ramadan, I am the senior community relations specialist supporting the mobile applications team in the foundation; we have noticed this request T360689 and it's on our list as we plan work for this coming year.
Also tagging @JTanner (WMF), the Lead Product Manager for the Apps team, for further updates. ARamadan-WMF (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Are we making sets too long?

I've been watching how the new 9-hook sets are working. As I remember, the original concept was we could use 9 hooks as long as they're all pretty short. Today they're all tending to the long side. On my desktop, it looks fine, but on my phone, the DYK section blows way past the bottom of OTD. On the other hand, part of the problem seems to be that TFA is also running long, so it pushed DYK down. RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

No, this also happened with 8-hook sets, because for some reason the font size of ITN/OTD on mobile is lower than TFA/DYK. No clue why. This obviously doesn't affect the mobile view, which is how 99% readers will be using the site. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I often measure total characters of each set. I have not been measuring every set, but I think they vary between 870-1200 for a set including the ... ellipsis. I think the sweet spot is 1000-1100 characters. Each hook can be 200 characters but that is usually rare. And obviously If there were 9 200 character hooks it would not work. I did change one prep 3 yesterday to eight hooks for balance it has 8 hooks and is 1138 characters. The set right now is 1051 characters and has nine hooks. The next set queue 2 is 1075. Queue 3 is 1115 Characters. The one after that is queue 4 - 1100. Maybe queue 5 could use an extra hook because it is 928 characters with nine hooks. Bruxton (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I just promoted one very short quirky hook to the end of prep 3, it's now 1192. I think it can take it.--Launchballer 16:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I am the one that proposed adding a hook to the DYK set to make it 9-a-set. I checked on two different computers and on them right now the OTD is slightly shorter by two lines, which would make me consider adding a short hook if I had more time. I cannot check the length on my phone because it keeps sending me to the app, which formats the Main Page differently. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
When did you propose this? I mentioned trying to make the sets longer (9 or 10) and always having 24 hour sets a few months ago.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't optimize for desktop view on phone. I use it, but I assume its limited to a niche group of editors, and not general readers. —Bagumba (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Really? I've always assumed that it's far from niche as possible. I've been viewing and editing on mobile since the 2000s. I suspect the vast majority of younger people do so on phones or tablets. When I write articles, I always try for a happy balance on desktop and mobile. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I meant the niche is that its a group of editors, not the general reader. —Bagumba (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

No update?

DYKUpdateBot hasn't moved Queue 4 yet. It also hasn't reported any errors for some reason. – Hilst [talk] 00:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The bot hit a 503 Server Error and crashed; I've started it up again and it's chugging through the update now! Shubinator (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Phew. Thanks for reviving it, Shubinator. I've done manual updates two days in a row; I would have hit a 708 overload error! Schwede66 00:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Sweet, thanks. – Hilst [talk] 00:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot turned off to avoid undefined adminbot behavior

Summarizing the conversation above, DYKUpdateBot does not support the randomizer added in the April Fools set. I've turned off the bot to avoid an adminbot running with undefined behavior. Shubinator (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Shubinator the idea was to leave the randomizer up and then take it down around 23:45 on 1 April. Is it possible to remove the randomizer and then turn DYKUpdateBot on again after a short interval? TSventon (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Shubinator: I've removed the randomizer. —Bagumba (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
Schwede66 this is why the MP hasn't changed yet. TSventon (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@DYK admins: Would a manual update mess with the bot? If not, then I think it should be done, pretty please with a bronze star on top – Q1 is nearly an hour overdue to be switched in :/ Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
We also need an admin to revert us to two sets a day now that April Fools' is over. Pinging Amakuru, who set things to one set a day yesterday at about this time, though any admin is welcome to do so. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Z1720: can you help? Bruxton (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I've done the manual update steps 1 to 7. That should be the urgent stuff. Could someone else please deal with steps 8 to 11? I have some real work to get done...
Given that we were nearly 4 hours late with the update, I haven't reset the update cycle to 12-hour sets yet. Maybe we'll let this set run for 20 hours and reset the clock then? Schwede66 03:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I suggest 16 hours each, but be careful of that 4 April date request.--Launchballer 08:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't even know where this gets changed at, but I will say that the best bet is likely to require the fewest number of manual changes to get this all back to automated (KISS). Let it run to 00:00 GMT then switch back to 12 hr. As this has shown, getting a bunch of WP:VOLUNTEERs to manually coordinate this to a precise timing (e.g. 16 hr, then change again to 12 hr) is no small task. Thanks to all who make this work.—Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
@Bruxton: Sorry that I did not respond to this, as I was about to log off when I got the ping. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
No worries, I was concerned because there are so many hooks waiting. Looks like it got sorted. Bruxton (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I have cleared queue 2. I think Schwede66 has reverted the bot, and I think the Main Page has been updated. Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm part of the way of giving credits. Have also reverted to 12-hour sets. Schwede66 00:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Both queue 1 and 2 haven't been cleared properly, you should replace all text with {{User:DYKUpdateBot/REMOVE THIS LINE}}. – Hilst [talk] 00:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Z1720 see above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
or Schwede66 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm done with the manual update. Schwede66 01:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Wonderful. Hopefully Shubinator can restart the bot now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot is back up and running! Thanks everyone who chipped in, especially AirshipJungleman29 for getting this across the finish line and Hilst for flagging tooling inconsistencies after the manual updates. Shubinator (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
That sounds fine, but if I'm not missing something, no credits were given to talk pages and user talk pages for the last archived set. - I received one for the set now on the Main page, that looks promising. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 Done. – Hilst [talk] 20:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Multiple article hooks/nominations

Do we have a place that addresses the process for multi-article nominations? I know it is sort of self explanatory in the template, but I recently came across an editor who nominated each article individually but was wanting to bundle them in a single hook. (see Template:Did you know nominations/Mirna El Helbawi) It would have been helpful to have had a written guideline on process to point them to. Does one exist somewhere? I'm not seeing any mention of it on the DYK pages.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, so I was the nominator, I'm totally happy for them to go separately. I agree guideline on this would be helpful, I nominated both because I couldn't find a guideline. John Cummings (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
@John Cummings I thought that was probably the issue. We need to have some sort of guideline visible at WP:DYKRULES that addresses this. Pinging some DYK regulars to comment: @ TonyTheTiger, Launchballer, Viriditas, Shubinator, Schwede66, AirshipJungleman29, BlueMoonset please comment. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Some relevant portions seem to be at WP:DYKMOS:

Every eligible article in the hook should be linked and wrapped in bold markup '''.

and WP:QPQ:

Where a nomination offers more than one new or expanded article, an article-for-article quid pro quo (QPQ) is required for each nominated article.

If you nominated from WP:DYKNOM, the form has a "Multi-article nomination" box that can be ticked.
If anything can be tweaked, it's best to do it now while the experience is still fresh.—Bagumba (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Given both hooks have been approved, surely all that needs to be done is bold the already-included second article at Template:Did you know nominations/Mirna El Helbawi and close Template:Did you know nominations/Connecting Humanity? (And copy over the credit code?) CMD (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Add add the additional article as another parameter to the exisitng {{DYK nompage links}} in the nomination. —Bagumba (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I have boldly made those changes and left a note in both noms. CMD (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@John Cummings: If you wish to run two separate hooks, it would be better if they were two different hooks, as the current hooks are essentially the same. CMD (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chipmunkdavis, yes I'll think about how to do this, I think the one about Connecting Humanity could be quite different. John Cummings (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Are there any special rules around DYK for current/recent events?

Hi all

I'm thinking about nominating an article for DYK which was a recent event, can anyone tell me if there are any special reuqirements around this? I don't see anything in the guideance but maybe I'm missing something. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The article needs to meet WP:DYKNEW; in particular, if the article has appeared as a bold link at WP:ITN in the last year, it is not eligible. —Kusma (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Ok, thanks very much. I guess I'd like to avoid a situation where I nominate an article for DYK and someone else nominates it for ITN and then they both get disqualified. John Cummings (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
John Cummings, do you want to reveal your secret of which article you are considering for nomination? It's easier for somebody to have a quick look and give you a definite answer, rather than reciting the somewhat intricate eligibility rules that are documented at WP:DYKCRIT. Schwede66 21:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
ITN doesn't allow nominations of any news item that is over 7 days old.—Bagumba (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Requesting second reviewer for Template:Did you know nominations/Mohammad Saifullah Ozaki

Hi all

I'm just starting reviewing for DYK, I've just finished my first one, could someone please check everything is correct before I notify? Its a nomination due to it being approved as a GA so I feel pretty confident its good. Also I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Kentucky Educational Television, if someone could check that one too, that would be great.

Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  • @John Cummings: Regarding Template:Did you know nominations/Mohammad Saifullah Ozaki. It is a BLP so I am cautious about promoting a hook that seems to imply guilt before conviction. Also the bit in the hook about him being an associate professor... it appears in the lead uncited. In the body it just says "He began teaching at Kyoto's Ritsumeikan" - since it is a hook fact it should be stated in the body directly followed by a citation. The hook is 197 characters so it is 3 under the limit, but also crams a lot of facts in.
Thanks Bruxton great points, what would you suggest in this situation? What about suggesting waiting till after the court case has concluded before proceeding? John Cummings (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
@John Cummings: I placed a notice and suggestion at the nomination. Bruxton (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Bruxton, I'll contact the nominator to finalise. John Cummings (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Prep 7

Thomas S. Gathright

... that the first president of the State Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas was fired for teaching classics instead of agriculture? Source: Chapman, David L. "Thomas S. Gathright: Dedicated to Success, Doomed to Failure". Cushing Memorial Library and Archives. Archived from the original on September 19, 2006. Retrieved 2008-02-27.

I recently updated the article, fixed some inaccuracies, and added some sources. The accepted hook must be rescinded because it is inaccurate, and I propose the following alternative to replace it.

... that Thomas S. Gathright founded the only functioning secondary school in Mississippi during the American Civil War? Source: "Summerville Institute". Historical Marker Database. Retrieved April 5, 2024.

Aquabluetesla09:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

New hook short enough, sourced, and interesting, and the old one doesn't appear in the cited source. Swapped.--Launchballer 09:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Herwig Gössl

@Modussiccandi, Gonzo fan2007, and AirshipJungleman29: This needs an end-of-sentence citation for the first part of the hook (before 'Synodial Way'). I am unable to check either Thomas S. Gathright, Jumu'atul-Wida or Fawazeer Ramadan as I promoted.--Launchballer 12:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Launchballer, all of the hook is verified by the relevant citations in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, AirshipJungleman29, I would agree. The first part of the hook corresponds to the penultimate sentence of the "Theological positions" section, which has a citation at the end. Modussiccandi (talk) 13:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, my mistake.--Launchballer 14:19, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

  1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
  2. Once completed edit queue #7 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
  3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  • @DYK admins: if someone could fix this, would be appreciated. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    Added DYKbotdo in the name of the promoting admin (Cwmhiraeth). —Kusma (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    This may have just been an oversight in this case, but I am concerned that we would add "DYKbotdo" to a set that may not have been checked properly... if there is no queue ready or the one that's due to go hasn't been checked, then the default is that we should either defer the promotion or move in a different set. The purpose of "DYKbotdo" is to confirm that the set is ready, and it's far better to leave old hooks on the main page for a while than to promote things that haven't been checked.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    I have done a few sanity checks, slightly more superficial than when I do an actual promotion. I think of the {{DYKbotdo}} mostly as the place that holds the admin's signature for the credits. Nobody should move preps to queue unless they check. —Kusma (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Kusma: thanks for that... this raises an interesting question actually - if we aren't supposed to promote to the queue until we've done the checks, how is the process supposed to work? It typically takes me a day or two to get through a full set, unless it's really urgent and needs expediting quicker than that, but there's obviously not much point me working on that if someone else is also covering the same set. In practice I typically promote the queue first, and then complete the checks at my leisure before the actual run date, but that runs counter to your suggestion above. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Amakuru, I said "unless they check", which is not the same as "unless they have checked". If I promote a prep to queue, I check immediately after promoting, and will make it very clear (by a post here or at leats a suitable edit summary) if I have not checked everything. —Kusma (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    I do the same as Kusma; I promote, then immediately do my checks and post any discrepancies here. But I do agree that this process is sub-optimal. It would make more sense to allow any non-admin to do the final check of a prep set while it's still in the preps, and add their endorsement. Maybe we'd want to have some internal process where experienced DYK regulars could get approved as final endorsers. Then all an admin would need to do is verify that a set has been endorsed and a quick look to make sure we're not doing anything horrible to the main page. This would get more people involved and reduce the admin roadblock.
    There's been a general trend over the years to unbundle admin responsibilities. This seems like a perfect place to continue that trend. To be honest, I'm not doing much promoting these days (and none during 12-hour hell). I find it too onerous. If a process like I described above could be put in place, I'd be happy to do more queue promotions because each one wouldn't be such a large time committment.
    Who would you rather have being the final checker? Somebody who has worked DYK for years and is intimately familiar with all the arcane rules, or some random admin who responded to a plea on WP:AN for anybody with a mop to come push the button? RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    I remember that last time this topic came up, someone (I believe Kusma) suggested moving away from the antiquated prep-queue promotion system and towards a much simpler cascading protection format, as used at OTD and TFA. Is that an option? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    I don't remember the discussion and I'm not familiar with how OTD and TFA work, but the gist of my suggestion is that we need to decouple the need to review an entire set of hooks from the need to have an admin modify the main page. Anything that does that would probably make me happy. Do you have a link to the previous discussion? RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    Amakuru, you appear to have promoted prep 3 without clearing it; can you fix that? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
     Fixed. – Hilst [talk] 11:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks Hilst and apologies for that oversight.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Prep 6 similarity

In the spirit of WP:DYKVAR, these two hooks seem rather too similar to be in the same set:

  • ... that actress Mattie Edwards was made a US Deputy Marshal at the age of sixteen?
  • ... that Adolf Ulrik Schützercrantz was enrolled in the military at the age of ten?

Perhaps swap one. Thanks in advance. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Kicked back Edwards. I'll replace that once I've cooked.--Launchballer 17:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer that sounds like a breaking bad quote 😀 RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
(I'll take your word for it, I've never watched it.) I've filled the hole.--Launchballer 19:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Heisenberg! Lightburst (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Special date request

Hello, recently I made the nomination of Template:Did you know nominations/David Raymond, which is nine different articles about this year's inductees to the Delaware Sports Museum and Hall of Fame. I was hoping to get it promoted for May 23, which is when all the sportspeople are being inducted, but the reviewer pointed out that WP:DYKSO mentions a six-week guideline, and my nomination was for a bit longer than six weeks, something I did not realize. I request that this may be an exception to the rule, as the guideline mentions Exceptions to the six-week limit can be implemented by way of a local consensus at WT:DYK. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty reasonable special occasion request, and it doesn't, as far as I gather, emphasize any kind of commercial release. I support making an exception in this case. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Nice work! I fully support that special occasion request as it's relevant for the inductees. Schwede66 20:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Advice on MOS

I was the WP:GAN reviewer of 3:16 game, which is currently four preps/queues from the main page. It is basically an article about coincidences. Many coincidences are well cited making WP:ICs from WP:RSs easy. However, while reviewing the article, I noticed two other coincidences which are not cited. Since we are interpreting WP:PRIMARY sources and we are not a WP:NOTADATABASE, it is not clear to me how prominently if at all the coincidences that I noticed should be in the article. They are currently only included as footnotes A 2 and A 3. Before this goes on the main page, I want to make sure we have got this properly handled.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that is a content matter that will sort itself out through normal editing. As long as those matters aren't referred to in the hook, or make the article ineligible for GA, or will cause other major issues (like a maintenance template being added), it's not a concern to DYK. Schwede66 20:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
O.K.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/ Jordan Murphy (basketball)

The bot/tool for DYK creation gave me an error and I have tried to create it manually. I ended up with a Template:Did you know nominations/Jordan Murphy (basketball)2 and writing over Template:Did you know nominations/ Jordan Murphy (basketball) (in the presence of Template:Did you know nominations/Jordan Murphy (basketball))?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. You don't need both, so I've redirected the older of the two.--Launchballer 11:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
What is the standard syntax for the repeater DYK (a space in front or a numeral after)?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I believe that the syntax for a repeat nomination is a space and numeral after, e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Stowe Gardens 2. TSventon (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
With the redirect already pointing to the current location, what should we do to name it correctly?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
I would argue it should really be "Jordan Murphy (basketball) (2nd nomination)", absolutely not worth moving now.--Launchballer 12:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I am sure that there have been several repeaters go through the system. I can see several possible conventions. (#, _#, /#, /DYK#,_(#th nomination)—underscore being a space). Before we have a whole bunch of each, can we come to a formal agreement? Then can we update the bot/tool to automatically name following an agreed convention?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

QPQ instructions on Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions are not very clear

Hi all

I've started doing DYK reviews, partially to fullfil QPQ, but also because its interesting. I'm pretty confident I understand all the other instructions, but I'm finding it difficult with the QPQ requirement. The requirement is extremely clear but there don't appear to be any instructions on how to check if the requirement has been met. Is there an automated way ro process to check this? If so please can it be added to the instructions for new people?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

John Cummings, QPQs don't just have to exist but also need to be provided on a nomination. If a QPQ is not in some way provided in the nomination, usually as a bullet point like this:then the QPQ requirement has not been met.
Hope this helps! — ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 23:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
John Cummings, a QPQ needs to be a full review of one other nomination. I click on the QPQ link and check the nominator has done a full review, using either a checklist or a sentence like the example at the bottom of Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions. If the review was failed without a full review, that does not count. If they passed the nomination with no comments, I would ask them to add a sentence to summarise the checks they had done. If there are outstanding questions, I accept the QPQ but watchlist the review to see that the reviewer finishes it. Other reviewers may do things slightly differently. TSventon (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
If the review was failed without a full review, that does not count.: The nomination does not need to be successful. Per WP:QPQ:

A review does not need to be successful to count as a QPQ.

—Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Bagumba a QPQ review can be a pass or a fail, but it needs to be full per WP:QPQ. If the nomination is quick failed, for example because the article isn't new enough (or newly expanded or a new GA), then a full review isn't needed and a QPQ should not be claimed. TSventon (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I was only clarifying the "failed" part of your earlier comment. Best.—Bagumba (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bagumba, Ezlev, TSventon thank you for your replies, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my question, maybe I can break it down into a few questions

  1. Who is responsible for knowing and telling that QPQ is required? Is it the reviewer or the nominator?
  2. I can't find any instructions for either the nominator to tell the reviewer that QPQ is required, or how a reviewer might know that QPQ is required. Did I miss something or does it just not exist?
  3. If it doesn't exist what should be written and where?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

John Cummings the nominator and reviewer should have read WP:QPQ. Therefore the nominator should know a QPQ is required and if they don't know for some reason the reviewer should remind them. Recent nominations using the wizard say something like Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 159 past nominations. to quote a random nomination. There is a tool that shows a list of nominations at https://qpqtool.toolforge.org/dyk .
Would it be helpful to add another paragraph to WP:QPQ along the lines of Nominations made using the DYK wizard automatically state the number of QPQs required, whether DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and how many past nominations the nominator has. There is a tool that shows a list of an editor's nominations here. TSventon (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Both the nominator and the reviewer are responsible for knowing that a QPQ is required, because they should have read the guidelines. There is no need for anything to be written, because people who do not read the guidelines will not miraculously find a new guideline. In general, if you want to read the guidelines you should go to the guidelines page and read the guidelines. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
TSventon thanks very much, yes taht would be super helpful. I had this happen yesterday, I reviewed two articles to do my QPQ but then the reviewer of my nominations seems to have not seen I've done them... Does the tool count the number of articles I've reviewed? I guess my question around this is if QPQ is required then how can the reviewer know if the nominator has fufilled their QPQ requirement? I'd be super happy to do several reviews, but I can't actually approved any unless I know if QPQ has been done by the user. John Cummings (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
The nominator of a DYK must link to the QPQ(s) on the nomination page. The reviewer of the DYK nom must check whether these are proper reviews and whether they have been used before elsewhere. —Kusma (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
What's the easiest way to tell if a review has been used as a QPQ elsewhere? DrOrinScrivello (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Clicking on "what links here" on the nomination provided as a QPQ. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Ah, of course. Thank you. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
...but I can't actually approved any unless I know if QPQ has been done by the user Have you considered asking? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
See ezlev's response to you earlier above, showing where the nominator's QPQ is specified. —Bagumba (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks very much for the explanations, if this documentation could be added e.g explain that the QPQ needs to be added to the nomination page and exactly where (there doesn't seem to be an obvious place for it) that would really help people like me who are interested in both nominating and reviewing. John Cummings (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The "obvious place" was pointed out to you in the very first reply, John Cummings. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:QPQ reads: You can do your QPQ review before or after you make your nomination, but for your nomination to be approved you will need to provide a link, at your nomination, to your completed QPQ review. What would you propose? —Bagumba (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Rejections as QPQs

Since it's far easier to reject a nomination than it is to approve one, when reviewing QPQs should we assign them the same weight? In backlog mode, I notice one nominator submitted two QPQs, both of which were rejections. My take on this, is that for every rejection we submit as a QPQ, it should be accompanied by at least one approval to avoid people rejecting nominations out of hand to get their QPQs. Am I wrong on this? Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas I would say the opposite. DYK noms requiring rejection are often the ones with the longest shelf life in the DYK review queue. Rejections often involve interpersonal conflict, and editors are more likely to avoid nominations that require rejecting a nom. The system works fine as is by counting them equally, and doesn't need fixing. But if we were to make a change, I would say extra credit for taking on controversial/difficult reviews that lead to rejection and count it double on QPQ approval.4meter4 (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
In my experience, the longevity has nothing to do with a final rejection, but with multiple contributing editors and reviewers attempting to salvage it. I also haven't been involved in any interpersonal conflict when it comes to the few rejections I've made, so I don't share that experience, although I don't at all doubt it is true for some rejections. I still maintain that it is far more difficult to approve a nomination than it is to reject one. My concern is that someone could game this and just submit rejections as QPQs. However, I will thank you for assuaging my fears and convincing me this is entirely unrealistic. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@ Viriditas I think if someone tried to game the system by hunting for articles to reject they would find that difficult. If it was an unfair rejection, it would get noticed and create drama for them at DYK. If was a fair rejection, they still would have to take the time to examine the article which is reviewing, and often times initially rejected articles are contested by the nominator and a solution is found, making for a lengthy review process for the reviewing editor. I wouldn't worry about it and just WP:AGF on editors working at DYK. On a side note, case in point of a controversial hook leading to rejection (Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of David Ben Avraham). As you see, I spent time on that review, and I probably won't count it since I wasn't the initial reviewing editor. Just chalk it up to pitching in.4meter4 (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Whatever rules we set up, if people are looking for ways to game the system, they'll find a way. Rejections are a part of reviewing; it would be silly to deny QPQ credit for rejections. RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
My experience is the opposite. For DYK, just saying that it passes all criteria is easy; rejection sets up a likely argument and long discussion, except in easy cases of ineligibility. This is the opposite of my experience with GA reviewing, where quickfails are easier and reviewing for a pass takes a lot of work. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
That's interesting, because if you read the GAN talk archives, you can see they've had a longstanding issue of editors quick-passing, not failing, articles. I suspect if anyone did that here, they would be immediately overruled by another editor, and in fact, that's exactly what we find in the archive of old nominations. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
That's the strength of our multiple review system; it's much harder for bad reviews to stand. GA's dependence on a single reviewer is a fundamental flaw of that system. RoySmith (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
My interpretation of guideline is that a quickfail based on an in-depth application of one of the more meaty rules, like sourcing/neutrality, counts as a QPQ, but a quickfail based on newness usually doesn't. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Rejections can count as QPQs as long as all the DYK requirements as well as any article issues are discussed and reviewed. Personally, even a quickfail could count as a QPQ if the other criteria were still checked and noted despite automatically failing because of one criterion (for example, not being long enough). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I feel like at DYK people are more likely to try to save a nom than fail it, especially newer reviewers. Viriditas, are you seeing quickfails that seem to be too quick? Valereee (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
No, just exploring the idea. It has been a real education understanding how everyone else sees the process. Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
It's not just newer reviewers. Even veterans are often loathe to reject nominations. If anything, whether or not a nomination is quickly rejected often depends on the nominator. From experience, nominations by new or newer nominators are more likely to be rejected without question, whereas if a nomination by a veteran is marked for closure, it often leads to at least some drama. It can't be helped: for experienced DYK regulars, getting a DYK rejected sucks. Still, we really have to be more willing to reject nominations even if it inevitably means feelings will be hurt. In addition, nominators have to be open to the idea that not all articles that are created or expanded are a good fit for DYK and/or have usable hooks. This is advice that regrettably isn't always followed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Backlog metrics

We have been in backlog mode for a few weeks. I am wondering if there are any metrics on the progress that the backlog mode has fostered.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The number of unapproved nominations has decreased from well over 200 to around 105. I think we should wait until it gets down to around 60 (the lower bound for WP:DYKROTATE) before leaving backlog mode. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, is that the typical size of the backlog? TompaDompa (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
It fluctuates quite a bit. I think we had a large number of new articles asa result of the GA backlog drive. It is feast and occasionally famine. Leeky may know the historical average. Lightburst (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Is it ever really famine? Valereee (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
I found a 2022 backlog discussion here. A backlog was declared in May with over 200 unapproved hooks and finished in August with under 60. The difference is that in 2024 nominators with over 20 nominations are contributing extra QPQs to help deal with the backlog, rather than just relying on volunteers. TSventon (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

This is not what the article says, which is merely that it "disappeared from public view". That could very well mean that it was completely known where it was, just that it was in a private collection or something. Furthermore, even if the public at large didn't know where it was, it's possible someone somewhere knew something. I'd suggest some rewording is necessary in the hook or the article to make them match. @Yakikaki, CaptainOlimar42, and AirshipJungleman29:  — Amakuru (talk) 21:56, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Liviu Holender in prep 7 is boring

I'm an opera fan, a former working opera singer, and an active editor at WP:WikiProject Opera, so my interest in opera articles is already higher than most. Can anybody honestly tell me they find this hook is interesting? Pinging promoter AirshipJungleman29, reviewerSerial Number 54129, and nominator Gerda Arendt as a courtesy:

... that Liviu Holender, who played Papageno in a 2018 Salzburg Festival production of Mozart's Die Zauberflöte for children, portrayed the resolute Hans in Zemlinsky's Der Traumgörge in 2024?

To me this is a snooze. In 2024 alone opera base lists 125 different professional productions of The Magic Flute (which is what we should call it on the English language wiki, not Die Zauberflöte) Papageno is such a widely done role and is done frequently at Salzburg. This was also a student performance, so it wasn't even a 'real performance' at the festival (it was for kids, a rather minor event) that listing it would be akin to a hook that says "baseball player hits baseball in game played for children". It's dull, and frankly not encyclopedic.

As for the second half of the hook: Der Traumgörge is an obscure opera. I've never heard of it (although I know some of Zemlinsky's other operas) and I am a former opera singer by profession. Nobody outside of Germany, Austria, and France (which to my knowledge are the countries who have ever staged it) will know it, and I would imagine most inside those countries probably won't either because its done infrequently. It is too esoteric to just throw out a random opera most have never heard of, with a character nobody knows, and then throw a single descriptor of "resolute" onto the character. In short, these are two bad hook facts (one boring, the other obscure, boring, and badly crafted) merged together into a single bad hook. This shouldn't have been approved.

In crafting a hook for operas, plays, theatre, film, etc. for entertainers, etc. I strongly suggest avoiding what I call "resume hooks" where we just list an opera, a play, a film, etc. and a role. That really isn't a good hook. It's inherently boring unless the work itself is famous to a general audience and the artist has done something significant, such as playing the part in the premiere. I also strongly advise avoiding bringing in too much content about the work itself unless it was a part created for or specifically altered for the performer. If it's an old work being revived like The Magic Flute, any fact about the opera or its characters really isn't about the artist (it was made for someone else and done already), and it is a bad hook for not focusing on the main topic of the article being featured. I've seen this before with hooks being proposed about current opera singer articles where they become more about the composer/librettist (such as Mozart and Emanuel Schikaneder for The Magic Flute) and the opera they wrote rather than singer. That's a bad hook for an article on a performer, because those facts hold true no matter who is in the part. We need to feature the performer prominently in the hook fact with something unique to them.

What can be done is draw in information about that specific artist's performance. Were they famous or critically lauded (or perhaps controversial or reviled) in the part? A critical review quote of their performance etc. with some sort of interesting quote about Holender's performance of Hans for an example, or another production he was in and preferably in an opera not as obscure as Der Traumgörge. Find a hook that has something interesting to say about the work done by the artist. Even better would be some sort of biographical fact about the singer that's hooky. In short we need a hook that identifies what is both unique and interesting about this performer. If the hook doesn't do that, it is a bad hook.4meter4 (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I know this is already long but one more thing. It's common practice in the opera world to run dress rehearsal or tech runs (where they are doing lighting tweaks and other practical stage craft changes as the performance is going on) before officially opening. These performances are often opened up to kids/schools to have an audience as a form of outreach at no charge to the kids. Understudies, typically young singers at the beginning of their career, are often given the opportunity to perform the parts they are understudying at these rehearsals to give them practical on-stage experience before letting them perform in a front of a real paying audience and in front of critics. I got to do Papageno myself in a context like this. Anybody listing a performance like this is resume padding, because the singer wasn't really hired to do a real show, and they are just doing what's normal to help develop young talent.4meter4 (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Would a hook based on He and Grete, sung by Magdalena Hinterdobler portray the couple not understanding the title Dreamer Görge, showing with "resolute voices and acting" the danger of "abysmally deep incomprehension" possibly work? The other quotes don't seem at all interesting, and the article itself is woefully incomplete, saying nothing about his early life or anything outside his opera career. That by itself could mean the article doesn't meet WP:DYKCOMPLETE, but more than that, it also means that there's a dearth of possible hook suggestions in the article. The other review quotes in the article like "wielded a beautifully sonorous baritone in a role that requires both a bel canto-style cantilena line and devilishly fast patter" seem either too specialist or aren't that interesting either, so if the "abysmally deep incomprehension" hook angle doesn't work, regrettably I would have to suggest the hook being pulled and the nomination being failed for lack of a suitable hook.
Incidentally, I would support at least a moratorium on "resume hooks". Over the years they've received a lot of criticism and they consistently are among our worst-performing hooks in terms of views. Views aren't everything of course, but they're clearly not ideal and it might be for the best to limit them whenever possible given they often end up being more trouble than they're worth. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Please see below. We could make a hook on Hans and Grete but that would leave the reader without anything they know. We'd have to replace Papageno in Salzburg by "Austrian baritone" which is stiffer and has no musical association, while just by reading Papageno, readers would know what king of voice he has. - This is no resume hook, but points at a work that should be known, again see below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I thought we HAD instituted such a ban before. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict, twice, reply only to the first entry): I, however, like to promote knowledge of this particular neglected opera, not performed until 1980 (because Gustav Mahler had left Vienna, and his successor had dropped the project). Creating the article of the singer was prompted by that desire. (I don't think I can make the opera a GA.) I'd say The Magic Flute for a performance in London, but not in Salzburg, - look at the ref. The hook was changed, - it said "charming" about his Papageno appearance at the Salzburg Festival, - compare the nomination, and look at the picture. The festival establishes a position in the musical world. I'd hate to say that he is the son of a former Vienna State Opera boss (which would also give him a position). DYK should be about what is not known, and Der Traumgörge (Holender in interview) sadly is one of these things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Now reply to the afterthought: As said above; I'd like to say where he comes from, and Papageno is well known, Salzburg hints at Austria (which the name doesn't necessarily imply): my idea of connecting the unknown with something known. It says "for children", and it was an official project of the festival. - He identified with his Zemlisky role - please see the video - but is wasn't the main role so critics didn't say much about his part in a great revival. I'd expect that he would rather like to be mentioned with that unusual role than just another Almaviva (who could hold hands with his wife during COVID because she is his wife in real life). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
  • As Prep 6 is the next to go to queue, I've taken the liberty of pulling the hook for now. Not sure where discussion regarding the nom should continue, whether here or the nom page, but I'd probably wait for a response from both the reviewer and promoter first before proceeding further. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
    Did you read my replies, including to your response? Did you look at the video where he his interviewed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
    Neither of your responses directly addressed 4meter4's concerns. As they said, the audience that will understand the hooks will be very limited at best. It would be far better to propose a hook that would catch the interest of someone who knows little about opera or the names involved, rather than make a hook that a very small niche audience would understand. The latter is just not how DYK works. The fact that 4meter4, who is themselves a WikiProject Opera editor and a former opera performer themself, gave that advice says a lot, Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 I may write an essay on DYK reviewing and writing the resume hook. What to do and what not to do. Could be a handy unofficial guide. As for he "wielded a beautifully sonorous baritone in a role that requires both a bel canto-style cantilena line and devilishly fast pattern", that's an opera critic's version of high praise. A sports critic equivalent would be a baseball critic saying of Micky Mantle "He's the only one who hits the ball so hard, he knocks the spin off it. Catching a liner from him is like catching a knuckleball. It flutters all over." They both have the jargon of their topic area in their criticism. It would be an interesting hook for an opera fan (who understands bel canto rep is the Olympics of opera), but not to everyone. It's better than a resume hook. As for the other quote... Honestly, I don't understand what the other quote is saying at all. It doesn't make any sense to me. what does "not understanding the title Dreamer Görge" mean or " the danger of "abysmally deep incomprehension"? It seems like the quote needs to be placed in context to the opera's plot in order to be understood, and that hasn't been done. I would cite a fail for WP:DYKCOMPLETE for that. I also don't think it would be useable in a hook because it needs too much context.4meter4 (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Do you think the nomination can still be salvaged, perhaps with his biography/personal life info being buffed up, or is this one of those articles that may not be a good fit for DYK and thus regrettably has to be rejected? I do wonder if the fact that he studied law, or that he was the son of the Vienna State Opera's director, would work as hooks as well, but otherwise nothing comes to mind. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt I think there is a fundamental problem to your approach to writing hooks. I've noticed that you often attempt to cram a ton of different facts into a single hook; most of which are not interesting because they are too general or too obscure. It seems like you are trying to write a summary of your article rather than a hook to grab the reader. This is a bad premise from which to start. I suggest that you find one specific fact of high interest to a general audience (assume they know nothing about opera) to feature. If you can't do that, than there probably isn't a good hook to be had. Once you have found that fact it may be possible to throw in something more, but often the best hooks are short and edit out all extraneous content and feature a single piece of high interest. This splicing together of random inane trivia that you seem to do is not good hook writing. The only time to include a bunch of facts is if they show some sort of unusual contrast or highlight unusual diversity. That isn't the case with the facts in this article. I think you need to remind yourself that the primary purpose of DYK hooks is not to educate the reader (give up the need to include all that content) but entertain and engage the reader in order to grab (i.e. hook) their interest. 4meter4 (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
(another edit conflict, so reply only to the first half:) Can we for the moment stick with this particular case? Repeating: I wrote the article on Holender because I was fascinated with his performance in this opera. I saw him before, he was good, but this was fascinating. I am sorry that it's hard to express that in a few words, especially when trying also to connect (not "splice together") to some background people may know, such as the very Austrian and charming Papageno. I'll offer a Traumgörge only hook in the nomination. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt You aren't listening. I don't think there is even a remote chance of any hook on Traumgörge passing WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE because it is too obscure for a general audience and requires specialist knowledge. Additionally, the singer had a minor part and was not covered in reviews according to you, so I don't see how this is a good choice for a hook on Liviu Holender. I agree a hook about Almaviva is boring if you are just listing a role, but it's highly likely that part got reviewed, and you may find a good quote. I suggest looking for a quote with entertaining language to a general reader (i.e. without too much technical jargon, and maybe some wit readily apparent to people who don't know opera).4meter4 (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
@4meter4: Do you have any suggestions for a possible hook here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for your post, 4meter4. As the promoter, I found the bit about performing for children interesting. Now, by the wording of WP:DYKTRIM, I normally would have been obliged to cut the rest of the hook, but I know from experience that Gerda will then rouse the hue and cry in as many places as possible. I respect your effort to make Gerda realise her hooks are terrible, but I should say that many, many people have tried over the years—she just doesn't think othef opinions are worth listening to. And because she's DYK's highest submitter, everybody just ignores her total lack of consideration and moves on (presumably the same reason her obvious COIs are never mentioned). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
It's less of a case of "ignores" and more of a case of choosing not to bother or to continue the matter further, knowing that attempts to reach even a compromise usually end up with long discussions that sometimes end up being longer than the articles themselves. This includes cases where hooks might have an interesting core but end up being longer than they should be because she would not agree to a hook that didn't include all the information and/or wording she wanted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:15, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can work out, she thinks that every hook must include, in addition to the name, a date, an operatic work, a composer, and if possible a location; since this normally takes up most of the hook, she sprinkles in whatever critical commentary she finds most interesting—and there you have it! The perfect Gerda hook. Why is it interesting? Why, it's about opera, of course!
One can only assume that if she suddenly developed a liking for English football, we'd get hooks like "...that Kobbie Mainoo, after a "spectacular breakthrough" under Erik ten Hag at Manchester United, scored at Old Trafford on 7 April 2024?" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
It's my impression that what Gerda Arendt's trying to do is maximize the possibility that some element of the hook will, to use her words, connect [...] to some background people may know. Mentioning where the subject is from, or where they performed, or what show they were in, etc. creates more potential points of contact with the audience. Someone who knows The Magic Flute might (in this framework) be intrigued by performers of Papageno; someone who's from or been to or interested in Austria might be intrigued by people from Austria whether or not they care about opera. This isn't to say that this approach works—evidently, it by the numbers doesn't—but I think it's too much to reduce this to being some insensibility on Gerda Arendt's part when there is a reasoning to it that she's expressed. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
What, you think no one's pointed out that the reasoning is near-entirely flawed Hydrangeans? Many people have, over many years, and Gerda does not care. To me that is the definition of insensibility. What do you think "insensibility" means, and what would you call Gerda's habits? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I think that the tone of there you have it! The perfect Gerda hook. Why is it interesting? Why, it's about opera, of course! implied unthinking irrationality and no consideration for why something would be interesting beyond it being a topic in which she's interested even though she had explained how her reasoning extends beyond that. I think that it's probably possible to criticize her reasoning's failure to match experimental reality without implying she has no reasoning. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand why Gerda hasn't been subjected to a DYK ban at this point. In fact, I thought she had decided to leave DYK (about a year or two ago) because this kept coming up. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Ironically it would probably impact on the backlog :) kinda drastic though. ——Serial Number 54129 13:11, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Completely agree. "Opera singer sang non-notably in famous opera, and also sang non-notably in another opera no one's heard of" is not compelling at all to people like me who have some familiarity with opera but are nowhere close to expert. JoelleJay (talk) 21:14, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Any more Ramadan?

I just promoted the two Ramadan hooks in the special occasion area. There appear to be enough hooks in Approved to warrant a full set - possibly worth running a 24-hour Muslim set?--Launchballer 16:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Which hooks did you have in mind Launchballer? FWIW, I would be against running a set composed of "random Islam-adjacent hooks". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
(Actually, that was more or less what I had in mind. Never mind.)--Launchballer 17:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
I was hopeful that we would just acknowledge with a hook or two. I think we have done that. FYI most of the Islam related hooks in the pipeline may be inappropriate for the holiday. Bruxton (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I doubt Rasmus Paludan or Norske jenter omskjæres would go down too great. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
Looks like the hook about the last Friday of Ramadan got 14k+ views on the last Friday in Ramadan. It is live now so I wonder how many clicks it will get. Bruxton (talk) 02:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4 at 00:00 11 April

Pokémon Crystal

Queue 4: Pokémon Crystal (nom)

... that the Japanese version of Pokémon Crystal allowed players to trade and battle over mobile networks using an adapter (pictured) packaged with the game?

@Vrxces, Rhain, and Hilst: The "packaged with the game" part of the hook needs to be verified. The source in the article mentions a planned release alongside the adapter, but does not say it was actually released alongside it and contradicts this claim. The article says Crystal was released in Japan on 27 January 2001, following delays to ensure the game could be bundled with the Mobile Adapter GB. and uses this source as a reference to verify that claim, but the source itself says Pokémon Crystal will be available in Japan on December 14, 2000, with the Mobile Adapter due in January (If the article uses DMY the infobox should perhaps match that). Is there a source that can be added to the article that verifies that the adapter was sold alongside the game, and that the IGN source and the infobox date are both incorrect? The prose gives one date, but the source and infobox give another, and the sources mention that a bunbled release was planned, but none show that it happened. The archived version of this source has an encoding issue (and is not used in the article either way), but from what I can tell by changing the encoding from Shift JIS to UTF-8, it doesn't appear to mention being bundled. - Aoidh (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

If this can't be fixed in time, one possible solution could be to simply delete the "packaged with the game" part. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Great catch. The archived website for the Japanese release of Crystal confirms it was ultimately sold separately. This is corroborated by a Kotaku retrospective about the peripheral. This clearly comes from a misinterpretation of the sources on my end and I'll make sure to amend the article. My recommendation is just to rephrase to ...that the Japanese version of Pokémon Crystal allowed players to trade and battle over mobile networks using an adapter?
The image caption is technically accurate but could be nitpicked. The Kotaku source also clarifies that peripheral is called the Mobile Adaptor GB; for which the mobile service was called the Mobile System GB, which is corroborated by CNN. Frustratingly, the box actually says Adapter, which must have been a translation thing. But ultimately, by using the Mobile Adapter GB, you are, in effect, connecting the Gameboy to the Mobile System GB... ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@Vrxces: The article text should be updated either way, but I think changing the DYK caption to Game Boy Color connected to a cell phone via an adapter might sidestep the naming issue entirely since both names appear to be used depending on who is using it. - Aoidh (talk) 04:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Of course, and agree with your thinking. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
 Done Thanks, I've made the changes. - Aoidh (talk) 04:45, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Kylie and Garibay (EP)

Queue 4: Kylie and Garibay (EP) (nom)

... that Giorgio Moroder co-wrote and recorded a poem about seduction in Italian for Kylie and Garibay's self-titled EP?

@Damian Vo, Oltrepier, and Hilst: The source cited in the DYK nom doesn't mention that Moroder co-wrote the song. The podcast is about an hour long, if it verifies the information could you add a timestamp showing where? - Aoidh (talk) 03:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

@Aoidh Thank you for flagging this! Kylie Minogue talks about Moroder writing a poem for that song around 37:00, but I don't really know how to add that timestamp... Oltrepier (talk) 07:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Template:Rp, there's tons of examples at Piri.--Launchballer 07:46, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@Oltrepier: Thank you and I apologize, I see that reference 13 (which cites the podcast) does give the timestamp. I was looking at the reference in the Media notes section and overlooked the timestamps in the references section. I found the part that verifies the information and this is  Resolved. - Aoidh (talk) 07:50, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Drew Golz hook tweaks

My ALT1 hook was a bit lazy. ... that Baseball Academic All-American of the Year and Soccer Academic All-American of the Year, Drew Golz was the first male student-athlete to be named Academic All-America of the year for two sports in the same year?

I sloppily presented the imprecise language from the source, which says "the first male scholar-athlete to earn the Academic All-America® of the Year award in two sports in the same year". Per Template talk:Did you know nominations/Drew Golz, the original promoter User:PrimalMustelid copied my sloppy phrasing and User:Ravenpuff has attempted to tweak the phrase "in the same year" by changing that part of the hook to "at the same time". Golz was the Fall 2011 Soccer honoree and the Spring 2012 Baseball honoree. So when the source says the same year, it has to mean the same academic year.

One earns the award on the date one is named Academic All-America Team Member of the Year. So the source is focused on the date a person was given the honor although stated imprecisely. A persons tenure as Academic All-American of the year for a sport goes from when you are announced as the honoree to the announcement the following year of a new honoree. Soccer is a fall sport and baseball is a spring sport in the NCAA calendar. So it is true that he was the honoree in both sports at the same time. However, the source states that he was the first to do so in two sports during the same academic year. A person could earn the award in two sports without doing it in the same academic year. This could happen in the same calendar year or different calendar years. I think we need to have the hook state same academic year (as I did in the article) even though the source is imprecise.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

George W. Munroe pic

George W. Monroe (1911)
George W. Monroe (1911)
George W. Munroe (1911)

I was hoping the pic for this would get selected because I think it's amusing and would make people smile seeing it on the main page. The pic was not selected and the hook is currently in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. It's not often we get to post funny images, and I think we should feature it. Do others feel the same about the image as I do? If we do, maybe we could move this to a pic spot? I proposed a cropped one that focuses in more on the face which I thought was better for a small image, but there is a larger one in the article of the whole body. I posted it here as well so it can be seen. Thoughts? 4meter4 (talk) 01:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

I mean, it is a good image, I'll give you that. What's stopping me from saying yes is that there's currently a body in prep 3, so I don't think that's the problem, and there is only one image slot per set. I'm happy to be swayed either way on this.--Launchballer 07:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer If you look at the current DYK pics, none of them are funny. I bet if you were to scroll through the last several months of hooks, there would be few, if any, that were funny. I think featuring a humorous image brings diversity to DYK because its not often we get humorous pic submissions.4meter4 (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
You're in luck. A lead image hook just failed verification in prep 7, so I've filled the gap with it. Pinging Gatoclass as a courtesy.--Launchballer 10:12, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 6 formatting issue; admin needed

The eighth hook in Queue 6 does not have the required space between the "..." and the following "that". This is one of the basic formatting requirements in hooks that is frequently omitted when people write up ALT hooks in nominations, and it appears that PSHAW (pinging theleekycauldron) doesn't fix malformed hooks when promoting them to Prep. Until PSHAW can fix such malformed hooks, It would be great if promoters to prep could eyeball their new sets after they've promoted them to check up on formatting, especially this issue, and make cleanup edits if necessary; I just fixed Prep 5, which had the same missing space in its own eighth hook. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

 Fixed plus I’ve added a missing comma to that hook. Good idea for PSHAW to attend to that common formatting issue. Schwede66 18:15, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Schwede! BlueMoonset (talk) 21:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
And if you tweak PSHAW for that tidy-up, Theleekycauldron, could you please detect question marks that follow italics and replace them with the spaced version, i.e. {{-?}} That would also be most useful. Let that not get in the way of university study; there's no hurry with any of this. Schwede66 00:17, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
PrimalMustelid ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh, alright I'll make sure to indent between "..." and "that" next time for erratic spacings of ALT hooks. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:02, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Do we have to keep doing this?

It seems like every day there's a DYK that amounts to "some trans people did a thing and some Christians are angry about it." First there was the Bud Light boycott because a trans person was in a beer commercial (which, everyone seems to forget, resulted in multiple factories having to close due to bomb threats), then there was the fact that ITDOV landed on Easter, and now this business about a Christian play that angered other Christians. Doesn't ever seem to matter what a trans person does; Christians will always be angry that a trans person is doing it. I can't be the only one who's sick of being reminded every day that Christians hate me and my loved ones. Can we please tone this down a bit? Wehpudicabok (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

2023 Bud Light boycott: runs at DYK in June 2023
Jo Clifford: runs at DYK in April 2024
International Transgender Day of Visibility: has never run at DYK
Wehpudicabok: "DYK reminds me every day that Christians hate me and my loved ones. You need to tone it down!"
Everyone else: "??????" ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:41, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that they meant to say that the Day of Visibility ran at DYK, just that it landing on Easter brought Christian hate/reminded them of it. – Hilst [talk] 20:53, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Look, I'm just saying it's depressing seeing this so often. Why do we have to highlight it? Yeah, I was mistaken about ITDOV (it was on the main page, but not DYK), but my point is: why are we highlighting hate? It makes me feel like my presence is unwelcome here too, as it already is on most of the rest of the internet. Wehpudicabok (talk) 21:03, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Oh, the other one I was thinking of was Detrans (short film), which was also on DYK. That was an explicitly anti-trans Christian propaganda film, and we felt the need to talk about it on the main page. And I'm sure there are others. It's extremely depressing. Wehpudicabok (talk) 21:09, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
This is not an easy issue to deal with. On the one hand, we shouldn't be doing harm and I'm sorry that it is triggering to have hooks about trans people being hated on. On the other hand, it's very much a newsworthy subject these days, which results in new and newly expanded articles that meet DYK criteria, and Wikipedia including the main page is WP:NOTCENSORED. I think restricting trans content would cause a different kind of harm. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Wehpudicabok: Brings deeply felt pain to the attention of the part of the Wikipedia community engaging with DYK
AirshipJungleman29: mocks them
Everyone else: "??????" Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:28, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
You could sort of argue that the Jo Clifford hook itself violates WP:DYKHOOKBLP, specifically the bit that says "a sentence that might be due weight in the article can become undue if used in the hook", and I do regret approving it - though there's probably not that much point pulling it now. I do know that we have another not terribly 'nice' hook about trans people currently in queue 2 (Transgender people in Nazi Germany) and I wonder if there's another hook that isn't 'trans people suffer', such as "... that in 2017, transgender people in Nazi Germany affected by Paragraph 175 were given reparations of €3,000 plus an additional €1,500 for each year spent in prison?".--Launchballer 22:55, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I'm sorry, but I cannot take a suggestion seriously that three hooks over ten months is causing someone deep pain every day (the current state of parts of the world–yes–transgender rights in general–yes–three hooks in most of a year–no). In March alone we ran four positive trans-related hooks, one of which I talked about endlessly IRL to anyone who would listen—were those just ignored because they weren't negative? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
If you can't take it seriously, then don't. But the mocking is unneeded. Remsense诉 23:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I didn't mean to imply that DYK itself is harmful. If that's how my comment came across, I apologize. It's more that this is an open wound that DYK occasionally scrapes. And yes, it seems more common to me than it is, because it's very painful. I guess this is a "me problem." Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:35, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I empathize strongly, and I wish there ways to address that that don't often seem dismissive. Remsense诉 23:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I apologise for the derisive tone of my comments above Wehpudicabok; it was unnecessary, and I should know to do better. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:42, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you AirshipJungleman29. I appreciate the apology. And I appreciate what you said about WP:NOTCENSORED too, Remsense. I'm not sure what the best thing to do is, but I'm glad at least that people listened to what I had to say. Wehpudicabok (talk) 23:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
It's quite alright, Wehpudicabok. You don't need to apologize or to reduce your pain to being a "you problem". While I ultimately remain of the mind that describing injustices is within the remit of DYK, it's fair to be reminded to be mindful of the way in which we do so. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:41, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
To put a slightly different lens on what WP:NOTCENSORED means here: there's likely an average of more than 1 hook per day whose subject matter is deeply uncomfortable or triggering to a class of people. I do not know any sort of editorial accommodation one could make if they wanted to do so that doesn't also exclude these. Remsense诉 23:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Can we talk about the elephant in the room? I’m not at all comfortable with seeing this guy on the main page, but I don’t think there’s anything I can do about it. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm partly with you, I certainly wouldn't want his face on there, although ALT1 takes him down a couple of pegs, so I'd be very happy for that to run.--Launchballer 23:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
It's pretty upsetting to me, so I'm trying to keep my distance. Viriditas (talk) 02:38, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
For reference sake I've responded to this on the template talk page with some context added CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 14:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
To expand on this a little, though I'm not sure the best way of putting it: we should keep in mind that LGBTQ people from Western countries may statistically be more likely to be fluent in Anglophone internet/Wikipedia administration, so we are more likely to receive this kind of feedback from that intersection of our audience than we are from, say, Indonesian people if we were to run a lot of hooks about the historical traumas in that country.
Similarly, we have a lot of hooks on this subject because editors are writing a lot about it. Remsense诉 23:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
We run quite a few LGBT related hooks and we even have balance issues such as November 9 last year when we had three hooks in a set. In my memory the vast majority of related hooks are affirming rather than critical. I think the OP was specifically commenting about the generic hooks that say "some trans people did a thing and some Christians are angry about it." and I agree that type of hook is not compelling. Airship is correct that the three hooks which were called out are not the norm at DYK. Bruxton (talk) 00:16, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
On the balance of content contra the perceived reception of content, it seems like an understandable case of the negativity bias: human brains tend to more strongly remember things that hurt than things that don't.
(By way of aside, while recognizing that you didn't strictly characterize all the November 9, 2023 hooks as affirming, longest serving transgender prisoner isn't exactly not another hook about trans people suffering.) Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 12:47, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
i'm also trans (and Christian, not that it's super relevant) and while i very much empathize with the pain here, i don't think this is an issue with DYK itself. Remsense pointed out that Wikipedia is not censored, and this is the perspective i take as well. hooks like today's about the burning of trans/queer literature by the nazis, while upsetting, remind people of our history, which i think is ultimately good; many people might not know about that aspect of trans history, and there has been a concerted effort to erase the persecution of trans people by nazis from the history books. i would argue the same about many of our other queer hooks. it's what people are writing about, and that's what the main page reflects. i wouldn't propose buidhe stop nominating articles about genocide and war crimes just because they're deeply upsetting. they reflect not only the Wikipedia community, but the real world as well. ... sawyer * he/they * talk 00:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

With today's lead hook, I see at least two viewpoints. The first is the OP's, tired of seeing hooks about reactions towards a group one is associated with. The other perspective is that this brings attention to the perceived negative actions by a group, which helps to educate those not already familiar with the situation. How to balance both reactions?—Bagumba (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of David Ben Avraham

Considering current events and the topic of the subject, I'm requesting comments on whether or not featuring this article on Did you know with any hook would be appropriate. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I find my sense of it is similar to that of starship.paint as expressed in the nomination: being neutral and avoiding sensationalism doesn't mean "don't make anyone look bad". I think it's a worse look if we as a project get such cold feet that we refrain to recognize valid content. It may generate an impression we don't want to spread the notion that harm to a civilian took place in a nation state plausibly charged with violations of international conventions about harming civilians. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
To add on, NPOV means we reflect reliable sources neutrally. If reliable sources’ majority view is that “X is bad” or “X is false” then we should reflect that. Given that the reporting is by mainstream Israeli newspapers that are already less likely to be pro-Palestinian, I do not see why we cannot have a hook on this subject. starship.paint (RUN) 05:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, had it been the other way around (i.e. a Palestinian killing an Israeli), I would have had similar concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
I find it hard to not read the initial hook as deliberately inflammatory. ATL1 is better, but still not great. CMD (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I agree that the original hook is a no go. I think Alt1 is fine assuming it accurately reflects a reliable source. Given the sensitive topic area, the reviewer will need to read the cited sources carefully and check that the article is both verifiable to quality RS and neutral throughout.4meter4 (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Update. Consensus at the review was leaning towards rejection based on the controversial nature of the article content. I pointed out that we try to feature all articles because DYK is not censored. Others pointed to examples where inflammatory hooks were rejected as evidence of censorship. I took this more as a need to avoid inflammatory hooks per rule C11 of the suplementary guidelines which prohibits the use of sensational and gratuitous hooks. Given that violence and animus based on race, religion, and ethnicity is often perceived as sensational and/or gratuitous, I attempted to provide a hook that was compliant with rule C11. The nominator, Makeandtoss, rejected the hook and insisted on featuring a hook which emphasized Israeli/Palestinian animus and violence. As such, the nominator has established they are not willing to draft a hook compliant with rule C11 and the hook has therefore been rejected.4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    To be frank, I agree with Makeandtoss that the proposed hook ... that after his death David Ben Avraham was granted Israeli residency as a form of justice by Israeli Minister of Interior Moshe Arbel? amounts to de-emphasizing the killing into some heroic recognition by the state that had killed him and is quite honestly extremely inappropriate. There is a surprising generosity toward a state engaged in harm to civilians on a wide scale. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@Hydrangeans Privately, I agree. But as a DYK reviewer my opinion doesn't matter. We don't consistently approve hooks highlighting violence or racial/ethnic/religious animus. When an article is about those things, DYK is not the optimal forum for featuring that content. It requires some massaging of text to find something usable on the main page. Them's the rules.4meter4 (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
With all due respect @4meter4: this is not a reasonable argument. Consensus is "a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". This nomination follows all WP's policies and guidelines and is neatly written suffering no POV tags or any other concerns; in fact, most of the sources used are Israeli sources themselves. Definition of sensational: "presenting information in a way that is intended to provoke public interest and excitement, at the expense of accuracy." There is nothing inaccurate about the proposed hook. Furthermore, the definition of gratuitous: "lacking good reason." The article is about Ben Avraham's killing; why would we not have a good reason to have a hook about his killing? Wikipedia had zero problems promoting these similar hooks:
1- ... that Jordan's new justice minister, Hussein Mjali, called for the early release of Ahmed Daqamseh, the attacker responsible for killing seven Israeli schoolgirls in the 1997 Island of Peace massacre? 12:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
2- ... that in August 2022, Igor Mangushev spoke on a stage in a Russian nightclub with what he said was the skull of a Ukrainian soldier killed in the Azovstal Iron and Steel Works? 00:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
3- ... that the film Farha, which depicts the killing of a Palestinian family by Israeli soldiers during the Nakba, became the subject of a downvoting campaign? 00:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)
Consensus is reached by abiding Wikipedia's guidelines, and is never determined through editors' personal opinions and preferences. And I agree with @Hydrangeans:; Israel should not be treated different to Russia, as seen by the hook #2 above. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Makeandtoss WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments aren't particularly persuasive. The fact that policy was not implemented in other cases is no reason not to implement it here. Those are merely examples when editors failed to follow policy, which is a poor reflection on the reviewers and hook promoters in those instances. There's also context. A hook viewed as not inflammatory in the past may be inflammatory today as social consciousness and community values are not stagnate. 4meter4 (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@4meter4: I have just demonstrated above how there’s no violation of policy, this is completely untrue; it’s objectively neither sensational nor gratuitous. These examples show how it is in fact true that these hooks are neither sensational nor gratuitous. Facts are facts; the Times of Israel reported these facts as they are. Consensus is reached by following Wikipedia guidelines, and this has been done. There is in fact WP guideline-based consensus for its inclusion. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Makeandtoss Nobody is disputing the facts. We are choosing not to feature certain content on the mainpage because it is too disturbing for a general audience. We do have kids viewing the main page. Part of gratuity/sensationalism is the disturbing aspect of the content. Think of it like a movie rating. The main page isn't going to feature an R, NC-17, or X rated hook.4meter4 (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@4meter4: Then I am glad that now we can agree that these hooks are neither sensational nor gratuitous. Now regarding the claim that it is too disturbing for a general audience and that we have kids, Wikipedia policy is crystal clear on this issue. WP:NOTCENSORED:
"Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."
I am sure now given the overwhelming WP policy-based arguments that you are a reasonable and experienced editor who will in good faith work with other editors in reaching a middle ground compromise per WP:CONSENSUS. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
As what was said above, context is key. The Mangushev hook is arguably fine because the focus was on Mangushev himself rather than the actual attack, and it doesn't seem to be intentionally or unintentionally promoting a particular point of view. For the Mjali hook, that was back in 2011, which is a lifetime ago by DYK standards and to say that a lot has changed since then would be an understatement. Farha is a more borderline case but it is factual, and more importantly, the mention of killing is only incidental and the actual focus is on the downvoting aspect (though now that I think about it, it could have been reworded better).
The proposed hooks, on the other hand, were specifically about the killing itself. And not just that, but they were giving the impression of promoting a point of view, whether intentionally or not. Again, this isn't a pro-Western bias; had the sides been reversed (i.e. a Palestinian killing an Israeli), the point would stand. It's a different case and circumstance from the other three you mentioned.
Finally, contrary to popular belief, WP:NOTCENSORED is not absolute. It also refers more to article content, but less so to other aspects of the encyclopedia like the Main Page specifically. Indeed, there have been multiple examples here, with consensus, of hooks being censored to prevent sensationalism or other concerns, with NOTCENSORED explicitly being stated to not apply. A relatively recent example of a hook suggestion being rejected on sensationalism grounds, although NOTCENSORED was not explicitly brought up, is Template:Did you know nominations/Flypaper (1998 film). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
A middle-ground compromise was already offered: 4meter4's ALT2, which you rejected. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'd like to point out that WP:CONSENUS was clearly followed. I was the only editor of several participating editors backing Makeandtoss at Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of David Ben Avraham, and then Makeandtoss chose not to work with me in finding a workable hook and was ignoring what everyone else was telling him. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior was clearly being exhibited by Makeandtoss. With multiple other editors already challenging the hook, I closed it as a reject because not one editor at that conversation was supporting what Makeandtoss was advocated for. Consenus opinion is clearly against featuring the hooks Makeandtos is proposing.4meter4 (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    @4meter4: I really appreciate that you backed me initially by pointing out that WP is not censored and that controversial hooks are not a problem; but my criticism of your proposed hook should not have resulted in an unfriendly note, where I was accused of POVPUSHING. This guideline states that this is in cases "used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas." I am not promoting any fringe ideas and I find this accusation inappropriate. Overall, I think we both got on the wrong page; would you be willing to start over in good faith and a friendly manner to discuss ALT1 proposed by starship.paint? Makeandtoss (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    Is there a reason why ALT2 is not a suitable compromise? It gives the same general gist but makes no mention of the circumstances of the killing and thus allays any concerns about pushing viewpoints.
I'm also going to be frank here and suggest that the apparent insistence on including the "killed by an Israeli soldier" aspect, despite a compromise being offered that avoids the mention, was what doomed the nomination. Whether unintentionally or not, the apparent insistence of including that angle given the subject was a bad look. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Why are there concerns about pushing viewpoints? ALT0 and ALT1 are purely factual based on the Israeli viewpoint as demonstrated in the title of the Times of Israel: "Disturbing video shows Jewish convert fatally shot by IDF in West Bank posed no threat," and there are no opposing viewpoints. On the other hand, ALT2 is more about the opinion of an Israeli minister that he was served justice by giving him the late David a residency instead of putting the perpetrator on trial. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment.@Makeandtoss and anyone else reading this, I'm responding the ping about trying again for a hook and the questions over POV in the alt0 and alt1 hooks. I'll address the latter first. I would have to agree that there wasn't anything factually controversial in the hooks, and that they were an accurate representation of the POV in the media articles cited. That was why I supported Makeandtoss from the beginning. Whether or not the article as a whole is neutral I can't say, because I haven't looked for other POV articles. I can say that Makeandtoss did a good job writing a neutral article based on the materials used.

That said. I don't think POV was the main problem here. Our main concern in reality is avoiding getting hauled to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors which in practice is likely to challenge sensational (i.e. controversial) material; particularly material that involves both violence and a politically contentious topic area. Therefore, the real issues are best described by the following questions: Should we present violent content at DYK, and if so to what extent? Should we present content about racial/ethnic/religious animus, and if so, to what extent? These questions are further complicated by the fact that they are positioned within the context of Palestinian/Israeli relations during a war which has become the source of global protest/criticism (and conversely the opposite) with supporters of diverse viewpoints. The optics of any hook dealing with current events in Isaeli Palestinian relations (no matter how factually accurate or neutrally written) is going to have a certain sensationalism/controversy to it due to the current geo-political situation of the world we live in and the highly reactionary response given to any and all content in this topic area. Given all these factors, any hook we present on this topic is by necessity going to have to be carefully vetted.

From my point of view, I did my best to craft a hook that walked the middle path and would avoid being hauled into Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Clearly it was still controversial given the response by Makeandtoss. I think it unlikely that we are going to find a hook on this topic devoid of controversy that isn't likely to be challenged and pulled from the main page. For this reason, I think it is best that the rejection stand, because anyway we slice this, a hook is either going to be offensive to some for being too censored (as in the hook I proposed) or too offensive for not being censored enough (as in the hooks Makeandtoss proposed).4meter4 (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd say I'm not unsympathetic to concerns about 'getting hauled to Errors' over hooks; I suppose my thinking is that the neutrally presenting the thoroughly-agreed upon reality that an Israeli reservist killed Ben Avraham and expanding Wikipedia's audience's knowledge about this topic is worth any 'optics' that a certain portion of the audience that has already made up their mind about this might accuse DYK of. And I think that while the comparison of ALT2 to ALT1 as both being (either going to be offensive to some for being too censored [...] or too offensive for not being censored enough) has been made sincerely, it doesn't really hold. Makeantoss objected to ALT2 because it misrepresents the circumstances of the event (it registers to me as having a tone similar to a hypothetical Andrew Jackson hook going Did you know... that Andrew Jackson saved the Cherokee? [hypothetically written by citing Robert Remini's tone-deaf and outdated Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars]); ALT1 is objected to because—I admit I'm not entirely sure I understand. Seemingly because ALT1 suggests Wikipedia thinks this death of a civilian was wrongful? I find it a strange optic of which to be afraid.
In any case, to Makeandtoss I would point out that strictly speaking, while the article and its content adhere to consesnsus-based guidelines and policies, strictly speaking that is not the same as there being consensus to promote the hook to a DYK queue and present it on the front page. Narutolovehinata5's and 4m4's objections, while I disagree with them, sort of by definition means a consensus for advancing the hook hasn't been established. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
@4meter4: @Hydrangeans: Consensus doesn't require unanimity and must be based on Wikipedia policy. If there was a DYK rule saying it shouldn't feature violent content then so be it. But there's none. And then to find a previous hook that a Russian was holding the skull of a Ukrainian in a nightclub was acceptable, and when it comes to a tragic incident of a Palestinian being shot by an Israeli soldier, we suddenly can't feature such hooks; then this would naturally raise deep questions.
I understand 4meter4's concerns and I agree with Hydrangeans' analogy. I don't think it would be reasonable to equate ALT1, a factual statement which now has three supporting editors, with ALT2, an opinion by an Israeli minister. Criticizing ALT2 should not have led to a rejection of the nomination. Compromise is reached in the middle and not on opposite sides; there was still room for discussion; so 4meter4 do you have any tweaks to ALT1 that would be considered a further compromise? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to be very frank here: the apparent insistence on an angle that specifically focuses on the fact that the subject was killed by an Israeli soldier is not going to allay the concerns about POV pushing. This isn't about having a "pro-West" bias: it didn't matter if the soldier was Palestinian or Israeli. The objection to any hook that does not mention the soldier may give the impression that the intent is to provoke and possibly push a POV, regardless if intentional or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry but that's not what POV pushing means; POV pushing refers to pushing minority viewpoints, which is not the case here.
I have a suggestion that would be a middle ground between that combines both hooks without mentioning the Israel/Palestine dynamic; and without downplaying or overplaying the event; ALT3: "...that David Ben Avraham was posthumously granted an Israeli residency after having been killed?" I am certain now that this would be supported by @4meter4:, whose concerns have been addressed. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
If another reviewer wants to explore this as an option, I won't object to the hook review being re-opened.4meter4 (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I would be supportive of Makeandtoss' proposed ALT3 and see it as a viable compromise that both avoids giving undue weight to a political appointee's spin on the event as well as avoiding that content to which objectors to ALT2 are averse. But while I haven't participated in the review thread proper, I have talked about the nomination and other ALTs in this thread, so I'm left wondering whether I'm still considered an uninvolved reviewer. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
ALT3 is probably fine, but the process to get to that alt was poor. DYK is not a place to push narratives, even if said narratives happen to be 100% correct and NPOV in article space. ALT0 probably shouldn't have been proposed, ALT2 should not have been rejected off-hand as being "extremely inappropriate". DYK isn't about finding a "middle ground", it's about finding a creative and interesting hook. CMD (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)
To the extent that DYK isn't for pushing narratives, it seems right to consider ALT2 extremely inappropriate since it pushed a narrative about the event, and moreover a whitewashed one that reframed it from tragic violence a civilian experienced to noble heroism of a nation-state (the one that employed the reservist who killed the civilian). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment I think the attempt to characterize alt2 as somehow inappropriate when it was a verified fact widely reported in the Israeli press is a perfect example of WP:POV pushing from certain editors in this conversation with a particular motivation to present the State of Israel in the most negative light possible. The hook wasn't reframing the hook as "heroism of a nation-state" but rather acknowledging an act of contrition done by the state following tragic events for which a representative of that state was responsible. The motivation of the state to provide some sense of justice to David Ben Avraham following his murder by a representative of the state is directly connected to his being awarded citizenship by the state. Alt2 merely highlighted that fact. The decision to remove that part of the fact from Alt3 doesn't make Alt2 any less true, and in fact removes pertinent context for that event. In effect we are featuring an act of the state without explaining the state's motivation for that action. That said, I am keenly aware that we are leaving out other context which is also relevant. I remind editors that I was supportive of the earlier hooks initially. Trying to find a balance was and remains challenging. I think Alt3 is a good compromise. The criticism raised against ALt2 and the implied reproach towards me is bordering on incivility and is certainly a failure to follow WP:AGF. Not to mention it seems kind of petty and pointless given we have found a path forward. 4meter4 (talk) 19:10, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
    For what it's worth, given #Prep 7 below, as well as the accusations of editors being "pro-West", I really can't help shake off the concerns about motivations, as well as wonder if the claim about motivation may have some merit. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list of older nominations was archived several hours ago, so I’ve created a new list of all 28 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 27. We have a total of 283 nominations, of which 164 have been approved, a gap of 119 nominations that has decreased by 6 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Ending QPQ backlog mode

I would say that, given that this list is the shortest it's been in nearly a year, then I would argue that the backlog has been cleared and we should get out of backlog mode.--Launchballer 07:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Noticed it earlier but I didn't say anything. Someone take a screenshot for posterity. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
The backlog is still 119 nominations long; for comparison, 120 nominations at DYKNA means 12-hour-sets are activated. No harm in waiting a little longer, IMO. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree it is too soon to end backlog mode. It isn't how many old nominations need new reviewers, it's how many unapproved nominations we have, and it's still too many. We're getting close to a more reasonable level, so it probably won't be all that much longer before we can revert. Note that when we do, those nominations that qualified for extra nominations while backlog mode was in place still need to have two QPQs, just like those noms made before 8 March didn't retroactively come under backlog mode. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps starting backlog mode at 160 and stopping it at 80 would work. Starting at over 200 and going down to 60 seems to prolong 2 sets a day, which puts pressure on DYK admins. TSventon (talk) 17:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
We have a gap of just 67 now, time to stop the QPQ backlog mode I think. —Kusma (talk) 13:29, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Spare reviews for donating

Notice to admins, reviewers, promoters and other elves:

I have the following spare reviews, which, if you wish, you can donate to those lagging nom templates which are lacking the necessary QPQs. This small number will not go far in the present circumstances, but I hope to add to them at some point. I am hoping that you will donate these reviews without considering whether or not the nominator is "deserving". This effort is about speeding up things, after all. Please add your spare reviews if you wish, and cross them out after using them, so they don't get used twice. Storye book (talk) 17:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

Islamic vegetarianism (nom):

The article says "Basheer Ahmad Masri and several other faqih suggested replacing the animal sacrifice with charitable donations or fasting." This doesn't seem to be nearly as universal as the claim in the hook. Ping @Le Loy, @Alex2006, @Bruxton. —Kusma (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Also pinging @Alessandro57, who has a confusing signature. —Kusma (talk) 13:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I intended the hook to also represent the "Muslims who are practising veganism either donate money to have the slaughter done in their name without participating in it, or donate to other charitable purposes" claim, not just the faqih claim, but you're right. I support the change to "some faqih". Le Loy (talk) 03:11, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

My current suggestion is to just replace this by

but I am happy to hear better suggestions. There is not much time until the set hits the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Do pings work on redirects? If not, pinging Ле Лой.--Launchballer 14:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree with this hook modification, better to be on the safe side. Alex2006 (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I have implemented my suggestion, but would like to invite further tweaks or improvements. —Kusma (talk) 14:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Seems reasonable @Kusma: Bruxton (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Jennifer Martz

@TonyTheTiger, Ktin, and PrimalMustelid:

Most of the honours are not cited, and while I could find the 1998 CoSIDA referenced earlier in the article, I could not find where the others awards were cited. Could all of the awards be cited, even if the information is cited earlier in the article? Z1720 (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

  • They are cited throughout the body. The LEAD mentions the following honors
  1. 1997 American Volleyball Coaches Association (AVCA) Division III Player of the Year-IC 26
  2. four-time AVCA All-American (three-time first team), IC 8, 19, 26, IC 36
  3. two-time NCAA Division III national champion, ICs 10 & 21
  4. 1998 second team Academic All-America selection, ICs 35 & 36
  5. three-time UAA Player of the Year IC 15, 26 & 31 (MVP and POY used interchangeably)
  6. 1999 NCAA Division III Missouri Woman Athlete of the Year IC 37

Not in LEAD but with WP:ICs.

  1. finalist for the NCAA 25th Anniversary (of NCAA Women's Championships) team. IC 40
  2. inducted into the Washington University Sports Hall of Fame IC 41

Prep 3

@PrimalMustelid and Bruxton: please note that WP:DYKVAR advises that not more than 50% of the hooks in a set should be American-related; at the moment, six out of nine in Prep 3 are. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Looks like three editors built the set. Sometimes it happens when three prep builders contribute. So we can move hooks to the open Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4 - anyone is free to move hooks for balance. Bruxton (talk) 14:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Yeah I know, it's just something to keep an eye on when building sets together. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:10, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I just moved an American Football hook from the set, and added a Liechtenstein hook. Bruxton (talk) 14:12, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

Aiming stone (nom)

I'm inclined to pull this as it's likely to show up at Errors. We might as well sort this out before that happens. The problem is that the article uses the term gez, which is a unit of length that was used in the Ottoman empire and is today used in shooting sports. There isn't an article for this unit. All the conversions in the article have been done manually; gez is not defined in Template:Convert/list of units. The target article has a section 'Notable shooting stones' and there, four conversions are given from gez to metres. When you divide metres by gez, you get the following conversion factors: 0.607, 0.608, 0.660, 0.607. As you can see, three of them match and the fourth one is an outlier. And that outlier is what is used in DYK hook: ... that the Beşiktaş aiming stone in Istanbul (pictured) marks the spot where in 1810 Sultan Mahmud II hit an ostrich egg 735.9 metres (2,414 ft) away?

There is a journal paper attached to the article titled How Long Was a Gez? and the authors explain that in shooting sports, 66 cm (or 0.66 m) is used for one gez. The main point of that paper is that they did find the foot stone that belongs to the shooting stone that's the first example (1,215.5 gez, or 738.31 m). And that's where the 0.607 conversion factor comes from.

I suggest that ideally, gez is going to be added to Template:Convert/list of units, and the article then starts using the convert template. There are something like two dozen conversions in that article, I've only checked four of them, and there ought to be internal consistency. I appreciate that this process might take some time and suggest that we simply park the nomination until that's sorted. Schwede66 20:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Never mind; forget about the above. The hook doesn't use gez; it can sort itself out via the normal editing processes. Schwede66 20:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Kāneiolouma Complex (nom)

Caption text
Article Hawai'i Magazine
an aliʻi (noble) seating area on higher ground toward the center of the arena an alii (chief) seating area on higher ground toward the center of the arena
a general seating area on the far end a general seating area on the far end
The sacred nature of the space was denoted by the eighteen kiʻi that surrounded the edges of the arena Eighteen of those kii surrounded the edges of the arena, denoting the sacred nature of the space

That's a bit close, eh? I'll reopen the nomination. I've run out of time; could somebody please plug the gap that this leaves? Schwede66 21:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm back. I'll fill the gap now. Schwede66 00:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, the comments have been addressed. 〜 Adflatuss • talk 02:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Are we leaving backlog mode yet?

Right now we only have 65 open nominations at WP:DYKN, which seems reasonably low compared to the past where we'd have so many nominations that transcluding would break. Maybe now would be the time to go back to regular mode? In addition, maybe we can also drop down to one set a day again? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:36, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

We should stop the QPQ backlog mode as soon as possible (but I have no idea how to do that). Dropping down to one set per day while we have 120+ approved nominations isn't really backed by our rules. Better reduce the approved backlog a little more. —Kusma (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Once agreed, stopping the QPQ backlog mode will involve updating the DYK wizard. I think Mokadoshi did the last update, which was discussed here. TSventon (talk) 15:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Is it enough to edit {{Did you know/Backlog mode?}} or is there anything else that needs doing? —Kusma (talk) 15:50, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I think it's about time to remove the 2x WP:QPQ requirement, but not to leave 12-hour-sets just yet. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:42, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I propose keeping the requirement for any other nominations made today, but from tomorrow, let's get out of this.--Launchballer 16:53, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I propose that we get out of the QPQ backlog mode as soon as someone can edit the wizard. Schwede66 16:56, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
It looks like editing {{Did you know/Backlog mode?}}, which is not protected, should work. Should we wait for midnight UTC so all nominations dated 12 April have the same QPQ requirement? TSventon (talk) 17:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I oppose deleting the message from the wizard entirely. The message about how many QPQs is needed has proven very useful in determining if a QPQ is needed at all or not, regardless of how many nominations an editor has. My suggestion is once we leave backlog mode, we still keep that message but modify it to simply specify if a QPQ is needed or not. In fact, if anyone has the technical know-how, we could even have some kind of template or other switch where if a QPQ is needed but hasn't been provided within seven days, the notice about needing a QPQ would turn red or otherwise show a warning. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Would the message be deleted from the wizard? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I doubt it, in any case editing {{Did you know/Backlog mode?}} should be reversible. TSventon (talk) 21:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
It will make it a great deal easier, when reviewing nominations going forward, to know that 12 April was the last day of backlog mode, and anything from 13 April doesn't require extra QPQs, just as it was very helpful to have a firm start of 8 March. Let's please do it on the midnight UTC date boundary; if the Backlog mode message gets it wrong, we can clean up afterward. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Launchballer, I have temporarily reverted your changes to the relevant pages because it is not yet midnight UTC. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Fair cop, I'm in London so it's about twenty past midnight where I am and I forgot the clocks moved. Do any others need to be changed or just those three?--Launchballer 23:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I've come back to my desk as it's midnight UTC. It seems you are doing it, though, Launchballer. I won't touch anything as to not cause an edit conflict. If you need a hand with anything that's protected, please say so. Schwede66 00:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
There was a box at the top of Template talk:Did you know which I have commented out. I think I have adjusted everything? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Looks good. I see you updated WP:DYKCRIT as well. TSventon (talk) 00:48, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
Do nominations nominated during the backlog mode still have to use two QPQs? —Panamitsu (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes.--Launchballer 09:13, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
That should be technically possible as multi-article hooks were handled correctly in backlog mode. Mokadoshi could you have a look? TSventon (talk) 10:14, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure that's true; see e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/David Raymond. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I could be wrong, I remember checking a double nomination, but I didn't keep a note of which it was. TSventon (talk) 10:55, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Finding unreviewed nominations

Template talk:Did you know includes nominations currently being reviewed which can make it difficult finding ones without a reviewer. Is there a tool or something to make this process easier? —Panamitsu (talk) 10:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Scrolling down until I find something normally works, Panamitsu; right now, we have articles like Biodiversity Impact Credit, West Georgia Wolves football, First Shift (film), and Bayron Matos in and amongst the nominations under review. Otherwise, you can just go to the bottom and work up. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
There's also typically a list of "Older nominations needing DYK reviewers" section on this page; some of them have never been reviewed at all, while others need a reviewer to finish up. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

Imamate in Zaydi doctrine

  • ... that in Zaydi Shi'ism, the imamate was not inherited or appointed but had to be claimed by public summons for allegiance or even leadership of an armed revolt?

@Cplakidas, Sammi Brie, and PrimalMustelid:

I have read this hook a couple times and I am still unsure that I understand what it is trying to tell me, which has made it difficult to verify the hook. Also, the article doesn't mention that inheritance or appointment was not used to pick this position, so why is this information mentioned in the hook? Is there a simpler way to phrase this hook? Z1720 (talk) 00:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720 It is indeed in the article. In Zaydi doctrine, unlike the Imami Shi'a, the imamate is not hereditary, The point here is that instead of being a hereditary position as in other traditions, it was something that you kind of earned by having followers or leading people in battle. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: Thanks for the response. I still find this hook to be wordy and confusing. If I'm the only one that thinks this, I'll leave it as is, but I would like to read other editors' opinions first. Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree that it's confusing, especially to those who might not be well-versed in Islamic politics. What is an "imamate", what are "public summons for allegiance"? I don't think the issue is the hook fact itself, just the way it's phrased. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
It's also stated as "public call for allegiance" in the article. However, I'm more concerned by the last line of the lead paragraph As a result, the imamate often came to be passed down in hereditary fashion, especially as the Imams of Yemen abandoned Zaydi doctrines for Sunni ones in the 18th century. which sort of contradicts the hook... Black Kite (talk) 21:22, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Longlac

@P199, Coretheapple, and PrimalMustelid:

The hook says it was founded in 1800, but the article says circa 1800. Should the hook add circa to it, or should it be phrased as "around the year 1800"? Or something similar? Z1720 (talk) 01:02, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Sure, add "circa". Thanks. -- P 1 9 9  ✉ 01:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
 Done Z1720 (talk) 01:21, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Prep 1

Ivanka Trump

The current hook for Ivanka Trump says "...that Ivanka Trump (pictured) was the first Jewish member of a U.S. first family?"

However, that appears to be inaccurate; according to reliable sources her husband, Jared Kushner, was also a member of the first family. Perhaps the hook should read "...that Ivanka Trump (pictured) was the joint-first Jewish member of a U.S. first family alongside her husband?" BilledMammal (talk) 15:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

The term "first family" usually refers to a leading politician, their spouse, and their children (sometimes grandchildren). In-laws are rarely counted. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:31, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
It is identity politics. I see us doing this type of hook often. Is her religion the most notable part of her bio? But I digress, she was first family and and I do not think "joint-first Jewish member" is needed here. Lightburst (talk) 16:48, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
"Is her religion the most notable part of her bio?" How many of our recent hooks, or for that matter older hooks, cover only the most notable part of the article? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:24, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
It's true that there's no a rule that a hook must cover "the most notable part" of a topic. At the same time, I'm sympathetic to the concern expressed. There's been many times when I click on a DYK article and am disappointed to find out that there is nothing more about what was mentioned in the hook than what was mentioned in the hook. It's disappointing to be gotten curious about something and to find out there's not really anything else to say about it. I don't try to distill an article into a hook, but especially for the last handful of DYKs I've nominated, I try to write a hook that captures some substantive element of the article (e. g. divergent assessments of a character, or a book's protracted publication process) so that a reader isn't disappointed after clicking.
That sympathy expressed, this specific matter doesn't seem to be the case with this specific article, as there isn't just one sentence about it; there are a few paragraphs about this aspect of the subject's life. It may not be the "most notable" element, but it's also not a non-element. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:55, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
couldn't agree more – i have no problem with these "identity politics", but we couldn't find a better hook in such a detailed article? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:24, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't consider an adult child with their own family to be part of the "first family". And would definitely not understand the term to include the spouse of said adult child. -- User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:51, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Holidays and hooks

I notice that the recent holidays (main articles) received many views on their respective days and the days before and after.

Easter views and Eid al-Fitr views More than one quarter million each on the day of.
We went all out for Halloween and the main article got significantly more views. 439,669. From what I have read Halloween is not even celebrated worldwide - it is very popular in the states and Canada.
I thought about finding an article for Memorial day May 27, 2024, but that is a US holiday only.

Bruxton (talk) 23:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

It's also a holiday in the UK, though it's not called Memorial Day (Spring Bank Holiday, last Monday in May). This is just speculation, but I wonder if Wikipedia views go up on public holidays anyway, because people aren't at school or at work. Black Kite (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@Black Kite: Interesting I did not know. I was just looking at the Memorial Day article and wondering if it could get through GA. It looks like a lot of work right now. Seems low, only 2k views on Memorial day 2023? Bruxton (talk) 00:04, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Queues are empty

Pinging @DYK admins: the queues are empty, and we have about ten hours before the next promotion to main page is scheduled to happen. Please promote whatever you can. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: , the same again if you can. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
I've just checked three hooks. The first one didn't pass muster (close paraphrasing) and I've sent it back to the unapproved area. I've plugged that gap. That's all I've got time for right now. Schwede66 05:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
There probably should not be three sports or British hooks in that set. I've kicked back the one hook in that set which is both and replaced it. Someone else will have to check Al-Rushati and Karl Loewenstein (banker) (see #Prep 6 similiarity).--Launchballer 07:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)
Never mind, looks like Waggers already did.--Launchballer 07:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

The queues are empty again, pinging @DYK admins: to promote more prep sets. PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Alright, it's fine for now, but ideally more sets should be promoted as soon as possible so that we can reduce the DYK hook backlog a bit. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: queues are empty again, twelve hours until the next update. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Sarah Todd Cunningham (nom) needs an end of sentence citation (@Ezlev, Cielquiparle, and Bruxton:), and I don't see Lynn Theatre (nom) in the source (@Sewageboy, Epicgenius, and Bruxton:). I promoted Silvio Hein (nom), so someone else should check that. And I don't see where "grammar school" is in the source for National Women's Basketball Association (nom) (@Sammi Brie, BeanieFan11, and Bruxton:) - these should probably be attended to.--Launchballer 13:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
For the National Women's Basketball Association hook Grammar school, it is on the second link in the citation because it was on page 4. Bruxton (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
My mistake.--Launchballer 13:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
For Sarah Todd Cunningham I moved the citation. Bruxton (talk) 13:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
You can place after the ones you've approved you've checked in prep Launchballer. Thanks for your work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer, I'm not sure if the Lynn Theatre issue was resolved yet, but the source says: Rivian’s experience center at 162 S. Coast Highway in Laguna Beach, which officially opens Saturday, Dec. 9, is 15 miles from the electric automaker’s headquarters in Irvine. The historic theater, which opened as the new Lynn Theater in 1935. This matches up with the opening date and address mentioned in the National Register of Historic Places nomination for the theater. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Hook and article say showroom, which - and I may well be missing something as it's 12pm where I am - isn't the same as experience center.--Launchballer 23:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The showroom is mentioned in the sentence immediately before it. Electric vehicle maker Rivian dedicated its first Orange County showroom in downtown Laguna Beach’s historic movie theater on Friday, Dec. 8. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:28, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @DYK admins: to promote more sets as the queues are empty yet again. PrimalMustelid (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1: Ivanka Trump

  • that Ivanka Trump was the first Jewish member of a U.S. first family?

Minor point perhaps, but the was carries the slight suggestion that she is no longer alive. However, for other reasons we also can't say she is the first, since her father has now left office. Perhaps we could amend to something like "that in 2016, Ivanka Trump became the first..." or similar? @AirshipJungleman29, Grnrchst, and MSincccc:  — Amakuru (talk) 09:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Good point, I agree with the amended hook proposal. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Shall I make the required changes then being the nominator or will one of the DYK admins do it? I am not against the proposal. Let it be known. Regards. MSincccc (talk) 09:40, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
A DYK admin will do so MSincccc; you cannot edit queues. Also, please start ending every comment with "Let it be known". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks @AirshipJungleman29. Regards MSincccc (talk) 10:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29, I think you meant "please stop". TSventon (talk) 10:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I read the "please start" as a tongue in cheek indication that this was quite a humorous thing to have put at the end of the comment, rather than am order to desist from doing so, but I might be wrong 🤔😏 Anyway, the above change is  Done. It was of course 2017 though, rather than 2016, due to inauguration dates.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Let it be known. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Let it be known. I like that! I feel like someone might say that when they have the conch in Lord of the Flies. Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Queues empty

@DYK admins: Hi there – sorry for the mass ping but we're in emergency mode again :/ Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:12, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

I have reset User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates to one-per-day mode. RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith, we still had six full sets after the midnight promotion; we are not supposed to go to one-per-day mode unless we're below six. Obviously, if there aren't any queues at 12:00 UTC, no promotion will happen, and we won't have any choice but to extend to 24 hours, but the changeover should not have been made yet. If an admin is able to promote one or more preps to queues in the next ten hours, can we go back to two-a-day where we're supposed to be? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
We keep hitting zero queues. This is not working. If another admin wants to put it back to two per day, I won't revert that, but I'm not going to do it. RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I endorse that move wholeheartedly. I'm sorry that I've lost my fire for doing the grunt work at DYK – being thorough is tiring and I just don't have the fixation right now – but if we keep having to beg admins to keep the project running at the bare minimum, we're not doing it right. Nominators can sit tight. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:31, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. No offence, and I understand where you're coming from - the community decided to implement fixed rules for when to do two a day - but if it isn't possible it isn't possible. We're all volunteers here, nobody is obliged to do DYK, and if we're having to constantly rush in sets at the last minute then we end up with errors creeping in. I'll try to do some sets myself in the next couple of days where I find time, but I think stick to one a day until we're sure we have the capacity to ramp up.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
We just need a few more admins. Happy to discuss and potentially nominate if anyone wants to have a go. —Kusma (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

On it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 05:10, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Prep 7

History of Palestinian journalism

@Bruxton: as promoter chose not to include any pictures in what is now prep area 7; however, he has expressed his openness to see if any other promoters have a different opinion. In particular, I think this picture for the History of Palestinian journalism hook will be a great, aesthetic and interesting aspect of the DYK section; and would deservedly bring greater attention to the article, which was extensively (well-) written and has a much longer body than any of its peers in the prep area.

Female Palestinian street vendor selling copies of the Falastin newspaper in Jaffa, Mandatory Palestine in 1921

Makeandtoss (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss, it is standard for prep makers to leave blank the lead (picture) hook and final (quirky) hook blank—and usually one or two others—in the final available prep, so if things need to be moved around, they have an empty slot available for use. If Bruxton was somehow implying that the set shouldn't have a lead hook, it isn't really up to them; the set will have a lead/picture hook eventually, when it's no longer the last prep in line. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
My question is who is it up to? And when is that decided? Makeandtoss (talk) 22:32, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
For the record, my comments to the OP. @Makeandtoss: It is up to individual promotors and I chose not to promote the image but someone is free to overrule me as I told the OP. Bruxton (talk) 22:55, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Eh, the image is certainly aesthetically pleasing, but it isn't really that relevant to the hook itself: it's just the lead image of the associated article. I wouldn't put it in the image slot. If the hook was about the distribution of Falastin during the 1920s, by comparison, I'd be inclined to include it. Everything's a balance. That said, I really wouldn't recommend proclaiming that an article you wrote is "extensively (well-) written" and deserves greater attention than others without being really sure about that, Makeandtoss. A quick look at some of the paragraphs reveals significant issues with source-text integrity. Take the following example:
Wikipedia article Source (link)
"The Ottoman Press Law, which mandated licensing and the submission of translations to government authorities, was adopted by the British, but they rarely interfered until 1929. That year saw the 1929 Palestine riots, which included violent confrontations between Arabs and Jews, leading to a radicalization of Arab newspapers. Two outspoken newspapers were established in Jaffa...Al-Liwaa (The Banner) was published in Jerusalem in 1934 by Jamal al-Husayni, who was the leader of the Palestine Arab Party." "Although the British adopted the Ottoman Press Law, which required licensing and submitting translations of press extracts to government authorities, they rarely interfered until 1929. The Buraq Uprising of that year, which was followed by violent confrontations between Arabs and Zionists, brought a radicalisation of the Arabic language press. The most outspoken papers established in the 1930s in Jaffa...Al Liwa, representing the dominant Arab party, was established in Jerusalem in 1933."
It is clear that the first two sentences are a close paraphrasing of Kominko, while there is clearly WP:OR in attributing the foundation of Al-Liwaa to al-Husayni in 1934, which is not stated in the source. If these issues are not rectified, the hook should be pulled from the prep set: I recommend verifying the source-text integrity of all the paragraphs in the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I saw the concern and depromoted the hook as a precaution. I sent it back to approved. Maybe you can look it over to see if there are other concerns @AirshipJungleman29: Lightburst (talk) 23:26, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Understood. Perhaps the article needs closer scrutiny. Bruxton (talk) 23:28, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the CLOP is quite extensive. Further examples include in the paragraphs beginning "These early Arab Palestinian press..." and "During this period, the readership...", while the "Broadcast journalism" section is borderline. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:56, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: @Bruxton: @Lightburst: Thanks for expressing these concerns in the mentioned paragraphs and others ones that I just noticed as well, which I have taken into consideration by better paraphrasing them, restructuring the sentences, adding new sources, using different vocabulary, and splitting and reordering the content. This should be good to go unless there is something else I have not noticed. [11] Makeandtoss (talk) 13:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
It will need to be looked over again by a new reviewer at the nomination. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:07, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

The hook has been pulled by Lightburst. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Robert Winterberg

@4meter4 and Makeandtoss: I'd like to hear opinions regarding this hook. Being featured on Broadway is undeniably impressive, but the hook not only doesn't focus much on Winterberg, but it seems to need some knowledge about plays to understand the importance of either Winterberg or Caldwell. It's okay if this hook is to run, but perhaps there are other possible hook suggestions, or perhaps a clearer rewording of the existing hook, that can be proposed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:44, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 In my opinion this is the best hook possible for a rather obscure composer outside Germany/Austria. Broadway is familiar to most people, and having one's work adapted for a Broadway staging is impressive and hooky. It's also one of Winterberg's more important works as a composer, so I don't think we can say it's not relevant to the article or not about Winterberg. It was undoubtedly a big moment in his career as a composer. Anne Caldwell was one of the few women playwrights of her era, which makes her of interest to theatre buffs and academics. I don't think a better hook is possible in terms of relevance as the Broadway connection is the only thing I can see that would connect to today's readers.4meter4 (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: some topics are not really made for DYK. So no, it is not interesting. Some of us have learned to sidestep these hooks about obscure characters who did their job. We end up repeating a message that some nominators are unwilling to hear. To 4meter4's credit the Broadway bit may make a few folks click this and it is variety for our sets to feature such content. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm speaking in a general sense here rather than about the specific nomination, but wouldn't it be better to push through with such messages even if they're unpleasant? DYK still has standards and not everything is a good fit for DYK no matter the nominator's good intentions. Allowing such hooks or articles to run even if they aren't appropriate, all to avoid hurt feelings, doesn't seem very fair especially to editors who are willing to accept such comments and rejected nominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 19:02, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
If you feel strongly about it you can reject it. I am sure that will produce quite a kerfuffle. This kind of hook regularly underperforms. This month we ran this similar hook "... that Tilmann Köhler directed Mozart's Le nozze di Figaro in 2023 with playful "serious games" in which the women win by "wit, cleverness and presence of mind"?" it managed 74 views per hour. Lightburst (talk) 19:14, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
If I were writing a hook for this, I would've gone for
  • ... that in 1906, composer Robert Winterberg gave a concert for the queen of Romania?
It may be that as a U. S. American I'm inclined to find royalty interesting and to think performing for a queen probably means being an impressive composer. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 21:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
It is more interesting @Hydrangeans: Lightburst (talk) 22:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the hook idea @Hydrangeans:. It is confirmed and cited in the article. @Narutolovehinata5: what do you think? Bruxton (talk) 23:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
No objections here if that's what you all want to run. I'm fine with it. Thanks @Hydrangeans: for seeing something I didn't. 4meter4 (talk) 00:00, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the new hook is better than the old one. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:04, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
I swapped the hook. Template:Did you know/Preparation area 7 Bruxton (talk) 02:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Late to this: I saw the hook on the Main page, and found it plain boring. "a composer" - not saying of what kind of music - could be symphonies or songs or whatever - performing for some royalty: not interesting me the slightest. I looked it up because the name looks German and I'm behind the DYK section for Portal:Germany. I usually take what is on the main page, but not in this case. A Jewish Austrian-Hungarian composer has little success in Vienna, but much in Berlin, and ultimately even more on Broadway: that is more interesting to me than whatever royalty performance. By making a hook too general you may produce a higher view-count, but may have driven away those who really care about the content of an article. I know what kind of "performing" I prefer. Just my 2ct. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry Gerda Arendt, I made the switch after all agreed above. I think we were all hoping for more engagement by swapping the hook. For myself, I hoped that non-specialists might check out the article; otherwise we are "preaching to the choir". Bruxton (talk) 21:28, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I understand, but I question if the approach is good. A composer plays for a queen. Who do you think finds that attractive or interesting? It leaves me cold. A piece called The Lady in Red, however, might win you all the women ;) - and then Broadway on top. - What's interesting to one, is boring for another, and if we exclude minority interests we practice a kind of censorship. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:55, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Triggering QPQ backlog mode

Would it make sense to start QPQ backlog mode once unapproved nominations exceed 120, rather than 200 as we did the first time? Obviously a discussion here would still be needed at the time. With a lower limit of 60, that would mean moving a net 60 nominations from unapproved over the backlog period rather than 140 and make the knock on effects on publishing one or two sets a day more manageable. TSventon (talk) 13:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3: request for move to other queue/day

Hi

I recently nominated two related articles which both got approved Mirna El Helbawi and Connecting Humanity, currently they are in the same queue right next to each other. Please can I request they are posted on different days? The hooks are quite different but it may be confusing for readers to have two related hooks next to each other.

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

You sure about that? I see Connecting Humanity in prep 5 and Mirna El Helbawi in prep 3, five days apart.--Launchballer 16:32, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Launchballer thanks very much, I saw them both listed on the same page and assumed they'd be on the same day (I don't really understand the system :) Can you tell me what days they'll be published? Thanks for your help, John Cummings (talk) 20:05, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@John Cummings, see Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Local_update_times. —Kusma (talk) 21:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Kusma, thanks so much. John Cummings (talk) 16:09, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 6

2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup riot

a pretty picture
a pretty picture

The hook was rather verbose; I've shortened it. RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I also uploaded a better version of the image; this is the kind of photo for which spot-metering was invented :-) It's still not great, and I don't see any other images in the article that are much better. Perhaps we want to use another hook for the lead in this set. RoySmith (talk) 14:33, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Actually, looking at the other articles in this set, I think Albert Gumble would make a great lead image. RoySmith (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
I find the image which is now in the slot much more dramatic. I might vote to leave it. The one you presented could certainly be used in another set. Lightburst (talk) 15:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, for sure, it's a more dramatic subject. But technically it's a terrible image; poorly exposed and out of focus. All you can tell is that there's a person in front of something that's burning. It's not until you look at the full size image that you can tell it's somebody wearing a hockey helmet and a "Vancouver" shirt, that the fire is a burning car, or that there's a crowd of people. It fails the "suitable, attractive, and interesting; images in particular must display well in the small size" requirement of WP:DYKIMG. RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Picture of self harm scars. dyk 16 April 2024

Hello,

Are there any methods available to mark the image with a content warning?

Are there any alternate pictures available?

I recommend taking some action to mitigate the risk of widespread negative reactions.

The reason I am posting this is because the picture of self harm scars on today's dyk was unexpected for me to see. I experienced a mild negative reaction upon viewing the image. I feel that there is a potential for other readers to have strong negative reactions to viewing this image unexpectedly. My understanding is that, broadly speaking, pictures of self harm scars are sometimes marked with content warnings to mitigate this risk.

I am not sure if I'm in the correct place to initiate this discussion.

Please do let me know if I am posting this comment in an in appropriate forum,and where would be better Bome sall 1 (talk) 05:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:21, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Please treat newcomers with gentleness and respect. It's true that Wikipedia isn't censored; it's probably also true that an editor whose first contribution was this past January and whose first DYK interaction was this thread may have been both unfamiliar with that rule and/or with why that means Wikipedia eschews disclaimers that other uncensored spaces nevertheless use. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:17, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I apologize for my earlier tone, I understand I could have worded that response better. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:37, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5
I did appreciate your direct to the point response, with a helpful link. I didn't reply to say as much, not entirely sure why.
@Hydrangeans
Thank you for standing up for me/advocating for being kind to newbies. I personally appreciate it. Plus, it's nice to know that people like you are out there. Bome sall 1 (talk) 04:41, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
Hi, Bome sall 1. I wrote much of the cover-up tattoo article and took the photo you're concerned about. I could respond to this from a few angles, but I'm about to go to sleep so I'll just point out one detail: The person in that photo, a good friend of mine, goes out in the world every day with her forearms visible. Of course, she doesn't go around broadcasting "these are self-harm scars," but neither does the hook as written, and I was careful about exactly that. The article does of course explain the scars' provenance, because it's of encyclopedic relevance in that context, but for the Main Page I felt it would be gratuitous to get into that detail. I don't actually believe that WP:NOTCENSORED applies unqualified to the Main Page, but I also don't think it's fair to say that the Main Page should be more censorious of people's self-harm scars than society at large is for how people present those scars in their daily life. And again, in daily life, across a variety of cultural contexts, my friend does not cover her forearms (weather permitting).
I appreciate the desire here to, essentially, protect people who struggle with self-harm, but there is another way to look at this attitude, which is as stigmatizing self-harm, telling people with visible self-harm scars that we must obscure them. For me, as someone who has self-harmed and has spent a lot of time listening to others speak for me about how I should feel about my scars, it was really liberating for me to see my friend's tattoo and see that she was turning this pain into an artistic message, owning that part of her past. I'm not saying that that's what the image on the Main Page right now need convey—to most people, I reckon, it's just an image of scars and they aren't thinking much about where they came from—but I just want to counter the assumption that removing the image would be compassionate to self-harmers, rather than reënforcing shame. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 06:33, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@Tamzin hi Tamzin,
Noted, rescind my original questions.
Thank you for taking time to write such a thoughtful comment. Your patience and courtesy towards me is sincerely appreciated. I had not considered the perspective you shared. My worldview is expanded. This has certainly eroded my personal aversion to images of self harm scars.
Your friend should count themselves lucky to have a compassionate friend like you. Being kind to a stranger on the internet is a green flag, full stop...Let alone your thoughtful discourse. I won't go on.
I'll leave it at this: thank you for being bold, vulnerable even, by sharing your perspective.
As an aside.. When I posted my comment, I wondered if I was throwing a paper airplane off the empire state building. What would the chances be of the comment being seen by anyone involved in the dyk, or anyone involved in the article editing at all?
Turns out I was found by someone who personally knows the photo subject. What are the odds! Bome sall 1 (talk) 07:01, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@Bome sall 1, re: What would the chances be of the comment being seen by anyone involved in the dyk, -- just for future reference, it always is a good idea to let people know you're discussing their nomination. To find out who was involved in a nomination here, go to the article's talk page, where you'll find the DYK nomination. The nominator's username is near the top of that section, and everyone who commented on it will have also signed it. You can WP:PING them to your comments or questions.
In general, comments here will be seen by multiple people who work here regularly. Even without pinging Tamzin, who was the person who took it to Good Article status and nominated it here, it's not highly unusual that she saw your question anyway. Valereee (talk) 11:50, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee noted. Appreciate the pointer and insight into the Wikipedia dyk editing culture! Bome sall 1 (talk) 11:53, 16 April 2024 (UTC)

Andrew Tate nomination

I thought that this could use wider discussion. I had a chance to read the Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew Tate nomination. I was surprised to see editors ready to approve this hook ALT1: ... that one of the most-liked tweets of all time was Greta Thunberg's response to Andrew Tate (pictured) in December 2022?
The hook is less about this BLP article and more about the Greta Thunberg tweet which said, "yes, please do enlighten me. email me at smalldickenergy@getalife.com". When I read the hook I am more apt to be interested in the tweet than the featured article. I also think it violates our WP:DYKHOOKBLP.

Hooks must adopt a neutral point of view. Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided. Note that this is a stricter requirement than BLP as a whole: a sentence that might be due weight in the article can become undue if used in the hook, as all of the surrounding context of the individual's wider life is missing.

Bruxton (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I would be more than happy to never see an image of Tate on the Main page. And even a DYK hook with no image, would make me feel uneasy. How about changing "social media personality" to "alleged rapist, human trafficker and organised crime group member"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Joking aside, it is odd how the facts are being downplayed and Tate is being portrayed as a "social media personality" instead. Although the relevant participants have repeatedly claimed otherwise, the DYK nom feels like an attempt at enabling some kind of image rehabilitation or public relations, which we should not be doing. I can't help but feel like we are all being played. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Only just seen this discussion, but really don't understand how you could get this impression. ATL2 that was initially included was "that counter-terror police have expressed concern over influencer Andrew Tate (pictured), due to an increase in cases related to incel culture?", before being removed due to NPOV concerns.
As the DYK and GA nominee, as well as main contributor to the article, I recommend you actually read the article and judge for yourself if it paints Tate in a good light. My main contributions to the articles sections have been war room, views & influence, reception, criminal investigations, as well as lead. My main inspiration to improving the article was lack of detailed coverage of Tate's activities, views and influence, given he is such an well-known figure. Let me know if you think was good PR for Tate or not.
To reguritate what I said in the DYK nomination about including such a controversial DYK:
"It's a shame that there appears to be a "fear" of raising awareness over what I would broadly consider a "toxic influence" to young males. Notably the UK education system thought turning a blind eye to Tate's influence was also the solution,[5] but along with Australia,[6] have done a complete u-turn,[7] realising that ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, and instead worsened the problem.[8]. Lessons could be learnt here..."[12]
The real question is whether Wikipedia should be playing a role in highlighting how influential the likes of Tate is towards young males, with his brand of misogyny and toxic masculinity, or should we just ignore it and hope it goes away? I'll assume good faith here, but attempts to suppress such a DYK comes across as complicity, even if unknowingly, and survivors of sexual assault and harassment by perpetrators influenced by Tate deserve much better. At minimum acknowledging that Tate is part of the problem, rather than pretending he's not responsible for his influence. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I sympathize with the concerns and agree that Tate is a horrible person and should not be given a platform, but WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS might be relevant here. If not it specifically then the spirit of it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Tate may be a horrible human being, but that proposal would very much fall afoul of BLP if not BLPCRIME. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I will say that "social media personality" would be a prime candidate for WP:DYKTRIM. (As would the quotation marks, it has to be said.)--Launchballer 22:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It's not that the editors are ready to approve the ALT1 hook: the entire nomination has been approved and could potentially be promoted at any time. The question is, should Andrew Tate be featured at DYK—because his article was recently listed as a GA—since due to BLP the only hooks that can be run will have neutral characterizations of him when he's not a neutral person? BlueMoonset (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
We do not feature neutral people at DYK. Reminds me of the saying, "well-behaved women seldom make history". We should promote a hook that directs people to the GA instead of the gotcha tweet. ALT0 was a fact that causes me to want to learn more ... that social media personality Andrew Tate (pictured) was the third most 'googled' person in 2023? But AlT1 directs me to look up the tweet. That is not what we want and probably not what the nominator wants. The person is a social media personality so objecting to that fact also seems wrong. Bruxton (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I agree. As an aside, this entire section is faintly bewildering: you have editors openly advocating for WP:RGW bias and insinuating that trying to improve articles on bad people means you are running a PR campaign. I mean, ????? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Seems like a bit of a catch-22. Tate is a bad person, but a DYK hook can't present Tate in a bad way due to NPOV and BLP policies. But a neutral hook must present Tate in a bad way, but it can't because... Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
a neutral hook must present Tate in a bad way Where does WP:DYKCRIT state a hook must serve as a representation of the whole article Viriditas? If it does, we'll have to remove Yuki Sakakihara, Battle of La Haye-du-Puits, Gendarmerie (Czechoslovakia) and CSL Plasma from the next queue because they focus on trivial details. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The crux of the issue is "unduly focus". Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
"Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided." is the only occurence on that page, and I do not see how that relates to a neutral hook must present Tate in a bad way above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
It relates directly to this discussion and the nomination in several ways. The elimination of ALT2, for one example, which was eliminated due to its so-called negativity, however, it did not unduly focus on such negative features of the subject, but rather presented them in accordance with NPOV and BLP. I think this idea that we have to bend over backwards to avoid negativity is the problem. Tate is a negative character as his article illustrates, so a negative hook is not unreasonable. DYKHOOKBLP is being misinterpreted. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
By way of aside, well behaved women seldom make history was an opening line in historian Laurel Ulrich's Vertuous Women Found: New England Ministerial Literature, 1668–1735, American Quarterly 28, no. 1 (Spring 1976): 20–40, here 20, and the full line is [w]ell-behaved women seldom make history; against Antinomians and witches, these pious matrons have had little chance at all. Most historians, considering the domestic by definition irrelevant, have simply assumed the pervasiveness of similar attitudes in the seventeenth century—a social history rebuke of the tendency to study the exceptional (and therefore rare) instead of the everyday (and therefore more commonly experienced), rather than an axiom endorsing controversy to get attention. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Ah, so she was just being factual. Did you know ...that Laurel Thatcher Ulrich was interested in Puritan funeral services and thought plural marriages empowered women?) I wonder, if Google had been around in 1933, how many hits Adolf might have got. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I think ... that social media personality Andrew Tate was charged in June 2023 with rape, human trafficking, and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women would be a good option - given that coverage of Tate overwhelmingly mentions and focuses on this I don't think it would be undue focus. BilledMammal (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
No objection. (Did you know... that Adolf Hitler's wife Eva Braun, owned two Scottish Terrier dogs named Negus and Stasi?) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
This doesn't sound compliant with WP:DYKHOOKBLP: Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided. The hook is focusing entirely and thus unduly on negative things. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I would say that by far the most important word in that sentence is "unduly".--Launchballer 14:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes. We need to be stricter that WP:BLP, and in particular, stricter than WP:BLPCRIME. Our assumption must be that Tate is innocent until proven guilty.
I don't really know what a good hook would be. I was blissfully unaware of Tate until Greta Thunberg's tweet mentioned him. Maybe just mention his kickboxing career? —Kusma (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Ah yes, kickboxing. Always comes in handy. For Wikipedia Main page, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Martinevans123: I know you are trying to be funny with your Hitler hook, but here is a hook we ran in January 2024. ... that Genghis Khan was extremely charismatic and renowned for his generosity towards his followers? Khan may have been responsible for the deaths of millions more people than Adolf. Bruxton (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but I'm sure he was always good to his Mum. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Well, you can have a read of Hö'elün and decide for yourself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
@Bruxton: Can you explain the nature of the perceived violation? A number of editors have pointed out that the key words there are "unduly focus" which this does not, but you didn't explain yourself so maybe you weren't mistaken and have an argument here... But you actually need to make that argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
I am approaching this subject dispassionately. But there are editors stating that Tate is objectively bad, and they suggest we need a hook that "takes him down a couple of pegs" or insults him with a WP:NEO tweet. Or an editor suggested a hook that accuses him of crimes in Wikivoice. I think it is a COI if an editor looks at a hook and thinks they need to fashion it to support a thesis. I think a hook should cause people to want to know more about the subject, Tate; and I think ALT0 does that. Readers can click on the article and see a rather comprehensive accounting of his life so far. Bruxton (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The statement that Tate is objectively bad can be backed up with numerous reliable sources, are you saying that Tate isn't objectively a bad person? Because if so you need sources to support that BLP assertion. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: I see this was promoted again, but I'm not seeing a consensus to do so with the used hook ("that Andrew Tate was the third most 'googled' person in 2023?") Can you revert the promotion to allow for addition discussion, including of the hook I proposed above? BilledMammal (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I think it is difficult to even write a neutral hook about Tate. ALT0 suggests he is "popular" rather than "infamous" (when in reality he was arrested in December 2022 in Romania and the vast majority of those Google searches are going to be people finding out about the story of his unpleasant alleged criminal exploits). Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Incorrect, as per the body: "Tate became widely known in mid-2022 and was searched on Google more times than both Donald Trump and COVID-19 that July"[13]. So he was already very popular prior to his arrest, even if the latter amplified this further. Tate otherwise isn't infamous, there are no RS referencing this. He is an internet celebrity, not a celebrity. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Would this be the same Andrew Tate who the British Government directed schoolteachers not to discuss with children? [14] [15] I'd say that's fairly infamous (actually, that might make a good hook were it in the article, but no doubt someone would claim it is too negative). Black Kite (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but it wouldn't, as since then UK & Austrlian schools have done a u-turn realising they need to train teachers and create courses to combat's Tate's brand of misogyny, as well as allocate substantial funds to do so.[16][17][18]. But I've been too busy wasting my time with this nomination to update the article accordingly. He otherwise does sound infamous, and in hindsight there are two RS claiming this which I hadn't noticed.[19][20] CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I've pulled the hook for now. Discussion on whether the new hook is appropriate, and/or if the article can even on DYK, can continue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
DYKHOOKBLP is a great reminder that the Main Page brings more eyeballs onto people than many lower-profile LPs could have ever dreamed of, and to be conscious of the damage you can do to a person's reputation by running a one-sided negative hook from a more mixed article.
Sorry, but that's not Andrew Tate. Let's not kid ourselves: anything we do or say about Tate is a drop in the bucket of all the media coverage he's received over the past few years. RS coverage of him these days is almost unanimously negative. If we decide to censor ourselves on a topic because we don't like that the moral wind of RSes is blowing slant, we're not doing our job correctly. This isn't a guy who made some off-kilter remark once and got cancelled for it (something that could reasonably merit protection), this is just his ideology and he's made no attempt to hide it or change it. I'd say we run a hook about the misogynistic garbage he spouts instead of trying to cover his ass. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 13:05, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
I think it is fine to run a hook about his misogynistic garbage. I oppose a hook about the crimes that he is accused of until he has been convicted. —Kusma (talk) 13:30, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Couldn't agree more :) the kickboxing stuff is unduly positive, the charges too fresh- the misogyny is years-long, well documented, and squarely the median of RS coverage. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:41, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes ideally this sort of hook would be acceptable, as it is not unduly negative, it's very much due. Unfortunately others have pushed back against negative hooks since the onset. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 17:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, a hook on his misogynistic garbage would be preferable to either the tweet or the crime alts. JoelleJay (talk) 02:03, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
That's a clear no go per WP:DYKHOOKBLP. We can't feature a hook accusing a living person of misogyny, no matter how true it might be. It's too negative.4meter4 (talk) 21:17, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Again, that's not what WP:DYKHOOKBLP says or means. It says "Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided." There is nothing "unduly" about describing Tate as a misogynist. He self-identifies as one, as you must know. (BBC News, 12 March 2024) In fact, it's a violation of NPOV to focus on hooks that are "unduly" positive and ignore these negative facts, as difficult as it is for some people to believe. Viriditas (talk) 21:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
More to the point, we aren't accusing anyone of anything with that hook. All we are saying that three organisations and Tate have described him that way.--Launchballer 21:32, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
Of course I realize that we are not making that accusation, but we are repeating an accusation which amounts to the same thing when evaluating the ethics of how we are using the DYK platform. I had never heard of Mr. Tate prior to seeing him at DYK. I wouldn’t consider myself particularly knowledgeable on this person. I personally would not recommend featuring negative hooks on any BLPs because they can’t be balanced with other non-negative material (or at least contextualized) as is done in an article on a BLP. I think it’s best we feature an interesting fact that avoids any sort of positive or negative assessment of this person. I would say that for any other controversial BLP as a matter of policy.4meter4 (talk) 21:43, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
this is a false balance. if you take the median "tone" of reliable sources and the article, it is negative. running a "neutral" hook would actually be unduly positive. News organizations don't hesitate to call something what it is, and we shouldn't either. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@theleekycauldron FALSEBALANCE specifically applies to articles and does not apply to hooks on BLPs for the simple reason that hooks have too small a footprint in terms of text length to provide balance and context. Our policy language at WP:DYKHOOKBLP specifically states the bar of using negative material is higher than elsewhere because hooks don't allow for space to provide information in context. It sets a bad precedent to allow any hook on a BLP to feature overly negative material. I further note that hooks are not article summaries but are merely isolated facts on a topic, so arguing false balance on an individual fact that is not disputed in RS anywhere is a distortion of that policy.4meter4 (talk) 02:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Our policies apply everywhere; DYN guidelines do not, and have no such reach. "False balance" is a form of bias that we want to avoid in all circumstances, which the NPOV policy instructs us to avoid. To give you a borderline hypothetical example of an unduly case of hook negativity, if Winona Ryder was up for a nom (it’s not, this is just an example), and we had a hook that featured her shoplifting from two decades ago, that would be unduly negative. On the other hand, it would also meet the bar for interestingness. With that said, given that Ryder has not been in trouble with the law since 2001 or thereabouts, and has had a long career as a successful actor since that time, it wouldn’t be fair to focus on that one incident. We do not, however, see the same thing playing out here with Tate. One could make several counterarguments. Is the so-called negativity at work on the Tate hooks unrepresentative of his entire career? He is currently 37 years of age. Of that time, he has been in trouble with the law or otherwise known for controversy for eight of those years. His professional career could be said to have begun in 2005, so of the previous 19 years, eight of them have been involved in negative controversy, which is almost half. That means, in my opinion, that such a so-called "negative" hook meets the criteria for representation based on his overall biographical career. This is unlike Ryder in my above example, who only shoplifted once, more than several decades ago, and has not engaged in any controversy since that one event. Viriditas (talk) 02:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
yes, the bar for DYKHOOKBLP is higher. A hook on Tate's misogyny is due for the content of the article and due in the context of RSes. I know that because it's in the second sentence of his article, a sentence tens of thousands of people read at every day. Unless you think that is mistaken? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:49, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@Viriditas and theleekycauldron It seems like both of you are calling the hook a false balance because it doesn't reflect the entire article. My response to that is that of course it doesn't reflect the entire article because it's a hook. Hooks aren't article summaries and they aren't meant to provide an overview of the article's topic. I recently had a hook I proposed rejected for reading too much like an article summary. Nowhere in Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines does it say that hooks need to represent an entire article or be written in such a way to reflect the balance in the article. This approach is a highly novel take on hook review that isn't applied elsewhere, and is further evidence of bias in this article's hook review. Indeed, most hooks pick out highly random bits of information that do not give the reader much of a heads up about what else is in the article. We can't start arbitrarily applying policies that are not typically enforced at DYK.
That said, even if we were to apply false balance to the individual fact (which is how false balance policy should be applied at DYK by looking at sources about individual hook facts) Can you point to a specific false balance in the hook that was pulled? I think if you were honest you couldn't because it's simply a matter of math based on google's collected data. There's really nothing controversial in the statement that he was 2023's third most googled person. That's a fact based in statistical evidence, and is entirely uncontroversial as a stand alone piece of information. We could even remove the descriptor "social media personality" if people prefer not to emphasize that one part of the subject's life over others and it would still be interesting as a fact. If you're saying that its a false balance because it doesn't reflect the whole article, then my response is that isn't what DYK is for and that isn't how we review hooks at DYK on a routine basis. Hooks aren't meant to present balanced pictures of the topics being featured. If they were, we would be rejecting 99.9% of all hooks for not giving a sufficient summary of the subject in the hook. Hooks are random and often present small random minutia of interest. The main issue here is that people don't want to follow WP:DYKHOOKBLP policy. Well tough. It's policy. We don't feature negative content on BLPS.4meter4 (talk) 03:25, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Here's some hooks for you:
  • "... that the philosophy of Andrew Tate is regarded as the same as a pick-up artist?"
  • "... that Andrew Tate believes women are the property of men?"
  • "... that Andrew Tate self-identifies as a sexist and a misogynist?"
  • "... that Andrew Tate ran a webcam business that he described as a 'total scam'?"
  • "... that Andrew Tate called Alex Jones 'one of the greatest men on the planet'?"
  • "... that the BBC accused Andrew Tate's online courses of 'coercing women into sex work'?"
Tell me what policies and guidelines I'm breaking. Viriditas (talk) 18:27, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
If you had observed the conversation below, I think you will have noticed my opinion has shifted on this issue after being made aware of at least one negative hook that ran in the past on a BLP. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:34, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
The fact that you are even able to do that makes me respect you even more. Viriditas (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose I do not think it is our role to craft a hook that fits a world view. Launchballer has already stated in an above thread that they wanted a hook that "takes him down a couple of pegs". That is exactly what their proposed hook does and that is not what DYK is for. People are far more complex than their labels and our readers can figure it out without us leading them by the nose. Bruxton (talk) 15:02, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. I'm not exactly sure what can be achieved by the objections being raised here which essentially boil down to 'we don't like Tate' and 'we don't want to promote a hook unless it signals our moral disapproval of Tate'. By definition that is WP:POV pushing and doesn't follow out guidelines for hooks on living people. We can't present a negative hook about a BLP per WP:DYKHOOKBLP and more broadly WP:BLP policy in general. The pulled hook "that social media personality Andrew Tate was the third most 'googled' person in 2023?" is neutral. It's a verified fact that he was the third most googled person in 2023, and he is, for better or worse, a social media personality. We aren't endorsing or promoting any of his negative bevhavior by stating so, and reframing it as somehow non-neutral is an over reach and mis-application of WP:NPOV policy as these two facts are not contradicted anywhere in reliable sources. Whether you like the man or not he will still be the third most googled person in 2023 and he will still be a social media personality. I don't think this one factual sentence could or should be misconstrued as an endorsement of Tate's actions. I also don't think it's a good precedent to censor DYK. I support promoting this hook a second time, because it is compliant with policy and probably the most neutrally worded hook possible on this particular individual.4meter4 (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: I am watching how others approach this BLP. It is interesting because it reminds me of a newsroom where editors try to shape a narrative. Leeky says this living person (LP) needs a negative hook because he has a "subpar moral compass". SN54129 says, "F Tate" Billedmammal supports listing "crimes he has been charged with" Kusma wants to "run a hook about his misogynistic garbage" Horse Eye's Back says that the LP is "objectively bad".
    This LP is clearly not liberal and is a sort of anti-woke figure so I am not surprised that some editors demand a hook which portrays the person as bad, it is like a virtue signal. Last year I was chided for opposing a BLP at DYK Sarah Jane Baker. The person was convicted of kidnapping and torturing her stepmother's brother. Also convicted of attempted murder and prison escape. But we did not highlight any of that, we highlighted the fact that they were trans. But people could go to the article and read about the person's crimes - we did not lead them to the crimes. When we make editorial choices they often involve identity politics – but should they? I read the puzzling words above, "running a neutral hook would actually be unduly positive"? Is that a Jedi mind trick? Because we have WP:DYKHOOKBLP for a good reason. So back to this LP... in reality I suppose that that the person would not care what hook we run because like the old proverb says, "There’s no such thing as bad publicity". Whatever we decide to run here will mean more clicks. We just might end up looking like partisan hacks if we shape the hook to reflect our moral outrage. Lightburst (talk) 02:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Um, you think people are "virtue-signalling" because Tate is "anti-woke" (whatever that nonsensical phrase means)? Have you actually read the article? This is not a left-versus-right issue, Tate is a nasty piece of work (as he admits himself). Black Kite (talk) 10:01, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  • "I have 33 cars. My Bugatti has a w16 8.0L quad turbo. My TWO Ferrari 812v competitizione have 6.5L v12s. This is just the start." Maybe some lovely whitewashing hook could be engineered from his boys' toys catalogue? Or how about "... that woman-hating thug Andrew Tate was banned from Twitter, Facebook, TikTok and YouTube in 2022, as a result of repellent outbursts"? [21] Martinevans123 (talk) 12:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't really care what hook we run (and I object to the way Lightburst has misrepresented my comment in the above), I am mainly here to oppose accusing people of crimes on the Main Page. I am also generally pretty liberal with regards to "runnings hooks about X is advertising"; I think if we want to be neutral, we shouldn't exclude topics because we don't like them or because they might advertise the wrong thing. (We should have run a hook about Grimace Shake). There are plenty of things to say about Tate, using his name or not, some of them negative, some not. (Did you know that the son of a chess master became a kickboxer and internet celebrity?) Given Tate's usual page views, putting him on the Main Page without mentioning his name probably won't be a huge event in terms of views. —Kusma (talk) 16:17, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment And this is why I would vastly prefer no Tate DYK entry to one that was negative. Yes, we are NOTCENSORED, but that doesn't mean we can't consider whether we need to give any oxygen of publicity to a man that has been described as a danger to - especially - women and children. Black Kite (talk) 10:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - Perhaps we could mention something that isn't what Tate is usually known for, rather than go for a more controversial hook that's already likely to be known to a wide variety of people. E.g.
– Epicgenius (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
That's the most on-its-own-merits interesting hook anyone's proposed so far, even if it'd probably get less clicks due to not using Tate's name. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:36, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment/proposal. I think we only have two options here. One is to run a hook that isn't negative in compliance with WP:DYKHOOKBLP policy. The other is to reject the hook topic as a whole because the subject is too controversial and we don't want as a project to appear like we are promoting this person. We have not run hooks in the past for being too controversial, so it is not entirely unprecedented. What we can't do is run a negative hook on a BLP. Based on past experience, taking that road will only land us at Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors and it will get pulled from the main page. I suggest presenting these two options and taking a formal vote to craft a WP:CONSENSUS opinion. If the majority consensus is to reject, we reject. If the consensus is to go forward with a non-negative hook then we can decide what that hook is after that.4meter4 (talk) 14:15, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    • A vote? Seriously? No, just reject the nomination as too much effort. The nominator already sees this as a waste of time, so just close it and move on. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    • I disagree that BLPHOOKBIO bans negative hooks - it bans unduly negative hooks. In cases like this, where coverage is overwhelmingly - almost unanimously - negative, a negative hook is both allowed by BLPHOOKBIO and required by NPOV. BilledMammal (talk) 14:42, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
No that isn't how it works in practice BilledMammal. I have never seen a negative hook on a BLP successfully run at DYK. Why? Because it inevitably gets hauled into Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors and pulled for violating BLP policy. Practically speaking, it isn't feasible to run negative hooks on BLPs the way the system is actually run. I guarantee you, any negative hook we run on Tate won't last a half hour before it's pulled. There's a zero tolerance policy in practice at MPE for negative BLP hooks. 4meter4 (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Would you call ... that Rasmus Paludan caused a global controversy by burning the Quran? a negative hook 4meter4? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:54, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
Fair point. I'll have to reconsider my thoughts on BLP policy now that I've seen we've run that one. If we are going to run hooks like that it would be helpful to have a more detailed guide on how to determine when we can go negative on a BLP and what the limits are. As I recall, I approved a hook on Sarah Jane Baker which later got pulled at MPE; an experience which pushed my interpretation of policy towards an avoid negative hooks on BLPs view. It seems to me that we lack consistency over when we invoke BLPHOOKBIO policy.4meter4 (talk) 15:11, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@4meter4, Sarah Jane Baker ran unchanged for 24 hours so was not "pulled at MPE". —Kusma (talk) 15:30, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I must have been confusing that hook with another one I reviewed. I know I reviewed a hook at some point which got pulled at MPE for BLP concerns.4meter4 (talk) 15:35, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@4meter4 and AirshipJungleman29: I woke up thinking about what was different about the hook AirshipJungleman29 presented ".. that Rasmus Paludan caused a global controversy by burning the Quran?" I think it is different because we are highlighting something he did and what happened. In the majority of hooks presented here about Tate others were calling him names, labeling him or alleging crimes. I think in the hook presented by @Guerillero and Valereee: below Tate accepts the label. So that is much different than someone said -. When we label people with someone said Tate has SDE. Someone accused Tate of X, I think it is much different. Lightburst (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
I, for one, am extremely disappointed that no one mentioned the third option: run a very interesting, non-negative hook that doesn't mention him directly, That way, people don't know who the hook is referring to until they click on the page and see Tate's name. But seriously, has anyone considered this? – Epicgenius (talk) 15:47, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You always have great ideas EpicG. I agree! Editors like to invoke WP:NOTCENSORED but only when it suits them. The problem with the type of moderating suggested here is that it is based on the politics of whoever is active right now in DYK. That is in fact why we have guidelines and policies - because editors and editing patterns are in flux. Moderation of this kind is just censorship. The readers of the main page are smart enough to use google. They do not need you to protect them from this person or their opinions. Lightburst (talk) 16:00, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I could get on board with the "a kickboxer started a university" hook above.--Launchballer 16:10, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
@Epicgenius I saw it. I like it and if there is support for it, we should run it. I didn't say anything earlier becuae I was waiting to sort out whether there was support for any non-negative hook at all before expressing my support for it. However, now that I've seen the Paludan hook, I'm less inclined to be so adamant against a negative hook... It's going to be challenging to get a consensus behind a non-negative hook, particularly when it appears we have run at least one negative BLP hook in the past. Things aren't so cut and dry as I thought they were under policy.4meter4 (talk) 16:20, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
You're still peddling this political nonsense. This is not a political issue. And yes, easily-influenced children do need protecting from Tate's misogyny and bullshit - something even a right-wing British Government admitted. [22] [23] Black Kite (talk) 18:02, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I assume you are in the UK or Europe? FWIW, as a bit of a backgrounder, for those who aren't aware of the regional phenomenon (not saying you aren't, but for the general reader) in the US, the "peddling of political nonsense", such that an apolitical position or policy is made political via rhetorical strategy, is one of the touchstones of post-1980 right-wing politics in America. Obviously, this is being done in the UK and Europe as well, but until very recently (aside from exceptions, which may in fact have US donors behind them) it was unique in some respects to US politics. By way of current example, the recent popular and viral video of Steven Bonnell interviewing Jordan B. Peterson is a master class in this rhetoric. Various critics have noticed that Peterson and Tate are all sharing the same or similar talking points which can be traced to right wing groups, foundations, and individuals who disseminate these ideas and then share them on social media and elsewhere. It's a fascinating topic and I won't say any more about it, but I did think it needed to be said as a balanced, indirect reply to accusations of "virtue signaling" and "wokness", which is part of the same, collective movement. Viriditas (talk) 20:50, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
I am in the UK. I agree with you, but really the point I was making was that the issue isn't really "liberal/left-wing" editors wanting to make a "right-winger" look bad - after all, he does that job well enough himself. The bigger issue here is "should be be giving a misogynist a platform on the front page of Wikipedia?" regardless of whether the hook is positive, neutral or negative. Black Kite (talk) 22:06, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
BK, I think that probably falls under WP not censored? I, too, hate to give this horrible person a platform. But the article was improved. There are reasonable hooks. Valereee (talk) 23:31, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
No, I don't think NOTCENSORED really applies here - after all, we are not suggesting removing Tate's article completely. However, a discussion of where material should be displayed is an editorial one, not a content one. Black Kite (talk) 07:20, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
BK, that was my feeling entirely. Which is a kind of censoring, I guess. DKY... that lover of traditional Khmer music Pol Pot was described as "very likeable, a really nice person." Martinevans123 (talk) 08:59, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
@Martinevans123
The pol pot example is not dissimilar to the recent ghengis khan dyk that shipped.
I offer this perspective: Wikipedia is not a platform. Wikipedia pages are not a platform. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, that can be edited by anyone. Bome sall 1 (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's all true. The issue seems to be partly... Ghengis Khan is an historical figure, and some folks may remember the deeds Pol Pot. But at least he's dead. While Mr Tate is very much alive and kicking (and can even edit Wikipedia, of course). Martinevans123 (talk) 09:48, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • ... that on a 2011 podcast Andrew Tate (pictured) described himself as "absolutely a misogynist"? is probably what I would go with due to his own statements. ... that Andrew Tate (pictured) is "absolutely a misogynist"? is snappier and something he would agree with, but might raise a fuss --Guerillero Parlez Moi 18:08, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    Kind of agreeing with Guerillero...if Tate's describing himself that way, that's a good DYK hook. Did you know that? No, I didn't, and it's interesting, because there aren't actually that many men who would describe themselves that way publicly, at least if (self-censoring a joke in poor taste). Let's not give it the image slot, though. There are so many more interesting images. Valereee (talk) 23:19, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    I've added an ALT3 to the nom, needs another reviewer. Valereee (talk) 23:41, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks @Guerillero and Valereee: It is certainly better if the person is saying it instead of a third party. Just might work even though I liked EpicG's idea as well. Now to find an uninvolved editor to review. Lightburst (talk) 00:14, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Valereee
    Comment on alt 3
    If the words "social media influencer" were removed, it may still be an effective hook.
    Would instead read as follows:
    ALT3: ...that Andrew Tate described himself as "absolutely a misogynist"? Bome sall 1 (talk) 05:26, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    I think you're right, it would still work, but for me providing context is helpful when the person isn't a household name. If it were Martha Stewart or Tiger Woods, we probably don't need to provide any context, but many English speakers will have no idea who Andrew Tate is and why the fact he describes himself as a misogynist is meaningful in any way. Telling them he's an influencer makes that bit of information relevant. Valereee (talk) 11:54, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Valereee
    I concur. Makes sense. Even in context of your two examples... It would be totally acceptable, possibly preferred, to add a couple of words to describe their profession.
    Four example:
    , "dyk.... professional golfer tiger woods (insert factoid?)"
    Bome sall 1 (talk) Bome sall 1 (talk) 04:50, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    But then some editors would demand that you insert an article as well: ... that the professional the golfer the tiger the woods (insert factoid). Otherwise it's "vaguely sensational", and somehow an unsupported editorialization. See Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style § Wikipedia:The problem with false titles. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Quick check - can an article by DYKed twice?

I just passed Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Hill (basketball)/DYK2 (GA). But then I noticed it was DYKed previously. Is this ok? I could not find a section in DYK rules covering this. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:58, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Repeats are allowed after five years, and that one was 2011.--Launchballer 07:00, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
WP:DYKNEW: An article is ineligible for DYK if it has in the past five years appeared on the Main Page as a bold link at DYK, unless the article was then deleted as a copyright violation. It is also ineligible if it has, within the year prior to nomination or between nomination and appearance on the Main Page, 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. Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of OTD are not disqualified, nor are names listed in "Recent deaths" section of ITN.— Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:03, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Recurring Error in Submission

Have tried multiple times to nominate an article for DYK, and keep getting this message:

"Creating nomination page: Failed to save edit: The page you tried to create has been created already.

Arrgh :( Something bad happened. Your DYK template wikitext is provided below, which you can copy and use to create [[Template:Did you know nominations/]] manually."

This is despite me *not* making the page already.


Maximilian775 (talk) 15:48, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Which article are you trying to nominate?--Launchballer 15:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
I've taken the liberty of commenting it out. My guess is it had something to do with the numerous unclosed links (you'd used 'l' instead of ']' or '|' in a few places). I've created the nom for you.--Launchballer 02:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Judging from the fact that the error message incorrectly links to Template:Did you know nominations/ and that there is no DYKmake template in the commented-out wikitext, I'm gonna take a wild guess and say our friend here forgot to specify the article title in the relevant field. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
User:Launchballer User:Narutolovehinata5, shouldn't we somehow enable the bot/tool to accommodate nth nominations, which would require a rule.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, I addressed the wrong person.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
That would be a good idea, but I don't know if having a fixed rule on the naming conventions should be since that would require consensus. It might be easy to do through the Wizard at least. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
no, we don't need a community vote on precisely what convention to use. that would be silly. we just need it to be implemented in the code. if the author chooses something unworkable, we'll change it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't know that it would be silly to decide by ourselves and give them a directive, but it is acceptable for them to implement a reasonable code. In the mean time I have nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Hill (basketball)/DYK2, Template:Did you know nominations/Jordan Murphy (basketball)2 and Template:Did you know nominations/In a World...(2nd nomination), which is a bit silly.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
My vote remains "(2nd nomination)".--Launchballer 12:11, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
That is OK, but is more characters (17) than any other similar archive syntaxes. WP:PR, WP:FAC, WP:FTC and WP:FLC use the shorter /archiven (9 characters). WP:GAN uses the much shorter /GAn (4 characters). Why don't we go with /archiven.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:06, 17 April 2024 (UTC)
That shouldn't be a difficult thing to do, I imagine. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:42, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list of older nominations was archived several hours ago, so I’ve created a new list of all 10 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 11. Because this list is so short after the backlog drive—which is great news!—I plan to add to it every couple of days. We have a total of 167 nominations, of which 95 have been approved, a gap of 72 nominations that has decreased by 42 over the past 15 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any 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) 15:41, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Please can someone look at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war

Hi all

Please could I ask someone to look at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Environmental damage of Gaza caused by the Israel–Hamas war? The nomination was rejected with only the comment With four maintenance tags, this isn't going anywhere. Wikipedia:Did_you_know/Guidelines states that 'Rejected' should only be used for an "article is either completely ineligible or otherwise requires an insurmountable amount of work before becoming eligible" which isn't true (I fixed the issue raised in 10 mins). Thanks very much, John Cummings (talk) 09:04, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Replied there.--Launchballer 09:41, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

There was a report at Errors concerning the Censorship by copyright hook. The article had been orange-tagged (Template:Globalize), with Dilettante reporting this to Errors. Whilst the long list of examples is spread around the world, the prose deals mainly with North American issues. Posting this here rather than at Errors as this discussion gets archived, whilst Errors gets nuked when the main page changes at midnight UTC. I offer the pre-emptive comment that issues relating to this particular tag are hard to detect by the checking processes in place beyond the original review, as you have to critically read the whole article to detect it. If the original reviewer doesn't pick up on it, there's every chance that it slips through. For example, the admin instructions have read article and copyedit as an optional component. Schwede66 19:33, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Also, just letting you know that I'm about to go tramping (aka hiking); back in 36 hours or so. Schwede66 19:39, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
I think this is deeply unfair on several levels; first, it allows one to spuriously tag an article about to be DYKed or just DYKed and demand it to be pulled, likely not eligible for re-DYKing. Second, I don't agree with this being called in need of significant globalization - as Schwede notes, the list of examples is globalized. And the concern about the prose being focused on NA issues is highly debatable. DMCA and American copyright legislation have wide-ranging international application. Besides, prose mentions non-NA legislation like European Union's Directive on Copyright in the Digital Single Market (Copyright Directive), and the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Later, the prose discusses European history (ex. Worshipful Company of Stationers and Newspaper Makers to suppress texts it deemed problematic, such as anti-Cromwellian and anti-Caroline satirical writings) as well as the concept of the Global South. This is something to be discussed on the talk page, not something that should lead to emergency DYKpull, but bottom line, IMHO the article was incorrectly orange tagged and should not have been pulled from the main page. Last but not least, best practices when tagging articles require that the tagger starts a discussion on the talk page - this was not done. Nor was the globalize template even explained in the edit summary. So we have bad templating followed by a bad pull. Ironically, this seems like some sort of "censorship by tagging". I request that this is restored for the main page. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:00, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth I would WP:IAR support it being added to a later set of hooks because it was pulled early. Sincerely, Dilettante 16:16, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I felt bad @Piotrus: and I pinged you at errors. It does feel unfair that editors driveby tagged the article while it was on the main page. I felt like the article was comprehensive enough for DYK in that form and could have included those items later. Our own AirshipJungleman29 also tagged the article. As BlueMoonset has said below it would probably be unfair to run it again because it was live for the majority of the runtime. I can agree with the @Launchballer: suggestion about adding it as a tenth if that idea gains support. Lightburst (talk) 23:28, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I would be opposed to another run on the main page. The hook was up for over 19 hours, which is significantly more than hooks get when we're running two sets a day. It's too bad that it didn't get the full 24 hours, but it got over 80% of the time—and 160% of what a 12-hour hook gets. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:51, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm broadly of the view that pulled hooks should resume where they left off, as a tenth hook.--Launchballer 22:52, 19 April 2024 (UTC)
Requires an admin to add it back. If you can find one willing, go ahead. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback. I am fine with it being run at a 10th hook for ~5h, that's a fair compromise. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
That's a neat way to go about it. I'm also supportive of Launchballer's suggestion. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I've reinstated the hook as there's consensus to do so. Schwede66 20:39, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

Hal Malchow

I don't see anything in particular that's a problem here, but since we're putting a WP:BDP on the main page with an accusation of a crime, it wouldn't hurt to have some extra eyes on it. RoySmith (talk) 21:58, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

This is the accusation of a crime by someone who died mere weeks ago, though he was never convicted or even charged with it: a negative hook when we're not supposed to do that to real people while they're alive or within a couple of years of their death. Can this nomination be pulled while a new hook is proposed and reviewed? (The other hook listed in the nomination template is neither well written nor interesting, so not an adequate substitute.) BlueMoonset (talk) 05:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Agree with BlueMoonset. Schwede66 09:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
@SWinxy, Elias Ziade, and PrimalMustelid: see the above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:21, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Got it, although I have no ability to remove a promoted hook in queue. PrimalMustelid (talk) 11:46, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Pulled. RoySmith (talk) 13:08, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith, I've plugged the hole in Q2. PrimalMustelid, as you are not an admin, you cannot edit the queue (i.e. there was no expectation for you to do so; you were invited to comment here). Schwede66 19:40, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm liking this new 9-hook thing. It makes pulling a hook a lot less painful; if we find one to replace it with, great. If not, the world won't end if we go with 8. RoySmith (talk) 19:43, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset Good point, I agree with pulling the nomination. It's important to handle accusations sensitively. el.ziade (talkallam) 17:18, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

Virtual Self (EP)

The source says I must have listened to snippets of 100,000 songs, which turned into the stronger he stated he "listened to snippets of 100,000 songs" in the article, which in turn got turned into the even stronger statement Porter Robinson listened to excerpts of more than 100,000 songs in wiki-voice for the hook. I think this needs to be rephrased. RoySmith (talk) 22:06, 20 April 2024 (UTC)

And on the copyright front, there's a lot of word-for-word between the article and https://www.sonar.pictures/the-stratospheric-colossus-of-sound-20 (and some other sources). Earwig has the details. I'm not great at figuring out who copied from who, so this needs another set of eyes to look it over. RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
I'm just guessing, but 1) I would add quotes to the hook material in question (which solves the problem), and 2) Sonar.pictures looks like they copied the content from Wikipedia in an example of backwards copyvio, but again, I'm just guessing. Viriditas (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
@Skyshifter: Viriditas (talk) 08:52, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Sonar.pictures is very clearly the one who copied from Wikipedia. Regarding the hook, it was an error to say "more" than 100,000 songs. However, I think just removing that word would make it fine. Skyshiftertalk 08:57, 22 April 2024 (UTC)
Done RoySmith (talk) 14:43, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

Sets needing promotion

@DYK admins: There are only a few queue sets left, and the number of unpromoted hooks is climbing up quickly. Let’s start promoting them before the schedule reverts to the 12 hour mark, please. PrimalMustelid (talk) 21:58, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Approving hooks individually instead of by set

As a result of a recent ERRORS discussion, a hook had to be pulled. This was no-one's fault in particular and there are bound to be false positives. One of the users pointed out that were hooks to be approved individually instead of by set, it would likely prevent many pulls and corrections. It would also reduce load on any individual sysop since they're not required to go through five hooks when approving. Instead, they may approve as many or as few as they'd like when they wish to work on this.

I'm posting this here because ERRORS gets wiped daily and the discussion is long gone. Pinging Amakuru and Schwede66 as people who weighed in. Sincerely, Dilettante 17:13, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Do we need another discussion on this topic? I'm fairly sure that after the last one, we came to the conclusion that this is perfectly viable right now. I certainly remember individual hooks being approved in prep sets a week or two ago (EDIT: see this example). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The point is that this needs a well-defined mechanism for how to implement it, and one that is understood by, and communicated to, all admins who work on DYK. I don't see any recent updates to Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions that would suggest a new system is in place. First choice would be something technical, whereby the current {{DYKbotdo}} template, which automatically authorises the whole set, is replaced with a hook-by-hook sign-off. Then the bots can be adjusted to (a) not push a set to the main page if any are outstanding, and (b) provide suitable early warnings here at WT:DYK if a set has missing sign-offs and is imminent for promotion. I think the principle that one admin handles the whole set is still proabbly broadly a good one, but this adds in an extra level of security. Second choice would be a manual system where maybe the hooks all start with some sort of flag on them, and you remove them one by one as you check the hooks.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:24, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Do we need an extra layer of security? If yes, can we afford an extra layer of security? —Kusma (talk) 17:48, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
Individual hook approvals would help to put more blame on individual admins. Given how many admins we have at DYK, I think this is not a good idea. —Kusma (talk) 17:46, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
I don't agree with that concern, Kusma. Hook sets get signed off by individual admins and they are thus responsible for the hooks in the set. If individual hooks get signed off by admins, then they are responsible for those individual hooks. There is no difference whatsoever that I can spot. Schwede66 03:47, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

I concur that we previously agreed that signing off individual hooks for the main page can be done. We do this very occasionally. I agree with Amakuru's thinking that it's worthwhile to change the process of how hooks make it to the main page. Hear me out.

In my view, it is worthwhile to redesign the process of signing off on hooks for the main page so that signing off on individual hooks becomes the default. The following are descriptions of how we go about this task today, how we could redesign it in the future, followed by thoughts on why the redesign would have benefits.

At present, the most common process is as follows:

  1. promote the next set to queue using PSHAW
  2. undertake the required hook checks; some admins do this in one go and others do it over a longer period (up to several days)
  3. start discussions at WT:DYK if needed
  4. send hooks back to prep or reopen the nomination; possibly replacing the hook with another one
  5. at the right time, Shubinator's DYKUpdateBot puts the set onto the main page and sends out credits (using the name of the admin who promoted the set)

What I suggest we do instead is as such (and where things change, I've emphasised the text as such):

  1. review an individual hook in one of the upper prep sets and sign it off (how the signing off happens is something that needs designing; Amakuru is suggesting that we could have flags that get removed through the review process)
  2. start discussions at WT:DYK if needed
  3. send hooks back to prep or reopen the nomination; possibly replacing the hook with another one
  4. once the top hook set has all its hooks signed off, a bot records the names of each user who signed off each hook, and promotes the set to queue
  5. at the right time, Shubinator's DYKUpdateBot puts the set onto the main page and sends out credits (using the names of the admins who signed off on each hook)

The benefits that I see are as follows:

  • The main reason why queues are often empty is that it's a huge time commitment to take on a full set. I've seen in various discussions that others say that it takes them at least an hour to do all the checks. I've never been able to get through this in under two hours (maybe I'm just slow; maybe I'm too thorough). If you tackle one hook at a time, it's a commitment that is way less demanding.
  • Redesigning the process so that reviewing individual hooks, as opposed to a full set, becomes the norm should thus result in queues being empty way less frequently.
  • A minor side issue is that those hooks that currently get approved individually go out with the wrong credit; it shows the admin's name who promoted to queue rather than the admin who reviewed the individual hook.
  • This system removes one set of potential error, and that is that not all the reviews happened after the promoting admin didn't do all the checks. It's inherently unsafe to promote first and then check. We all do it—to avoid edit conflicts—but no doubt that is how a lot of stuff that ends up at Errors has slipped through the cracks.
  • Another potential source of errors is when the queues are empty and we issue a call to admins who aren't DYK regulars to come and give a helping hand. There is heaps to know how DYK works and admins without that background knowledge can easily miss things; it's not as simple as just following the admin instructions. I'd rather see the regulars deal with promotions to the main page than admins with little experience how DYK works. Hence it's important to have a system in place that minimises the risk of the queues running empty.

What do you think? Do the benefits that I've identified make sense to you? If so, is it thus worth the effort of redesigning the system? Schwede66 04:30, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

At this point, my default is procedure #2. That's something that's already been discussed and happened, so no reason not to just make sure every admin knows it's an acceptable procedure. I don't think we need regular DYK admins for it, either. Any admin who is simply a DYK regular could handle that without the risk of introducing errors. And I'd be willing to do the actual simple move of a set that had been checked by other admins.
Re: credits. I certainly don't care whether I get the "credit" for checking an individual hook. The admin doing the actual move can have it as far as I'm concerned. So if we can't get consensus for a bot, this would still work as the default expectation of admins working here.
In the event we could gain consensus here for bot promotions of sets in which every hook is marked as checked: I'd support that. Valereee (talk) 11:54, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Possible reformatting of nomination wizard output

... is being discussed at MediaWiki talk:DYK-nomination-wizard.js * Pppery * it has begun... 03:46, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Destinies of the Soul

The hook says the only book that contained human skin but the article just says it was the only one of the three books that were tested. For all we know, there are others that weren't found because they weren't tested. So this needs to be qualified with something like "believed to be". RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Why not something straightforward like "... that Destinies of the Soul, a book in the collection of Harvard University, was bound in human skin?"-- User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:23, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Forever Young (Blackpink song)

The hook fact is sourced to https://sbsstar.net/, which doesn't strike me as a WP:RS. RoySmith (talk) 22:35, 24 April 2024 (UTC)

Isn't there also a Blackpink hook in queue 2? I recommend kicking this one back.--Launchballer 22:53, 24 April 2024 (UTC)
The article uses a different source, which seems to be an Indonesian news site of some kind. I'm not sure how reliable the source is, but given that the fact isn't a contentious claim and there doesn't seem to be any good reason to doubt its authenticity, the Indonesian source might be fine for DYK purposes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:13, 25 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7

Chris Hill

... that despite getting an offer from his dream basketball school, Chris Hill instead chose Michigan State?

Is the MOS:EGGy link "his dream basketball school" needed for the hook? It seems that it should either explicitly mention Notre Dame, as was in the nomination, or just unlink it as inessential to understanding the hook, and it's in the actual article. Courtesy pings to the nom's TonyTheTiger and Piotrus, as well as AirshipJungleman29 (who modified the hook)—Bagumba (talk) 11:29, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't really see what's MOS:EGGy about it; I modified the hook because as someone who has never heard of the university, the hook was incomprehensible unti I clicked on the link (MOS:FORCELINK). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:36, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
MOS:EGG: ...links that unexpectedly hide relevant information underneath the link's label Why hide the actual school name, "Notre Dame"? MOS:FORCELINK is relevant too. Either display it and make it explicit, as the nomination originally did, or don't link it if it's not that important to make the school name visible. This isn't the bolded link, where adding intrigue might make sense.—Bagumba (talk) 16:12, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
There's also another angle to consider here. Notre Dame's college football program is a big deal in the US, so mentioning Notre Dame by name would surely raise eyebrows from American readers. However, outside of America, Notre Dame's significance may not be as well-known, and ultimately we follow general audiences regardless of location. BeanieFan11 is the resident American football expert so maybe he can help out here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:49, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Notre Dame is popular, although Michigan State is a large program as well. In my opinion this could either mention Notre Dame with a link or just say he passed up his dream school without a link; either one works I think, though I think if we go with the "despite getting an offer from his dream school" wording, no link should be present. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:43, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure about the Eggy nature of the modified hook because I have to click on the hidden link out of curiosity. I agree with Bagumba and I prefer TonyTheTiger's nominated and approved hook. The nomination hook will save people clicking on the hidden school and possibly direct more views to the target article. Lightburst (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2024 (UTC)
Changed back to display "Notre Dame". —Bagumba (talk) 00:20, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
How about we do both - keep the phrase "his dream basketball school" and follow it up by a blue-linked name of the school? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list of older nominations was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of all 25 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 22. We have a total of 194 nominations, of which 104 have been approved, a gap of 90 nominations that has increased by 18 over the past 11 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any 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) 21:41, 30 April 2024 (UTC)


Beetle nominations, as well as WikiEdu nominations

Over the past month or so, several nominations have been made by student editors of articles about beetles. Several of them have already been rejected for not meeting the requirements, and in most cases the student editors have been unresponsive to reviews.

WikiEdu nominations have over the years been known for this, but given how there had already been discussions before with WikiEdu regarding article and DYK quality control, it's a bit surprising this continues to happen. The course handling these beetle nominations is [24]; can one of us contact the instructors and inform them of DYK standards to ensure the articles done by the students actually meet requirements, as well as to discuss concerns regarding responsiveness?

In addition, it might be a good idea to contact WikiEdu regarding this because the "WikiEdu nominations disproportionately being more likely to fail compared to other DYK nominations" thing has been a perennial issue for years. Discussions have taken place before where they promised to do something about it, but given these things still happen, it appears that hasn't been the case, and I'm wondering what else can we do regarding this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:14, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

Yep, I've noticed the same. I support that we contact WikiEdu. Schwede66 08:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
We've already contacted them multiple times in the past, and yet despite responses and even promises to change things, this still happens. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Pinging Ian (Wiki Ed) and Helaine (Wiki Ed), the two Wikipedian/WikiEdu people listed for this particular course. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
We had an alert that told us when students nominated articles for DYK, but looking at my email archives it seems like it's been broken for a while.
I will contact the instructor for this class and remind them to remind their students that if they nominate an article for DYK they need to stick around and respond to feedback. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you very much. But as this has been a recurring issue across years, I think a wider discussion about DYK's relationship with Wiki Edu also needs to be done to ensure this does not happen again, even with other courses. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)
What would the wider discussion result in? I guess what I'm wondering is if it's unusual that new editors who nominate to DYK are more likely to not follow through than experienced editors, no matter how they got introduced to Wikipedia. Or said another way, what do we have to gain from establishing a formal rule or decision that treats nominations resulting from WikiEdu work in a particularly different way? If a nomination isn't fit for promotion and the nominator isn't responsive, we don't advance the nomination, and we in the end fail it, no matter what the nomination's origin is. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
One argument could be that there is a WP:CIR issue with WikiEdu when this has become a recurring issue over the years. If it was just an isolated case, it may not be a problem, but WikiEdu nominations have been like this for a long time, across multiple nominations and courses. It's a project intended to teach Wikipedia editing, and if this is to be the case, it has to be done right.
One nuclear option would be a ban on WikiEdu nominations until the competence issues are sorted out. However, this would be unlikely to get any consensus and indeed even I would personally be against it. What DYK needs is more contributions, especially from new blood, not restricting it. The main reason I brought up the idea of a wider discussion is because this has been happening for years but the perennial issue has remained. Ideas probably need to happen on how to address this that isn't just simply "contacting the student and/or instructor" given the lack of success rate for the latter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I can understand the desire for a different means when clearer instruction to instructors and students has mixed results (though I'd muse that discerning the success rate seems difficult; DYK probably only notices that a nomination is from an editor introduced to Wikipedia via WikiEdu when something goes wrong; if a nomination goes well, would DYK have any reason to notice its origins with WikiEdu?). I guess what I'm wondering is what purported solutions would look like. Somehow persuading (requiring?) the WikiEdu nonprofit to add a DYK unit to their curriculum, or them requiring(?) teachers and professors to have such? I'm not sure what influence DYK could or should expect to exercise over disparate faculty's classrooms. But that might be me putting the conversation before the horse when there can be all kinds of ideas others may think of. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
I remember Ian and the project talked before about perhaps requiring some level of quality control. Either discouraging instructors from requiring DYK as a class requirement, or ensuring that the instructors would themselves be familiar with how DYK works.
One possible idea I have in mind, one that perhaps could also be implemented on the WikiEdu side, is that if a course is planning to have DYK in the curriculum, the DYK project is already notified in advance and one of us could be used as a resource and contact person. In many cases, the instructors themselves are unfamiliar with DYK or even Wikipedia editing in general, which makes things hard. Having someone from the DYK project being involved if only as a consultant or in another role might help prevent such issues from happening. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, in the case of this Behavioral Ecology 2024 course (timeline here), it appears that while it has two more weeks to run, the Wikipedia component has no more activities (the final ones were last week), and that DYK was an optional assignment in the first full week of March, a full five weeks ago. Ian (Wiki Ed), what are your plans—or that of WikiEdu as a whole—to avoid this kind of blindsiding that those of us here at DYK have to deal with several times a year? I think it's time and past for WikiEdu to be proactive rather than reactive if DYK is to continue to be an involuntary participant in your activities. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
Most Wiki Education assignments get marked on the article's talk page as such. I wonder whether it's easy enough for a bot to mark Wiki Education assignment nominations to DYK? I suggest we put those nominations on hold until we have confirmation from the course coordinator that the students have been tasked with responding to reviews, and that their course timeline allows for that. Putting these nominations on hold automatically will stop a lot of reviewers from needlessly wasting their time. Schwede66 23:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)
We already have Category:Wikipedia Did you know nominations by WikiEd students but it's barely been used and hasn't had new entries since 2021. If we could perhaps have a bot or otherwise require the associated template with it for WikiEdu courses, maybe that would raise attention towards them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
Yes, this would only be useful if categorised by a bot. I didn't even know about the category! The bot could also place a template advising of the situation (e.g. the hold, if others agree with that approach). Schwede66 00:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
The category is associated with {{Note DYK nominator WikiEd}}. I suggested before that it be made mandatory for WikiEdu DYK nominations and I still don't know why that never happened. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
an involuntary participant in your activities—are we? DYK participants choose what to review and what to ignore, what to pass and what to fail. I guess I'm struggling to see how we're being muscled into some sort of exploitative relationship with WikiEducation. Participation with nominations whose origins lie with WikiEducation seems as involuntary as participation with any nomination, or any nomination with a relatively new editor. I can sympathize with ill-prepared or unsuitable nominations being annoying, but they're annoying whether or not they have to do with WikiEducation. I can recognize there being some level of hassle hassle, but eventually it seems the injury to DYK amounts to—what? Commenting on a nomination that it's been prepared poorly, getting no response for a while, and then procedurally failing it? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
If these were just isolated incidents, it wouldn't be an issue, but the fact that WikiEdu nominations have been like this for years, and despite efforts to do something about them things have not improved, it shows there is a fundamental issue going on here. It's true that nominations by very new editors tend to have a high chance of failing in general, not juts WikiEdu nominations, but when one point of WikiEdu is to teach people how Wikipedia works, what's going on means it's not meeting that goal well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)
  • How do these professors even know there is such a thing as DYK to point their students at? Most of them aren't actually editors themselves. Ian (Wiki Ed)Is there a way to remove DYK from the teaching modules? Because this is burdening an already overburdened system, and frankly it's not doing a damn thing for the students. Valereee (talk) 01:39, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Valereee Long ago it was an option, so some instructors who've been around a long time know of it. We removed that quite a few years ago (although we still have a help guide that gets emailed to students when they do nominate an article).
    As for how people find things beyond that...I've had some really strange questions over the years, like "I followed the instructions [here]", and they point to some ancient set of instructions somewhere on Commons, or a YouTube video. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 21:01, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    Ah, yes, the out-of-date instructions I just found today for enabling something on my phone...thanks, that's interesting history here. Valereee (talk) 21:47, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Ian (Wiki Ed): Will WikiEdu be able to commit to a solution, or at least propose one, that can help prevent this from happening again? This has been a perennial issue for years and despite multiple discussions here about them, it appears that nothing has actually been done so far. Either clearer instructions have to be given to instructors regarding how DYK works, DYK itself has to become more involved in helping out these nominations, or DYK should be removed as a course requirement until changes are made. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:59, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
    Pinging Ian (Wiki Ed) again for feedback. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:09, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Narutolovehinata5 Sorry for the delay.
    I talked to Helaine about this, and we had two (overlapping) ideas.
    • It's only a small number of instructors who do this, so having a conversation with them about the problem this poses should help. I hadn't really thought about it, but it's possible that there are people who use very customised timelines, and it's possible that the block about DYK has just been copied over without us realising.
    • Changing what we do when a student does nominate an article for DYK, to something that is less just "here's what you need to know" and more something that's the start of a conversation and requires a reply.
    In addition, I've added a monthly check to my to-do list so that I will catch future instance of the notification tool breaking. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 17:40, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
    @Ian (Wiki Ed): A very serious and frank discussion has to be done within the WikiEdu team regarding this because it's been a recurring issue. Better instructions would definitely help, along with perhaps instructions for instructions stating that if DYK is to be included, the students and the instructor have to be responsive and also ask for help from the DYK project. The current status quo where students nominate articles, many of which are ineligible, and the students do not respond at all to reviews or feedback, drains precious resources and time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Bot that alerts admins when there are no filled queues

This is just an idea, but what does anyone think about a bot that would post to the administrator's noticeboard whenever there were no filled queues? I have done this before, and it seemed to work, but just in case DYK gets to that point again, it could be beneficial to have a bot implemented. It probably wouldn't need to be used very often. ‍Relativity ⚡️ 03:29, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Minor hook issue that needs correction

The hook of mine in Prep 3 reads: ... that the first words in English that National Football League prospect Bayron Matos knew were "I'm hungry"? As the 2024 NFL draft has concluded, and Matos was signed by the Miami Dolphins, this should be changed to: ... that the first words in English that National Football League player Bayron Matos knew were "I'm hungry"? (word being changed in italics) Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:15, 29 April 2024 (UTC) Also, as a side note, it seems one of my DYKs ran today (Cameron Butler) but I never was notified of it?

 Done NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 23:21, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

Missing DYK credit

BeanieFan11, I took a look at Cameron Butler's promotion to Prep 6 by AirshipJungleman29 using PSHAW, and while the DYKmake template was properly in the nomination template (see below); PSHAW didn't add the DYKmake to Prep 6, for reasons that perhaps theleekycauldron can identify.

Can someone please take care of giving the appropriate credits for this DYK both to BeanieFan11's talk page and to Talk:Cameron Butler? The credits for Queue 6's promotion to the main page were given between 00:00 and 00:03, 29 April 2024. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:30, 30 April 2024 (UTC)

I've opened half a dozen nom pages and they all have this format:
* {{DYKmake
The format that the Butler nom page had was this:
*{{DYKmake
That is, there wasn't a space before the curly bracket. I suspect that's what broke things. Schwede66 03:11, 30 April 2024 (UTC)
The credits still need to be given. Thanks to anyone who can take this on. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I think I've done it, please check.--Launchballer 14:27, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Launchballer. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Displaced hook promotion

Hi, earlier I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/YouTube Rewind 2018: Everyone Controls Rewind to Prep 3, but apparently an edit by Bruxton, in their promotion of the Template:Did you know nominations/Skyrocket Galaxy hook at about the same time, caused the other hook to be displaced. What do we do exactly? PrimalMustelid (talk) 15:53, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Put it into another set, or return it to WP:DYKNA PrimalMustelid. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:55, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Airship, but while I was looking at this, I noticed that we've got Green Bay Packers hooks in Prep 3 and Prep 5. We might want to space those out a bit more. RoySmith (talk) 15:59, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I've moved it to prep 5. (Yes, I know I technically shouldn't promote a hook I've approved, but it had already been promoted, so it's had that check.)--Launchballer 16:00, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) PrimalMustelid I appreciate you, I just want to ask you to slow down - you are promoting about one hook per minute. You promoted 13 hooks from 15:29-15:45 today - Also, it helps me always to refresh the screen prior to a promotion - does not always prevent stepping on edits, but it helps a bit. Bruxton (talk) 16:06, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Can I ask what checks you do on a nomination before you promote it PrimalMustelid? I have noticed that you promote very quickly (e.g. this set, now in queue, which you filled out in ten minutes). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:14, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Most often, I promote based on either a long hook discussion having been resolved by other reviewers or a hook that has been already been approved that has been simply sitting around. However, if the quick hook promotions prove problematic, I can slow down. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:30, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
When you promote a hook, you need to be running your own checks that the hook meets all the DYK requirements. It's not a rubber stamp of somebody else's review. RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I do already verify the hooks though by making sure that they're mentioned on the pages themselves, though I guess I can also just check the sourcings as well. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:41, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
You need to be checking all of the things at WP:DYKG. RoySmith (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Hmm. Alright I will make sure to have my hook promotion process be more thorough under your command by verifying everything. PrimalMustelid (talk) 16:56, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
"Under your command"? PrimalMustelid has accidentally revealed itself as a Cylon! Viriditas (talk) 19:07, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
@PrimalMustelid I should have said this earlier, but thank you for helping out. I hope I didn't come across as grumpy; I really do appreciate you pitching in. DYK is a complicated process with lots of rules and everybody understands that it takes a while to figure out which end is up. RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
No worries, I'll fully get the hang of DYK promotion formats and expectations soon enough. PrimalMustelid (talk) 22:24, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
On a slightly unrelated note, I do have to ask, why are there 10 credits for DYK hooks instead of 9? I’ve noticed duplicated credits for a hook of each set. PrimalMustelid (talk) 17:23, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
Because some nominations are credited to multiple editors PrimalMustelid: so for example, Prep 7 has thirteen credits listed, because one hook has two credits and another has four. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:44, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
I kicked back a Green Bay Packers hook by a prep as there were five American hooks in prep 5 - granted the guidelines say up to half a prep can be filled with these, but I interpret this as 'no more than' half, and so no more than four.--Launchballer 13:42, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
"Up to half" should indeed be interpreted as "no more than half", which is to say up to 50%. As 5 of 9 would be 55%, it's more than half: no more than four US or four bio hooks should be included in any set. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:54, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
If set builders struggle with filling preps because of a lack of US hooks, they should feel empowered to have preps with only 8 hooks. However, this is only if they can't find other hooks to fill the slots, and it's always OK to leave a prep mostly filled and wait for more hooks to be approved. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Wouldn't the solution simply be to use non-US hooks? I know the guidelines say it's appropriate to have about half of each set be US/UK-related, but there are times that may not be feasible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
My personal rule of thumb is 'no adjacent bios, no adjacent US hooks'. I did consider pulling COSMOS field on the grounds that it was discovered by the US Hubble Telescope until I realised I could just swap Harrogate and YouTube.--Launchballer 10:30, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Should we consider using chatgpt to help pull quirky hooks?

Reading through this noticeboard, I see a lot of "how can I add quirk to this hook". Wikipedia is full of interesting information, why pull boring hooks out of random articles? Just asking chatgpt for examples of Wikipedia style did you know hooks gave me much better starting points than the queues above -

Of course! Here are five "did you know" hooks:

1. Did you know that the Great Wall of China is not a single continuous wall but a series of walls and fortifications built over several dynasties?

2. Did you know that the world's oldest known recipe is for beer? It dates back over 5,000 years to ancient Mesopotamia.

3. Did you know that the city of Venice in Italy is built on a network of more than 100 small islands and has over 400 bridges connecting them?

4. Did you know that the Sahara Desert, the largest hot desert in the world, is almost as large as the entire United States?

5. Did you know that the first person to set foot on the Moon, Neil Armstrong, almost got stuck there? The lunar module's ascent engine had a broken switch that was fixed using a pen.

Eric the Angry Communicator (talk) 17:12, 14 May 2024 (UTC)

Please take a look at the aims of DYK, and what DYK is not, Eric the Angry Communicator. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:23, 14 May 2024 (UTC)
...aaand blocked. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:17, 15 May 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

Template:Did you know nominations/Greens (English restaurant)

The hook itself is fine but the sentence in the article where it appears is problematic:

At the time, they were under the impression that they would have enough money to employ a chef and that they could spend their time harassing women; having discovered that they did not, they tossed a coin to see who would learn to cook, which Rimmer lost.

There's nothing in the source about "harassing women" - this seems like a pretty terrible BLP violation. I don't think it should be linked from the main page until it's corrected. It's been there since the article was created, which throws a bit of doubt on the integrity of the rest of the article as most of it was written by the same editor. WaggersTALK 10:52, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Not doing very well today, clearly. Source says 'chatting up girls', which ultimately is what that is.--Launchballer 10:55, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Good grief. "Chatting up" and "harassing" women are not synonyms, and the one you decided on was not only not in the source (and therefore original research) but was a BLP violation, which I have immediately changed. I am considering whether to revdelete the revisions with that statement in as well. I would absolutely be concerned about the accuracy of the rest of that article if that's typical of how it's been written, though I can see no other BLP issues. (Edit: I have rev-deleted the revisions - it's just such a blatant violation). Black Kite (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I checked the review, but it makes no mention of BLP issues and uses Template:DYK checklist, which does not mention BLP either. TSventon (talk) 12:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but we can't allow an article with such a problem to be linked on the Main Page. There was nothing wrong with the hook, but the reviewer didn't notice the BLP violation, which is why (a) it's being discussed here (because Waggers did notice it), and (b) I've removed it and replaced it with what the source actually says. Black Kite (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Thanks BK. I'm happy with the rest of the hooks and, now that's sorted, I'll go ahead and promote to queue. WaggersTALK 12:17, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Black Kite I have two concerns, firstly that DYK checklist does not mention BLP, when it is one of the most important checks and secondly that WP:DYKPBR does not tell promoters what they need to check when promoting a hook. TSventon (talk) 12:40, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
That's a very good point, and it probably needs to be added. It could be quite a lot of work for a reviewer though - in this example, if the source had actually supported the text it would have been OK (because it was Rimmer's own words). But he didn't say that, and the author imposed their own POV and OR on it. It was a good catch by the promoter in this case. Black Kite (talk) 17:18, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I: hope reviewers ensure that every hook they promote is fully adherent to all our core policies, and especially including the whole of WP:NOT. ——Serial Number 54129 17:25, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

Wouldn't BLP issues be covered under the "policyother" slot on the template? I'm surprised this isn't covered anywhere in the guidelines. --evrik (talk) 14:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I agree that BLP issues could be mentioned under the "policyother" slot on the template, but I was noting that in this case the review did not specifically mention BLP, because the template doesn't do so. Regardless of the format of the review, it will always be easy to miss a one word BLP violation. TSventon (talk) 14:37, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
If it's already part of the policy, then we have to AGF and pay attention. --evrik (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7

Template:Did you know nominations/Neil Sean

@Casliber, PrimalMustelid, Panamitsu, and Launchballer: Is the article Neil Sean a suitable BLP article for the main page? An IP claiming to be Sean (it is also possible they were trolling) complained at the Helpdesk here. Around half the body of the article is sourced to or discusses a comedy programme, Dave Gorman: Modern Life Is Goodish, where Gorman criticised Sean. WP:BLP says Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources and I don't think a comedy programme is a high quality BLP source. Launchballer and I discussed this at the talk page here and RSN here, but nobody else responded. TSventon (talk) 10:06, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

I've said my piece there, Modern Life is Goodish would have gone through a production company's lawyers and the channel's lawyers (as evidenced by the section beginning "Gorman also questioned"), and is RS by all other measures. Both episodes (and the podcast) cite at least one editor. I'm pretty sure I'm only using him for attributed opinion and descriptions of work contents, and I've included other opinions for all three of the works he had reviewed.--Launchballer 10:08, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Regardless of whether Modern Life is Goodish is reliable (I suspect it is not—why would copyright lawyers keep a close eye on whether a comedy program sticks to the facts?), its use, supporting nearly half of the article's body is totally WP:UNDUE. Seriously, 600 words to say "Guy A heavily criticised Guy B on a comedy show", sourced entirely to the comedy show in question? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I think Launchballer is saying (and I agree) that libel lawyers would be involved when an individual is criticised at length on national television. I still don't think that a comedy programme is a high quality BLP source. TSventon (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
I tend to disagree (on size of segments in article). Sean appears to be a humorous author and two of the segments are about works he's written. Also material of Gorman's is posted as Gorman's opinion not "fact". Yes other areas should be a little larger, but this doesn't strike me as drastic (but should be looked at I guess). Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 22:22, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
The other point that I was making is that WP:BLP pertains to "information about living persons", and analysis of works - in front of a Doctor Who expert - does not come under this. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS, and nothing controversial comes from it. I've tried to expand the other sections as much as I can, so that should take some of the edge off.--Launchballer 11:19, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
Cas Liber, I think that using Gorman as a source means that this article focuses on the two publications that Gorman found easiest to criticise, which is WP:UNDUE. Also in a comedy programme, Gorman's aim would be to entertain rather than give a neutral overview of Sean's work. I don't know whether Sean is a humorous author: "How to Live Like a Celebrity for Free" may be a work of humour, like 101 Uses for a Dead Cat, but Gorman criticises it as a book of tips, not as a parody of a book of tips. However I am happy to accept your judgement on whether the article is suitable for the main page.
Launchballer, WP:BLP pertains to "Biographies of living persons", including "information about living persons" so I believe that analysis of a living person's works in a biography about them is covered. TSventon (talk) 11:58, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

Raḥamim (newspaper)

@Bruxton, Soman, and Piotrus: The hook is a problematic "first" assertion. I can't get to the source (no preview available in Google Books). The publisher is listed as "Club "Roshnoyi-Light" & authors"; I have no clue what that means. Self-published? This is going to need better sourcing or a different hook. RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

The "first" assertion appears across many sources, I included two to avoid having an exhaustive listing of refs. The publisher is mentioned here as "Organizations like the Bukharian Museum, The Association of Bukharian Jewish Youth “Achdut”, and Club “Roshnoyi–Light”, among others, are actively involved in cultural preservation efforts that include the language." The hook is supported in the article by another book, Durmuş Arık. Buhara Yahudileri. Aziz Andaç, 2005. p. 71. See also in Hebrew, [25] which states the exact same fact. See also История еврейского народа в России. Том 2: От разделов ... ("«Рахамим» — первая газета на языке бухарских евреев."), Шалом: международный литературно-публицистический журнал ... ("первой бухарско - еврейской газеты " Рахамим"), Краткая еврейская энциклопедия - Vol I (" первая газ . на этом яз . « Рахамим » ,"), Бухарские евреи: очерки ("РАХАМИМ » ( « МИЛОСЕРДИЕ » ) - первая бухарско - еврейская газета , издававшаяся Рахмином Давидбаевым в 1910-1914 в Скобелеве "), etc, etc. --Soman (talk) 15:33, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The two book sources in the article were offline as you said. Here is one I just found source The First newspaper published in the Judeo-Tajik (Bukhori) language, in the early 20th Century. This scholar refers to the name of the paper under the name variation "Rakhamim". If we use that variation we find other RS like this book. They all refer to it as the first. I can add one to the article if that works. Bruxton (talk) 15:46, 4 May 2024 (UTC)
When citing offline or hard to access sources for important claims, I recommend adding quotations to the citations (best practices). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:23, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
In this case, it's particularly difficult. It's not just that it's off-line, it's also not in English. But that's easy enough to solve by providing a translation. The real difficulty is that I don't kow how to judge if "Club Roshnoyi–Light" is a WP:RS or not. RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Bruxton's link looks good "In the years 1910–1916 in the city of Skobelev (later renamed to Fergana) the first Jewish paper in the Bukharan-Jewish language – Rakhamim – was published." from Collectivization and Social Engineering: Soviet Administration and the Jews of Uzbekistan, 1917-1939 by Zeev Levin, 2015 link. TSventon (talk) 10:04, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

Redirect in Queue 2

Since being promoted, Taylor Made (song) has moved to Taylor Made Freestyle. The hook should reflect its new name. (My gut reaction to seeing it in prep was "didn't Drake whinge last year after AI vocals of him were used in a Munch (Feelin' U) remix", and wouldn't that make a good hook.)--Launchballer 19:57, 5 May 2024 (UTC)

I've edited Q2 to reflect the new article title. I can't say that I understand your suggestion, though, Launchballer. Can you draft a hook with the words you have in mind? Schwede66 21:39, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
Something like "... that a year after objecting to the unauthorised use of his own AI-generated vocals, Drake used vocals of other rappers generated that way to respond to a diss against him?" (Probably should ping @PSA, Sammi Brie, and Bruxton: out of good manners, although I should be clear I have no problem with the hook currently in queue.)--Launchballer 22:51, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
I'd say that's a stronger hook than what we've currently got. Schwede66 23:03, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
That's a great hook, and I endorse it. As predicted, this stuff has moved pretty quickly. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:10, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
 Done I've adopted the hook as suggested above. Schwede66 22:07, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Character limit for hooks is 200

Our hook character limit is 200. Unless I am missing something it looks like we have a 221 character hook on the main page at the moment. that the production team of the TV series The Falcon and the Winter Soldier created a highway more than five miles (8 km) long to capture visual effects for a truck action sequence for the episode "The Star-Spangled Man"? Pings for Promotor PrimalMustelid, nominators @Dcdiehardfan, Adamstom.97, and Favre1fan93: reviewer @John Cummings: and I am not sure who the queue promotor was. Bruxton (talk) 03:08, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

What you do is to go to the page with the queues and click on the history of the bottom queue, as that's the one that was last emptied. Before it got moved to the main page, you can see that Casliber promoted that queue. Schwede66 03:21, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I went to the nominator's talk page and saw Cas Liber awarded credit. The set looks too long at the moment. about 100-200 more characters than our normal set size. Maybe a trim is in order. Bruxton (talk) 03:28, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I did propose "ALT9: ... that the set for the The Falcon and the Winter Soldier episode "The Star-Spangled Man" included a purpose-built five mile highway?" on that nom as a snappier version of what's currently on the main page. Not sure why I was ignored.--Launchballer 07:25, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

If this still needs to be reduced, we can go with ... that the production team of The Falcon and the Winter Soldier created a highway over five miles long for an action sequence in the episode "The Star-Spangled Man"? Not including the elipses or question mark, I'm counting this as 162 characters. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 15:54, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Prep area 4

Forever Young (horse)

If the horse wins the 2024 Kentucky Derby six hours later, can the hook be changed from Saudi Derby to 2024 Kentucky Derby? NinetyNineDragon (talk) 17:09, 4 May 2024 (UTC)

We could have, but the horse was 3rd. Bruxton (talk) 03:58, 5 May 2024 (UTC)
How about "the first Japanese horse finished third in the Kentucky Derby" (source)? It still sounds more impressive than winning the Saudi Derby and the UAE Derby to me. NinetyNineDragon (talk) 16:55, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates needs to be fixed

@DYK admins: This edit by Sdkb will prevent the bot from updating. Please undo. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 06:03, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Done; my bad! (Having a page so fragile that adding documentation will break it is non-optimal; I'd suggest improving the bot's coding so that it can be re-added.) Sdkb talk 06:07, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
A page like this really should be using the JSON content model. It's still hand editable, but you also get a bit of sanity checking when you save it. It would have prevented this particular problem. RoySmith (talk) 11:49, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
don't see it wrong with it updating once every 86400<noinclude>{{documentation}}</noinclude> seconds, should be every 16 hours or so? would have to check the documentation... :P theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand why an edit like this would be made without checking with the bot owner, Shubinator, first. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:04, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
I don't know that "a critical piece of Main Page infrastructure should probably have some notes on what on earth it is" is an unreasonable impulse – this was {{trout}}able, but I'm not unsympathetic to it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:19, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Special occasion request for Stonewall Inn

When I nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Stonewall Inn to DYK last month, I requested that the DYK run on June 28 to coincide with the first full day of the Stonewall riots. At the time, I forgot about WP:DYKSO, which says that The nomination should be made ... not more than six weeks in advance. Exceptions to the six-week limit can be implemented by way of a local consensus at WT:DYK. I'm cross-posting this here to get consensus on this request.

Also pinging Generalissima, the DYK reviewer, and AirshipJungleman29, who first brought up the DYKSO issue. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

The article topic and the requested date have a strong resonance, both because of the day and in some countries because of the month (Pride Month). The hook even includes a picture of the topic at a historic moment (when it was commemorating its new status as a national historic landmark) which would make for a great image for DYK that day. This is a reasonable request for an exception to WP:DYKSO, and I support it. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:35, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_198&oldid=1235872561"