This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Did you know. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
Looking at the nomination, this started with a more definite hook, "... that the best tomato sandwiches are so messy they may need to be eaten over the kitchen sink?" Someone decided that we couldn't say this in Wikipedia's voice because it's not actually a definite fact; it's just an opinion. Instead of finding an actual definite fact, a weasel was found to introduce the debatable opinion. But who are these enthusiasts and are they notable or reliable?
You see, every time I see this weasel wording, I imagine it to be said in the voice of Jeremy Clarkson who would always introduce The Stig like this. Here's a compilation of "Some say..." examples. Delivering absurd facts in this way is a good joke but that's not what we're about, is it?
Pinging the involved, @Valereee, CurryTime7-24, and Theleekycauldron: Understand your point. Not sure if it is a weasel but it is probably true of any sandwich. When I saw the article I thought back to my own sandwich article with the hook Did you know... that the bondiola sandwich (example pictured) is a popular street food in Argentina? I enjoyed the tomato sandwich article but I see your point about who the "enthusiasts" are. Myself, I am a sandwich enthusiast but I would need more than just tomato to satiate myself. Bruxton (talk) 17:55, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
Anybody who has ever grown tomatoes of their own will understand that a tomato sandwich is a waste of perfectly good bread and mayo. Nothing beats a good vine-ripened tomato, still warm from the sun, eaten just as it is, with the juice dribbling down your shirt. You want some heirloom variety, not the modern hybrids, genetically engineered to have smooth skin and a spherical shape, strong enough to stand up to bouncing around in a truck for a couple of days, and a flavor more akin to cardboard than anything else.
An acceptable variation is thickly slabbed, with a slice of mozzarella on top (the good stuff, freshly made by the deli, not that horrible crap that comes wrapped in plastic), topped with a fresh basil leaf (also from your garden) and some balsamic vinegar. RoySmith(talk)18:08, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Myself I spent 150 bucks on supplies and I grew $4.00 worth of tomatoes. They were good and I made a BLT (minus the L) last night. It was superb and not messy at all. I imagine the bacon held the tomato from slipping around in the mayo and the bread was toasted so it had some grit. Bruxton (talk) 18:32, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith, speaking as someone who has eaten the kind of tomato you're talking about both standing in the garden (I grew up carrying a salt shaker out to the garden where I'd eat tomatoes like apples) and sliced thick, slathered in Duke's, and sandwiched between two slices of soft white bread, leaning over the kitchen sink, I'm going to have to argue that it's a waste of bread and mayo. Two different experiences, both fab. Valereee (talk) 22:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Enthusiasts are, by definition, fanatically in favour of their enthusiasm. You can run anything as a supposed definite fact by using enthusiasts as your weasels. For example:
We've got more such on the main page today: the "coolest person on the planet" and "the loneliest boy in the world" according to "journalists". All we're doing here is echoing clickbait and hype rather than presenting definite facts. And these don't stand close inspection. For example, the "coolest person on the planet" has soon been surpassed by another sports shooter who is even more of a brief sensation. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:19, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Not sure how to proceed
I started the review for the page Margaret Eliza Maltby around two weeks ago here: Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret Eliza Maltby. Since then, the user who made the nomination doesn't seem to have made any contributions, other than responding with "feel free to withdraw this nomination if it needs to be done quickly" two days ago. As this is my first DYK review, I'm not really sure how I'm supposed to proceed with this nomination. Should it be withdrawn, as concerns have already not been addressed in a timely manner, and the nominator hasn't expressed an intention of preparing the article in the nearby future? Or should I keep waiting until the nominator gets around to it and, if so, what should be considered "quickly"? Thanks. Leafy46 (talk) 16:31, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Leafy46 Thanks for helping out at DYK; sorry your first review ended up being complicated like this! In any case, I've closed the review as withdrawn. In case you're wondering, you still get credit for the review when it comes to QPQ time. RoySmith(talk)16:47, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66, AirshipJungleman29, and BeanieFan11: I'm not following the full history here, but it looks like this was approved as a single hook for Manizha Talash and the other two got added post-approval. I suggest we go back to this being a single. The story really is that 1) there is an Afghani break dancer and 2) that the IOC Refugee Olympic Team exists. Adding the other two names just detracts from that. RoySmith(talk)15:36, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps, but it's still the interesting part. What's so special about "two other women are also competing in this sport on another team"? RoySmith(talk)18:57, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, there were four date requests for 9 August (not five). We've (mostly) restricted the sets to three Olympics hooks. Hence, something needs to be merged somewhere. Obviously, we don't need to run all three of the break dancers in the same hook; we can have one plus two across two hooks. I'm open to suggestions. Schwede6622:32, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, I know this is going to be unpopular but I'd suggest not running Choi and Edra at all. ChatGPT (because I couldn't find the answer on Wikipedia) tells me there's 32 competitors. What makes these two girls from "their country" special enough to stand out from the other 30? I know what makes Talash special, and it's a story worth telling without getting second (third?) billing. RoySmith(talk)22:51, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
You are correct, RoySmith – I don't find that popular. You ask: What makes these two girls from "their country" special enough to stand out from the other 30? My answer is that the two articles meet all five criteria of WP:DYKAIM. And I suspect that ChatGPT found the answer to your query in this sentence: A total of 32 quota places (sixteen per sex) are available for eligible dancers to compete for the inaugural medals in breaking – that is from Breaking at the 2024 Summer Olympics. Schwede6623:21, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Regarding your edit comment "no reason to refer to ChatGPT instead of WP", the bottom line is I spent a few minutes here and failed to find what I was looking for so I went there and got the answer. People come here for answers to questions. If somebody else is doing a better job of that (even if it's because they ingest our data), we're on the road to becoming irrelevant. RoySmith(talk)23:47, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
It's a common problem that sports bios don't point to the individual event that competitors are competing in. I've thus tried it to make things as easy as possible by linking to the correct event in my table above that keeps track of everything. I guess what I'm saying is if you are looking for an answer to something Olympics-related, start with the table above. Schwede6600:05, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
This has since been promoted to Template:Did you know/Queue/3 by Z1720. I agree that this composite hook is very dull, which is a shame given the original hook suggestions. Perhaps a compromise could be move one to Q4 as breakdancing will also be occurring on the 10th (even if it's the men's event)? Sdrqaz (talk) 23:10, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
I saw this discussion before I promoted the queue. I had no concerns with the interest of the hook. I think stating that two athletes are representing their countries emphasises how the IOC Refugee information is unusual. I also do not think that there is a more interesting hook for the two American athletes available. Z1720 (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2024 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 20. We have a total of 288 nominations, of which 130 have been approved, a gap of 158 nominations that has decreased by 8 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:07, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Solid South
This article was nominated recently, and I attempted a review, but it appears the nominator misunderstood the nomination process. They nominated the article for DYK in connection with nominating it for GA, apparently not understanding that the article has to pass GA before it can be successfully nominated. I am slightly at a loss about how to proceed. Should I fail the nomination? Can the nominator then propose it for DYK again after (if) it achieves GA status? Or can it be withdrawn somehow? Thanks for any pointers. Yakikaki (talk) 19:47, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Edit: There's a brief exchange between me and the nominator on my talk page casting some light on the misunderstandning. Yakikaki (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I've left a message to the IP editor who did the expansion on my talk page. I assume that they keep an eye on my talk page. I agree that some copy-editing would need to happen before this can run. Schwede6604:22, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
Is there a way of purging Earwig's results? I tried to do some work on it earlier but the IP edit conflicted me, and it's still giving cached results.--Launchballer19:26, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer I wasn't previously aware that it did any caching, but I do see that there's a "Bypass cache" checkbox on the form, so maybe check that and see what it does? RoySmith(talk)19:49, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
The nomination credit to the Example editor that starts at the bottom of the credits with each empty set—* {{DYKnom|Example|Editor}}—has not been removed, as is supposed to happen when the set finally fills. Hoping that an admin can take care of this before the queue goes live. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:05, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
I've given things a bit of a tidy up. Empty lines deleted; noms are now in the right order (not that it matters; it only helps when you check hooks against credits). Schwede6605:21, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
And related to that, @Theleekycauldron would it be possible to add something to PSHAW which provided a link in the prep/queue back to the nomination? Where I'm going with this is being able to click on one button and have a script generate a {{ping}} template for you which includes all the interested parties. RoySmith(talk)15:44, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I didn't realize that's what the subpage was. Thanks, that gives me what I need. I'm still scratching my head over the details of how to compute the expected main page time for a queue; I'm pretty good at the mechanics of multiplication, but in this case I'm not quite sure how to find all the things that need to be multiplied. RoySmith(talk)14:21, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
The article does not say or claim that this was "the first cycling club in Washington", just that it was "early".
Also, the source doesn't seem to mention pedestrians specifically – just of the "dangerous potential for accidents". Perhaps a concern was the risk of collisions with horses and/or people and property in general?
Note that the hook wasn't checked in the nomination even though it included a first. It was just waved through as AGF.
I have to take some of the blame here, since I promoted the queue. It's especially embarrassing since ranting about "first" hooks is one of the top ways I make myself annoying at WT:DYK. The unfortunate truth is that when I'm processing queues, I don't have time to read every article in full. I generally just read the hook and then search for keywords in the text to verify the facts. Looking back at the article, I suspect I found "the first such club in the country" and didn't notice this was immediately preceded by "Boston Bicycle Club".
I know this has been said before, but Andrew, you have a keen eye for detail and critical reading. These are valuable skills and in great demand at DYK, so thank you for the much-needed quality control. But it would be even more useful if it was done on the #Next DYK and #Next-but-one DYK sections, so we could catch these problems before they hit the main page. RoySmith(talk)15:02, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Different point: the comma after the "(uniform pictured)" should instead come before. So, " ... Washington, D.C., (uniform pictured) to the police". JMCHutchinson (talk) 13:42, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
... that Olympic taekwondo practitioner Emmanuella Atora described her career as "I hit people for a living"?
According to the source, what she actually said was "Je tape les gens pour vivre". This was not translated by the source and it's not clear what she meant by it as Taekwondo is not usually a professional sport while she appears to have a career as an aspiring professional model.
Andrew🐉(talk) 06:27, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
@Primergrey Thanks for the report. The article is inconsistent on "the Proms" vs "The Proms"; it mostly uses "the", but there's enough instances of "The" to make me unsure what's the right thing to do here. I'll leave it the way it is now and ask about it on Talk:BBC Proms. You may want to follow that conversation. RoySmith(talk)21:35, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
While their work is great, I do remember their comment of "If DYK published regular corrections then the shame might be a useful check and balance, helping to deter sloppy work." from July 1. Not doing the checks earlier and posting this section here might just be a way to shame contributors. SL93 (talk) 22:37, 9 August 2024 (UTC)
I was away for a few weeks and had Aid climbing in the DYK queue, but never got a notice on my talk page that it appeared on the mainpage, and there is no DYK notice on the talk page of the article.
Special Occasion review request for Siege of Perth
Unsure how best to make this request, but I had raised Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Perth (1339) some time ago and thought it might be nice to run on 17 August as the anniversary of the end of the siege. Presuming there is no issue with this, I had wanted to highlight it here to request a review, allowing time to deal with any issues and avoid the nomination being overlooked. CSJJ104 (talk) 20:34, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for confirming, but my concern was more related to the fact that it has yet to receive a review, and we are getting close to the date. CSJJ104 (talk) 00:54, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
I changed the hook from "tickling" to "tickled" (and the appropriate grammar) because 1) that is how it is quoted in the source and the article (with the quote marks) and 2) the woman used forced perspective to make it look like she was tickling the statue, which necessitates the quote marks. Please ping if there are questions, concerns, or if different wording would be better. Z1720 (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, @Z1720; it looks mostly good. I do feel that "after she..." would work better than "when she" here; let me know what you think. joeyquism (talk) 03:44, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
As noted at the image's deletion discussion, this provenance of the photo was already addressed at User talk:YetiStuff#Couple of things. My sense is that the uploader is not lying about being the owner of the coprolite images. I'm not seeing any problem with the GWR reference as it is not being used to establish notability, but the article would suffer little if it had to be removed. The one instance of close paraphrasing I saw has been addressed, but if there is anything else, please ping me. gobonobo+c13:34, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29, Schwede66, and Z1720: I'm going to go out on a limb and say WTF? As noted in the nomination template, the nominator is indef blocked for copyright violation. The nom was failed, and that was overridden by an IP. Is this really what we want to be showcasing on the main page? It's also another "first" hook, and considered the earliest deep-sea shipwreck to be discovered in the article got turned into the wikivoice statement is the earliest deep-sea shipwreck. In the hook. My recommendation is this be pulled. RoySmith(talk)11:27, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
I am familiar with the original nominator, have rejected several of their nominations for WP:NONENGPLAG, and have recommended against unblocking them on their userpage. I have checked this article over, and I was unable to find similar violations. The article itself meets the reasoning at WP:DYKAIM, there is no meaningful difference between the hook and the relevant cited sentences in the article, and the hook is in fact relatively conservative—it has been suggested to be the oldest complete shipwreck ever found, deep-water or not (only two other Bronze Age shipwrecks with cargo have been found in the Mediterranean). I would advise against pulling. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:16, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
One of the things which makes it difficult for me to evaluate this is that most of the sources are in Hebrew. That's perfectly fine in general, and we often WP:AGF on foreign-language sources, but in this case we're dealing with an author who has a history of copyright issues, so AGF becomes more difficult. I'd really want this text to be checked over by somebody with a native reading knowledge of Hebrew. If that's you, great, I'll be happy to go with your evaluation. If not, then I think we need to look for one. RoySmith(talk)12:53, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Given that this is already on Queue we'd really want to get it right this time, so regardless if AJ29's check is sufficient it should probably be pulled temporarily until we're absolutely sure it checks. Since you're a sysop, maybe you can do the honors? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:28, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, if you trust a copyright check based on a machine translation for an article written by somebody who is indeffed for copyvios, go for it. It's not something I want to put my signature on. RoySmith(talk)15:57, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
They have been indeffed for copyvios because of copyright checks based on machine translations. If you feel that machine translations are not accurate enough to check copyrights, you should accept their unblock request immediately and apologise for a block based on insufficient reasoning. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Looking at this, I wondered why it was called "Orca Shipwreck" which the article didn't explain. Most English language sources such as the BBC, Scientific American and NYT don't use this name. I've amended the title so that it is now Canaanite shipwreck which also uses the correct sentence case. If the hook is run, then it should be adjusted accordingly but I'm not sure where the hook is in the pipeline now. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:10, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
There's an argument to be made, given the ballaches caused by the blocks of certain former DYK regulars, that nominators with blocks of more than two weeks should automatically forfeit their nominations. Issues could conceivably be found at any point and there's no point going through the motions if the nominators physically can't fix them.--Launchballer10:25, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
This is about figuring out what went wrong so we can improve the process, not to place blame on anybody in particular. This was brought up on WP:ERRORS. Looking at the history, I see many small things that went wrong, all of which added up to us publishing something we shouldn't have.
First, as mentioned on WP:ERRORS, the original hook was incorrect, possibly because this was a third-party nomination so the nom didn't know the subject. Somewhere along the way, the article author noticed the problem but posted their correction on the article talk page instead of on the nomination page, so it probably wasn't seen by the reviewer and/or promoter. When the hook got corrected, instead of striking out the original and adding an ALT, the original was changed in-place, making it less likely the promoter would be aware of the problem. When the new hook was reviewed, the reviewer gave it a lukewarm approval, but it ended up getting approved anyway. And lastly, we've got people at WP:ERORRS who seem to be more interested in waiting for things to get published so than can embarrass us in public than in being part of the process and helping to spot problems before they go live.
I think the take-home should be that everybody needs to just slow down and be more careful. It's more important to get it right than to get it done. RoySmith(talk)14:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
One process/software issue here is that editing the "Did you know nomination" section on the talk page does not edit the Did you know nomination, unlike most other transcluded sections elsewhere on the 'pedia. We could perhaps at least add a hidden comment to the section when the DYK nom is transcluded to the talk page, to warn people that their comments are unlikely to be seen.
DYK discussions should really be able to use the "reply" button like all other discussions on Wikipedia, but that doesn't work because they (a) happen in the wrong namespace and (b) inside an overly complicated and clever template. —Kusma (talk) 14:24, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
A recent issue of Tech News had a bit about being able to configure VE to run in all namespaces. It wasn't clear if that also applied to Discussion Tools (which I think is what the reply button is connected to). But, yeah, not having a working reply button is a real pain. RoySmith(talk)15:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived about an hour ago, so I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 24. We have a total of 281 nominations, of which 125 have been approved, a gap of 156 nominations that has decreased by 2 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:53, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29, Kevmin, and Awkwafaba: The hook says "are lost at the Smithsonian", which implies that they got to the Smithsonian and then the museum lost them. The article only says "Pearson sent almost all of the specimens collected to the Smithsonian, but the fossils were never accessioned into the collections". For all we know, they got lost in transit and never made it to the museum. RoySmith(talk)12:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
But that's not correct either. I suggested that being lost in transit was one possible explanation. It's certainly possible they did indeed get delivered and got lost inside the museum. From the information we have, there's no way to know which. RoySmith(talk)15:03, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith and AirshipJungleman29: They were lost after arriving at the Smithsonian, Being examined by the head of the Smithsonians paleoichthyology department David Dunkle and Dunkle replying to Pearson with a list of tentative identifications as to what the fish genera were in the mid 1960's. Within 10 years of that happening, When Mark Wilson tried to find them for re-examination, they were unlocatable, as they had not been accessioned and so placement in the vast collections was not determinable. Given that Pearson has stated he sent the specimens for identification, and Dunkle was able to respond with identifications, that Wilson was able to report on later, establishes clearly that the fossils were last know to be AT the Smithsonian. I have added Pearson (1967) to Libotonius, with Pearson specifically detailing the correspondence with Dunkle. Pearson, R.C. (1967). Geologic map of the Bodie Mountain quadrangle, Ferry and Okanogan counties, Washington (Geologic Quadrangle). Report. United States Geological Survey. doi:10.3133/gq636. --Kevmin§16:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
@Kevmin OK, I see the report at https://pubs.usgs.gov/gq/0636/report.pdf, but all it says about Dunkle is Fossil fish from the same beds as the plants have been identified by D. H. Dunkle (written communs.,1962, 1965) as Amyzon, Trychophanes, Erismatopterus, and a salmon. Am I looking in the wrong place? If so, could you help me find the section that talks about this correspondence? RoySmith(talk)16:46, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
That is the correspondence, the "Erismatopterus" that Dunkle idnetified from the sent fossils are the fossils Mark Wilson in 1979 stated as probably being Libotonius and not Erismatopterus (a related genus from Wyoming fossils). Pearson and wilson state the fossils were sent to the Smithsonian, and Dunkle looked at something to make the identifications he wrote back to Pearson with.--Kevmin§18:15, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
It took a bit of digging, but I found Wilson 1978 in ResearchGate. Based on that, I'm satisfied the hook is a defensible statement. RoySmith(talk)21:01, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
Fine with the change, however the phrase "generations of Detroit" actually appears twice, once under "3 generations of Detroit".--Launchballer12:53, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I think the source [3] says he was burnt at the stake ("Scheiterhaufen"), but I don't know enough German to confirm the exact meaning, so I'll leave it to the nominators to determine how to phrase it in the article. — Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs)14:49, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
My translator gives me two translations for Scheiterhaufen: pyre and stake. I read both these words but wasn't exactly sure what they mean. It seems close enough to me to use stake in article and hook. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Scheiterhaufen seems to mean pile of wood, which is the same as pyre. A stake is a wooden post, so being burned on a pyre does not necessarily mean burned at the stake. TSventon (talk) 20:34, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I could not find in the article where this was stated. The source used in the DYK nom was only used once in the article as an inline citation, to support the statement: "One case study showed that in 1995, fifteen iguanas survived a 300 km journey to Anguilla in the Caribbean, an island which no iguana had lived on previously. They survived floating on a mass of uprooted trees from a storm."
The hook implies that the animals used the storm to travel, but the sentence in the article says the animals travelled on trees uprooted by a storm. Does the text in the article need to change, or should a different ALT hook be used? Z1720 (talk) 23:47, 11 August 2024 (UTC)
Looks like I grabbed the wrong source. See this Nat Geo article in the source [4] (Paywalled, sorry)
per the source’s lead image caption: “Hurricane Isaias approaches Myrtle Beach, South Carolina, on August 3, 2020. The storm's floodwaters spread more than a hundred invasive species, according to the U.S. Geological Survey.”
Though it looks like the source does not directly imply that it is the wind transporting animals, I read that in a source I don’t have available on my phone right now I believe — propose adding “the floodwaters produced by” before “tropical cyclones” if you desire to be specific.
Reading this back, I actually think I’d rather we just run the original hook about extinction and I’ll work on resolving this issue in the article when I’m back on stable internet. ForksForks (talk) 01:06, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
I felt that riding the storm and riding the ocean that produces and sustains the storm are pretty much the same thing, but if that has to be specifically said (i.e. "riding the waves of tropical cyclones?") would that work? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:50, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
No, tropical cyclones don't have waves, waves are just an effect they cause in water. Animals can colonize islands through floats on normal currents, the cyclone addition is purely DYK hook factor. CMD (talk) 11:31, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
While this hook is interesting, it is not supported by the sources as written. I propose the following:
ALT ... that rising water levels from tropical cyclones have allowed animals to colonise islands.
OK with me, feel free to use your discretion. Though colonize vs colonise is an ENGVAR question and the article is in American english. ForksForks (talk) 15:01, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I switched the hook with ALT0, as it is more succinct and it is less likely to get hauled to ERRORS, imo. Z1720 (talk) 16:31, 13 August 2024 (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.
Discussion on Olympics
Extended content
Remembering that we did themed sets for the FIFA Women's World Cup last year, I thought of an idea for a themed set of hooks: the 2024 Summer Olympics take place from July 26 to August 11 this year (in a little over five weeks) and I think there will probably be a decent number of Olympics-related hooks; I at least plan to write a good number of them. I was thinking we might be able to do something like one Olympics hook per day for the duration of the event, similar to how we did for the FIFA World Cup. Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
Indeed. I coordinated something like that for the last Olympics and had been planning on offering that service once more. Schwede6621:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good idea. If I were to promote that set, I'd run all the checks anyway. Partly because I have a work flow, and partly because if I'm going to publish something over my signature, I'm going to satisfy myself that it's correct. So all you've done by adding this note would be to create additional work for me because I'd have to figure out what's going on and then edit the hook to get rid of the note. RoySmith(talk)00:57, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
@BeanieFan11: I'm still feeling pretty green at DYK so I'd prefer for someone else to take care of this if possible. I'm also out and won't be on PC tonight to take care of this. I have no objections to it though. Hey man im josh (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2024 (UTC)
Note that this should be a subsection within the existing special occasion section, not a separate section. I have adjusted accordingly. I don't understand why the Solomon Islands hook—not shown above but in the section itself—is listed for the day before the Olympics starts; it looks like one that could run any time during the actual Olympics, which the article on the games lists as July 26 through August 11. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
I’ll add it to the table. Things got somewhat crowded last time, hence my thinking of running everything that’s not 2024 Olympics as a warmup beforehand. Schwede6619:18, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
BlueMoonset, I can see where the confusion arises. As explained above, the Olympic competitions start on 24 July, two days prior to the opening ceremony. Schwede6604:15, 29 June 2024 (UTC)
Schwede66, in that case the lede of the article is wrong. It should be made clear there that while the opening ceremony is on 26 July, the competition itself begins on 24 July. No objection to the Solomon Islands hook running on 25 July if the Olympics themselves have already begun by then; I see no reason why it can't run during the Olympics themselves on a date where there isn't anything more appropriate. I don't think it should be a "warmup" hook, however. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
I've put the line "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit" into action and amended the lead of the 2024 Summer Olympics to spell out that some competitions start on 24 July. I'm easy about running "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics" during the Olympics if there's room if that's what others prefer; I note we have threefour five of those hooks. Schwede6603:41, 30 June 2024 (UTC)
Ok, it's not too crowded this time (yet). I'll move the "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics" hooks to show during the Olympics. Schwede6605:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
I shall eat my words. It's getting rather crowded; should have started running the warmup hooks earlier including the "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics". I don't think that we'll have a chance of limiting the sets to two Olympic hooks even if we shuffle things around; it seems we'll have more than two on average for the duration of the Olympics. Schwede6600:45, 13 July 2024 (UTC)
Do others share that concern? I don't think that Summer versus Winter Olympics is a big stretch. I note that there are four Winter Olympics hooks in the table above. The other thought is that any hook will have to run at some point, so why not have Olympic-adjacent hooks run just before the Summer Olympics? Schwede6610:42, 8 July 2024 (UTC)
Some of the Olympic hooks need a bit more attention from reviewers, or nominators are dragging the chain with QPQs. For example, Prep 1 is already filled but there's still one hook that awaits its QPQ. Prep 2 is filling up but a review for this nomination hasn't even been started yet. I'd be happy to do some shuffling but there's nothing really to shuffle this with; further down, the hooks are all timed for particular occasions. Shifting items back into the Olympics proper is also tricky as almost all days have two or three items already. I'd most appreciate if those who can stand reviewing sports articles can give this some attention. Schwede6609:32, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
No, you are all good, Launchballer. What isn't good is the Zhang Ziyu nomination. I'm not sure why the reviewer isn't signing off on it. Could someone else please check that the remaining issue ("sources vary") has been dealt with to satisfaction? This should go into Prep 1, and I've just made a hole for it (the prep set was already full). Schwede6621:00, 16 July 2024 (UTC)
If I'm reading that correctly, your only contribution was to add in 'at least', which was BeanieFan's suggestion anyway, and to swap cm and inches, which adds no extra information. I wouldn't say you was involved.--Launchballer21:38, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, maybe I wasn't – I'm just trying to make sure to not even give the impression of INVOLVED. Either way, Bruxton has filled that gap once more. Schwede6622:29, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
I have queried, at Zhang Ziyu's nomination, why an article on an athlete who is not participating and has not participated in an Olympics is part of this "drive" and needs to run on 24 July. Looking at this comment, it seems that the original expectation was for very few hooks to come in and lots of supplementary hooks to have to be used, but now we're overflowing with hooks! From the table below, it seems that some days are now scheduled to have three Olympics hooks run, which is over the maximum of two per set. Why can't some of them be moved to run earlier? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
You appear to be keen to obstruct that Zhang Ziyu not be promoted to Prep1, therefore practically pushing it into later sets. How does that align with your desire to bring other Olympic-related hooks forward? Isn't that a contradiction? Schwede6622:31, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Zhang Ziyu is not Olympics-related, along with many other sports nominations which won't be run until after the Olympics are over because of WP:DYKVAR (1, 2, 34, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10). I have also noticed and tagged new Olympics-related nominations which aren't in the table yet, such as Template:Did you know nominations/Lê Đức Phát, and more will surely appear shortly. It seems very foolish to prioritise including Zhang Ziyu, who will not compete at the Olympics, when this drive has nominations ready to be prepped on people who actually are competing! I can bet that by the end of this, we will be looking at an entire set of hooks for the final day. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:07, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Today's main page was significantly unbalanced and I've addressed that by removing one OTD hook and adding a tenth DYK hook, for which I chose Zhang Ziyu. I've issued the credits manually; I did all this some 15 minutes after midnight UTC. Schwede6601:40, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Here's a summary of how many hooks we've got, and when they are scheduled to run (note that the table has been shifted to the section "Help needed"):
As can be seen:
There are three days when we have three hooks.
Two of those three-a-day sets occur when all prior sets have two hooks, i.e. there is nothing we can do about it (other than delaying for the third hook to run until after the scheduled day).
The third occasion of a three-a-day set is on 10 August, and there are currently three days (4, 8, and 9 Aug) when one of those hooks could run early.
Given how it's going, I would expect that we get more nominations, and those one-a-day sets may get busier.
Therefore, we have to agree whether we would be happy with three Olympic-related hooks per set. Delaying Olympic-related hooks that are already approved is definitely not helping. Schwede6622:49, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
For the record, and having thought about it overnight, I would be happy with three Olympic hooks so long as they are adequately separated, so long as they are all Olympic-related. I think two Olympic hooks and a non-Olympic sports hook is a tougher ask. The Zhang Ziyu nomination is less than two weeks old, I don't think there's any danger of it timing out. Happy to hear alternative perspectives on this.--Launchballer11:37, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
We currently have four hooks for 29 July / Prep6; this is the next prep set that will become available. That sounds too many, however, only one of those hooks is currently at SOHA. One hook, a swimmer starting for Israel, hasn't had the review started yet. There may well be a reluctance to "touch" anything Israel, so this might not make it. The two other hooks are both awaiting BeanieFan11 to provide a QPQ. Thus, at this point in time, we only have one viable hook from four candidates. When Prep6 becomes available, I'll thus bring one of the "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics" hooks forward so that we've at least got two hooks to go. Schwede6620:14, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Of the four hooks for 29 July, one of them is Suriname at the 1960 Summer Olympics, which can run on any day. I think that one should run on a different day.--Launchballer21:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
That is true, but it's currently the only hook that's ready. As it's a "foo at the YYYY Summer Olympics" hook, it's not a good idea to bring another one of this type forward into that set, though. If the three hooks aren't ready, we can always run Template:Did you know nominations/Zhang Ziyu as the second hook if someone wanted to sign that off. Schwede6623:46, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
July 30 will have two "first" hooks (Alyssa Mendoza is in prep 7, and Andy Barat is in SOHA). Do we really want two such hooks in the same prep, even if they are fully verified? SL93 (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment, SL93. The bigger concern that I have is that we have way too many Olympic hooks for 30 July. Here's the two hooks in question:
If we were to do that, we'd get the nominations for 30 July from five to four. As I suggested the combined hook, I'd feel more comfortable if someone else copied it into Prep7.
Four Olympic hooks is still one too many. We have two nominations for triathlon (Shachar Sagiv and Matthew Wright) but I just cannot think of a good double hook for them. The two hooks that are signed off are those that we can combine into one. If the other three hooks all get signed off in time, I suggest we need to cull one of them. I suggest that be the hook for Matthew Wright as it was nominated significantly later than the one for Sagiv (20 July and 11 June, respectively). Just putting this out here for transparency; whilst I did not write the Sagiv article (an IP did), I did nominate it. Schwede6602:57, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
We have consensus for ALT1 or ALT1a. Could somebody who is uninvolved please do the honours and edit the Mendoza hook in Prep7 and add Barat to the mix? Schwede6606:13, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I promoted it. I am slightly involved, but I boldly acted on it because it doesn't seem worthwhile to wait because it might mess up other prep builders who haven't read this far into the discussion. SL93 (talk) 13:44, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for doing that, SL93. Much appreciated. I've seen that you have since filled the last few spots in Prep 6. Did you see that the Suriname hook is still in the SOHA for that set? Schwede6623:14, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I see. I didn't read that as there not being consensus; I thought we were just fine-tuning. I wonder whether Arcahaeoindris as reviewer is equally unaware / mis-reading the situation that it requires a further sign off? Schwede6623:27, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
I can promote one of the hooks now if you can point it out. I can't tell which hook version it would be. SL93 (talk) 23:32, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
Just noting here that I merged the Sagiv and Matthew Wright hooks into one - my merged hook used nothing but information from two approved hooks, so this should be okay.--Launchballer01:53, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
I've made a space in prep for it. It's nearly five in the morning where I am so I'm probably too groggy to promote it properly, but that should tell a prep-to-queuer to back off for a few hours. (Does nominating on the IP's behalf make you involved? I don't think it does.)--Launchballer03:53, 26 July 2024 (UTC)
You can shuffle the "foo at the yyyy…" hooks around at will, SL93. It doesn’t matter when they run. Looking at the table, there are currently two hooks for each of those days, so I would go with that. Schwede6622:49, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
I have updated the list here wrt prep/queue 6. If I was to make a personal call on the Philippines article, though I imagine the disparity doesn't need immediately addressing because prep builders won't get there for a few days, I would say August 2 as otherwise (per this list) those two days would be unbalanced in number of Olympics hooks. Kingsif (talk) 22:28, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
The 1924 Philippines article seems a shoo-in for a non-that hook, like last month's most successful hook. Maybe something like "why the Philippines held two flags at the opening ceremony of the 1924 Summer Olympics?"--Launchballer13:39, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
Would we rather that, or the Liechtenstein hook to be "... why Liechtenstein decided to use a different flag in the opening ceremony of the 1936 Summer Olympics?" (would also mean more difference between it and the previous Haiti one) If neither of Philippines/Liechtenstein is set to run soon, we could workshop it. Kingsif (talk) 22:16, 25 July 2024 (UTC)
There'll be some special date requests coming in and to avoid filling up individual hook sets with too much sport, I suggest we co-ordinate what will run when to spread things out in a logical fashion. I suspect that we'll stay in a 24-hour cycle for the duration of the event but if that changes, we can accommodate that as well. Time zone–wise, Paris is currently at UTC+02:00 (Central European Summer Time or CEST), hence there are no mental gymnastics necessary as long as we stay in the 24-hour cycle. Comments welcome. Helpers are welcome and essential; I certainly don't want to do this all by myself as this was quite a bit of work some three years ago for the Tokyo Olympics. And with regards to my own special interests, I shall tell you that the Kiwi rowers are in good shape; I can hear the medals clinking already! Schwede6601:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
For Weintraub, the best that I can come up with is: that after having been an unused alternate at the Tokyo Olympics, Maia Weintraub is now qualified for fencing at the Paris Olympics? That probably won't be seen as interesting enough. I'll deal with the other articles; thanks for your good work. Schwede6620:15, 23 June 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, BeanieFan11. I've processed Hannesdóttir but can't think of a good hook for Nir'on. Chances are that his Danish grandparents had to leave Denmark during WWII and if so, that connection and him also being able to play for Denmark could yield a viable hook. But SuperJew would have to do more work on that aspect. Schwede6603:54, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
Tried to have a look. Can't find anything about his grandparents having to leave, and even added that his father played for a Danish club in 1996-97. It seems the main reason Denmark (national team and the Danish club) were interested in trialling him and offering a contract is because of his heritage and if he was a regular visa/foreigner they wouldn't have bothered. It's an interesting saying on how heritage (one might even say luck) can open up doors. I'm not sure about how to word it though as a DYK and I understand if it's a bit too vague for a viable hook. --SuperJew (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2024 (UTC)
@BeanieFan11 and Schwede66: Here's an interesting switch. Nir'on was promoted today from alternate player to the regular 18-player squad for the Olympics due to an injury to Daniel Peretz. It's also interesting that his first big chance in the U21 level was due to Peretz withdrawing (was called-up to the senior team). I think that could make an interesting hook if worded well. --SuperJew (talk) 19:59, 18 July 2024 (UTC)
Oh dear. Things are getting really crowded! BeanieFan11, I've noticed that many of your sports bios are flagbearers. Shall we go for a mass hook hook to get rid of many individual nominations as possible? Something like so:
If that sounds like a good idea, could you please identify the flagbearers, BeanieFan11? We would be aiming for Prep 3, and Camil Doua is in that set for the reason of being her country's flagbearer. Amended – have since figured who the flagbearers are and I think there's three of them. Two of them have yet to be reviewed; volunteers welcome. Schwede6602:15, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Reviewed, approved. I'll give it a few hours for the bot to move it to the approved page, then move it to SOHA if nobody beats me to it. Kingsif (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66: How about this: we put Doua as a standalone hook when he competes (I really like that hook), and merge all the other flagbearers into the hook to be featured at the opening ceremony date – that'd include Hannesdottir, Duc Phat, Nettasinghe, Grippoli, and Farro (and might write one or two more today – as well as get the QPQs). Alright? BeanieFan11 (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
I'm ok with leaving Doua out of the mass hook as we have a rather cool ALT for him. I don't think it's a good idea at all you writing more bios for Prep3; that's already open, you have a ton out outstanding QPQs (please concentrate on those), and we need reviewers. I just can't see this all getting reviewed in time, BeanieFan11. Schwede6619:43, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66: So, for the mass hook, should I nominate Farro or Nettasinghe (with the four others) right now and I guess we'll try to get someone to review? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2024 (UTC)
Just a heads up that I've got a week of little available time coming up:
I may be out for most of tomorrow (Wed, 24 Jul)
I will be out for all of Thu, 25 Jul
I will have limited availability on Fri, 26 Jul
I will be out for all of Sat and Sun, 27&28 Jul
I will have limited availability on Mon, 29 Jul
I will be out for all of Tue, 30 Jul
I may be out for most of Wed, 31 Jul
After that, things should be back to normal. Hence, it might be a good idea if others take the lead. Kingsif, you were asking whether there's something where you could help – here's your chance. Last time, Joseph2302 did a lot of good work – would you be interested to step up?
What needs doing? Here's a hopefully complete list:
Respond to new nominations if they come up and slot them into a logical spot in the table below, but it would also be fine to say "thanks, but no thanks – it's too late in the process". That's up to you.
Once a day, I update the status items in the table below:
items will go from prep to queue, or will have been published on the main page
items will go from "Review not yet started" to "under review" to "At SOHA"
in the column "prep set", add new preps as they become available
Keep an eye on nominations that move close to prep sets becoming available and encourage those who are involved in getting on with it. For example, there are about half a dozen QPQs outstanding and nudging usually results in action.
Shuffle things around in prep if needed; encourage promoters to put things into prep if you don't want to do it yourself.
Ping admins if things need to move around in queue.
If I think of anything else, I'll add that to the list. It's reasonably late in the process (the first competitions will start tomorrow) and all the structural issues are sorted. It just needs some low-level maintenance at this point. Schwede6623:05, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Wow, that's a lot of work, I'm impressed you've handled it all yourself so far. I can probably manage a daily check of new nominations and promoting hooks to newly available preps. Kingsif (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Kingsif. Yes, that is a lot, but it's be much less work now than it was in the beginning. Anyway, if you haven't got time for everything, I suggest the following two priority items:
Place approved noms into the special occasion holding area
Update the table so that there's an overview for prep builders, yourself, etc
I'd say that new nominations is the least important part. As it stands, we have enough. To accommodate more, you'd have to look around which hooks can be merged, which requires thinking time, much reading, discussion, i.e. a lot of work is involved in that. Schwede6623:19, 23 July 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Just nominated Kim Ye-ji (sport shooter). I suspect it would be a mad dash to get her in for tomorrow (although there is a 'foo at the Olympic Games' hook that could be swapped out), but she might be useful to run on the date of the closing ceremony. (She literally went viral a couple of days ago.)--Launchballer10:53, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, there are already three Olympics hooks in Queue 6, but 1964 Summer Olympics medal table doesn't have to run on that date and can be shifted back. All it needs at this point is a new reviewer for ALT1, as the reviewer suggested that hook, and then it's good to go. I'm happy to do the admin checks and promote it, BeanieFan11. Schwede6601:09, 3 August 2024 (UTC)
Ok, I've done quite a reshuffle to accommodate this hook going into Q6:
When I started this exercise, Valizadeh was still in Prep2, hence I did the admin checks before I moved this hook. However, RoySmith had in the meantime promoted Prep2 to Q2. There have thus been two lots of admin checks done on this hook. I'd be happy to change the credits when Q6 and Q7 go live to reflect the reviewing admin. Let me know if you'd like me to do that, Roy and Leeky. There's now a gap in Q7 that I will fill after doing some admin checks. I'm aware that you don't like that, Roy, hence feel free to repeat the checks. However, the offer stands that I will change the credit note to show my user name once this has gone live. Schwede6603:16, 4 August 2024 (UTC)
I think this is the last nomination that I shall add here, and it's my own. Finn Butcher (nom). Could even be used as the lead hook, as we have a series of nice photos. Schwede6601:55, 6 August 2024 (UTC)
Z1720, I see that you’ve promoted Prep 5 to queue. None of the prep builders had had time to deal with this hook. If it’s not too inconvenient, could you please slot it in? Thanks so much. This completes the Olympics exercise for 2024! Schwede6615:56, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66: It has been placed in Queue 5. I did not use the image because the water was obscuring his face, and the next DYK set has a portrait of a man. Z1720 (talk) 16:12, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
I appreciate your note, @Chipmunkdavis. What I'm saying is that Mahdavi is no longer part of the Olympics set, i.e. it will run sometime after the closing ceremony. Schwede6604:53, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
chosen as lead hook This hook names Femke Bol who is due to compete in Paris. We have a second (double-)hook that names here, hence I suggest we run this as the first warm-up hook to put as much time between the two appearance of Bol as possible. This would lend itself as the picture hook as we've got a good photo.
One of the warm-up hooks; can run on any date before the Olympics start (24 is in fact the first day of competitions but we haven't got anything for that day yet). This double-hook has already had its admin checks done (by Cwmhiraeth)
Flagbearer – Doua is competing in the men's 100 metre freestyle and the heats will be on 30 July. Problem is that we have two hooks for that date already. As Doua is flagbearer for Mauritania, the opening ceremony date is a perfectly viable alternative. Agreed for this to be a standalone hook for its rather cool hook fact.
Flagbearer – part of the mass hook. Otherwise, Lê is going to compete in men's singles badminton, with the preliminary round every day from 27 to 31 July inclusive. Any of those days would thus also work.
Flagbearer – part of the mass hook. Late addition to the set. The nomination page is already closed; if you'd like to review this, please use the nomination talk page to do so.
chosen as lead hookOliveira will compete in women's artistic team all-around, with qualifications on 28 July. That's the third hook for that day. The nominator says that the team will most likely make it to the finals, to be held on 30 July, but we've got two hooks for that day already, so that's not a good alternative.
chosen as lead hook My preference would be for this hook to run on 28 July, when the heats and semi-finals in 100 m backstroke will be held. Problem is that we have three Olympic hooks for that date already. Given that he's quite good, there is a chance that he'll make the final on 29 July. Hence let's take the gamble and go for that day.
Submitted on 18 July hence this one might not make it in time. Alvares de Oliveira is going to compete in men's foil fencing, with all competitions to be held on 29 July.
Barat is going to compete in the men's slalom K-1, and that competition has its heats on 30 July. That's unfortunately the third article for this date. Before you promote to prep, please see the discussion above about combining this with the Alyssa Mendoza hook.
Nominated to DYK late in the process. Wright is set to compete in the men's triathlon, which is scheduled for 30 July starting at 8:00. Is there an opportunity to combine the two triathletes in this set into one hook if both nominations get reviewed in time?
The U.S. team plays in the preliminary round on 28 and 31 July and on 3 August. We already have too many hooks for 28 July, so any of the other two options will work better.
Walker is going to compete in the women's 3x3 basketball competition and they are playing a round robin round-robin tournament from 30 July to 3 August, playing every day. Hence, there's heaps of flexibility moving this hook around to suit.
Ausmus is competing in the women's water polo tournament in Group B, with preliminary round games held on 27, 29, and 31 July, and a game on 2 August. Any of those dates are suitable.
Kazbekova is due to compete in women's combined sport climbing, with semifinals for the two competition elements (boulder and lead) split over two days: 6 & 8 August. Hence, this can run on either date.
Grupper is going to compete in the lead semifinal of the men's combined rock climbing. That date is not far away but if we can get this reviewed in a hurry, it'll fit into that date alright as we've only got other other nominations (on most days, we have three).
Well, that's our third female breakdancer. We really shouldn't have three individuals hooks for breakdancers on the same day. I've suggested a hook with this nomination and propose that we close the other two nominations and transfer the credits across.
The women's 25 metre pistol competition is already underway and will finish on 3 August. Hence, this can run whenever. Currently scheduled for the closing ceremony date.
Stess is set to compete in the women's park skateboarding event on 6 August. There are three hooks in Queue7 already, which will be published on that day. One of those—1964 Summer Olympics medal table—could theoretically be shifted back, but I've done enough hook shuffling lately. If it gets signed off in time, I shall defer to another admin to make it happen on that day. The alternative day that I've picked here is the day of the closing ceremony; that involves a lot less effort to make this happen.
not chosen as lead hook"The Butcher" has unexpectedly won the gold medal in the inaugural men's slalom kayak cross. As such, he has a good chance of being picked as New Zealand's flagbearer, making this a good hook for the closing ceremony date. UPDATE – that prediction was spot on as he's been picked as one of the two flagbearers.
3,987
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.
Olympics debrief
For some reason, Narutolovehinata5 closed the Olympics item above before I had even added the remaining 11 August views to the table. The one thing that I wanted to do is to have a debrief. Here's what went well – the table below shows all the target articles that received more than 10,000 views (and note that I haven't done any adjustment for base views as that's too hard during the Olympics). The absolute standout was the triple-hook featuring the breakdancers. My hunch was there would be quite a bit of interest in the topic, with this being a new sport. But it far exceeded my expectations, with a combined total of 48,859 views for the three articles, and each of them individually getting over the 10,000 mark.
... that after qualifying for the 2024 Summer Olympics at the age of 11, skateboarder Zheng Haohao became the youngest Chinese sportsperson to participate in the Olympics?
Part of a triple hook; fabulous result for being part of a mass nomination. Talash managed to get herself disqualified for displaying a political slogan during competition, which would no doubt have contributed to interest in her.
... that after Jamal Valizadeh was tortured in Iran, hid for six months, and escaped, he qualified to compete in the Olympics as a member of the Refugee Olympic Team?
... that Brazilian Olympic gymnast Lorrane Oliveira(pictured) trained for the circus before starting gymnastics?
That's the other lead hook that we had.
10,444
We ran 70 articles as part of this exercise (there are 68 rows in the management table, with 2 rows having 2 hooks each). That was a lot of work to manage. I didn't get anywhere near as much help compared to the last Olympics. But when I went away for a week, it kept ticking over nicely. Thanks to those who stepped in.
Some contributors put forward a lot of those articles. BeanieFan11 easily stands out as the most prolific contributor – well done.
What didn't go well? I think there was too much "traffic" on this DYK talk page, probably annoying the crap out of anyone who has this page on their watchlist without being interested in sport. Maybe we should have set up a sub-page to manage this? I guess what's related is that some editors moaned at me for doing things that those who did contribute to the discussion had agreed to. It feels somewhat disheartening to put in an hour or two every day for many weeks, and in return to be moaned at quite a bit by those who had not kept up with what had been agreed.
One such example was RoySmithnot wanting to run the triple hook that ended up being the absolute star performer. He suggested dropping two of the three articles; those two articles received nearly 38,000 views between them.
Things that we could do better next time may include:
start much earlier and agree on a way to do this; draft a timeline for what needs to be done by when
consider a separate management page that's not hosted on WT:DYK
those editors with a negative disposition are most welcome to contribute to the discussion on how to do the exercise next time, but I'm absolutely not interested in being at the receiving end of negativity about things that the community has agreed to; maybe those editors could exercise some self-restraint in future
write up what's been agreed to and that's what could be shared at WT:DYK
encourage the wider Wiki community to write new articles and nominate them in the six weeks prior to the Olympics starting; things were definitely too "last minute" a lot of the time
in turn, be more hard-nosed about late nominations
I'd like to see the Olympics hooks marked as such, e.g. by adding the Olympic rings to each hook; that means that those with an interest in the Olympics will find it much easier to find the topic even if it doesn't include the word "Olympics"
If others have different or additional ideas, now is the time to write this down. And many thanks to AirshipJungleman29, who left a Barnstar on my talk page for this Olympics initiative. Schwede6603:13, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Comments
I was involved in the 2023 Christmas set, which was more chaotic than this. I appreciated the organisation for the Olympics, and would like this to be a model for other special occasions. Some observations in response to the above:
Yes, starting early is ideal, and it takes someone with the initiative to do so. If anyone is interested in organising a special occasion prep set, please start at least 6 weeks ahead of time.
I was not bothered by the conversation and watchlist notices on WT:DYK. If it is moved to another page, many editors will miss the conversation. Maybe keep the discussion on WT:DYK, but move the organising table to an organising page?
There are always negative editors whenever anything is done on Wikipedia, unfortunately, and the lead organiser gets the brunt of it.
It would be awesome if articles were written ahead of time, but some people on Wikipedia (including me) are fantastic procrastinators and will do things last minute no matter what. In the 2023 Christmas set, I looked for articles at WP:GAN and reviewed them so that they could be included in the set.
Watchlist notice would be awesome, but I would combine it with a wider initiative like Wiki Loves Sports. A notification for DYK only might be received negatively.
Adding a symbol after the hooks would be cool. I would also like it if, when there was a special occasions prep set, that a signifier or sentence be added to the top of the DYK template.
Thanks for your support throughout this campaign, @Z1720. You say: move the organising table to an organising page. That can be done if if we transclude the table back onto this page, it significantly cuts down on the number of edits appearing in watchlists. Good way of doing it. As for the Paralympics, I'll give that a miss. Schwede6605:35, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I do just want to go on record as saying that Kim Ye-ji, my contribution, was written after she went viral, so I physically could not have filled out her article to 1500 characters much earlier.--Launchballer06:28, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
My suggestion is more of a general one: I agree that if we are to do themed sets and projects like this, they have to be done well in advance, and more importantly need consensus. We don't want a repeat of that St. James set we had a while back which ended up causing more trouble than it was worth, especially when it lacked consensus. For projects like this, my suggestion would be discussing them at least two months ahead of time (for multi-day projects), or a month ahead of time (for sets), and ideally earlier. This is to ensure that editors are onboard with such sets in the first place, and only when consensus is reached, or at least appears to be heading in that direction, can work properly begin. The last thing we need is projects that people just end up doing without DYK regulars actually signing off on it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:54, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think any specific time limits are needed. The only thing that is certainly needed is consensus at this page, especially where some aspect of the themed set/project may end up violating WP:DYKCRIT (most probably as in this case, the prohibition against more than two hooks on the same subject). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:38, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you
This was a huge amount of work done in the classic spirit of volunteerism; some people saw something they felt needed doing and they organized themselves to get it done as a public service. Thank you to everybody who was involved. I know I grumbled about some of the process. To everybody who was on the receiving end of my grumbling, I offer my apologies. Please don't let my occasional grumpiness get in the way of celebrating a job well done. RoySmith(talk)12:10, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Hello! A while back I requested that Aoi Koga be held until August 24. The set for that date is currently Prep 4, but the article hasn't been promoted yet. Would it be okay for one of the hooks be swapped out for Koga's hook? Thanks! Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:07, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Promoted. I remain of the view that the six week 'clock' for date requests should start at the end of the seven-day eligibility.--Launchballer16:15, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Are the following hooks "definite facts"?
User:Andrew Davidson has noted down many hooks at WP:ERRORS which he feels does not meet the requirement for "a definite fact" in WP:DYKHOOK. These include:
... that the Poozeum holds fossilized dinosaur feces (pictured) which may have come from a T. rex?
... that Jenny Hurn(pictured) in Lincolnshire, England, is said to be haunted by a boggart that crosses the River Trent in a dish propelled by oars the size of teaspoons?
Andrew's argument is that if the hook says people estimate/accuse/theorise, it cannot be a definite fact. I argue that the definite fact is that people have estimated/accused/theorised, not what they are estimating/accusing/theorising. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:30, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Seems a philosophical difference over what a "fact" is, which we can't solve but we could have a consensus one way or the other. The existence of estimates/accusations/theories is a potential fact. While they do feel qualitatively weaker in that anyone can say anything, I don't think they should be ineligible by default. Perhaps they should face a higher level of scrutiny. For example, that cocoa cartel one feels very much not NPOV. CMD (talk) 14:46, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
X accuses Y is a more tabloidy WP:TONE than plainer talk, it doesn't create confidence in the text. Similar perhaps to the counterintuitive situation where having too many citations suggests the text might be questionable. CMD (talk) 15:44, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
These issues are covered to some extent in the various sections of Words to watch whose nutshell summary concludes "Use clear, direct language. Let facts alone do the talking." From what I've seen lately, nominations often start by stating something plainly in Wikipedia's voice. The review process then weakens the hook by adding qualifications or weasel words. The hook then comes across as uncertain and so not a definite fact. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:42, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure of the origin of the "definite fact" rule but it has been around for a long time. FYI, here's the earliest case I found when searching the archives: Peyton Short. There wasn't a clear resolution in that case. Notice that someone says that "In the future, the best place to address this is Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors". That's not a good answer though as discussions don't last long there and so issues are often left unresolved. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:56, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
no, yes (but the estimate itself is shaky), yes (but the accusation was the consensus of RSes so it probably should've been stated in wikivoice), yes (but the estimate was slightly reported), and yes (but boggarts aren't real anyway), respectively. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:59, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
Have to agree with Airship, we're not saying Poozeum has T. rex faeces, we're not saying that ChatGPT uses that much energy, etc., the hooks are saying that these things have been claimed, which is fact. Now, if there was an article where there were two contrasting and equally-DUE claims about something, and a proposed hook only mentioned one of them, even if saying "X has said..." that could present neutrality issues. But AFAIK, that doesn't apply to these. Kingsif (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree as well, along with that the H. Wortman Pumping Station stated below is fine as well. Andrew said, "It's puzzling to me that others have difficulty in spotting such issues which leap out to me." Maybe because some of what he "finds" is bs, considering such complaints often go stagnant at ERRORS. Yes, the operating mode of the pumping station was different before, but that was decades ago, and it is now a municipal monument. Climate change can do a lot of things over the years, and are we really going to say that every weather-related hook can't be used because the climate could always change it? There is no compromising with Andrew. For the extinction hook below, we could fix that by saying it's estimated which is still a fact, but he would whine that it isn't a definite fact because it is estimated. SL93 (talk) 01:37, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
(1) "that the Poozeum holds fossilized dinosaur feces" is a definite fact. (2–4) I could go either way. I do think such hooks at the least should face higher scrutiny for interestingness, since nothing in hook 3 indicates that the accusation is taken seriously or made by people in a position to know. So why should we care? (5) I think this one fails WP:DYKFICTION. Although folklore is not inherently fictional, I think this is too close to fiction. I find it interesting that my analysis is a mirror image of Theleekycauldron's. Perhaps we need to reword the guideline, since nobody knows what it means.
In the past, I objected to the hook "... that Halley's Comet is a living creature in several works of fiction?" on DYKFICTION grounds, but nobody agreed with me. (See the archives.) I also proposed the hook "... that the reign of Ye will be one of perjury, slavery, pestilence and death, according to the Ethiopic Apocalypse of Ezra?", which I was prepared to defend against DYKFICTION accusations but never had to because nobody raised the issue. Srnec (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
More examples
I just looked through today's DYKs to see which of them were definite facts and found another one which isn't. It's
Looking at the article, it seems that the pumping station was built to drain an area of low-lying land and that, having done so, it was put onto a standby basis. The way the article puts it is "As of 2023, the station is only operated in exceptional circumstances, such as heavy rainfall." Now the full requirement of WP:DYKHOOK is "a definite fact that is unlikely to change". As the operating mode of the station has already changed once and climate change might make it change again, this doesn't seem a definite fact; it's just the recent situation and contingent on the water level and amount of rain.
It's puzzling to me that others have difficulty in spotting such issues which leap out to me. So, I just looked at tomorrow's set. This hook immediately stood out:
... that islands are home to 50 percent of land species at risk of extinction?
This 50% figure seemed suspiciously precise and tracing it back soon showed a drift:
the article: "It has been estimated that almost 50% of land species threatened by extinction live on islands."
the article's source: "Islands also have higher densities of critically endangered species, hosting just under half of all species currently considered to be at risk of extinction"
the source's source: "We found that 1189 highly threatened vertebrate species (319 amphibians, 282 reptiles, 296 birds, and 292 mammals) breed on 1288 islands. These taxa represent only 5% of Earth's terrestrial vertebrates and 41% of all highly threatened terrestrial vertebrates"
So, the fact has gone from 41% of highly-threatened vertebrates to 50% of all land species at risk. This is not a definite fact; it's a rough and variable estimate which doesn't allow for the millions of invertebrate and plant species. See also Chinese whispers.
I think "that the H. Wortman Pumping Station has four pumps" is a definite fact. DYKHOOK says that the hook must include a definite fact, not that it cannot include anything else. The problem with the islands hook is real, but has nothing to do with the fact rule. It's just inaccurate as written. Srnec (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
The number of pumps is subject to change because the station started operating with two pumps. A third one started operating later and a fourth one was added years later. What WP:DYKHOOK says is "The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change..." Hooks which use the present tense rather than the past tense seem likely to have issues of this sort because the present keeps moving while sources are usually dated in the past and circumstances may have changed since. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:51, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
According to the source, the building was initially designed to accommodate four pumps. When the fourth pump was added, the station had reached its design capacity. Let's say we set our time machine to 1956 and were considering a DYK nomination which said "The H. Wortman Pumping Station has three pumps", I would certainly agree that was a statement which was not "unlikely to change". I would point to the pump-sized empty space in the building and read the note on the plans that said "Pump #4, future expansion" and listen to Brother Maynard's Brother intoning, "Three shall be the number, except that thou may proceed to four when the last pump is installed", and wonder if the number of pumps might change some day.
But we're back in 2024, the building has the number of pumps it was designed for, and that number hasn't changed in 60 or so years. I feel comfortable saying it is unlikely to change. Sure, space aliens could beam two of the existing pumps away so they could reuse the steel to build a galactic death ray. Or those clever Dutch polder engineers could figure out a way to cram a fifth pump into the space originally designed for four and do that. But I'm not loosing any sleep worrying about either of those. RoySmith(talk)17:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Banning all hooks in the present tense does not feel likely to be a common interpretation of the definite fact concept. CMD (talk) 20:08, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Any idea if the interpretation was discussed when the current wording was adopted? I don't think I was around during the reformulation of all the instruction pages. CMD (talk) 21:10, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
The basic concept was first added in 2007, based on this thread. That discussion makes it clear that the purpose of the "not likely/unlikely to change" clause was to rule out breaking news items for which information might quickly develop—quite far away from "climate change might change the situation at some indeterminate point". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:33, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
It's nice to know what the original thinking was. But it doesn't seem clear how we're supposed establish how likely change is. For example, I just looked at the pending set. The first eight hooks all used the past tense and so were done deals. The last hook was: ... that South Korea has a day to celebrate North Koreans? This makes it sounds like it's a regular thing but the day was celebrated for the first time just a month ago. As a new initiative of the current President, this might easily change or not stick. That hook would be clearer and more definite if it used the past tense: ... that South Korea celebrated North Korean Defectors' Day for the first time in 2024?Andrew🐉(talk) 23:34, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I was just reading this -- I can't believe we've been calling the article "Chinese whispers" -- so I just started an RM.
Anyway, back to the topic: I always thought the "definite fact" rule was so that DYK educated readers about interesting facts, and not rumor, gossip, conjecture, speculation, etc., which I think is a good thing, and I'd support the requirement being construed more strictly. (Meaning, we don't go with the rationale that an "X said Y" hook is OK because the "definite fact" isn't "Y" but that X "said Y.") Levivich (talk) 23:58, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
Nominating an article for a second time
I want to nominate Flag of North Korea for a DYK (GA promoted today), but I was unable to with the DYK tool because someone else made a rejected nomination six years ago. To my understanding, multiple nominations are only disallowed if the first nomination was successful. I could not find anything in the DYK guidelines speaking to how I am supposed to nominate an article a second time if the previous nomination was unsuccessful. Can anybody give me a quick, helpful link? Thanks. Yue🌙22:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
@Global Donald, AirshipJungleman29, and Mhhossein: This is really not a good image. I can't make out what it's a picture of, and even after knowing what it is from the description, I certainly can't see the two figures holding hands, which is the point of the hook. If we don't have a better image for this, I'd suggest moving it to another slot. RoySmith(talk)21:17, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
It's a definite fact that Harris asked a version of the question posed by the hook. (It's also a fact that the reader did or did not just fall out of a coconut tree, though it's referenced interrogatively.) Spaghettifier (talk) 21:45, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
mm, I don't think this hook should run, if only because "did you know whether you just fell out of a coconut tree" is awkward construction- and also doesn't impart anything definite. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:23, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Since it's already in queue and I'm not an admin I can't pull the hook, though there already seems to be some rough consensus to pull it. If there are any sysops online right now, it may be a good idea to reopen the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:23, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
It was said by Launchballer in an edit summary that they are not sure how the hook for John Henry Hirst meets WP:DYKINT. I promoted the hook, but now I'm having doubts. It isn't just that it might not be interesting, but also that Hirst had a significant career that should outweigh how he died. Pinging nominator Storye book and reviewer Sammi Brie. SL93 (talk) 01:01, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
I wish that Launchballer's own doubts had been expressed sooner. I could see a hook about his listed drinking fountain, the house he designed with a lodge for his gardener, etc. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:58, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
In fact, if you read the sources carefully, you will see that the untimely death is way more mysterious and interesting than It would appear in a bald DYK statement, but that would count as opinion, synth etc. on WP, and would require subscription access to BNA, so the whodunnit bit is not in the article. So here are some options which you have asked for.
Sorry for the oversight. I just came back to add it during my work break, and I’m happy to see that RoySmith took care of it because I would have had to add it on my phone. SL93 (talk) 16:34, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Asking this after seeing the Until Then hook at WP:DYKQ, although this isn't about that particular hook but is more of a general question. Do in-game mechanics count as real-world, in-universe, or somewhere in between? Because depending on how such hooks are worded or the actual in-game mechanics involved, the hooks could be ambiguous. For example, "... that the adventure game Until Then has an in-universe version of Facebook where the player can like and comment on other characters' posts?" Depending on one's interpretation, one can say that it meets DYKFICTION because it refers to how the real-world user plays the game, but it might also not if one interprets the hooks as "the player" referring to the in-universe character. I'm asking this because my gut was telling me "No, hooks about game mechanics do involve real-world facts," but I was thinking of a way to mention it at WP:DYKG since the current wording is rather ambiguous. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:06, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
It depends. In this case, I would say that's in-universe because the mechanics are only interacting with fictional elements. This is probably most often the case, but there are going to be times where game mechanics bleed into the real world. For example, the PainStation physically whips losing players, some folks have gotten married in Final Fantasy XIV, and a couple let their real child starve to death while raising a virtual child together in Prius Online. Rjjiii (talk) 15:42, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I was answering the broader question. For this specific nomination, I'd say that the approved ALT3 looks good, and that it would be difficult to adjust the promoted hook to make it less fictional. If a novel like The Circle or a show like The Feed couldn't do a hook about fictional social media, I don't see how a visual novel is that different? It's about to go to the main page, so courtesy pings to all involved: @RoySmith, AirshipJungleman29, Chipmunkdavis, Chlod, and Narutolovehinata5:Rjjiii (talk) 00:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Done. I do think this is a strange rule since Wikipedia's usual citing conventions allow verifying multiple sentences with one ref tag. IceWelder [✉] 16:10, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
IceWelder Thanks. I think of it more like the rule that says direct quotes have to be cited immediately after the quote, even if an end-of-paragraph citation would cover it under the normal rules. It also makes life easier on the reviewers :-) RoySmith(talk)16:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: could you walk me through where everything that backs up the hook fact is in the article? I suspect it's all there, but scattered about and I'm having trouble piecing it all together. See my comment above to IceWelder about end-of-sentence citations. RoySmith(talk)16:26, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
KIFI-TV began broadcasting on January 23, 1961. That same day was also KTLE's last: it left the air "to conserve the assets" of the company, per manager Gloria Dillard, in the wake of losing its NBC affiliation. Features of the last day included a roundtable discussion of KBLI Inc. officers discussing the station's closure and an editorial explaining the closure. The preceding paragraph explains that KIFI now had the NBC affiliation. [7]
KTLE was on the air as late as May 1971 but closed when Snake River Valley opted not to purchase the assets.[8] and [9]
I agree. I also would never consider choosing a similar hook as well over something else from a successful woman's career, but I know that I'm likely in the minority because Wikipedia isn't censored. SL93 (talk) 16:02, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I also have no problem with ALT2. I do mention at the nom that the hook could work with "why" instead of "that", although now I think "that"'s probably better. I do however want to defend ALT0 on the grounds that mentioning nipples, rightly or wrongly, will probably get more views even if it is "childish pandering", and that one definition of 'powerful' is "having a strong effect on people's feelings or thoughts" and that's what they did. I don't think Way subsequently describing them as such negates its verifiability. (There is a hook about Matlock's chest I could propose for his article, although I think what I'm more likely to do is wait until Wargasm finishes its GA and propose a triple hook with his previous band Dead!.).--Launchballer22:17, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
I reviewed all the ALTs. ALT2 is fine with me. My personal experience with DYK hooks supports Launchballer's belief that ALT0 would get more page views. Hawkeye7(discuss)00:09, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
PS, yes, it's very much within the purview of a promoter. It's recommended that you ping the nominator and other people who participated in the discussion, which you have done, so all is good. RoySmith(talk)23:30, 12 August 2024 (UTC)
To clarify, the original hook was
... that over 90 world leaders have commited to the Leaders' Pledge for Nature; to nature-positive policies, reversing biodiversity loss and full nature recovery by 2050?
The new hook is
... that over 90 world leaders have committed to nature-positive policies?
I looked at the pledges and see that, for my country of the UK, the leader who pledged was Boris Johnson. There have been several Prime Ministers since and we now have a completely new government which is, for example, now planning to weaken planning restrictions and build lots of housing in the green belt. The article indicates that the UK is not legally bound by this pledge and that it is not on track to achieve the goals. So, to address the reality of this, I suggest that the hook just say that those leaders signed the pledge, without suggesting that it's a firm commitment. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:29, 15 August 2024 (UTC)
The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 28. We have a total of 279 nominations, of which 129 have been approved, a gap of 150 nominations that has decreased by 6 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
@Bsoyka and Cunard: I think the hook is cute, but I can't help but be unable to shake off the feeling that something's off about the wording. I do get that it's a quirky hook, but the hook seems more, I guess sure about the possibility than what the article says. The article states that the theory has had mixed reception, along with how it's just a theory and not definite. The hook presents the possibility as definite, while the article suggests it's more of an example and not an assured thing. I'm not against the hook fact itself, I think it's a really interesting and catchy one, but it may be for the best to reword the hook in some way for accuracy purposes. It won't be as quirky anymore but it would probably be more accurate. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:12, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Cunard hasn't been online since the 15th so a new reviewer will need to sign this off. Looking at the source of the statement, I just noticed another issue: the statement "The exact origin of the idea is unclear, but the topic has notably been popularized by users of TikTok and other social media platforms." is not directly supported by the Grazia link. Indeed, the article in fact claims the theory was "proliferated" by a particular TikTok user, although I'm not sure if the user in question did popularize it or not. In any case, that will need to be revised. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:26, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
Adjusted the sourcing in the article to rely on [10], which says, Brought into the spotlight thanks to the therapy side of TikTok. ([11] also says, Coined on TikTok, this concept is becoming increasingly popular on the app.) Bsoyka (t • c • g) 02:29, 17 August 2024 (UTC)
This source says, "The burnt-toast theory is simple: it’s the idea that something as small as burning your toast could actually end up saving your life or allowing something better to happen. Maybe those five minutes you took toasting a new piece of bread saved you from being in a car accident."
Another source says: "Picture this: You’re making toast in the morning as per your normal routine, only this time, it burns. ... The whole process has added five minutes to your morning routine, so although it’s an objectively small inconvenience, you’re now running a bit late leaving the house, and therefore, arriving at work. You’re annoyed. But you jump in your car and head to work. But on the way, you see a car accident, and when you hear the details of the crash, you realize that had you left your house on time, it could have been you. That burnt toast — it might have saved your life."
A third source says, "Maybe those five minutes you took toasting a new piece of bread saved you from being in a car accident."
A fourth source says, "Called the 'burnt toast theory', it encourages us to embrace the bad things that happen because there’s usually a good reason for it. 'It's basically the theory that if you burn your toast in the morning (or something challenging happens), the time you spend making another toast may have saved you from a car accident, or maybe it makes you late to a meeting,' the viral theory states."
In recent discussions of errors, it occurred to me that it would be good to flag up issues with a topic or hook in a way that would alert the subsequent reviewers who process it through the prep, queue, posting and error-handling processes. For example, claims of a "first" often turn out to be erroneous and so it's good to highlight these even if they initially seem ok. I think of these as red flags and so have started experimenting with this as a visual warning.
In the review of Jacques Lewis, the hook claimed that he was the "the last living French veteran of D-Day". A claim of being last seems rather like a claim of being first and so I gave that a Redflag using the convenient {{redflag}} template. I suggest that others try this too to see if it's helpful.
Done. I have them written down, but I can't find the source. Once I find it I will add back in (but for now I just removed them) :) PersusjCP (talk) 18:59, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Message for rejected noms
I have just closed Template:Did you know nominations/2024 Wayanad landslides as ineligible due to a recent bold link appearance on the mainpage. The instructions in this case say to "Notify nominator with {{subst:DYKproblem|2024 Wayanad landslides|header=yes|sig=yes}}", which reads "Your submission of 2024 Wayanad landslides at the Did You Know nominations page has been reviewed, and some issues with it may need to be clarified". It's not very friendly to somewhat lie and tell someone their submission has issues that need clarification, when in fact the submission has been fully rejected. If we need to send a message in the case of rejection, could it be a slightly less misleading one? CMD (talk) 07:29, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm the primary builder of Prep 6, so I can't promote it to the queue... just in case anyone is expecting me to do the work. :) BorgQueen (talk) 16:07, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I did the last one. One of my inviolable personal rules is never do two in a row, to make sure others have an opportunity to share the workload contribute. RoySmith(talk)17:25, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I suspect we won't hear from them. I've noticed that when we propose requiring more help from regulars, all our regulars see it and chime in on why they hate the idea. When we simply ask for that extra help, it's apparently invisible. :D Valereee (talk) 11:43, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I reviewedJacques Lewis and noticed that it was a translation from the French language article. The review template {{DYK checklist}} asks "Is the article free of material copied from other sources?" and a translation does this so I flagged it as an issue. But I wasn't sure how this usually goes down at DYK and the guidelines don't seem to mention the issue.
Looking at the archives, I find that the issue was raised back in 2008: Translations as "new" content. That highlighted significant aspects like the use of automatic translation and the difficulty of working with foreign language sources. But it didn't seem to arrive at a clear conclusion.
Now, it's our general policy that Wikipedia is not a reliable source and so we can't take a foreign language article on trust. Myself, I happen to have started a foreign topic recently – Café Adria – but I worked that up from scratch using English language sources and so I feel I really understand the details. I now find that there's a Polish language article but I'm not using that yet as I don't know much Polish and it uses lots of Polish language sources.
So, I reckon that we should set quite a high bar for translations at DYK but maybe there's some existing guidance that I've not found yet.
It's not so simple. There's still the issue of plagiarism and close paraphrase which is a moral issue more than a legal one. And the copyright issue can still be quite significant because, if there's a copyright violation in the original language then the process of translation will tend to mask it. For example, the Earwig tool won't detect it, right? And English language editors won't be able to spot likely violations as they won't tend to be fluent in the original language.
For example, in the case of Jacques Lewis, the original French language article does not seem to have passed any quality control process. I have some competence in French but am not confident that I can check for copyright issues in that language. The nominator doesn't seem to have any special competence either.
As a new page patroller, I have reviewed several translations organised by the Open Knowledge Association. They take sensible measures like recruiting authors with relevant language skills and only translating articles which have passed an FA review in the original language. Even with these precautions, there can still be issues and so it seems best to leave translation to specialists like this.
If DYK accepts any type of translation on an AGF basis then it's asking for trouble because most editors won't be able to make the usual checks. As DYK is oversubscribed and doesn't need additional nominations, it can do without these complications.
Trust me, as a regular CCI editor and occassional Copypatrol user, I would love a rule that we only accepted webpage sources in the English language, readable by Earwig (no more PDFs, Jstor, or paywalled newspaper articles ever again!) but... you know, that's really not going to work. Putting aside that the DYK, GA, and NPP aren't able to catch more insidious copyright issues (heck, I had to tell an actual admin that they weren't allowed to copy paste in plot summaries last month), this seems like a rather....bizarre attempt at fixing a problem that is by no means any more common or hard to fix in translated wikipedia articles than it is, in, say, an article which relies solely on non-English language academic books, currently nearly impossible to find in the United States because the Turkish government is actively suppressing their translation and re-printing. And again, from a CCI perspective, I'd support that! As a woman who finally got her hands on a copy of an 80s book about the importance of stockings in Kurdish culture, I would not. Because that's essentially what your proposal would lead to- the exact same arguments would apply, re ease of fact checking, the ease of hiding blatant copyvios or close paraphrasing within a translation, the overburdence on DYK. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 14:15, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
@GreenLipstickLesbiana copy of an 80s book about the importance of stockings in Kurdish culture sounds fascinating! I'm an avid collector of hard-to-find academic books too, especially those that are not in English or my native language, Korean. BorgQueen (talk) 18:22, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with GreenLipstickLesbian above. If we stop allowing articles with foreign-language sources just because Earwig can't check them and just because they're in a different language, it would introduce more unneeded bureaucracy to DYK. This is kind of like banning print-only sources—Earwig wouldn't catch copyvios in these sources, but banning them would introduce a whole new problem (specifically, WP:DYKCOMPLETE issues) in an attempt to solve another problem. In addition, Earwig can't detect close paraphrasing that well, so reviewers still have to look through the article rather than fully relying on Earwig.If we want to be more strict on translated articles, we can just ask for an additional copyvio check from someone who is fluent in the source language. In this case, that would mean waiting for a French speaker to verify that there aren't any copyvios. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:41, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
@TSventon I'm on my phone right now, so I can't fix it or ask the translator to, but it's not sufficiently attributed. Saying "from x wikipedia" is not enough, by the terms of the CC-BY-SA license we all publish under. The edit summary needs to contain a link to the source text, or a full list of authors(impractical in most cases). If anybody wants to fix it before I get on my computer, there's instructions at WP:RIAGreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 15:40, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
I think we shouldn't reopen the nomination because we already have tons of nominations, and you have been actively editing for days now. SL93 (talk) 22:02, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, that's what I've been busy with (which I'm very sorry about). I have a GAN and a lot of other electoral system article edits to take care of. Page views on electoral system articles usually spike just ahead of US elections. Too many wikifires to put out on other things, so I completely forgot about this nomination. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 00:38, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi, just wanted to follow up on this, and apologize again for forgetting about this nomination.
I think the nomination has a good shot of being accepted, and there are lots of interesting hooks that could be used for this article. It's worth noting the original hook had already been approved and was about to go on the main page, before the nomination was derailed by a search for additional sources and questions about phrasing (though I'd already cited multiple academic sources on the topic).
I'd be OK with having this sent to the back of the queue. When it comes to grounds for opening/closing, I think the decision should be made on the basis of whether there is likely to be interesting material that could be made into a DYK hook, rather than on the basis of whether there are other hooks in the queue at the moment.
I understand the frustration regarding the nomination being failed, but this may be a case where it would be for the best to let it go. Nominations don't always work out, and most of the DYK regulars (myself included) have experienced the disappointment of a failed nomination. However, we already have a large backlog as it is, so reopening the nomination and probably adding to it would add to the workload. It's disappointing, but this shouldn't preclude you from improving and nominating another article, where you can use this experience to learn and have a better chance to succeed next time.
In addition, it is not uncommon for nominations to be closed due to nominator inactivity, so rest assured you are not alone in cases like this. Reopening the nomination now would be unfair to other nominators in similar situations who were not given the same opportunity. In addition, you were already pinged to return the nomination, and nominators are expected to follow their nomination and be ready to address issues. It sucks, but that's how DYK works: it is on the nominator, not the reviewer(s), to make sure issues are addressed promptly.
Rather than dwelling on this one nomination, my suggestion would be to move on and improve another article, then nominate that for DYK. When one door closes, another one opens. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:10, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
The two should not have been rejected with those explanations. I don't think Template:Did you know nominations/Splitwise has much hope hookwise, but that is not communicated through the rejection of a single hook. On the other hand, while Template:Did you know nominations/Tukdam does have neutrality problems, they are not "insurmountable". For example, simply delete everything from "Scientific research" onwards and the neutrality problems are mostly removed while the article still meets DYK requirements. CMD (talk) 16:47, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Part two
I am getting the impression that the DYK community has drifted toward rejected nominations as early as possible. While agree with the principle of WP:DYKTIMEOUT that nominations more than two months could be rejected, why are we as a project rejecting nominations less than two months old? It is very frustrating to see a message posted on Template:Did you know nominations/Nathaniel Coe for closure when it is only six weeks old, and nobody has asked for it to be adopted. Seems like the desire to rush reject a nomination goes against WP:DONTBITE the newbie nominators. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 13:14, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
It isn't about biting the newcomers, it is about nominators being expected to follow their nominations and be responsive to any issues raised regardless if they are newcomers or veterans. It is their responsibility. If a regular has been actively editing but has not been responsive to pings or comments, that is an issue. If a nominator is not active, especially if it has been a long time since their last comment, then although regrettable, closing a nomination as stale/abandoned is fair. A wait of about a week is reasonable, but if the editor hasn't edited in several weeks, it seems fair to close their nomination, even if it's not necessarily through a fault of their own.
The thing is, DYK is getting very backlogged and reviewers/promoters are under strain. In the past, we tended to be more lenient to such cases, only for it to result in nominations dragging on to promotion (or rejection). Recently, editor patience has run out and consensus is leaning more towards more proactive rejection of nominations. There simply is less appetite now for nominations to drag on.
This comment is not targeted towards the Nathaniel Coe nomination specifically but is a general statement. The point I'm making is that, I understand that it may seem unfair to you about DYK's recent changes, but they did not happen in a vacuum. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:26, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
QPQ timeouts
I've been noticing that we have an enforcement problem with QPQs. WP:DYKG says that QPQs should be submitted within a week of nomination, but we assume that nominators aren't aware of this requirement – we ping them five days in, and they give QPQs anywhere from 10–14 days after nomination and it usually slides. I think we should add "Please provide a QPQ within a week of nomination" to the nomination page smalltext when the QPQ line is left blank. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:43, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Honestly, (putting on my grumpy hat) there's no reason it should take a week. I'm more than willing to give DYK newbies slack, but I see some veterans doing this. That's just making more work for your fellow editors because they have to chase after you. I'd be in favor of a closing on sight any nom from somebody with more than N DYKs to their name (pick any reasonable value of N) if it does't have a QPQ. RoySmith(talk)19:03, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm thinking that it contradicts each other. I normally take "should" to mean that it's (strongly) recommended, but not mandatory. Meanwhile, the phrase "please provide a QPQ within a week" sounds like it means that it must (mandatory) be submitted within 7 days of the nomination. Therefore, I think that 10 days should be the normal maximum and 14 is the absolute maximum. at Template talk:Did you know, it says that "a rejection usually only occurs if it was at least a couple of weeks old and had unresolved issues" and I take couple to mean two. I'm thinking the phrase "as you have nominated more than five articles, a QPQ is required. This should be done within 7 days with 10 being the absolute maximum" fits me better. JuniperChill (talk) 19:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
meh. i think a week is more than enough time for something someone should already have on them when they make the nomination. The week is just a courtesy – if it were up to me, we would require nominators to do their QPQs well before the nomination, so that if the check bounces (the nomination gets pulled off the Main Page), then the credit becomes invalid. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and change WP:QPQ from "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."" to "A nomination may be closed as "incomplete" if a QPQ is not submitted within a week".~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:18, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Actually, I was thinking more like "A QPQ must be submitted (for those required to submit one) at the time of the nomination." If you're too busy to do your QPQ now, then hold up your nom until you've got time. RoySmith(talk)19:24, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Well, we have more nominations than we can handle. If people object to getting their act together on time and stop nominating, that's to our benefit. Seriously. RoySmith(talk)19:30, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I think we should honestly go even further. QPQs have a reputation for being sloppy reviews just done to get a credit – when nominations get pulled off the Main Page, we should be revoking people's QPQ credits. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:44, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
We could either require that QPQs be completely finished before they can be used, or accept QPQs that haven't run on a provisional basis (holding the nomination until the check clears). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:12, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
PS, as a practical matter, I would suggest that at least for a while, people still be given warnings along with a pointer to the rule change. It's one thing to prod the herd in the direction you want them to go, it's another thing entirely to stand in front of the herd while doing it and get trampled to death. RoySmith(talk)19:46, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I think you've acted a bit hastily. One of the reasons that the QPQ timeout limit is seven days is because after that is over, a nominator can't immediately renominate with a QPQ done (because WP:DYKNEW no longer applies). If a new nomination is closed immediately, the nominator can now just open a new nomination with a QPQ; so in effect, the new WP:QPQ protocol is just the most annoying way of pinging the nominator asking for a QPQ. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I have reverted the bold change as it's too bold and deserves more than 50 minutes of discussion. One of the reasons we have never required QPQs at the time of nomination is that some nominations, particularly some of the lengthier 5x expansions, take all of a week to complete, so there is no time to do a thorough QPQ. I notice that isn't mentioned, and there seems to be little sympathy for these sorts of significant contributions to Wikipedia. If that's DYK's future, it seems to me a shame. At the same time, there are people who seem to nominate many new articles a week and rarely have their QPQs ready. I have less sympathy in that case, since it seems to be a failure to plan one's time (as opposed to not having enough of it). BlueMoonset (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
About theleekycauldron's suggestion, which is really a different matter altogether, it's something I've thought about over the years, and something I'd be in favor of, depending on the issue behind the pull. (Is this pulled from main page only, from main page and queue, and even from prep?) If it's something that's supposed to be checked and wasn't properly done so, then I think it makes perfect sense to require a replacement QPQ for the one that was botched, and hold up noms from the reviewer until it's done. Of course, it might ultimately lead to people no longer being welcome at DYK because their QPQ reviews continue to be problematic... BlueMoonset (talk) 21:15, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I would play it like this:
Until a nomination is either off the Main Page or closed as rejected, the nomination can only be used as a provisional QPQ. Provisional QPQs are good enough to keep a nomination from failing, but a nomination using a provisional QPQ cannot be promoted. Using provisional QPQs is discouraged; nominators should come prepared with full QPQs ahead of time. (Alternatively, we could choose not to accept provisional QPQs.)
Once the nomination's run is finished, it is no longer a provisional QPQ and is usable as a full QPQ unless:
The nomination ended in failure (including being irreversibly pulled from the Main Page),
The nomination would have been pulled from the Main Page had a serious problem with its hook or article not been fixed.
If the reason for failure or pull is outside the scope of the reviewer's job, the QPQ credit is not invalidated. (For the life of me, I can't remember this ever happening, but it is possible, so it's worth mentioning.)
If a provisional QPQ becomes invalid, the nominator using the provisional QPQ must provide a fully valid QPQ within a week, else the nomination fails.
I'm torn on provisional QPQs. One the one hand, it's more complication and it adds to the backlog. On the other hand, not allowing it feels draconian. Still, I think I'm leaning against it. It'll suck, but people will get used to it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:06, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
That seems like a lot of complication for it's not clear what value. What's a "Provisional QPQ"? Just keep it simple; you make a nomination, you do a QPQ. I don't buy this idea that people don't have time to do their reviews. That's part of the system, do your share. If you're going to start on a big project and you're not sure you'll be able to get it done in time, get your review out of the way first. Or if some unexpected crisis happens, post a note here asking for an exception; as long as you're not a perennial extra time requester, I'm sure people will be happy to give you another day or two. Or maybe some kind soul will offer a QPQ donation. Leaving things dangling just makes additional work for your fellow editors, and that's a problem. RoySmith(talk)22:08, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
No. Just, no. An extra layer of near-impenetrable complexity that everyone has to work through, not only nominators but reviewers and prep-builders and admin queuers? I'll pass. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:13, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I really don't agree with the recent changes. The problem with this is that people may not have time to do a QPQ at the same time that they are nominating an article. This particularly applies if someone is in the midst of a 5x expansion and wants to submit the nomination before the deadline.
In addition, I don't think this would prevent someone from just doing a QPQ three days after nomination, and then reverting the closure of their nomination. I'd rather we wait a few days rather than immediately closing nominations without QPQs. Epicgenius (talk) 13:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
A nomination is not usable as a QPQ until it is either off the Main Page or closed as rejected.
If the nomination fails (including being pulled off the Main Page) due to an error the reviewer should have caught, the reviewer may not use the nomination as a QPQ. If such an error arises and someone other than the reviewer fixes it, the QPQ credit may be deemed invalid at the discretion of whoever evaluates it when used.
A nominator must provide a valid QPQ within a week of nomination, else the nomination can be closed without warning.
Basically: if you screw up, we take your QPQ credit back. If we have to clean up your mess, we take the credit back. Get your QPQ done ahead of time. Sounds pretty simple to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:19, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Better, but "ahead of time" can mean as much as two months ahead of time. Why not just say that if a nomination you review gets pulled due to an error you should have caught, you have to provide two QPQs on your next nomination? Still runs into the problem of how you define "should have caught". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:25, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Even when wearing my grumpy hat, I don't think we want to start making QPQ credit contingent on quality of the review. Newbies won't be doing high-quality reviews. Our response should be to educate them how to do better reviews, not punish them for not doing a good enough job. If somebody is chronically doing junk reviews, eventually it'll become obvious and we can deal with that though more education and encouragement. That's certainly true for people whose names appear on WP:DYKLIST or WP:DYKPC.
I imagine my first QPQs were total trash. I know for sure my first queue promotions were and I only kept at it because leeky provided the right mix of explaining to me what I needed to do better, encouraging me to do more of them, and not making me feel like an idiot. RoySmith(talk)22:47, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
This discussion is starting to feel like instruction creep. I think the simplest solution, for now, would just be to strict with enforcing the "QPQ must be done within a week of the nomination" guideline. In fact, I think we should actually encourage QPQs to be done before making nominations, and I'm actually surprised we aren't already doing that. The issue with enforcement is that such nominations are often overlooked due to us having a high load. It's actually a lot easier now ever since the change that made it visible how many nominations a nominator has; prior to that you would have to check manually to know if an editor required a QPQ or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:07, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
I was talking more about the idea of "provisional QPQs", an idea with good intentions but would add needless complexity. It should be as simple as "you have a QPQ, or you don't." Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:27, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't understand the disconnect. I previously proposed elswehere that QPQs should be done before the nomination. This isn't rocket science. Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
There are some edge cases where it may be permissible to do so, such as during 5x expansions. However, these would be more like the exception rather than the nom. We should really be discouraging nominators from only doing QPQs after their nominations, and I'm actually shocked and disappointed at how common it is even for regulars to delay their QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:11, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Support. I'd support requiring reviews be done before a nominated hook appears on the list of noms to be approved. Too many nominations, not enough worker bees. Valereee (talk) 23:42, 19 August 2024 (UTC)
Provisional QPQ is too complex, and it will create more administrative problems. I am not sure QPQ at time of nomination needs to be the rule (saying that as someone who usually does this), but we can definitely remove the requirement for a second notification before the week timeout. CMD (talk) 01:22, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The rule could be relaxed for newer reviewers who may not have gotten the hang of DYK reviews yet, but it shouldn't be encouraged for DYK regulars who are already used to the process. If a nominator knows they have an upcoming nomination, they should also make the time to review another. If circumstances mean they can't do a QPQ ASAP, they could probably just ask for an IAR exemption here at WT:DYK.
Another idea I have is that we can also encourage reviewing nominations even if you don't have plans to make your own. Several of our regulars only review other nominations when they're planning to make their own nominations, but won't do reviews otherwise. If we encourage (not mandate) regulars to do reviews even without upcoming nominations, there are two benefits: one, they can build up a stash of QPQs that can be used later and thus helping to mitigate the current issue, and two, it would greatly help in clearing up the backlog. In my eight years here on DYK I'm actually somewhat surprised this isn't more common or encouraged, speaking as someone who regularly reviews other noms even when I don't have open noms of my own. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:34, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
It's even worse on GAN, where we have editors with hundreds of noms with no reviews. I think it shows a bit of disrespect for the idea of a volunteer community, but there's no enforcement. Viriditas (talk) 01:43, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
To be fair, GAN is much tougher and higher pressure than DYK. It can seem a lot more intimidating given that the checks are more stringent, and even regulars may not simply have the time, capability, or will to review. After all, if a bad GA passes, it can be a stain on the reviewer even if they did their review in good faith. It's less understandable with DYK given that our standards are more reasonable and less stringent. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Having a firm baseline rule and encouraging specific further actions on top of that is a better system than creating a more stringent rule but crafting various exceptions. We should include the best practice as a guideline, but newer reviewers, difficult 5x expansions, and perhaps other edge cases (finding a good seven day old article by someone else you think would make a good DYK?) seem likely to come up. (Is the backlog a huge issue right now? Template talk:Did you know/Approved has exceeded PEIS.) CMD (talk) 02:02, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
My personal belief, and it's one I've been promoting for many years, is that we continue to focus on tool-based systems to help nominators and reviewers. One sticking point for me is the identification of typos, which I have a problem doing because my eyesight is terrible. I know we have various bots and editors who do this kind of work separately, but it's surprising that we don't have a toolset like this to help reviewers in general. Viriditas (talk) 02:13, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
At least twice, I've completed a QPQ and forgot to put it in the box (Kemah Bob, Nighat Arif). I'm all for less time being given after a reminder (say, one day instead of seven), not sure if I could support the reminder being done away with entirely.
If the reason for failure or pull is outside the scope of the reviewer's job, the QPQ credit is not invalidated. (For the life of me, I can't remember this ever happening, but it is possible, so it's worth mentioning.) I can think of a couple of cases: Dus Bahane, which was withdrawn after I eventually reviewed it, and Tobey (song), which was pulled after a new rule was invented on the hoof. If we are going to make QPQs provisional, I would oppose rejecting them for being provisional; aside from the fact that I review oldest first and it's pretty unusual for any of my noms to be approved ahead of their QPQs, I'd worry about the effect this would have during a backlog as I can well see a situation where nominators simply turn in an old QPQ rather than wait for a new one to clear.--Launchballer06:08, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
The idea of a provisional QPQ seems less than ideal to me, especially if we are now requiring people to do QPQs before nominating articles. This would potentially mean that people can't nominate any articles until the QPQ is already off the main page (or rejected), which could take weeks or even months. By then, the nomination for which the QPQ was conducted would have already timed out.
Thus, I strongly oppose the idea of provisional QPQs, especially if we are now requiring that they be completed prior to nomination. I am neutral on the new QPQ requirement, though. Epicgenius (talk) 13:49, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
That is actually what I'm thinking of doing. Ideally I'd like to have 2–5 QPQs on hand to use whenever I nominate something. While I somewhat disagree with immediately timing out nominations that don't have QPQs, I also don't have a philosophical objection to that rule.
My objection only applies to provisional QPQs. If you could not use a QPQ until it appears on the main page or is rejected, then you would need to start preparing for a nomination several weeks in advance, just so you could use that QPQ. This also has the side effect of unnecessarily delaying nominations arbitrarily, solely because of what article the nominator chose to review. Epicgenius (talk) 15:14, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I support having to supply the QPQ at the time of the nomination. If someone forgets, leeway can be given after a reminder ping. If an editor chronically does not post a QPQ at the time of nomination, their nominations can be closed without a reminder ping. Another idea is to tell nominators that they cannot nominate new DYKs while a previous nomination is missing the QPQ: nominators should prioritize QPQs first, not work on other articles while a QPQ is missing. I do not support pulling the QPQ if problems are found in the reviews: if an editor chronically supplies bad reviews, it should be brought up at WT:DYK. Pulling QPQs will cause editors to review the easiest DYKs, leaving older nominations stranded without reviews. Z1720 (talk) 14:03, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Z1720 above. Waiting for a QPQ to be usable until the nom is off the main page means that a person submitting their 6th DYK nom would need to prepare QPQs potentially months in advance. This isn't sustainable. I fully support making QPQs required at the time of nomination (my personal workflow is to do one with my nom tab open and unsubmitted; that way I don't forget). I also think we can empower reviewers to reject noms with an incomplete or faulty QPQ. Vanamonde93 (talk) 15:48, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Agree with Z1720 and Vanamonde93 above, I don't think waiting for a QPQ to be usable is a good idea, instead we should require a valid QPQ to be provided at nomination time (through warnings in the template and nomination wizard), and reviewers being allowed to reject noms with invalid or non-existent QPQs. Sohom (talk) 19:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Oppose "provisional QPQs" as a good-intentioned idea, but one that adds too much complexity to the process. Any issues where a QPQ was provided, but the review turned out to be defective, can already be dealt with through existing processes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I weakly support the idea of requiring the QPQ to be submitted at nomination time, though I think that should take place after 10 nominations because people nominate articles for DYK before reviewing another. I just think that a review from someone can take place either within a few hours, days or even more than a month. Those between 6-10 nominations (inclusive) will have to provide a QPQ within 7 days (168 hours) and editors on the fourth/fifth day will be pinged/posted on talk page and if not, the nom will close after its 7th day. I'm also thinking that for a QPQ to be valid, it needs to be a proper review. Not just a checkmark with a few words (saying "it meets all the DYK criteria" is insufficient). I also weakly oppose a provisional QPQ due to the complexity. JuniperChill (talk) 20:29, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Currently, a review only needs to be started, and the reviewer needs to be responsive. I do not support that the review needs the checkmark because some nominators do not respond quickly, causing delays. This would also cause editors to review the easiest ones rather than starting a longer review. I agree that "this is approved" is not sufficient, but DYK already insists that reviewers indicate that they have checked all the criteria, so this inclusion is not necessary. I also do not suggest having separate rules for those between 6-10 reviews as too many rules will complicate things. Also, there is a simple solution to this problem: remind nominators that QPQs do not expire and that they should be reviewing noms early.
tldr: Keep it simple, change the rules that a QPQ must be provided at the time of the nomination, leeway is given for new reviewers and those who make a mistake, no leeway given for those who chronically do not supply the QPQ at the time of the nomination. Z1720 (talk) 23:31, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
QPQ rules never actually required green ticks anyway. The only requirement has been to check every criterion: saying simply "it passes the guidelines" doesn't count. Some regulars (admittedly myself included) may condense some of the checks for time reasons, but generally all criteria are still expected to be checked. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
As an editor who sometimes has difficultly getting all the QPQs done at once and remembering which ones have / do not have QPQs (due to volume of work), I do not see what benefit there is in immediately failing with no warning whatsoever any nomination not providing a QPQ from the start. Seriously, what harm is there in a simple reminder that you're missing a QPQ? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
The benefit is that it encourages nominators to do their QPQs without reviewers having to chase after them. Reviewer time is our scarcest resource, and we have more nominations than we can handle. If making things easier on reviewers comes at a cost of making things harder on nominators, I'm fine with that. RoySmith(talk)15:28, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree, these notifications don't take up much time anyway. Perhaps there might be a way to automate these notifications? Epicgenius (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I can see a few possibilities. One would be some kind of filter that would warn nominators that they haven't done a QPQ (the filter would of course be disabled for exempted nominators). The notice would tell the nominator that if they submit the nomination without a provided QPQ, their nomination is liable to be closed. That way, they are already aware that they have to do the QPQ as soon as possible, if not before the nomination. If that kind of technical implementation is not feasible, another option could be to have a bot running that would leave editors a similar message, warning them that their nomination is liable to be closed if a QPQ has not been done. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
One straightforward solution to that would be to simply do the review before making the nomination. This can be done in conjunction with reviewers being encouraged to review nominations even when they don't have ongoing nominations of their own. With their possible benefits (such as cutting down the backlog and ensuring a QPQ is ready by the time of the nomination), I'm actually shocked that neither practice is encouraged more. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:36, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
It is more difficult than us saying "Please provide a QPQ by the time of nom or this will be closed". As it stands, notifications can be ignored and unfinished DYKs take up space on the nom page for longer than they should. CMD (talk) 17:48, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
There are two changes here, one that seems excellent and easy to implement and one that needs further fine tuning. I support an immediate implementation of "qpq must be provided within a week, unprompted, no excuses for experienced nominators". Cancelling qpqs where hooks have been pulled is more complex and should be discussed separately. —Kusma (talk) 15:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd also support requiring nominators to provide a QPQ within a week (or even immediately, provided that this is made very clear in the nomination wizard). I agree that the QPQ cancellations/provisional QPQ should be a separate discussion, too, since I imagine that there could be more pushback to that proposal (as evidenced by the comments above). Epicgenius (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
In the case of "you need to provide QPQs at the time of the nomination", I think we can give leeway for relatively new DYK contributors (for example, those who are only just starting to be required to need a QPQ). Less leeway should be given to those who chronically fail to give QPQs on time. A wait of at most a day, or even three days, could be reasonable, but going over a week without doing a QPQ, reminder or no reminder, is less excusable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:38, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I support QPQ provided at the time of the nomination. Right now, we give one-week warnings and it has not deterred prolific editors from waiting until the last minute. Giving a week causes some editors to procrastinate, nominate at DYK without the QPQ, and then forget about it until an editor pings them. Implementing a strict at-the-time-of-nomination rule will initially cause a few editors to get upset, but after about a week those editors will change their behaviour and complete the QPQs before the nomination. I am willing to have upset editors for a week to have this implemented. Leeway can be given to editors who are nominating their 6th or 7th DYK, which can be prescribed as-needed. Z1720 (talk) 17:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Indulging my penchant for storytelling... I used to participate in a racing event that was scheduled to start at a certain time every week. People were always showing up late and the race organizers would wait for them. People were always complaining about the late-comers, and the late-comers were always countering with, "It's so hard to get here", "There was traffic", "I had to wait for my crew to show up", blah, blah, blah. Finally, we voted that the race would start on time, even if nobody was there yet. The first week the rule was in effect, a couple of competitors didn't make it on time and missed the start. After that, people started showing up on time. RoySmith(talk)17:15, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
@Z1720, as I see it, if people started immediately closing nominations that did not have the required QPQ, nothing is stopping the nominators from doing a QPQ and then reverting the closure of the nomination, on the grounds that they did do a QPQ. Provided the QPQ is supplied within seven days of the article's creation/expansion/promotion to GA, the article would still be new enough to qualify for a full review. As such, I think this would only create unnecessary conflicts, which we really should try to avoid.I would however be all right with closing nominations without QPQs after 7 days. Closures of such nominations cannot be easily contested unless the article was further expanded, or promoted to GA, during that time. Epicgenius (talk) 17:54, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
If this passes, what would stop the nominators is that such actions would be against consensus, and thus disruptive. CMD (talk) 17:57, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
In theory, it would indeed be against consensus. However, in practice, the DYK rules do not prohibit articles from being renominated (and given a full review) if they are still eligible for DYK. If the first nomination is closed solely due to a lack of QPQ, and if a QPQ is then provided for the second nomination, some people would be hard-pressed to see such a renomination as disruptive, since the second nomination would not technically break any rules. Epicgenius (talk) 18:05, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
That might be too extreme. A simpler solution would simply to revert any attempts to reopen as disruptive, with a note to the nominator that they should have done the QPQ at the time of the nomination. If they really disagree with the decision, they could instead bring it up on WT:DYK, where individual cases could be heard. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:59, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I mean, prohibiting repeat nominations, at least as currently worded, sounds too extreme. Rather than saying "no repeat nominations", it would just be safer or more accurate to say that such reversions without discussion may be considered disruptive. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:58, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
I think NLH5 is referring to the fact that a blanket ban on repeat nominations doesn't allow the possibility of reopening the nomination, if a valid QPQ is provided after the nomination is closed. On the other hand, bringing up the issue at WT:DYK leaves open the possibility of opening such a nomination, even if it's against the rules to reopen an archived nomination. – Epicgenius (talk) 14:01, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
If you're talking about SD0001's script, it's possible assuming they agree to make the change. More tricky would be having the script sense if the nominator is exempt, and at any rate DYK can all be done manually so if someone is going to wikilawyer a consensus policy is better than a technical tweak. CMD (talk) 19:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I think figuring out if a nominator is exempt shouldn't be hard to implement since User:SDZeroBot already runs a tally of users vs/ number of nominations which is used in our nomination template. (courtesy ping @SD0001) Sohom (talk) 22:13, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the script already knows which nominators are exempt (this is used to show the count of QPQs required within the interface). I am not sure when I can get to making the neccesary changes, so if someone can prepare sandbox versions of the twoscripts, that would help. – SD0001 (talk) 15:11, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
In theory, we could do that as well. However, in practice I prefer Airship's idea of requiring that the QPQ be filled out before the editor is allowed to submit their DYK nomination (provided that it's technically possible). That way, there would be less potential for conflicts regarding incomplete QPQs. – Epicgenius (talk) 22:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Sometimes I do expand, create an article or get it through GAN but don't have the time or energy for an immediate QPQ. In these cases, I sometimes nominate immediately and do the QPQ later when the reviewer points out the absence. Is this now undesirable practice? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Jo-Jo, just do some QPQs when you aren't expanding or creating and do have that time and energy, and bank them. As long as you keep up with your nominations, you'll always have one waiting to be used. The reviewer won't have to point out the absence, wait for you to fix it and ping them back, come back in, refresh themselves on what they were thinking at the time, and finish the review for you. Valereee (talk) 11:32, 22 August 2024 (UTC)
Some of our regulars tend to be late in providing QPQs. Should we ping or at least inform them about this discussion, to ask for their input or at least make them aware of it? Given that if the changes push through they will be affected, I think it's fair for them to at least know about the (possible) change. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:52, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
If there's particular people you're aware of who should know about this but haven't been involved in the discussion, then by all means let them know. RoySmith(talk)14:30, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
That's the issue: I don't have a list handy. I do recall that sometimes, Thriley and Gerda Arendt have been late in providing QPQs, but there are probably others too that haven't been informed yet. Some of the others like Epicgenius and BeanieFan11 have already commented. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:42, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping, but I don't care. I tried to make facts known via DYK, and his worked for about a decade, but right now, it's frustrating. I would have liked to say something about a wonderful baritone who was active in Poland and Spain. Instead, we'll say that there was a concert for his 70th birthday, which is utterly uninformative about what he meant to the world. Leave me alone please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:50, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
In addition to the fact that the tags were added after the hook appeared on the main page, it seems the editor who made the ERRORS complaint was the same editor who added the maintenance tags. That being said, however, doesn't DYKcheck warn you if there are tags like {{CN}}? Epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
With regards to the Dollar Mountain Fire I have addressed the issues @The ed17: had (of which the , and given the very short time it was on the main page would like to see it placed back into a perp set for a full run if possible. As I removed the citations to the "Doukhobor websites". the hook will need to be slightly modified to "shelter near a Creek".--Kevmin§17:03, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not seeing the logic here. It got pulled because you used an unreliable source. It's unfortunate that this wasn't caught in any of the DYK review steps, but ultimately it's your responsibility to use good sources. Why does this qualify for a second run? RoySmith(talk)17:22, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi. Tagger and ERRORS reporter here. (Kevmin, I promise I'm not following you -- I have WP:DYK watchlisted.)
To RoySmith's point: in Kevmin's defense, it was a pretty minor use of an unreliable source. And while I'm waiting for confirmation, I am starting to suspect why I failed to verify so much of the article's information was that a citation URL was inaccurate. See my first paragraph in this edit. Ed[talk][OMT]17:31, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: The source in question, which I feel meets the "Secondary" qualifications in WP:SPS, was used only 3 times (out of then 37 cites in the article), 2 as support for the the other citations in the section and once for the words "rocky outcrop", NO extraordinary new information was taken from the source, and the other sources also affirm the information. I feel you have a rather punitive view of DYKs that aren't immaculate (see your comments above regarding QQP) but its project standard to give nominations pulled within an hour or so of mainpage that have been fixed to rerun.--Kevmin§19:18, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
[...] but its project standard to give nominations pulled within an hour or so of mainpage that have been fixed to rerun. In your case though, the article stayed on Main Page for more than 3 hours. [12]BorgQueen (talk) 19:44, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
3 1/2 hours out out of a 24 hour run, thats less then 1/6th of the run. I feel that falls into "or so" of the total run period. And as I note a quick look at the archives shows that this is not an unusual ask or a rarely granted thing.--Kevmin§20:52, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
It's a case-by-case thing. It was on DYK for such a short amount of time that I don't think it would hurt to allow it to run again as long as the issues have been addressed. We tend to be less lenient for hooks that run at least half of their prescribed time, but 3.5 hours seems short enough that I'd support a re-run. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:10, 21 August 2024 (UTC)
I removed the quote box as tangential. All that is needed now is to choose a hook. I would like to see Narutolovehinata5 return to this role, as they have good instincts for this. Viriditas (talk) 20:46, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
@SL93, Storye book, and Sammi Brie: It's not clear what it means to be a destination for illegal logging. Also, the article talks about logging, but only hints at it being illegal, there's no clear statement that illegal logging is happening. RoySmith(talk)17:26, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry for being confused by the article's wording. I looked at the sources, and I suggest just removing the word "illegal". SL93 (talk) 21:24, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
I thought I promoted this, but Airship did. Now I remember that I wanted to promote the hook, but I never got around to it. Damn, I feel stupid. SL93 (talk) 21:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: I took this bit of this source to at least heavily imply that logging in this part of the forest is illegal:
At the higher reaches of the island, there are remains of an old arboretum, although it has suffered significant storm damage since its installation during colonial times. This installation covers an area of around 60 ha and is currently under the protectorate of the Ministry of the Environment and Forest. However, logging still continues within this zone, as there is essentially no active policy enforcement.
I have no objection, but I would be more concerned if there was a long stream of such hooks rather than just two of them. SL93 (talk) 23:54, 20 August 2024 (UTC)
Possible DYK
I find the DYK process a little challenging, but if anyone wants to pick it up, the new page, Scethrog Tower, offers possiblities:
@KJP1: I must admit, as a fan of quiz shows, I do quite like ALT1. Why are you not able to do this yourself, given that you didn't seem to have that much of a problem with your sixth nomination last month? (For the record, I'm not opposed to nominating this myself, but I'd want a QPQ.)--Launchballer12:40, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I am pretty certain there's at least one useable hook in there somewhere. As to why I don't just do it myself, it's a fair point, but frankly I find the DYK process to be a little painful. I only did the last one as a thank-you to the editor who took the trouble to get me the photos. So, as I do not intend to take it forward myself, but nonetheless am confident there is a pretty good hook in there, I thought I'd flag it in case someone else wanted to pick it up. I've done this before, although I can't remember with which article. KJP1 (talk) 13:01, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
I've been involved in building this prep. I've promoted two of the hooks and reviewed one. So I believe it is best if someone else could move it to the queue. BorgQueen (talk) 00:32, 25 August 2024 (UTC)
What is the standard (not ideal) to which DYK should hold itself?
Earlier this year, efforts began to repair DYK, but I have questions about DYK itself. The big one: What's the bar?
Is it Britannica's level of accuracy? In The Myth of Brittanica, scholar Harvey Einbinder crucified that professional encyclopedia for their frequent errors. We'll never get things perfect, so what is our threshold for acceptable?
Below are two contested DYK hooks compared to news coverage. Many issues at WP:ERRORS come from content cited to sources making the same or similar errors. Andrew Tate's DYK spurred a lengthy and intense discussion at WP:ANI. Jex Blackmore's DYK was one of many disputed at WPO. In both discussions, there were legitimate concerns about hooks describing living people in a way that could potentially give a reader the wrong idea. However, neither hook is outright false, and content similar to the contested hooks appeared in many news sources. Changes to the subjects' articles addressed both issues, but the changes were minor.
Andrew Tate
Described by DYK as: "'absolutely a misogynist'"(DYK)
"In an interview with another YouTuber, he said he was "absolutely a misogynist", and added: "I'm a realist and when you're a realist, you're sexist. There's no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist.""
"In an interview on YouTube, Tate admitted he was "absolutely a misogynist", and said: "I'm a realist and when you're a realist, you're sexist. There's no way you can be rooted in reality and not be sexist.""
"In an appearance on the Anything Goes with James English podcast last year, Tate said: “You can’t slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I’m absolutely a misogynist, and I have f*** you money and you can’t take that away.”"
"As a part of a two-hour interview in 2021 on the podcast “Anything Goes With James English,” Tate said, “You can’t slander me because I will state right now that I am absolutely sexist and I’m absolutely a misogynist, and I have f— you money and you can’t take that away.”"
"Tate describes himself as "absolutely a sexist" and "absolutely a misogynist,” and has stated that women "belong in the home" and that they are "given to the man and belong to the man.""
"Self-described mysogynist Andrew Tate [...] who has described himself as “absolutely a misogynist,” told NBC News that he plays an “online character."
"Tate describes himself as “absolutely a sexist” and “absolutely a misogynist,” going as far as to say that he prefers women that are as young as 19 because they have been with less men and are therefore sexually innocent."
Later changes:
Changed from "influencer, and has described himself as "absolutely" misogynistic and sexist."(14 May 2024) to "influencer, and has previously self-described as a misogynist."(15 May 2024)
Jex Blackmore
Described by DYK as: "an American pro-choice activist and Satanist"(DYK)
So, are we holding ourselves to a higher standard than Brittanica? Higher than the baseline of professional journalism? I think that's a consensus that has developed. If our bar, at least for the main page hooks, is raised above those sources, we can't settle for citing and summarizing them. So how do we do it? Rjjiii (talk) 22:46, 23 August 2024 (UTC)
Are we really holding ourselves to the baseline of professional journalism if we don't issue retractions when we get things wrong? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:58, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
Any professional journalists would probably vomit at the thought of including a little box filled with random trivia on the front page of their website/newspaper, so there's that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:36, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
The standard is " if you can complain about it, no matter how minor, inconsequential, or honestly still correct, the hook will be changed". That's the level I've seen over the years. Many of the complaints at ERRORS are specious at best and tendentiously wrong much of the time. But the complaint was made, so we must change it to suit the complainers. SilverserenC17:00, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
... that a parrot reportedly screamed profanities at the funeral of U.S. president Andrew Jackson?
@Di (they-them), KJP1, and SL93: I don't think "reportedly" is good enough of a hedge for this hook. Snopes rates the claim as "unproven", noting that they found no contemporaneous evidence from the claim, only a letter written from one of the funeral's attendees to a historian decades after it happened. I think the hook should be workshopped to make it clear that this seems to hover closer to a good story than it does reported history. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:59, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: The Snopes article quotes a professor of history as saying that the event is "uncontroverted but also unauthenticated", meaning that even though it hasn't been proven, it's not widely doubted that it happened. Being uncontroverted, "reportedly" is an OK way to phrase it (IMO). Di (they-them) (talk) 08:08, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
"Uncontroverted" just means "this circumstantially fits with what we know about Johnson and Poll"/"we have no reason to think this person is lying", but that's not the same as "the general consensus of scholars is that this probably happened". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:11, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron - isn't that what "reportedly" is doing as a caveat? Rev. William Menefee Norment recounted the story to Samuel G. Heiskell, and Heiskell reported it in his Andrew Jackson and Early Tennessee History. The article lead then goes on to report Snopes' reservations. If it was just an internet "story", I could understand but as the teller not only attended the funeral, but had also met Jackson in life, I'm not sure I get the concern. KJP1 (talk) 09:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
p.s. The Rev. Normant doesn't look like a man given to the telling of tall tales! - he's third from left, front row, [13].
I think it should say that "one funeralgoer later recounted" the story – one of the annoying nuances of history as an academic field is that eyewitness observations are way more unreliable than most people would intuitively guess. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:20, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't run this at all. This is all just repeating the same cute story which may or may not be true, and we have no real way to figure out which. Surely we've got better stuff we could run? RoySmith(talk)13:30, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
That "reportedly" is doing a lot of heavy lifting for its actual meaning "according to a 103-year-old source retelling the 76-year-old memories of a 92-year-old-man". The important bit of "uncontroverted but also unauthenticated" is not the first word but the last—the events were so old that Norment could have made anything up, no matter what he looked like. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:26, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
This should get pulled. I went through and looked at all of the sources. Most of them are not up to WP:RS standards and I've applied the appropriate tags. RoySmith(talk)15:49, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@SL93: Please see my response to RoySmith, I don't think that pulling the hook was the right decision. RoySmith tagged most of the sources as unreliable despite the fact that all but one are 100% reliable (Snopes, the Audubon Society, and subject matter experts are not considered unreliable). Only one source could be considered potentially unreliable (Lafeber Co.) but its claims are backed up by overwhelmingly reliable sources. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:47, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I really don't understand what criteria you hold for something not being up to RS standards. The sources that you tagged as unreliable are news articles, Snopes (which has been determined to be reliable, see WP:RSP), the Audubon Society, Jacksonian America (a website run by a subject matter expert), and a museum. All of these seem to pass RS standards to me. The only source that I could imagine being potentially unreliable would be Lafeber Co., but its claims are backed up by all the other reliable sources. Di (they-them) (talk) 16:44, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
You can't just say, "This was in a newspaper, therefore it must be true". This is summed up at WP:CONTEXTMATTERS which says, Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content. In general, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication.
Look at, for example, "Strange But True: Andrew Jackson and the cursing parrot", in the Naples Daily News. This has 7 unrelated factoids, ranging from marriage practices in ancient Rome to how seahorses reproduce. How likely do you think it is that each of these statements was fact-checked, analyzed, and scrutinized before publication? Or is it more likely this is just clickbait to drive traffic to the ads on the page for ED pills, miracle mouthwashes, and a shower head which is claimed to be "Life-Changing". RoySmith(talk)17:04, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Snopes, the Audubon Society, the museum, the Washington Post, and Jacksonian America (run by professor Mark Cheathem) are all reliable sources that cover the subject. If it was just local news articles you would have a point, but it's not. Also, the Naples Daily News source is listed in conjunction with reliable sources to the same claim. Di (they-them) (talk) 17:07, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
It depends on the claim. I find, in my own personal experience, it's better to have one single source backing up a claim, but if necessary, to bundle primary and secondary sources together to show how there's a chain of scholarship with each work reinforcing the other, particularly when the secondary cites the primary. You can see how I did this in Toulouse-Lautrec Cooking. Only one source appears at the end of a sentence or a paragraph (if possible), but multiple sources are bundled if it helps illustrate the chain of ideas, scholarship, or literature references. To be brief, it is best to have one source, not many backing up claims, but if necessary, bundle multiple sources into one when needed. I just ran into an editor who was citing ten or more sources at the end of sentences, making the articles all but unreadable, and without any reason. Viriditas (talk) 21:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Having multiple independent sources is useful. Many of these are just repeating what the others say. For example. the Audubon source (which has all of two sentences to say on the subject) cites the Presidential Pet Museum and The Tennessean. You already cite both of those directly, so citing Audubon doesn't add any new information. The Cincinnati Enquirer (which devotes a single sentence to this) likewise just cites the same article in The Tennessean. So it also adds no new information.
And since I don't want to be accused of outing, I'll just mention that in an off-wiki thread, somebody finds it "baffling" that I would call the Washington Post unreliable. I'm also baffled, since that's not one of the sources I complained about. RoySmith(talk)21:13, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Any source can be unreliable at some point, even the WaPo, which was bought out by Bezos in 2013. Keith Olbermann and others have been keeping tabs on the number of unreliable stories run by the WaPo and the New York Times, so this isn't actually that baffling at all. American media has a huge problem, often due to multiple factors, such as failure to innovate, media consolidation, and the loss of basic journalistic ethics and values when confronted with power and money. Still other factors, which are rarely discussed, include the loss of interest in long-form reading by the public, who are conditioned by social media to read only headlines and small blurbs. Researchers like Sherry Turkle and others like Nicholas G. Carr have written extensively about this problem, with the vast majority of academia ignoring it until recently.Viriditas (talk) 21:40, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived several hours ago, so I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 5. We have a total of 283 nominations, of which 132 have been approved, a gap of 151 nominations that has increased by 1 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:16, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
@Styyx, Sammi Brie, and SL93: I'm not sure this hook is appropriately understandable for a reader of average understanding: what's "rolling stock"? What do S1 and S2 mean in this context, is it just a name? Why is it surprising that it's a tram? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:52, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
One could expect a train with the name metro actually run as a metro and not a tram. I thought rolling stock was pretty basic language as you pretty much can't have a transit article go without it (eg. New York City Subway). S1/S2 is indeed the name of the train type.
I'm not quite sure how a metro differs from a tram (one has rubber tires and the other runs on rails, maybe?) but I think it's fine. I think most people will recognize that "metro" and "tram" are both words that describe types of transportation systems and will click through to find out what the difference is. RoySmith(talk)13:18, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
If I may opine, a tram is basically a light rail or streetcar back in the US, whereas a metro would be more akin to a subway. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:23, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
there's lots of technical terms needed to write an article; doesn't mean everyone knows what they mean, and I think "rolling stock" is pretty obscure even if basic. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:01, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi RoySmith. I have made it a bit more clearer in the article. "This meant that the line ran as a metro from Amsterdam Centraal to Amsterdam Zuid and was fully integrated into the system, while switching to a tram service after Zuid until its terminus", source: "Toen in 1990 lijn 51 naar Amstelveen in gebruik werd genomen, moest deze deels als metro en deels als tram worden uitgevoerd" and "At the time, no rolling stock existed that was able to convert from a metro to a tram mid-service. The GVB placed an order at La Brugeoise et Nivelles (BN) for 13 trains in 1988 that were capable of doing so, only for use as Line 51", source: "Al moet gezegd dat er in 1985 nog geen voertuig bestaat dat op zowel een metro- als trambaan kan rijden. Er zijn dan alleen nog technische tekeningen beschikbaar. Het vervoersbedrijf besluit de stap te wagen en laat een sneltram bouwen door de Belgische leverancier BN uit Brugge". Note that in both instances the rest of the sentence is supplemented by the other source used. Some sources used elsewhere in the article also call it a tram (i.e. see the translated title of source 28). Styyx (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I did mention it in the nom: I also realized there's the possibility of including Lim Si-hyeon, the third member of the team; however, her article needed to be expanded to about 3,300 bytes to count as 5x expanded (someone else expanded it) and it is currently about 2,700: not sure if including it would somehow be possible.BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Even if the third article doesn't qualify for DYK as a bolded link, the hook should still make it clear that the two people mentioned were just part of a three-person team. RoySmith(talk)15:25, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I will say that Lim Si-hyeon is currently 2969. Given that it's not going to take up that much extra room if we're linking to it anyway, how do we feel about IARing it?--Launchballer16:10, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
It is my understanding that images of statues in the US erected after 1978 are generally not considered free without express consent from the sculptor. However, this image of a 2013 statue is owned by the US federal government and in the public domain. Does it meet the criteria set forth in WP:DYKIMG from a copyright standpoint? Left guide (talk) 23:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Hi! Just got PSHAW, since I'm new to this area of DYK, I want to ask a question. For the prepping procedure, bullet point three says ... that the article has not been substantially edited since the last approval, does it include good-faith edits and/or expansions? 🍗TheNuggeteer🍗12:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
@TheNuggeteer: I have no comment on your post; but in the meantime, could you explain what makes you qualified to close this nomination despite not being a DYK moderator? While it's been marked as rejected and should probably closed off the bat, I find this quite odd. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:05, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
@TheNuggeteer To return to your original question, I would not consider small good-faith edits, but major expansions or reorganizations definitely would warrant a re-review. Sohom (talk) 11:11, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Can we have a moratorium on nonsensical hooks
Like today's "that Quintus Quincy Quigley preferred Angles to a ring?" - it's not quirky, it's not hooky, it's nonsense. Sure, it's a complete sentence, but there's a fine line between leaving a reader wondering more about the statement and leaving the reader wondering what the statement itself is. A hook doesn't, perhaps shouldn't, give everything away, but it's still got to say something that is either inherently interesting (and QQQ simply preferring something is not) or - if it's in the quirky slot - something that is interesting based on wordplay or similar (which isn't apparent even though Angles is clearly a double meaning and ring deliberately too vague). Kingsif (talk) 09:58, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
The OP's last hook was "... that though Donatello was a Bardi, he was not a Bardi?" This sounds nonsensical so you obviously have to read the article to understand it. This makes it a good hook and I'm not seeing the difference. Otherwise, this just seems to be a case of de gustibus non est disputandum. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I mean, I don't think my last hook is good because you have to read the article - it's good because it entices you to read the article based on what the hook actually tells you. And that, Andrew, is the difference. Being told X is Y but also not Y, makes a reader interested in what Y could possibly be that makes such true. It makes sense in the fundamental way of understanding what is said even if you don't know what all of the parts are. The hookiness (and quirkiness) is the apparent contradiction, one does not need to know what Y is to understand the hook itself.
While the hook I mention here in the OP, is effectively just throwing random words into the hook to make the hook itself read as weird. It's nonsense in that there fundamentally is nothing there to be understood, any meaning having been sacrificed for an attempt at mimicking quirkiness. The hookiness is "these words are weird and don't make sense put together". And worse, it is also super boring taken at face value, even if you know what it's about.
As I said, there's a fine line, but IMHO most people can tell the difference between relying on readers being unaware and intrigued, and relying on them being confused - and we shouldn't be aiming for the latter. Kingsif (talk) 14:20, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
The words "Angles" and "ring" are not random; they are exactly the words used in the full anecdote. One is a proper name, and this is indicated by the capital letter while the ring is just a ring and not cryptic at all. I started with the anecdote and tried to express this succinctly. As explained in the nomination, I didn't want to obscure the name of the subject with too much detail as I felt his name was the most intriguing part of the hook.
So, the hook worked reasonably well for me as it was built up from knowledge of the subject. It may well be puzzling for readers coming cold to it but that's fine for a hook. How well it works overall in attracting readers remains to be seen.
As for your hook, I don't much appreciate it because I'm not sure what those different meanings of Bardi are and I still haven't found out because they don't sound especially interesting to me. But if it works for you then I'm fine with it. Creating these things is like composing poetry or an epigram. It's an art, not a science and so some variation in content, style and appreciation is to be expected.
In my case, the editor who reviewed the hook seemed to like it and it went through the prep and promotion process without being altered in any way, which is unusual in my experience. It's not clear to me why you're making a big deal about it now but so it goes. If it helps draw more attention to the article, then that's more hits for it. And, at the end of the day, the set scrolls off and we're done because this is all quite ephemeral.
You know I didn't mean to highlight your hook specifically, but that it's the latest in what has seemed an increasing number of 'quirky' hooks that have nothing interesting about their facts (and, forgive me, "X preferred Y to Z" isn't inherently interesting, and strange words alone will not make it so) but have been written seemingly deliberately absurdly to try and make them quirky. I still like to come at reading DYKs fresh, and IMHO it's off-putting when hooks have nothing interesting but their weird construction. I just wanted to draw attention to a trend of something I think is going to make hooks less appealing. Kingsif (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Carl Linnaeus whose primary principle was "mirari omnia, etiam tritissima" commonly translated as "wonder at everything, even the most commonplace".[1]
Interest is not inherent; it is an attitude or POV of the observer and some acute observers are able to take an interest in anything and everything. For example, consider Carl Linnaeus(pictured) who wrote, "mirari omnia, etiam tritissima". I came across this motto at the Chelsea Physic Garden and immediately thought that these were words to live by and so put them on my user page.
So, our pragmatic measure of the interest of our hooks is statistical – the number of views that they get. The numbers are in now and Quintus Quincy Quigley got 11,605 views, which seems reasonably good.
Bardi (surname) got 6,634 which is rather less. It was in the quirky slot too but attracted some heat at WP:ERRORS which resulted in changes to the hook. Perhaps these weakened the hook and made it less effective. The official history of the main page now has that hook as "... that though Donatello was a Bardi, he was not part of the Bardi family?" which doesn't seem so interesting, eh?
Have to agree with Airship, that's a logically quirky way of saying that some vocals in the song were provided by people who are mothers. This Mama hook IMHO fulfils the aim of quirky hooks - presenting a fact in a fun way - and is not the problem at hand. If people can't sense the difference, a litmus test could probably be "ignoring how it's written, is an interesting fact presented?" Kingsif (talk) 16:52, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
To add, the only borderline example I currently see in the preps and queues would be prep 7's "that English DJ Sammy Virji pranked Salute after making "Peach" with them?" - it's debatable whether pranking a collaborator is an interesting fact, and if you think it isn't, the hook would be relying on something of an innuendo not just for its quirkiness but for its interestingness. Kingsif (talk) 17:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Where did I say give all the information? Just making the prank (rather than "Peach") the focal point of the hook could give it some substance. Kingsif (talk) 20:47, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith Given that it's now in Queue and the reservations raised here, is there consensus to put it back to prep or to even pull it? For what it's worth, I do think it's a rare example of a quirky hook that's actually accurate even at first reading, but AJ29 has made an objection to it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 When I encountered that hook in Prep the concern I had was that it assumed knowledge of who Salute was. However, I didn't want to add too much context since I was worried that others might feel that adding context would the hook. In the meantime I've moved it to a later prep, but do you think it needs to be pulled or reworked altogether? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:48, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I suspect the white and green fish may blend in with the white and green background for some, especially if someone is not primed to look for fish. (One fish is also a bit fuzzy, but that's one of those issues which is alleviated by the smaller size.) CMD (talk) 04:18, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
On my desktop, I can clearly see the fish on the left. I can make out the fish on the right if I look for it, but basically it's doing what millions of years of evolution have enabled it to do; blending in with the background. On my phone, it's all just a blob. From a technical quality standpoint, the best images I see in this prep set are File:Sof'ja Kropotkina.JPG from Sophie Kropotkin and File:WOSU office 02.jpg from WOSU-TV.
And now that I look at this more, there's another issue. The caption says "Perugia's limia male pursuing a female". What WP:RS do we have that says which gender each of those are, and that the activity pictured is pursuit? RoySmith(talk)14:51, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
I can't get myself to agree with changing the image when the only way that I can barely see it is if I remove my glasses. SL93 (talk) 20:23, 24 August 2024 (UTC)
BorgQueen and others, I am very curious about the suggestion that we need sources to identify what is going on in a photograph. Is there a guideline about this? Or a community consensus? I see a fair number of images set to appear soon on the Main Page in featured articles with captions that likewise miss sources. One could go further and ask why there is no RS that says the fish in this image are L. perugiae at all. How would there even be a RS for this when the photo was taken by a Wikipedian? Would the author be a reliable source on the sex and behavior of his fish (otherwise evident from the photo)? The removal of this information from the caption is rather unfortunate given that it ties so well with the hook. Surtsicna (talk) 21:24, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
WP:V says All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including ... captions, must be verifiable. Uncited information in image captions is one of my pet peeves. The last time I complained about this at a FAC, I was told that the photographer was an expert in field (IIRC, polar bears) and they were taken part of a scientific expedition, so we could count on their expertise to correctly identify what was in the photos. That's not unreasonable.
But in this case, all we know is the photo was taken by User:Usien. Are they an expert? I have no idea. I agree with you that we don't even know if the species identification is correct, but let's for the moment stick to my specific complaint which is how do we know which fish is which gender, and how do we know if the one fish is pursuing the other or if they're just out for an afternoon swim and both happened to be in the same frame at the same time? So if we don't know that, and have no way to verify it, we shouldn't say it. RoySmith(talk)21:48, 26 August 2024 (UTC)
We can tell the sex of the fish by... looking at them. The males differ from the females in the shape of their anal fins (this male has a clearly visible gonopodium), base coloration, and body shape. Whether the male is pursuing the female or just completely innocently swimming in the direction of her genital vent is indeed difficult to say with full certainty. But the idea that we need RS to identify what is in a photo seems problematic. Do we need a RS to ascertain that the woman in the infobox photo at Meghan Markle is indeed Meghan Markle? Or to identify which is the male and which is the female in the Lion infobox? I am genuinely curious about how this is supposed to work. I have always understood WP:V to refer to information in the caption that is not evident from the image itself. Surtsicna (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
It's not evident to me which is the male and which is the female. You're telling me that it's evident to you, which is kind of the definition of WP:OR. RoySmith(talk)01:03, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
The gonopodium on the right fish and gravid spot on the left fish make the sexes clear. That being said, it's falling on that interesting line where anybody with any degree of familiarity with the topic can see its true, while those entirely ignorant of the subject area will have no way of telling and, apparently, focus on the entirely wrong issue. Sexing many species of fish requires very little in the way of specialist knowledge- and, while it may seem counterintuitive, in livebearers it's actually much easier than identifying the species. For example, are one or both of those fish Limia perugiae? Nobody without specialist knowledge of the genus could tell you, and even then maybe not. Fish species are incredibly easy to misidentify. But is the fish on the left a female and the one on the right a male? Absolutely. That is beyond doubt.
So yeah. I'm with @Surtsicna. Why is the nebulous species identification completely fine, but the trivial question of "does the fish have a visible penis" OR? I don't want the picture pulled, but it makes no sense to pull the caption and not the image. The pursuing thing, though, that's hard to verify from just a still and I do have to thank @BorgQueen for pulling that part. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 01:35, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
@GreenLipstickLesbianFor example, are one or both of those fish Limia perugiae? Nobody without specialist knowledge of the genus could tell you, and even then maybe not. Fish species are incredibly easy to misidentify. Thank you for making such an interesting point. If we can't be 100 percent sure, I'm inclined to pull the image altogether. We really don't want to take any chances on Main Page, do we? BorgQueen (talk) 01:44, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
I completely get the inclination. I don't think I'd like that solution, however, as I think it would kind of give us a really weird precedent. For example, most species of animals and plants need the exact same amount of knowledge to identify them- could we truly never run a mainpage image of them that hadn't been previously published in a reliable source and suitably licensed? And for photographs of people- the cross-race effect is real, even for famous individuals, but even ignoring that, people confuse each other all the time. If somebody claimed to have met an author and gotten a picture of them, why do we trust that they identified the author correctly, especially if we don't have any other good images to compare it to? And, even then, wouldn't our act of comparison then fall under WP:OR? And how about photographs of cars, planes, geographic features, computers, buildings without signs- do we trust our fellow editors uploading the pictures to get their labels right, or do we hold out for a reliable source to confirm the id for us? I fear with this interpretation, we'd be limiting not only the images we ran, but the type of images we could run. Taking August's hooks so far, three plant images have been run. Of these images, two of them (File:Pavonia praemorsa 1DS-II 2-6600.jpg and File:Tulbaghia acutiloba, blomme, veldblomstappie, FG NR, a.jpg were uploaded as "own work", but we accepted the uploader's identification as okay enough for the main page. And what I said above, about fish identification? That goes doubly for plants.
All in all, I don't think there's a good solution to this issue that's going to make everybody happy. I know my personal opinion, of course- Wikipedia is a big old work in progress, and removing all "own work" images seems far more damaging than occasionally misidentifying the odd fish. (Especially when, as far as I can see, nobody has seriously challenged either the sexing or the species ID) It does seem unlikely to me, however, that this is the first time somebody has raised this point. Does anybody know of any old conversations, RFCs, or the like discussing this issue? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 02:31, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Good point regarding the plants, GreenLipstickLesbian. BorgQueen, I think in this case MOS:IMAGES helps a lot: Images should look like what they are meant to illustrate, whether or not they are provably authentic. Closely related fish species might look perfectly alike on the outside and only be distinguishable by e.g. the number of teeth, and if we cannot see those, we do not need to be 100% certain. Trusting the photographer is then fully in line with MoS. Surtsicna (talk) 14:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Whether the male is pursuing the female or just completely innocently swimming in the direction of her genital vent is indeed difficult to say with full certainty. Thank you, I'm so relieved to have removed that description from the caption then. I don't think the Meghan Markle analogy is relevant to this case, as it doesn't normally require specialized knowledge to identify Ms. Markle when we look at her portrait images. But, of course, there can be more room for confusion and debates when it comes to certain old, or noticeably unclear, photographic images. BorgQueen (talk) 01:11, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, that was me being a bit facetious! I was suggesting that it is highly unlikely that he was just passing by because male poeciliids are notoriously lecherous. As for Markle identification, I am reminded of the incident of Dolly Parton anonymously entering a Dolly Parton look-alike contest and losing to a drag queen. I can guarantee that there are many people who find it much easier to identify animal species than to identify Markle - and the skill it takes is pretty much the same. Surtsicna (talk) 13:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)
BorgQueen, can we have the sexing of the fish back in the caption now please? We are so fortunate to have been given a good photo capturing both sexes, and it ties directly into the hook. Surtsicna (talk) 15:35, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Schwede66, the article is not new, and even though the article is barely over 1500 characters now, there is still a fair bit of crufty material in there. Sohom (talk) 23:06, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Right now this nomination's proposed hooks do not seem to meet WP:DYKINT as they seem to be reliant on being familiar with Biblical studies and may not be easily understood by a general audience. Is there anyone here who could assist and perhaps propose a more non-specialist hook? Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:47, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith I thought it did. "Kaplan looked outside reported case law for examples modern readers would be more familiar with: first, Alfred Eisenstadt's V-J Day in Times Square, and wildlife photographer Thomas D. Mangelsen's widely reprinted Catch of the Day, showing a grizzly bear waiting with an open mouth for a salmon leaping out of an Alaskan river. This aspect necessarily applied only to the image, and not its subject matter: source". SL93 (talk) 19:26, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
You posted this at a couple minutes after midnight UTC. My first guess is you just caught it in the middle of doing an update and if you wait a few minutes everything will be fine. RoySmith(talk)00:10, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Can't blame me for missing this sentence in the middle of the second paragraph at the top of the page, right? (Currently, DYK hooks are archived according to the date and time that they were taken off the Main Page.)voorts (talk/contributions) 00:21, 28 August 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, the nom and others are busy and I couldn’t close this one out. I’m heading out on vacation and would appreciate a second reviewer. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 05:49, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith We can't use this image because the logo itself will have to be licensed under CC or something we can use. I'm letting you know because you've suggested in your review that we use it. BorgQueen (talk) 17:38, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
I just moved my own approved special occasion nom to the SOHA. The reviewer OK'd the SO request, but I'm not sure if I am allowed to perform this move myself. As a believer in NOTBURO, I decided to ask for forgiveness instead of permission, or even better: a clarification of the current etiquette surrounding the SOHA. Any comments? —Kusma (talk) 15:34, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
PSHAW hasn't whinged, so you should be fine. The actual approval's been given, so I don't see why you can't move it yourself. (There's a bot that moves it to approved, perhaps there's a way of telling it to move it to SOHA?)--Launchballer15:45, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
The move to SOHA has to be done manually. You don’t have to wait for the bot to move it to approved before you move it; it makes no difference. If the reviewer accepts the special occasion request, I cannot see why the nominator couldn’t do the move. Schwede6616:03, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Technical implementation of the recent changes to WP:QPQ
With the above discussion more-or-less having a consensus to require QPQs at the time of the nomination, is it technically feasible to implement some kind of technical implementation regarding it? For example, if a nominator is not exempt from providing a QPQ and does not give one, a warning would pop up telling them about their lack of a QPQ, asking them if they are sure they want to make the nomination. In this case, they can still ignore the warning and create the nomination, but the warning would at least give them a heads-up that they need a QPQ and the nomination could be closed if they do not provide one. I do not think it would be a good idea to outright prohibit editors from submitting a DYK nom without a QPQ however, as there may be legitimate reasons to do so (such as planning to do it within a day, or simply not being able to do it in time but planning to follow up on it as soon as possible). Think of it as similar to the warning that you can enable in preferences where you're warned if you forget to put an edit summary. Is it possible to implement such a feature? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:57, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
With the warning, that should already discourage editors from providing a QPQ late in the first place since they're reminded that they need to provide a QPQ. Rather than requiring a three day maximum, it's probably better to leave it to editor discretion (remember that the new change took place because the old rules that required a week-long maximum proved ineffective in practice). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:19, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Renominating a nomination that's been closed is WP:GAMING the system and should not be tolerated. The whole point of this is to keep nominators from making extra work for reviewers. Renominating a failed nomination is the opposite of that. RoySmith(talk)15:30, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how the discussion - which wasn't a formal proposal - had enough consensus to require immediate QPQs, especially since the initial idea was one week from the nomination (not immediate). BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:04, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
This gave me a scare for a moment; apparently when you do a manual update, it generates a "Your edit on Template:Did you know/Queue7 was reverted" notification to the person who promoted the queue, which in this case was me. My first thought was, "Oh, jeeze, what did I screw up this time?" :-) RoySmith(talk)02:32, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
I've started up DYKUpdateBot again, should be good to go for the next update! Sorry for the trouble, and thanks for taking care of this update BorgQueen. Shubinator (talk) 05:08, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived two days ago; I've created a new list of 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 16. We have a total of 293 nominations, of which 126 have been approved, a gap of 167 nominations that has increased by 16 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 18:22, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
@Sohom Datta, Silver seren, and Phisph7: The source says "holds the Royal Warrent for lampshades", the article says "official lamp curator to the British royal family" and the hook says "appointed the lamp designer". My understanding of how royal warrants work is fuzzy at best; are these three really all the same thing? RoySmith(talk)23:35, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes? Each person with a Royal Warrant has exclusive access to the royal family for whatever that specific warrant is on (or can just sell whatever good it is with the official name of the royal family). In Hanley's case, that was for lampshades. So she was the supplier for the royal family and could also sell the lampshades from her shop with the official name and branding of the Royal Warrant. Our specific article on the warrants explains as such in the first lede paragraph. SilverserenC00:00, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
The Saffron Walden Weekly News said Now she holds the Royal Warrant for lampshades, and makes all the lampshades for Buckingham Palace as well as various members of the Royal Family. and When making lampshades for the Palace, I have to submit colours, shapes and patterns because the Queen likes to know exactly what is - going on - and she does!Littlebury : a parish history says her warrant was awarded in 1977. It appears from the newspaper that she was the palace's lampshade supplier and designer rather than supplying all the palace's lighting, so the article and hook should be reworded. TSventon (talk) 02:16, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron when I try to promote this to Q6 using PSHAW, it hangs at "Closing Template:Did you know nominations/United States Pavilion..." and the browser console contains:
Sigh. I looked at the comment just before that, where it says:
******************** Example format ********************
* (Follow this or you WILL break something)
**
** Normal credit: * ArticleName – Editor (give) (tag)
** Nomination credit: * Nom credit: Nominator (give)
**
** Each credit MUST go on a new line
*********************************************************
I see only one clause of a sentence that is somewhat close: "which will allow the fleet to run on overhead power when operating on electrified sections of the train network". I don't think it's an issue. Feel free to reword it if you like. Pinging is not necessary. Flibirigit (talk) 00:31, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Now that the issues with Dollar Mountain Fire have been resolved, I would like to see it granted a full appearance as I would have gotten. The initial pull happened less the 3 1/2 hours into a 24 hour run, and historical precedent is that when asked, situations like this often are allowed to rerun the full term. Thanks --Kevmin§15:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
We have a finite number of slots per day so rerunning Dollar Mountain Fire means not running something else. Given that Dollar Mountain Fire was pulled for an unreliable source and we have more nominations in the queue than we can use, what makes giving it another slot more important than running something else? RoySmith(talk)15:49, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
We have always had a "finite" number of slots, and yet we have historically also looked at early pulls from the main page and situations where a re-do was acceptable. The 1 single source was already addressed, and it was noted by @The ed17: that he did not feel the nomination should be punished for the pull given the minute amount of information from that source. Additionally placing this into the approved nominations page doesn't "bump" anything. Your frustration at the volume of nominations should be directed at the 1-5 noms and done crowd not the steady regulars that are pulling their weight (I currently have more banked QPQs then I have articles Im writing).--Kevmin§16:00, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I'm not frustrated at the volume of nominations. Quite the contrary: it's wonderful that we have more nominations than we can use. That gives us the ability to pick and choose the best ones. And I disagree that editors with only a few nominations should be dismissed as not pulling their weight. One of our stated objectives is ... the recruitment of new editors. RoySmith(talk)18:35, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there's harm in giving the article a second chance. The article ran for less than 1/4 of its scheduled run time for reasons that were quickly resolved. It could probably run again in a later set: I don't see where "this running again means another article can't" is coming from since it's just one article and it's not like there are any other hooks that need to be bumped off to make room for it, or even a nomination that needs to be rejected. Given how there are still multiple sets in preparation, this could easily be slotted into one of them. If the hook had run for 12 hours or more, I can see the argument about the article being given its chance, but with less than four hours, it probably deserves a fair showing on the Main Page. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:15, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
Seems like theres not any other commentary coming. Based on the general support in the early discussion after the initial pull and the comment here, would it be acceptable to place the nom back at approved for prep builders to see and include in a set.--Kevmin§20:36, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
It should have a full main page run with image. I think the aspect of the firefighters surviving under a ledge is fascinating. Given the heat waves and fire risks some areas are currently having, this would be pertinent. — Maile (talk) 23:42, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
Hello, sorry if this is the wrong place to ask, but I was wondering if there was a prerequisite, formal or informal, for promoting hooks. Wikipedia:DYKPBI and WP:DYKPBR don't outline one, but I figured I'd ask just to be safe. Thanks. Kimikel (talk) 02:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
What do you mean by prerequisite? The prerequisite is probably that the hook should be approved by the reviewer, although it should also be checked by the promoter. The promotion should consider topical and geographical balance with the rest of the set, although this occurs at the time of promotion. CMD (talk) 02:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
The prerequisites for being a promoter are a willingness to learn in what can be a complex environment where everyone makes mistakes, and a can-do attitude. CMD (talk) 03:32, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, there's no official requirement. I see you've already got a few DYK nominations done, so I assume you've also done a few individual reviews for QPQ. The next logical step would be doing some promotions. And as CMD said, you will make mistakes. Don't worry about it, everybody does. As long as you have a positive attitude about accepting guidance from those who came before you, you'll be fine. RoySmith(talk)12:56, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I'd say it's too soon to make the change. One of the reasons we went with nine hooks a set is to get through our backlog faster. Even with nine hooks a set, our backlogs are still long enough that nominations not transcluding is not uncommon. Given that the alternative is two sets a day, which would open up another whole can of worms, along with how in practice DYKTIMEOUT really only culls out a handful of nominations per month, I'd oppose the proposal for now as premature. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:31, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I did consider asking about going to two sets per day a few days ago as we had seven filled queues, which I can't remember ever seeing. I do know that a quick perusal of Category:Failed DYK nominations shows that last month - the first complete month in which timing out noms was a thing - we failed significantly less nominations than in any month since September 2022. I did some research at the start of the year and we should be running around 9.5 per set.--Launchballer08:08, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
2/day is not very fun and a lot of work, but I think it is sometimes needed to reduce the backlog. I'm happy if we can avoid going to 2/day but would help again if we flip the switch (I tend to promote a lot during 2/day times and then end up a bit burned out and do not touch DYK queues for a few weeks or months). —Kusma (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I think promotors are free to balance the sets on their own. For instance if there are too many long hooks in a set, the promotor can erase a slot. Too short, add a slot. I also do not like the idea of rejecting the work of editors to reduce a backlog. I think it is ok if the nominations wait. Lightburst (talk) 21:11, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
It's been a while since hooks rotated every 12 hours. Given that we are just over 120 approved nominations, 24 hours is fine. If we do get to 140, then theres the chance. JuniperChill (talk) 21:41, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Sure. The easiest to tweak are numerical things like article length and timeout criteria. Both could be made a bit stricter. —Kusma (talk) 07:07, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
@SL93 Thanks. ITER Organization retains copyright in the pictures and videos. [...] The pictures and videos may not be sold, distributed or otherwise made available for use by third parties It most certainly isn't then. The image will have to be removed from the article, and eventually, from Commons. BorgQueen (talk) 19:24, 1 September 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the late reply. You can certainly use all the materials found on our website, we would just appreciate if you could quote us @ITER Organization.
To be fair, I've found that process so frustrating in the past that I've stopped bothering to try. On more than one occasion I've found a photo that I wanted to use, wrote to the copyright owner, and got back an email just like the one Maury got: "Of course you can use it, no problem, we're happy to make it available". And then I write back, "That's great, thanks, but could you please send an email to permissions-commons and tell them X, Y, and Z?" and that's where things start to go sideways. The people at the other end don't understand why, after telling me it's OK, I'm insisting they jump through some additional hoops and eventually I just give up and don't use the photo. I get why we need to cross our t's and dot our i's, but it's still frustrating. RoySmith(talk)00:29, 2 September 2024 (UTC)
@BorgQueen, Makeandtoss, and Vice regent:WP:DYKELECT says Nominations about contentious topics may be subject to greater scrutiny from reviewers and promoters. And WP:BLP also applies to recently deceased people. Both of those apply here. We used to have a rule (which I can't find in the newly "reorganized" WP:DYKCRIT) which talked about unnecessary gore. That certainly applies here. The article includes graphic descriptions of injuries and the body. Do we really need this on the main page? RoySmith(talk)00:20, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I suppose with worms starting to eat his face is not only gory but redundant, as it is already stated that the corpse was decaying, therefore such infestations are normally expected after a certain period of time post mortem — so I agree that needs to be removed. BorgQueen (talk) 00:39, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I was shocked and fascinated researching that article. There is a series out now about people and chimps but I have not been interested in seeing it, probably because of that article. The article gets quite a few views every day. Bruxton (talk) 02:38, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Not really enough to keep you safe, tbh. There used to be this trashy amusement park in Baton Rouge by where all of the old malls died, and they had a chain-smoking chimpanzee that would sometimes bust loose and prowl the boulevard trying to bum a cigarette from cars in traffic, smashing windows and ripping off side-view mirrors until the police rolled up. I think they took her to the water park; idk what folks are thinking when it comes to wild animals, Rjjiii (talk) 03:46, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
People are usually the problem. Poor chimp! While we are on animals, I read all about the Thylacine after seeing it on the main page tonight. Good article which shows how people hunted it to extinction in Tasmania - getting paid by the government for killing them. And now it is on the Tasmanian coat of arms! Bruxton (talk) 04:22, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I see no reason to pull the hook. The article may be a bit overly detailed, but the gore will not be on the Main Page, but in a section clearly labelled "dog attack" where it is not particularly surprising. —Kusma (talk) 16:13, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not super thrilled by the lack of independent sourcing for the claim. Even if we are OK with attributing to Paglia the claim that the bans (BTW there seem to be only two, and "two" is shorter than "multiple" so might be better) were motivated by the film's (or perhaps Paglia's?) political incorrectness, we should have an independent source confirming that the film was indeed banned. Can this be improved? Or am I being too picky? Pinging nom @Morgan695, reviewer @Epicgenius, promoter @SL93. —Kusma (talk) 12:51, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, this seems pretty marginal to me. In fact, I'm not convinced this meets the spirit of WP:DYKRULES ("long enough"). It's just barely over the 1500 character minimum, and a good chunk of that is the lead which just duplicates material from the body. 10% of the character count is the names of various film festivals.
I'm not even sure this meets WP:N; it might be better to merge it into Camille Paglia and work on getting that up to GA standard. I see a note on Talk: Camille Paglia that it was nominated for GA back in 2006, but not listed. Unfortunately, I can't find the GA nomination page. Did GA just not work that way back then? RoySmith(talk)14:37, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I recall that, for my first GA in c. 2006, I just needed to list the article on the GA project page and add the GA icon to the article. If the article wasn't good enough someone would just remove it and tell me why. BorgQueen (talk) 14:43, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
My first GA nom and its review, from 2006: [14]. As you see, there was no separate page, just a comment on the talk page. The {{good article}} template that places the green plus on the article was not generally used until about 2010 (it was deleted and salted in 2006). —Kusma (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
But yes, anyone was allowed to remove the GA template from the talk page. It was a very wiki but very random process, and for a long time, GA had a poor reputation as an unreliable marker of quality. —Kusma (talk) 16:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Actually, in the very beginning, there wasn't any nomination process at all. I do remember I just decided to call one of my articles a GA, and it stayed as such for a while until a reviewer came along and demoted it lol.BorgQueen (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, it was such a long time ago, my memory about it is probably mixed up. I just searched through my talk page archives and seems you're right about the talk page nom. So there was a nomination process, albeit a very unreliable one. BorgQueen (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
No, you were right the first time. I was recently poking around the GA talk page archives and reading about how the process developed, and at the beginning it was in fact simply a matter of adding an article to a list. It looks like the nomination process began around April 2006. As a side note, it's interesting to see how close we came to the "good article" icon being a thumbs-up. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 17:50, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I mean, "Barely over the 1500 character minimum" is still "over the 1500 character minimum". Either an article meets the minimum readable prose requirement or it doesn't, and this article does. Morgan695 (talk) 05:23, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I did actually find another source: [15]: "The New Festival [..] refused to screen Glennda and Camille Do Downtown." They mention Paglia's trashing of feminists and an altercation with AIDS activist group ACT UP. I am still not sure we should feature Paglia's opinion of her own film's reception so prominently. —Kusma (talk) 16:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I’ve orange-tagged the article and note that after a recent copy-edit, it doesn’t meet the 1500 readable prose minimum. In its current form, the article is a stub and needs to be pulled. Schwede6619:21, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, hopefully it gets pulled soon. I have noticed that these discussions often don't get acted upon until the last minute. I see four admins in this discussion that can pull it now. SL93 (talk) 22:18, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Gotta say that it leaves a pretty bad taste in my mouth that this was done within a matter of hours without even a consideration of allowing the issues that were raised to be addressed by myself or the reviewer, and without even acknowledging my proposed alternate hook below. Morgan695 (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm sorry you were disappointed, but there were multiple problems with this submission, clear consensus that it should be pulled, and we have more submissions than we have room to publish. RoySmith(talk)15:55, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Is there consensus for the submission to be pulled? I see several editors raising concerns about the article and an extended off-topic discussion about GAR procedures, but I don’t think it necessarily follows that the remedy here is to pull the nomination. I’ve been contributing to DYK for many years now, and in that time have inevitably dealt with instances where concerns were raised about an article post-promotion, but I was always given the opportunity to at least address the raised concerns before any action was taken. It’s frankly pretty shocking to see a pull get rammed through as quickly as this one was, and I don’t think the article is so egregiously unsalvageable that such swift and brutal action was necessary. Morgan695 (talk) 16:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
@Morgan695: I was just about to reopen the nom page, however I had a flick through the sources and discovered that of the seven, three are not independent, two are trivial mentions, and the rest are effectively episode listings. What makes this pass WP:GNG?--Launchballer01:38, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Usage police
Might it perhaps be possible to change the standard DYK template that states "Nominator has less than 5 past nominations." to "Nominator has fewer than 5 past nominations." Emphasis added. Some (though not all) may think "less" is ok, but nobody will think that fewer is incorrect. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:1979:BEF5:5AEC:99F4 (talk) 19:50, 3 September 2024 (UTC)
There are actually two of those in the script: in another place, it says "This article has a readable prose size of less than 1500 characters". —David Eppstein (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Actually, I think that one is correct. If you wanted to rephrase it to use a countable noun, you could say, "This article has fewer than 1500 readable prose characters", but "size" is a measurement so it takes "less than". RoySmith(talk)00:19, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
... that Kevin Mejía was the only Honduran to qualify directly for the 2024 Olympics?
From the source ("Fue el único hondureño en sellar su boleto mediante un clasificatorio") I see that he qualified through some qualifying tournament. How does this make the other three qualify "indirectly"? How did they qualify then?
Don't have much time at the moment, but I know that Mejia qualified by winning a qualification tournament – Each of the others representing Honduras only made it through 'universality' places, granted to smaller nations to give them more people to compete. I.e. Mejia was the only one to qualify through his own talents; the others made it just because the Olympics decided to give Honduras more competitors. Not sure if there's a better way to word it... BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Tell us the exact wording you'd like then. I don't think that indirectly is really the best adverb to use in the hook, or that any adverb is a good solution for it, for that matter. BorgQueen (talk) 22:43, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I've been involved in building Prep 7 and 1—5, which means I can't promote any of them to the queues. @RoySmith has already done Q6 so any help from other admins for the rest of the sets will be appreciated. Pinging @Kusma @Z1720. BorgQueen (talk) 11:46, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: My vacation is over, so I will have less time for Wikipedia. I might not be able to respond to pings as quickly as editors would like. Z1720 (talk) 23:24, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
No, the bot's up. The image wasn't protected, so the bot couldn't do the update. It looks like the image is protected now, locally, but not on Commons. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM00:42, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. It looks like KrinkleBot is down. I've left a note for its operators, but admins should be aware that images may need to be handled manually until that bot's back up. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM02:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
In my personal experience, the easiest way to handle Krinklebot downtime is to ping @CommonsAdmins on WP:DISCORD: there are usually several people online willing and able to quickly protect an image for a day or two. (I haven't been to the IRC server in quite a long time but expect it offers similar real time help). —Kusma (talk) 12:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
DYK Update bot actually gives out helpful messages about the upcoming update, but only at User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors, so only for those who watch that page (and manage not to lose it in their too large watchlist). —Kusma (talk) 12:48, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Actually, would it make sense to transclude that page somewhere in DYK space, for example at the top of this page? —Kusma (talk) 14:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
Adding a feature to the DYK wizard and DYK helper that would warn nominators if their nominations are not new enough?
While we're at it, would it be a good idea to implement some kind of feature to both the DYK wizard and DYK helper that would warn nominators if the article they're nominating doesn't meet the seven day warning? It would not be a hard prohibition since the warning can still be ignored, and there are reasons where a nomination being late can still be accepted. It's just an idea that came to my mind given how we regularly get nominations, usually from DYK newcomers, for ineligible articles that were not new enough at the time of the nomination. DYKcheck already has such a check built in, would adding a similar check to the wizard be feasible? It might help cut down on the ineligible nominations (one recent example being Template:Did you know nominations/The Passenger (Boschwitz novel), which I just closed for that reason). Courtesy ping to SD0001. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:22, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Since there is an extra day or two beyond the seven automatically allowed per the instructions, discouraging a nomination that goes to eight or nine could easily mislead someone unfamiliar with DYK rules. Although I suppose the warning could add that if they request the extra one or two days they can have them... BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
The scripts currently ask the nominator to enter the date the expansion or creation occurred. The following warnings are already in place:
If they enter a date older than 8 days:
Yellow warning text: "Possibly ineligible as date is not within the past week"
On submitting: "The date specified is not within the past week, see WP:DYK#New. Are you sure you want to continue?" (OK/Cancel)
If they enter a date older than 10 days:
Red warning text: "Must be within the past week, see WP:DYK#New"
On submitting: "The date specified is well outside the past week, and hence the article is ineligible for DYK, see WP:DYK#New" (No option to proceed, unless they change the date.)
@SD0001 Are there already such warnings? I wasn't aware of them if they do exist. I was asking because, as I mentioned above, there are still nominations (usually made by DYK newcomers) for ineligible articles. If both the script and the wizard already have such warnings, then I'm not sure how they were able to make those nominations unless they made them manually without using either. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:01, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
The trouble is that the script just asks the user to enter the date – it doesn't check if the creation/expansion actually happened on that date. Moreover, the date field defaults to today. I suspect most users don't bother with changing it. – SD0001 (talk) 16:06, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
I suspect that latter point is true. Does the script have any way to detect moves from draft space to main space? CMD (talk) 16:45, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
Come to think of it, the wizard and DYK helper referencing DYK check would probably be useful in weeding out the ineligible nominations. For example, if an article isn't a 5x expansion, both could warn the user if they were sure they want to nominate the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:16, 5 September 2024 (UTC)
The current wizard/helper is also currently unable to check if a nomination has multiple articles. For example, I've seen double nominations but the message below still says that the nominator needs only 1 QPQ instead of 2. That could possibly be fixed as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:07, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Could we perhaps simply tweak the tool to not autofill the date field and produce an error message if no date is entered (maybe it already does that last part)? That way, editors would be forced to manually enter the date. Hopefully, that should lead them to think about the date. TompaDompa (talk) 18:12, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
DYK tool?
Hi, I'm new to DYK and interested in creating a DYK after seeing the DYK by the Burmese editor Hybernator. However, I don't know how to create a DYK simply and find the process may be complex. Could you please let me know if there are any tools to make creating a DYK easier? Thanks! Hteiktinhein (talk) 22:18, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 34 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 22. We have a total of 306 nominations, of which 145 have been approved, a gap of 161 nominations that has decreased by 6 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 23:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Another eye/copyediting on Serekunda
While reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Serekunda I found some close paraphrasing issues. The nominator has made some edits to address them, but I am unsure if the problem is resolved. It would be helpful to receive another opinion if I am being too cautious, and/or direct copyediting I can sign off on as a reviewer. (The source is on the nom page.) Thanks, CMD (talk) 02:22, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Given the date of creation of the artwork, it would be fine as long as there wasn't a copyright notice on the work or any associated plaque/signage - is that the case? Nikkimaria (talk) 00:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
There was an interesting discussion at WP:ERRORS about the current hook
... that 19th-century Polish writer Józef Ignacy Kraszewski authored hundreds of works, including more than 200 novels, making him one of the most prolific writers in the world?
The hook has been trimmed now but the discussion was illuminating. In particular, notice that there was a DYK nomination for the list of prolific writers in 2011.
The discussion has been zapped at WP:ERRORS now so here's what you may have missed. One thing I'm still wondering is who is the most prolific author of DYKs?
There are two reliable sources that back up the claim. Would you like to be a bit more specific why you think there's something wrong here, Srnec? Schwede6601:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
There have been discussions on WT:DYK about the need to move to move away from superlatives. This seems a good example, the fact is the "hundreds of works, including more than 200 novels", the "making him one of the most prolific writers in the world" is just vague puffery not adding much. CMD (talk) 02:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
The discussions encompassed all superlatives, they started because of the identification of claims that didn't seem true. At any rate, the sources in this case are "which must be reckoned among the highest outputs ever on a world scale", which is a statement that pretty much says it is not the result of an analysis, and a second source of which the closest text I can find to supporting the claim is "a lifetime of unparalleled productivity". The article body text from this was "arguably one of the most prolific writers worldwide", which became "one of the most prolific in world literature" in the lead and "one of the most prolific writers in the world" in the DYK, losing a small caveat at each step. CMD (talk) 03:47, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Some of those discussions were around being "the first", which people sometimes have doubt whether the author only considered their country or the Western world. "One of the" gives more leeway, as it's ambiguous what percentile is referred to. —Bagumba (talk) 05:28, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, leeway to indicate the definite fact is not known. The article states the fact supporting the status of "the most prolific writer in Poland" (a smaller corpus than the world) is calculated "by the number of published editions of his works", which is an unexpected way to define it, as presumably each edition is not a whole new work of writing, especially not the ones after the author's death. CMD (talk) 05:42, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict, Bagumba:) I had criticised the hook for speaking only of quantity but nothing came up, - with no image we don't even get a hint at his period. We could cut the claim, - 200 novels should be impressive enough for those who don't care about content. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't see a problem here. The sources verify the fact, and they are high quality sources. This just seems like an "I don't like it" complaint rather than an actual issue.4meter4 (talk) 06:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
The wording for the rest is fine, remove "making him one of the most prolific writers in the world" and the remaining hook is a definite (and impressive) fact. CMD (talk) 06:10, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflicts, saying the same) The "fact" - in many words - is rather redundant to the high number, almost no surprise (at least to me). - Hook possibility: just have the question mark after "novels", in case of doubt what I meant. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
The hook in question is:
... that 19th-century Polish writer Józef Ignacy Kraszewski authored hundreds of works, including more than 200 novels, making him one of the most prolific writers in the world?
... that while some prolific authors use pen and paper or typewriters, Philip M. Parker has used a computer to write more than 200,000 books?
So, that's a thousand times more than Kraszewski. There have been lots of authors who wrote hundreds of books without computer assistance including: Barbara Cartland (700+ books); Isaac Asimov (470+ books); Ryoki Inoue (1,000+ books); L. Ron Hubbard (1,000+ books)... The latter holds the Guinness World Record and so has a good claim to the title. Kraszewski is just an also-ran and so we should remove the claim, shortening the hook to:
... that 19th-century Polish writer Józef Ignacy Kraszewski authored hundreds of works, including more than 200 novels?
I've looked at that list before and wondered where I stood in the rankings (my count is ~180). I found that I wasn't in the list because it is not maintained automatically and so it is not complete. Perhaps there are other prolific DYKers who haven't been added? Andrew🐉(talk) 08:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, I just took a look... DYK Bot says I have 679 nominations, and only 613 are identified on that page. Given I was retired for seven years, I'd hazard to say that the list is woefully out of date. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I'd be interested in the most prolific reviewers, promoters, and queuers(?) of DYK. I believe there is a tool to check individual promotions, but am unaware of if there area any aggregate stats. (Okay, reviewers may differ very little to DYKs due to QPQs, but the other two seem worth separately celebrating.) CMD (talk) 08:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, if I recall correctly, my edits to NextPrep were fixes when promoting admins forgot to increment it after moving a prep to a queue. This has fortunately disappeared as an issue now that automated tools are used for prep to queue promotions. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:08, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
[...] so substantially impactful users such as BorgQueen were too early for this list to accurately display their contributions. Thanks for the courtesy mention. I'm certainly one of the ancients, perhaps from the mist of prehistory... BorgQueen (talk) 14:43, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Hiya; I realize this is a wildly tight turnaround and thus a big ask, so if it can't be done, no worries. But I was wondering if it'd be possible to run the now approved hook for Des Moines speech on its 83rd anniversary, September 11 (and thus as part of Template:Did_you_know/Queue/1). I realize that's only hours away, so if it can't happen, no worries, and it can just run whenever it ends up running. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:09, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Rule proposal: exclude lead from length
As I noted in #Queue 7: Glennda and Camille Do Downtown (nom) above, that article only passes the 1500 character prose length if you include the lead. I think we should be excluding the lead from the count, since by definition, the lead doesn't contain any "original prose"; it's just a summary of the rest of the article. We would need to modify @Shubinator's DYKcheck, but I assume that would be fairly trivial. RoySmith(talk)14:59, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
While I get the sentiment of the proposal, it's something I'd oppose for reasons of fairness. There are articles on topics that simply wouldn't meet the length requirements otherwise, and such a policy could unintentionally strengthen our systemic biases especially when certain topics from underrepresented areas lack the wide coverage that the Anglosphere has. In addition, cases like the one you brought up are uncommon enough that, rather than a strict rule, it may be more practical to leave it to editor discretion. Indeed, that's what the guidelines actually used to say prior to Theleekycauldron's overhaul (there used to be a section that more-or-less said, paraphrased, "articles just above the 1500 character limit may still be rejected by editors for being too short.") There's also the case where sometimes, lead sections include information not mentioned elsewhere, so that could also cause issues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:19, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Articles with lead sections that include information not mentioned elsewhere would deserve {{lead extra info}}. (I genuinely don't know why we discriminate between yellow and orange tags.)--Launchballer15:24, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I would prefer to just increase the prose minimum to 2500 or 3000 characters. DYK articles often aren't super organised and do not always have separate lead sections. Also, for list-ish articles, the lead may summarise the list, not just other prose; why discount that? —Kusma (talk) 15:57, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
There would go my most common tip for those just under a x5 expansion who didn't do much to the lead. I wouldn't object greatly to the principle, but a careful and well-done expansion of a lead is a genuinely important component of article expansion. CMD (talk) 16:58, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I don’t support the proposal. One of the obvious implications is that it makes it harder to establish prose count. Short articles can already be rejected for various reasons; we don’t need rule creep here. Schwede6619:06, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
I don’t support the proposal. I agree with Scweede66. DYK has been the most accessible area of the main page. I fear that if we keep adding requirements and rules that will not he case any more. A lead is just good writing and some of our articles do not even have sufficient leads. I do not think this is a problem that needs solving but I appreciate the OP's concern. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
The lead is the most important part of an article because it is the part that gets most read and readers often don't go past it. In the mobile view, which is the most popular, all other sections are collapsed and many readers will not expand them or will do so selectively.
Because the editors who create articles have a different perspective, leads are often neglected and are typically too short, failing to summarise the article adequately. The proposal would tend to exacerbate this problem by giving DYK editors no credit for writing a good lead.
Instead, to reflect the importance of the lead, we should perhaps give double credit for its size.
As an example, consider the current top DYK – Israel Del Toro. The lead for this article does not say that the subject was a Paralympian and has won a gold medal for the shot put. This seems to be a significant omission.
I do not think extra credit for writing long leads would be beneficial for DYK articles. We should ask for decent leads during reviews (I have had reviewers call me out over one-sentence leads, but I don't know how many reviewers check this) but not mess with weighting lead/non-lead parts of the article differently. Is there really no appetite for even a slightly increased size requirement? —Kusma (talk) 10:35, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
Increasing the requirements for DYK, including requiring only GAs at DYK, is a proposal that has come up time and time again, and for multiple reasons has been quashed. Lightburst says it best in that DYK is the most accessible way for an article to show up on the main page. TFA, ITN, OTD, etc. are all much higher bars to get over, and very few will ever qualify for them. In addition, one of DYK's main goals has been to incentivize article creation and improvement: that's why there's the emphasis on new and recently-improved content. Raising the bar would open up a whole can of worms: it could discourage newer and less-experienced editors, and it could also worsen systemic bias, something that DYK already deals with. The status quo is not perfect, but increasing size requirements, either by making leads not count or by requiring longer articles, is probably not the solution. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:08, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I still think we should be asking for compliant leads, whether or not they count, as they don't require that much work (the research has been done) and those that don't need them surely qualify as stubs. (I'd find increasing the size requirement to 2500 easier to support if I didn't currently have three noms at T:TDYK under that...)--Launchballer17:50, 7 September 2024 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and did some revisions to WP:DYKCOMPLETE: I replaced "compliant lead" with a more context-based explanation, and folded it more under the "fail to deal adequately with the topic" aspect. Speaking of that aspect, that seems to be the main point of DYKCOMPLETE, so I've moved it to near the start of the explanation and made it the main point backing up DYKCOMPLETE. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:21, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I do not see a true consensus to require "complaint leads" as the only one who suggested it is Launchballer and there's only one other support in Schwede66, so I would not oppose that mention being removed as lacking consensus. In any case, I think DYKCOMPLETE in its current form along with editor discretion should cover such cases already, rather than requiring a strict separate rule. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:25, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
By 'a requirement', I meant 'policy', even if it wasn't being enforced. That number will almost certainly be enhanced by promoters seeing noms and passing on them; I see Airship's passed on at least signum and Earl de Grey, and I certainly wouldn't promote any of the three.--Launchballer11:41, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
These articles seem ok to me for DYK purposes. They are short enough that people can read the whole article, so they do not need sections or a summary in form of a lead section. Given that mobile readers are only shown the zeroth section, it may actually be a better experience for them not to add a lead to these short articles. MOS:NOLEAD recommends section headings (and hence a dedicated lead section) for articles longer than around 400 or 500 words. Tamurbek Dawletschin is the only one of the three to have more than 400 words (446). Honestly, sections in an article close to our prose size limit of only 1500 bytes tend to look a bit silly. —Kusma (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
After a recent edit, the rules now state: Articles which ... have lead sections that do not adequately cover the article, are also likely to be rejected. In my view, that adequately captures what we should be presented with. And since MOS:NOLEAD talks about "400 or 500 words" before you should have a lead, that is hinting at an increase in the minimum prose requirement. All fine by me as 1500 bytes of readable prose can result in a rather stubby article. Schwede6600:47, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The lead is basically a summary of the article. Therefore, it is generally alright for a lead not to have any sort of citations because that is expected in the main body of the article per MOS:LEADCITE. It's like when writing a conclusion, you summarise what you said earlier, except its at the top of the page, not the bottom. It's possible that articles either don't have a lead, or that's the only part of the article (ie, it isn't divided into subsections_. Sometimes, the lead section is no more than a few sentences long. Take a look at Fae Farm as an example (it just about meets the prose length criteria, but not the newness). Because of this, I oppose this suggestion of not including the lead when looking at the prose length of DYK. JuniperChill (talk) 13:39, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I would rather have DYK articles with a developed lead. If leads were excluded from the requirements, editors will avoid writing them, lowering the quality of articles at DYK. I would rather add the DYK requirement that articles with level 2 headings have to have a lead that summarises the main points of the article. Z1720 (talk) 20:51, 8 September 2024 (UTC)
I've given this some thought, and for now I've removed the mention of leads at WP:DYKCOMPLETE, without prejudice against it being re-added later once this discussion settles and we have a clearer view of consensus. The primary concern I have is that what counts as a "comprehensive" or "compliant" lead will vary from article to article, and indeed MOS:LEADLENGTH suggests that it should be on a case-by-case basis. If an article is very short, it can still benefit from a lede if a short one. The part about leads being suitable when an article is over 400 words is more of a guideline, but in practice it may be too high of a bar. It's essentially suggesting a higher bar than 1,500 characters, something which currently lacks consensus. This insistence on compliant ledes just seems like instruction creep. Instead, articles that fail to deal adequately with the topic are likely to be rejected. seems like a decent catch-all for such cases, leaving it to editor discretion when leads are good enough or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I think any additional rule governing the lead might have some unintended effects. For example, if the lead no longer counted toward an article's length, some editors might be inspired to write a super-short lead (or none at all). It would also make it more difficult to ascertain how much an article was expanded, especially if the article did not previously have any sections besides the topmost section. Conversely, a lead that counted for double its character count would encourage people to write extremely long leads. Epicgenius (talk) 13:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Is this proposal doable to begin with? I always use the "page size" tool to check article sizes (both for new articles, and to compare versions in expanded articles). The tool measures all the article prose at once, but excluding stuff that's not meant to be measured (image captions, section titles, lists, references section, etc). Of course, we can always cut and paste the article minus the lead in some external tool to count characters and manually remove the stuff that should not be counted, but that seems way more complicated in comparison to the current tool, and may only lead to potential reviewers simply giving up. Cambalachero (talk) 14:23, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
If you want to measure minus the lead (or otherwise isolate a certain part of the article), delete the parts you don't want in the editor and run the page size tool on the resulting preview. No need for an external tool. (Although still relatively a faff compared to just clicking the one button.) CMD (talk) 14:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
That's exactly the problem that I'm pointing to in my first comment above. It's way too complex for inexperienced editors to determine prose count when you have to exclude the lead. Schwede6619:35, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
QPQ
With the new QPQ rule in place, I've been trying to get them done more quicker than I have before. I nominated four on September 6 with the intention of doing the QPQs within the next three days, because offline work has made it difficult to do everything on time (see e.g. yesterday my only contribution besides a talk page comment was providing a QPQ). As today is the third day, I started first thing by doing QPQs for the remaining two (Template:Did you know nominations/Lewis Manly (second nomination), Template:Did you know nominations/Fadi Aldeeb), only to notice that they had been closed shortly before for not providing a QPQ. Could these please be re-opened? BeanieFan11 (talk) 12:52, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Note that Lewis Manly was also rejected because it was a day late (GA 29 August, deadline 5 September, nom 01:33, 6 September). TSventon (talk) 13:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The solution to this, and a suggestion I've made multiple times, is to make the QPQ before making the nomination. Either that or reviewing nominations even without having open or planned nominations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
In the days since BeanieFan11 nominated Lewis Manly and Fadi Aldeeb to DYK, they started or made significant contributions to Ben Sandilands, Jamie Sheriff, Naibys Morillo, Teleke Lauti, Ion Basoc, Chris Smith (defensive tackle), and Bryant Wesco. This is time that could have been spent reviewing a QPQ. As a prolific DYK nominator, BeanieFan11 knows that a QPQ is required. Editors, including myself, have pinged BeanieFan11 on many previous nominations asking them to complete a QPQ. I marked Lewis Manly for closure because it was a day late and the QPQ was not complete: by not prioritising completing the QPQ, I thought it was inappropriate to give BeanieFan11 another exception to the 7-day limit. My personal opinion is that if BeanieFan11 wants to continue nominating DYKs, they should choose to limit their article editing to complete QPQs and prioritise fulfilling the DYK nomination requirements. Z1720 (talk) 13:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
If you want to reject Manly, then ok. But I don't see the need or any benefit of rejecting Aldeeb (by Naruto), since minutes afterwards they began giving reminders (i.e. not rejecting) noms for other editors over three days (e.g. here) – feels arbitrary. I question if that QPQ discussion truly came out with a consensus to require immediate failure of everything not immediately providing QPQ with no reminders; the informal proposal was proposing seven days (not immediate), and by my count (from a quick reading), I don't see more support for immediate versus seven days (for seven days (or more): leeky (prop.), JuniperChill, AirshipJungleman29, Epicgenius, Narutolovehinata5(?), BeanieFan11, Kusma; for immediate: RoySmith, SL93, Viriditas, Valereee, Z1720, Vanadmone93, Sohom; not sure: BlueMoonset, CMD, Launchballer, Jo-Jo Eumerus, Gerda Arendt.) BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
The reason I closed Fadi Aldeeb early rather than giving a reminder was because I already gave you a similar warning before regarding the rule change. You were already aware of it at that point and should have followed it. The other editors I pinged were mostly those who may not have been aware of the rule change and thus needed to be informed about it. Any future transgressions will probably not be treated lightly, meaning that they too could have their nominations closed without warning if they continue to do it. The rules already allow for incomplete nominations to be closed without warning, and it was within my discretion to do so. Warning the editor is now more of a courtesy rather than a requirement.
In addition, the nomination had already been open for three days at that point, which is more than enough time to do a QPQ in the meantime. Being late by a day would be understandable, but being late by that long is probably too much. Z1720 is right above in that if there was enough time to improve other articles, there was surely enough time to do the necessary QPQs. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:08, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
At this point, I would not support any form of "make up" to allow the closed nominations to be reopened. It was the nominator's responsibility to make sure that their nominations were eligible. Just as nominations may be failed if they are not long or new enough, a nomination without a QPQ is also considered an incomplete nomination and is liable for closure. You were given sufficient warnings with your previous nominations, as well as being aware of and even participating in the discussion that resulted in the rule change. It was your responsibility, not ours, to provide the QPQ, and thus also your responsibility for the nominations being failed. As I mentioned above, my suggestion would be to make reviews before nominating articles, ideally reviewing articles even when you're currently not working on any of your own. That's what I do: I review noms regardless if I have an active nomination or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but what happens if a nominated article is slightly short? The editor will be notified and given a chance to expand it. What if it is slightly not new enough? WP:DYKG still allows it to be promoted if in the best interest of DYK. Are there any issues with the article, or would this have been a perfectly valid DYK – and likely a good one (given the interest in Palestine) – that was denied arbitrarily just because the 'QPQ was a bit late'? For any other fixable issue with the nom users are given a chance to correct it – why should QPQ be the only criterion where zero tolerance whatsoever is given? BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
In sympathy because BeanieFan11 is such a prolific DYK participant. BeanieFan11 is helpful and courteous, and always eventually gets the qpp in. It feels like we are making an example of BeanieFan11 and I am not sure we should. I think BeanieFan11 can learn this lesson without cancelling the nominations. Just my two cents. Lightburst (talk) 21:11, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
It's not a big deal to just take the work to GAN. I think that's a reasonable solution. That way, they will get a second chance for DYK later on. Viriditas (talk) 22:38, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
In that case, I think you should get a second chance, but not a third. That's just me, however, and others might think I'm being too lenient. But we really need to encourage people to submit QPQs before they nominate. Viriditas (talk) 22:44, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
This was actually the primary deciding factor for me. Even before the rule change, BeanieFan11 had a history of providing QPQs late. If this had just been a one-time issue, perhaps leniency could have been granted. As it stands, with it being a recurring issue, enough leniency had already been given up to this point. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:24, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps an analogy would be useful here. When evaluating unblock requests, what most admins are looking for is fundamentally two things. 1) Does the editor understand what they did that got them in trouble in the first place. 2) Have they given a credible assurance that it won't happen again. I'm not seeing the first one here; BeanieFan is still in excuse mode: the rule wasn't validly enacted, what if somebody else did this, you're being arbitrary in applying the rule, it was only a little bit late, other people are getting a break so I should too, etc.
Contrast with @Toadboy123's response at Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Edward_J._York, where he wasn't aware of the new rule, apologized for causing a problem, and committed to complying with the new rule going forward. If we got the same from Beanie, I'd be willing to draw a line in the sand, say that whatever happened in the past is in the past, and going forward everything will be good. But I'm not willing to do that if it looks like we'll just be back here next week with a different excuse. RoySmith(talk)23:57, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
I do admit that I've taken too long in the past; in my initial comment I stated With the new QPQ rule in place, I've been trying to get them done more quicker than I have before. I'm not sure I can guarantee that every single one will be done immediately, given real life circumstances (I'll try to generally do it, though); would it be acceptable to have a maximum of, say, two days? (in alignment with The seven-day limit can be extended for a day or two upon request.) – Since after all, the proposal that led to the change was for seven. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:20, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
As I mentioned earlier, there is one solution that could work with the current rules: reviewing open nominations even if you do not have any open nominations of your own. That way, you can build up a stash of QPQs that you can use when the time comes, so that once you have a nomination you do not need to rush anymore. You already have a QPQ in the backlog. This is a suggestion I've made so many times here, one that has multiple benefits such as discouraging late QPQs and also helping cut down the backlog, and I'm still shocked that it isn't being suggested or encouraged more.
Too many chances have been given, and as RoySmith suggested above, granting another exception when it's a recurring issue (and indeed, one factor in why the rule change was proposed in the first place) would make the rule toothless. It should also be noted that, even with the mention of two days, it wouldn't have mattered as both nominations were closed after three days, so a two-day maximum would have resulted in closure anyway. In practice, I imagine that reviewers will use their discretion to give nominators sufficient warning to do the QPQ, but if the nomination ends up being closed for lack of a QPQ, that is a failure to meet DYK responsibilities. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:44, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
@BeanieFan11: In the comment above I pointed out that you edited seven articles after the Manly and Aldeeb DYK nominations were created. Why did you prioritise creating articles over completing the QPQs? Z1720 (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
@Z1720: Well, at the time I figured I likely wouldn't have had a chance to do many of those articles otherwise (several had just won Paralympic medals, some of the others had breakout football games)... but I admit I should have placed more focus on the QPQs. I apologize for that and for how long I've taken in the past. I won't wait that long again – could I just have one more chance with these two? BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
If this had been a one-off, I'd be more sympathetic towards a last chance. However, with your long history of late QPQs, a history that dates back to before the rule change, the line has to be drawn. It sucks for nominations to fail, we've all been there, but as DYK contributors, the important thing is to learn from setbacks and move one. Those nominations failing is not meant to be representative of your contributions to DYK, and there will always be plenty of opportunities to contribute other articles if not those specific ones. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
... that the creator of Ani ni Aisaresugite Komattemasu ensured a happy ending by not making the main characters blood relatives?
How does this pass WP:DYKFICTION? Merely mentioning the author doesn't make it not focused on the fictional aspect. (Compare, say, "... that JRR Tolkien ensured a happy ending of The Lord of the Rings by making the ring susceptible to being thrown in lava?") (Pinging Lullabying, Crisco 1492 as nom and reviewer respectively). ♠PMC♠ (talk)19:29, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Don't know why I didn't get the ping, but I consider it information about the writing process rather than the content qua content (that applied to all of the ALTs on that nom; one was about the process of naming a character, and one was related to publication schedule rushing the story). Pinging AirshipJungleman29, who promoted the specific hook. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
The "interesting" part of the hook is the characters not being blood relatives, which is fictional content. There's no real-world connection outside of saying "the author decided", and if we could just throw in some variation of "the author decided" for every fictional work - because every fictional work has an author who decides what goes in it - there would be no point having DYKFICTION. ♠PMC♠ (talk)00:48, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I do agree that the lines can be blurry, but there's nuance involved and this is one of those cases where the real-world connection is there and the focus is on a real-life fact. The hook fact isn't about the happy ending itself, it's about the author making said ending. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:13, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I might agree if the hook elaborated on her thinking or her writing process, but it doesn't, it's entirely about the fictional content. All fictional works have authors, and all authors make decisions about their content. If it doesn't fail DYKFICTION, then it fails DYKINT on the basis that simply making editorial decisions in and of themselves are not interesting.
Consider the following: "that the creator of Ani ni Aisaresugite Komattemasu ensured a happy ending by having the main characters kiss". This hook would also, by your reading, be about the author making that ending. But it's not interesting, is it? No. Why not? Because characters kissing in a romance isn't unusual or interesting. So the thing we're relying on in our current hook to pass DYKINT is the characters not being related, which is part of the fiction, so it fails DYKFICTION. The thing we're leaning on to create interest can't be the fictional thing, because anything can happen in fiction. ♠PMC♠ (talk)01:24, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
Now in queue 5. I can see PMC's point regarding DYKfiction, but there is a little real world connection in making something that looks like an incest story not an incest story. I'm not sure whether that needs to be more explicit. —Kusma (talk) 09:09, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
This is currently the oldest open unapproved nomination and is a few days away from timing out. Right now the only thing that needs to be reviewed is the new hook proposal. A review before the 18th would be much appreciated. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that would work, as any other folklore society would have been founded in the few decades beforehand (the concept itself was only invented in the 1840s). I can't access the cited page of this source, but its introduction calls the society "the first official organization with "folklore" in its name", and mentions the "Folksong Research Society", founded in 1920. Some adjustment might be needed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:26, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
@BorgQueen and Dumelow: I can only hope the IP who promoted the hook is watching this because I can't ping them. The hook isn't wrong per-se, but it seems overly complicated and it doesn't even say anything about the subject; it says something about how a newspaper mis-reported something about the subject. RoySmith(talk)21:56, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
... that the uniform of the Hong Kong contingent of the Submarine Mining Service was designed by future British Army Lieutenant-General George Macdonogh(pictured)?
You could add "silk-like" before "uniform" to add a little more interest
Otherwise:
ALT2: ... that the British Army's Submarine Mining Service defended ports and harbours with naval mines and torpedoes?
ALT3: ... that the British Army's Submarine Mining Service "was remarkable for the cheapness and efficiency of its organisation"?
ALT4: ... that the British Army's Submarine Mining Service was supplanted in the harbour defence role by the introduction of Royal Navy submarines?
ALT5: ... that Hong Kong's Submarine Mining Service detachment amount to around 0.1% of the total cost of garrisoning the colony?
That's probably fair, though I'd suggest "nobody knows how many beetles there are" is closer to "nobody knows how many grains of sand there are" -- it's a triviality rather than a disputable statement. The cited source has Estimates of the size of the major insect orders in New Zealand, as compared with the British Isles, ... are greatly variable and subject to different interpretations ... The number of species of Coleoptera is about 80% greater than the British fauna. This is ... likely to be, in part, due to what can be called the "Broun effect" We could find a way to put that more succinctly? Perhaps "has been blamed for inflating the number of beetle species in New Zealand"?
Alternatively, we have some ALTs from the nomination:
ALT1: ... that the entomologist Thomas Broun fought in three wars and was awarded medals by two different countries?
Request to allow a nine-day timeframe for newness of a nomination
With respect to Template:Did you know nominations/Janet Panetta, the nominator appears to be requesting a nine-day timeframe for newness of the nomination, with the rationale that it was made in good faith to say thank you to another editor for cleaning up copyright violations. I will respect the community's decision on this. Any thoughts? Flibirigit (talk) 11:39, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
I disagree. The source in question is: "It has 15 rooms, a circular staircase in the grand foyer, period tiles and brass tubs in the bedrooms, chandeliers, stained glass windows, a rotunda or cupola, used for cooling, a metal-lined cold storage room in the kitchen, an 1870s iron stove, an oval-shaped dining room with curved doors, sitting parlors with bay windows, and a library with oak paneling and huge brick fireplace." As per WP:LIMITED, there are few ways to repeat a list of items and still remain true to the meaning of what is included. Flibirigit (talk) 21:30, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
I would disagree. I don't think most people actually know that lightning causes so many wildfires (I actually did not until just now), so it may still be considered at least intriguing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:04, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith The last that I can find is 95% contained from a month ago after searching through news archives. I doubt that 95% is even up to date and I think that it should be fully contained by now. I feel like it should be pulled for it not being up to date alone. SL93 (talk) 23:11, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah. Looking at it closer, I see statements like The Durkee Fire is the second-largest wildfire currently burning in the United States and (in the infobox) July 17, 2024 – present (58 days). I'm going to pull it. RoySmith(talk)23:29, 13 September 2024 (UTC)
As Template:Did you know is not a typical template (arguably the page is in the wrong namespace), I don't understand the need for a template documentation subpage (if you ask me we could just delete Template:Did you know/doc, which seems pointless cruft). We need to minimise human (and bot) errors while editing, so anything that is added should be actually useful. Even if a documentation subpage does get added, I would strongly advise against the suggestion to add
DYK has extensive documentation already. I see zero advantage for DYK in adhering to conventions for template space, as DYK should not be in template space. Just like article space rules do not apply to Main Page, another page that is in the wrong namespace for historical reasons. We should add categories if we need them, not in order to make a database report prettier. —Kusma (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Nope. The DYK template structure is indeed a mess and should be cleaned up, but that needs to be done by a careful analysis of how the process works, not to satisfy some spurious problem in a database report generator. RoySmith(talk)13:33, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer, SL93, AirshipJungleman29, Rjjiii, Kimikel, Premeditated Chaos, Sohom Datta, TheNuggeteer, and NightWolf1223: In light of me really not wanting to fix this bug on its own, I've rolled out PSHAW 2.0, an update I've working on in my userspace for quite a while! not much changes on your end for now – you'll still only have the prep building script and the queuer script (there is a hook puller script that is very close to done) – on my end, the script is much easier for me to read and update. you might find new and interesting bugs, so please do keep me abreast of those either here on on my talk :) thanks! (ugh i gotta update documentation now...) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:24, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
Echoing the above Theleekycauldron, and also noting that promoting to the bottom prep set produces a message ("This appears to be the bottom prep set – per J14, try to leave the image slot, quirky slot, and at least two middle slots open for bumps and replacements!") that refers to an outdated rule number from the old supplementary guidelines. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
DYK template transclusions
Currently, DYK templates from the DYK script are inserted onto talkpages with the inclusion of the "Template:" aspect, eg. {{Template:Did you know nominations/Baguia Fort}} This seems nonstandard behaviour, and can confuse bots slightly. Is there a specific reason templates are not simply transcluded as {{Did you know nominations/Baguia Fort}}? CMD (talk) 11:11, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I remember asking this very same question years ago. As I remember, the answer was something like, "because wiki".
It is unfortunately very difficult to figure out the canonical title of a linked page. In addition to the implied namespace issue, there's case-insensitivity, redirects, namespace aliases (i.e. "WT:" vs "Wikipedia talk:"), cross-wiki links (which look like namespaces but are implemented in some way that I don't fully understand), optional character encodings (User_talk:RoySmith vs User talk:RoySmith, and probably more stuff. I think the only real way to canonicalize a link is to get it from the API and then look to see what you got. RoySmith(talk)18:05, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Done. I moved the other flag hook to prep 3 and moved up from prep 6 what I believe is the only non-American non-bio hook in the preps.--Launchballer21:39, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I'll be honest, all I did was put it in the exact same position it was in before. I think you should take that up with @TheNuggeteer: just in case there was a reason he passed.--Launchballer21:49, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
The source for the Amish Tiktokers "operating a horse" actually says "operating a horse and buggy". "Operating a horse" would be bizarre wording - you ride a horse, you don't operate it. Black Kite (talk)21:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't know if this has been brought up before, but the DYK-helper/DYK-wizard tools aren't correctly calculating the number of QPQs needed for multi-article nominations. For example, Template:Did you know nominations/Niederdollendorf stone includes three bold-linked articles, but the DYK-wizard tool generated text saying that only one QPQ is needed. I think this should be changed to reduce confusion, if that's possible. – Epicgenius (talk) 00:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)
@SD0001 Thanks for the change! While you're at it, would it be possible to implement the warning for lacking a QPQ? You already have a similar warning for late DYK nominations so I imagine the code for that should be rather similar. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:27, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
@SD0001 I just did a sanity check of the nomination wizard's QPQ check, and it turns out that putting anything after "Template:Did you know nominations/" (for example, making it say "Template:Did you know nominations/TBA") would result in the nomination pushing through immediately rather than the warning showing up. In this case, I tested the wizard out by trying it out on Puella Magi Madoka Magica, and although the QPQ check worked correctly with the default parameter, to my surprise (and horror), when I added a "TBD" at the end, the wizard still created the nomination rather than show the warning. Maybe the QPQ checker also needed an added check to give the same warning if the QPQ link is a red link? That way, if a nominator made the QPQ say "Template:Did you know nominations/TBA" or "Template:Did you know nominations/pending", the warning will happen rather than the tool thinking that a valid QPQ was provided. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:46, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
... that Fantasy is the longest-duration topless production in Las Vegas at a single venue?
Hm. Source in article is from 2016 so no good for "is". According to a 2023 source provided in the nom, the show moved to a different location due to COVID, so this does not seem to be correct. Pinging nom @Cunard and promoter @BorgQueen (can't ping the IP reviewer). —Kusma (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Now it is probably correct, but a bit less impressive (like many "first" or "longest" hooks needing lots of qualifiers). —Kusma (talk) 08:41, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Fantasy has been performed at Luxor Las Vegas since it opened in 1999 (including the temporary move in 2021 to a bigger theater in the same hotel owing to COVID-19). That is what I meant by "a single venue". I don't think moving from one theater to another theater in the same hotel makes the statement inaccurate, but maybe there's a way to make it clearer in the hook. Cunard (talk) 09:53, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm going to let it pass, although the article is a but ambiguous about whether the "venue" is the hotel or one of the theaters inside it. —Kusma (talk) 08:20, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
... that the Philippine government tried to force two kidnapped activists to confess to being rebels at a press conference, but they had other plans?
They had other plans is a strange way to say they tried to expose the government. According to the article, they were supposed to be the people the rebels would surrender too ("surrenderees") but perhaps that is just a misprint. In any case, this is quite confusing to me and I'm not happy to sign off on this without some discussion. Ping creator Ryomaandres, nom TheNuggeteer, reviewer User:Crisco 1492, promoter AirshipJungleman29. —Kusma (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Rebel returnees is saying, perhaps poorly, that they returned to the government fold. The article indicates that they were expected to self-identify as members of the New People's Army, one of the belligerents in the ongoing Communist armed conflicts in the Philippines, but they chose instead to expose the coercion they experienced.
I think there is still some copyediting in the article to do (I still don't understand who surrendered to the two activists), and we need a rephrased and clearer hook. —Kusma (talk) 08:46, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
Never said it was standard elsewhere; simply put, the article reflected the sources ("rebel surrenderer" gives me half the results of surrenderee). As for the "had other ideas", I signed off on it as we have previously had examples of less encyclopedic phrasing for hooks ("that mamas performed on "Mama", which admittedly did have an ERRORS discussion); I also signed off on the more explicit hook, which was not promoted — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:18, 11 September 2024 (UTC)
How about
... that two kidnapped activists were released after claiming at a press conference that they were abducted by government forces?
The article was cut and pasted from User:Vice regent/sandbox on 1 August and nominated on 7 August. There is some discussion on the talk page whether it should be a separate topic, but it seems to have died down, so I don't see how this can be argued to fail the newness test. —Kusma (talk) 16:35, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
I think it might have been moved to VR's sandbox from Palestinian right to resist? Depending on how much was moved, it might not pass 5x. Valereee (talk) 17:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
We do not generally forbid contentious topics on the Main Page. I agree with Valereee's more neutral reformulation. At the very least, it should be "a Palestinian right", not "the Palestinian right". —Kusma (talk) 16:33, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
The dispute tag is not for real world disputes, it is for disputes within Wikipedia about the article content, so CTOP and ECP has nothing to do with deserving a dispute tag. Do you think Israeli citizenship law should have a dispute tag? It is CTOP and ECP (and a FA). —Kusma (talk) 16:53, 16 September 2024 (UTC)
Roy, it looks like Proar was ECP'd simply to prevent non-EC editors from editing, as a normal CT admin action? VR moved the setting there from Prtr, which was protected by Ymblanter in November as an ARBPIA restriction. It doesn't look like it was due to active edit-warring. Valereee (talk) 12:04, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Where do you see unresolved edit-warring? The single pair of move reverts happened almost two months ago. Also tagging buidhe.VR(Please ping on reply)00:57, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I wrote almost the entire article myself from scratch in my sandbox. AFAIK, user sandboxes don't count towards newness (meaning content doesn't start becoming stale until its moved into mainspace). There should be no newness concerns.VR(Please ping on reply)00:55, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, VR, I think I misinterpreted the tag on Prtr as meaning the section had been spun off to form the new article, not that it had been brought there from the new article! Valereee (talk) 11:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee: Thanks for raising your concerns here. The suggested amendment to the hook is most certainly an improvement, as it avoids the passive voice. I support the new version along with VR.
As for the fork concerns, armed resistance is separate (and/or a subcategory) from the right to resist. Non-armed resistance includes many non-violent methods such as the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions movement, or peaceful protests in the occupied territories. In my opinion, the German parliament's 2018 decision to criminalize the former based on antisemitism, to cite one example, shows that these are two different but interrelated topics that have had their own fair share of controversies. Makeandtoss (talk) 11:35, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
I've made that change to the hook in prep 5, anyone should feel free to revert me if you disagree and we can continue to discuss. Valereee (talk) 11:58, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a few days ago, so I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 26. We have a total of 294 nominations, of which 137 have been approved, a gap of 157 nominations that has decreased by 4 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:06, 17 September 2024 (UTC)
... that "New York's wealthiest janitor" lived atop the Bergdorf Goodman Building?
The said janitor lived in a 14-bed apartment that was at the top of the building. The hook makes it sound like he lived on the roof (which would be an excellent hook if true, but unfortunately...) Black Kite (talk)10:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I think "atop" is a bit vague (it certainly means "on top of" in UKENG). I'd actually say that the fact he lived in a 14-room apartment is more hooky, but maybe that's just me. Mind you, since he wasn't actually a janitor anyway ... Black Kite (talk)13:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
If it helps, we can slightly rephrase the hook to "... that "New York's wealthiest janitor" lived on the top floor of the Bergdorf Goodman Building?". That being said, in American English, "atop" can mean "at the top of", and not just "above". Epicgenius (talk) 18:24, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
Another one from Queue 2: ... that the course of the River Tay was diverted to allow the construction of the Jubilee Bridge?
The source, however, says that North of [the bridge], the course of the River Tay was diverted to allow the new road to run along the river valley. This doesn't seem to support the hook? I'm not a road person so perhaps this is fine. Pinging people involved: BorgQueen, JuniperChill, Voorts. Vladimir.copic (talk) 23:45, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
So, on first glance, I'm seeing a pretty good balance of different countries, US, Moldova, Japan, US, Poland, US, Canada/China, US, US. We usually don't want more than 3 or 4 US-centric hooks. It's good to aim for 3 if you can.
We also typically go for alternating bio/non-bio hooks. You've got eight non-bios, one bio. We'd ideally like to see at least four of each, presented in alternating order.
We also like to make sure the topics are varied. We've got currency, building, manga, video game/music, music, building, tech, building/music. Too many buildings, too much pop culture, a bit too much music, maybe too much tech if you include video game in tech. When you're building a prep set, even for very experienced builders, it's quite common to be attracted to the ones that personally interest you, so keep that in mind.
Only hypothetically swapping: I assume you remove from the queue and move the template back into approved but I've haven't actually done it yet DimensionalFusion (talk ▪ she/her) 13:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
You needn't move it back to approved, you can simply move a given hook (from the edit source box, copying the code) to another prep set. Move both the hook and the credits. Try doing it once and come back to have someone check your work before doing the rest. Valereee (talk) 13:41, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
@DimensionalFusion thanks for getting involved. Don't sweat making mistakes. It is inevitable that you will make mistakes while learning how this all works, and that's fine. There's really nothing you can do wrong that can't be fixed, and as long as you learn from your mistakes, everybody's happy. RoySmith(talk)16:17, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
I can tell you that a) I wouldn't have put that Reese hook in prep 1 as there's another Kamala hook in queue 4, b) you should probably ping any editors if you move their nom, and c) that Taste hook is a flagrant breach of WP:DYKFICTION. Otherwise, nice work.--Launchballer16:26, 18 September 2024 (UTC)
No need for apologies. Everyone here who has actually done the job of filling preps expects new prep-builders to need time and assistance understanding how a prep is ideally built. No one is pointing these things out as criticisms. It's all completely in the spirit of helping you become expert at this. Please don't feel discouraged, there's a lot to learn about how to build a prep, it's basically a puzzle game with a bunch of moving parts. Which is what makes it fun to do once you know what all the moving parts are. Valereee (talk) 13:07, 19 September 2024 (UTC)
I disagree, the entire point of the hook is to contrast between the scale of the atrocity and the paucity of sources about it (t · c) buidhe14:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
@JuniperChill, Sammi Brie, and Dumelow: The hook as worded is confusing to me. I originally read it as had been described as a "licence to print money", which made sense to me; there's an assertion that it would make a lot of money, followed by the contrary statement that it was in fact a failure. This is exactly the sort of tension one expects in a hook. It wasn't until I read the "cautioned that .." text in the article that I noticed I had missed the "not" in my first reading.
I think it's just confusing wording. My first thought to clarify it was to move the "not a" inside the quotes, but looking at the source, to do that correctly would require two-level quoting which is confusing in a different way. How about I just switch to using ALT0 from the original nom? RoySmith(talk)15:28, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
That's fine by me (expect that its already in a queue and I can't edit it), though it may be best to wait for responses from Sammi Brie and/or Dumelow JuniperChill (talk) 15:38, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I had no preference between the hooks when I reviewed it. I notice a [clarification needed] tag has appeared in the article and ought to be addressed - Dumelow (talk) 12:13, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure how. "Keep piped links as intuitive as possible. Per the principle of least astonishment, make sure that the reader knows what to expect when clicking on a link. You should plan your page structure and links so that everything appears reasonable and makes sense." There is only one link, and all of the information is at that one link. SL93 (talk) 17:06, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, excessively mysterious. It seems to me that if we are going to take all the fun out of DYK hooks, we may as well not have DYK. Surtsicna (talk) 05:29, 21 September 2024 (UTC)
PSHAW feature request
When you add the "The result was: promoted ..." line to the nom page, could you also link to what prep it went into? I know that's in the edit comment, but having it in the nom as well would be convenient. RoySmith(talk)16:40, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
@TheNuggeteer, Chipmunkdavis, and Sammi Brie: I don't get the hook. What does the arrival of the Spanish have to do with canal building? Indigenous cultures performed all sorts of feats of engineering long before europeans arrived. The implication that the Zenú would not be expected to be able to build canals is decidedly ethnocentric. Surely we can come up with a better hook? RoySmith(talk)15:55, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
The framing was inspired on the source, which discusses "la relación dinámica de las poblaciones prehispánicas con el entorno antes de la colonización española". The main impact of the Spanish arrival is on the availability of historical records. Dating anything before that seems difficult, I found sources with various estimates for the post-canal dry period. Our Zenú articles gives a 1,200/1,300 year span for the canal system existing; who knows what was built when and to what extent. At any rate, I found reading about the canal irrigation system interesting and a hook can be something that is obviously true. That said, I am not wedded to the topic. I tried an alt at Template:Did you know nominations/La Mojana based on the past four years of flooding, but per the reviewer it turned into quite a banal statement about wetlands without the background context that was in my head. Figuring out how to make the ALT work may also be interesting. Otherwise, I found the land conflicts and the climate/agricultural relationships interesting, but didn't manage to find a way to make either hooky. CMD (talk) 16:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I think the basic premise of the hook is fine, my only objection is the "before the arrival of the Spanish" part. How about something more along the lines of:
I don't know if there is a link between the Zenú system and the modern one, the Zenú seem to have stopped cultivating the area a few hundred years before Spanish arrival reshaped the area. CMD (talk) 16:35, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
The article implies such a link: The Zenú culture ... manipulated the waterways through means such as the construction of canals. The waterways continue to play an important role in modern timesRoySmith(talk)16:40, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
The link is that both societies worked within and modified the naturally existing waterways to suit their needs, not that the first set of modifications led to the second set of modifications. No objection to the new hook suggestion, with the caveat that 1300 is a late date (Zenú gives 1100 as the start of population decline), so maybe "before 1300" or similar. CMD (talk) 16:51, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I admit I hadn’t realized that those are different things. The source itself, in the quoted excerpt in the DYKnom, says "state burial ceremony" at the beginning and "formal military ceremony" at the end. I agree that consistency is best. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
I must agree with the sentiment. There are several on the frontpage right now that it could conceivably also apply to. Andre🚐23:26, 22 September 2024 (UTC)
So, is the argument because of that that every single regional paper in the UK is unusable? Feels like we should just write off the entirety of the country if we're going to go that route. SilverserenC17:12, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Is there any evidence of Hull Daily Mail being unreliable? I did notice that the newspaper has won several awards of the years, and its article doesn't point to any controversy. SL93 (talk) 17:19, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
The Hull Daily Mail is not related to the Daily Mail. I don't see any evidence that the HDM is unreliable. And, after all, it is a light-hearted article about urban legends, and it does point out that many of the stories may not be true. Black Kite (talk)21:13, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived within the past hour, so I've created a new list of 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 30. We have a total of 285 nominations, of which 146 have been approved, a gap of 139 nominations that has decreased by 18 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:24, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Can I "pull out" of a nom?
I recently nominated the article Kim Hye-seon for DYK and it didn't get a reply for quite a while. I know this is usual business in DYK-land (I'd went through one before) and I was thinking of letting it go, but it just got feedback on the hook and it's not good. (I am thinking of working on the things that were commented on in terms of the article, but for the hook I'm thinking to let it die.) I had already been thinking about pulling out, but the feedback didn't help. Is there a way to, I guess, reject your own hook, essentially? Good day, Wuju Daisuki (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Look above at the list of people waiting. There are more than 30 who have been waiting just as long or much longer than you. I made a brief comment about your hook and noted a minor issue about wording. Not sure why you think this is "not good" and "didn’t help". Viriditas (talk) 22:59, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
No, I wasn't saying the feedback itself wasn't good or that it didn't help. I was saying the feedback said negative things about the hook and it pushed me to withdraw the nom, but even then I had already been thinking about it. I already have a successful hook, so it's not like I'm too discouraged. I didn't mean any ill will to you, so if you took it that way I'm sorry. (Though if you don't think that and I assumed you do I fear I'll only make it worse, so if that isn't the case oops I guess.) Good day, Wuju Daisuki (talk) 23:03, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
This is a very odd series of comments. 1) Nothing I wrote was negative 2) You were one of 30 people in the backlog queue waiting for a review 3) I did not perceive any ill-will 4) It will help if in the future you just stick to the words that are written and not overlay any kind of perceptual, emotional, or behavioral interpretations on top of them. 5) It sounds like you are projecting your impatience with the backlog on to me. Viriditas (talk) 23:18, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
@BorgQueen The paper being discussed in the article where they say “The actual attack is kind of silly,” the researchers wrote in a blog post announcing their findings. lists Nicholas Carlini as one of it's first authors. Sohom (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think so. 2024 US election is in 41 days and this will go live in a day, which is above the 30 day limit. Unless you count early voting, which began a couple of days ago DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:38, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm a Brit and so am not au fait with the intricacies of the US voting system, but if early voting is what I think it is, then polls are open and this should be pulled. Also noting that Bsoyka hasn't edited in over a month.--Launchballer14:46, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Moving it to a lower down queue only worsens the impact by making it show on the main page closer to the election. Perhaps it should be de-promoted instead? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
A little bit more context: Future Audiences does small, experimental projects to try to make sure we remain relevant and reach new audiences. In particular, we're exploring how AI tools can be used to make Wikimedia content available in new formats (like a browser extension to vet claims on other websites) to make sure more people find their way to our work. We don't build products – we try to do comparatively quick, cheap experiments, learn from them, and if something is very promising, we can make recommendations to the rest of the Wikimedia movement.
One thing we're trying to address is that a significant number of younger internet users get knowledge from the short video format, e.g. through edutainers who read Wikipedia articles, summarize what they've learned as short videos but never disclose how they depend on Wikipedia for their creations. To make sure people understand where the information is coming from, can track it back to our work here and potentially become editors in the future, we're experimenting with using AI production tools to make Wikipedia articles into short videos, to reach people we might otherwise not reach and see if this is a viable route. We've relied on your work here, pulling from the historical list of popular English Wikipedia DYKs to create short "fun facts from Wikipedia" videos.
The short video format is addictive; I'm embarrassed to admit how much time I spend doom-scrolling through YouTube shorts :-) While I'm certainly all for giving DYK greater visibility, DYK articles span the gamut in quality. I wonder if a better source of material might be the lead sections of FAs. The most recent version of MOS:LEADLENGTH says The leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words. A quick google search tells me that typical audiobook speaking pace is about 150 wpm, so about 1.5 to 2.5 minutes. That's about typical run time for most short video platforms. RoySmith(talk)23:25, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree with the "focus on FAs" argument, but most FA leads tend to be really dry. A better line of thinking would be looking at FAs or maybe GAs that have been through DYK, and building the "short" around the hook fact chosen. That way you guarantee both interestingness and information quality. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:43, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
To explain why we went with DIY – just so you understand the through process which led us there – the hook is a central part of it. Short video platforms can be pretty brutal in how short an attention span a lot of users have, and the hook is a way to try to make them not immediately move on. Also, DYK can cover pretty obscure or unexpected topics, which can make people interested, the same way as when one clicks the "Random article" button and ends up reading about something one had no idea even existed. /Johan (WMF) (talk) 14:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I totally agree with the logic Johan (WMF). I think a compromise focus between obscure/unexpected, immediately attention-grabbing, and quality (you'll especially want to avoid any possibility of spreading misinformation) would be best, and the lack of guaranteed quality is where DYK gets most censure. I'd also remember that many of our 6,500+ FAs haven't gone through DYK but likely do still contain unexpected attention-grabbing facts, so I would really advise starting there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:14, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Credit
I was looking through SDSS J0849+1114, and I saw that it had successfully been nominated for DYK, and was one of today's DYKs. The issue however is that zero credit was given to the main contributor to the article (83.5% was written by Galaxybeing), and the nominator incorrectly stated that they had created the page, and when looking at the page history this is false. I'm not really sure what to do. See Template:Did you know nominations/SDSS J0849+1114. :) SirMemeGod14:50, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
This appears to be most likely an inexperienced nominator not filling the script fields correctly. There is no harm done, and I don't think there is cause to consider it a deliberately false act. Thanks for giving the credit. CMD (talk) 15:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
@Schwede66 and Paul2520: Looks good overall, few things to work out! Article cites 232Eshkol, which is a blog – could that be removed/replaced? Also, it looks like the description of Berdichevsky's experience of the Oct. 7 attack is sourced to Berdichevsky himself (through interviews), so that should probably be attributed inline. Also, Gurvis 2024 doesn't verify They hid in a safe room in their home.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:56, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I was about to post about that. The tag is an "update" tag, which is reasonable because seeing on 22 September a page about a current wildfire that is correct as of 25 August is a bit weird. Pinging @SounderBruce: can you fix this in the next couple of hours or do we need to pull this? It seems to me that there was some rain that stopped the fire from expanding and so nothing much has happened, but that would need to be made explicit in the article. —Kusma (talk) 09:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
I was away on an extended trip over the weekend, so I was not able to see this earlier. The tag is not exactly warranted, as there has been no significant developments since August. SounderBruce18:19, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
The tag was placed 10 days ago, you had plenty of time to respond to it. Also, you're saying it's an ongoing fire, yet you adjusted the {{as of}} date forward a few weeks but the number of acres burned hasn't changed? That seems, um, unlikely to be correct. And you're citing a source published on July 18 to back up The fire is expected to be fully contained by the end of October. That seems dubious. RoySmith(talk)19:11, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
There is only so much more information that we can glean from small-town newspapers without going off the reliability cliff. InciWeb has not updated the acreage burned due to the fire's stalled growth and the transfer of responsibility, which means that operations are winding down; the fire may take weeks (if not months) to fully extinguish, but coverage will not remain consistent through that time. SounderBruce03:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Sources do not exactly support "murdered", but I can see why we would want to treat deaths during Dirty War disappearances as murders (just like deaths during the Holocaust are often described as murders independent of how exactly people died). —Kusma (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
This again? Check the nomination. My original hook was "... that comic writer Héctor Germán Oesterheld was victim of an enforced disappearance while writing El Eternauta: segunda parte?" A random user proposed an alternate hook that used "murdered" instead. I voiced my concerns over the new ALT, nobody replied anything, and the nomination was approved. If nobody has any problems with the original hook (and none were mentioned in the nomination) that's the one that should make it to the home page. Besides, "the Argentine Junta" is ambiguous. There's also the Primera Junta, the Junta Grande, and perhaps others. Cambalachero (talk) 13:05, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
@Kusma: The cited source for the DYK nomination uses the verb "asesinar" in the top line and later in the body for Oesterheld and his daughters. Do other sources dispute this? I would also be fine with Cambalachero's original hook. Rjjiii (talk) 14:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
The problem with the word "murder" is that it is imprecise. It is an unlawful and premeditated killing, and under those broad conditions we can include a huge range of motivations and methods. "victim of an enforced disappearance" does not deny it being a murder, it's simply more precise on how he died. Cambalachero (talk) 14:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)
I realise that it is too late for the the same anniversary day of the September 11 Attacks, but it would be nice if September 11 Digital Archive could be featured in the next few days. ―Panamitsu(talk) — Preceding undated comment added 23:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I would argue that the phrase "almost 1,000" violates WP:DYKDEFINITE. If she's still flying, then she's probably going to break 1,000 at some point. And I think that phrase would need an end-of-sentence citation in any event.--Launchballer00:30, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I suppose we could go with:
... that Margrit Waltz has ferried planes to points on five continents?
which is cited to has delivered over 300 Daher TBM aircraft from their manufacturing plant in Tarbes, France, to customers in North America. She has also made deliveries to Africa, Asia, and AustraliaRoySmith(talk)00:56, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Proposed hook is fine, however the ref for that covers "Africa, Asia, and Australia". "France" and "North America" would still need a repeatcite. (I'm calling SKYISBLUE on France being in Europe.)--Launchballer01:15, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I had no role in significantly expanding the article. I just added a couple citations. For some reason though, I was cited as a creator on the DYK nom. 💽 LunaEclipse 💽 ⚧ 【=◈︿◈=】20:26, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
LunaEclipse you were an early editor who made what seem to be substantial enough contributions that the nominator thought worth including. (Don't overlook the value of citations!) That said, if you do not wish to receive credit, please let us know and it can be removed. CMD (talk) 01:12, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I looked at the Earwig report. Most of the matches are the title of the order, which is its proper name. The others just seem to be conventional phrases such as "administration of the state" and "promoting peace, tolerance, and dialogue". Earwig's conclusion is "violation unlikely" and I agree. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:12, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@DimensionalFusion, BeanieFan11, and Launchballer: The hook says "first Olympic weightlifter". I would call anybody who performs the olympic lifts at any level an "Olympic weightlifter", and I'm sure there have been plenty of those. What the hook should say is something like "The first person to represent Vanuatu in weightlifting at the Olympic games". RoySmith(talk)16:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
If an athlete gets a universality place, do they 'qualify' for the Olympics? Relatedly, a possible alternative hook from the ABC report: ... that weightlifter Ajah Pritchard-Lolo was planning to qualify for the 2028 Olympics before obtaining a universality place in the 2024 Olympics? CMD (talk) 16:29, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I think they're considered 'qualified' (after all, they do get to compete) – maybe your proposed alt could be modified to something like: '... that weightlifter Ajah Pritchard-Lolo was planning to qualify for the 2028 Olympics before being selected for the 2024 Olympics?' (just sounds better to me) BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I think talking about how both she and her mother are competitive weightlifters would be interesting. The only problem is I can't find any WP:RS that actually says her mother lifts. She runs a weightlifting club, and is a coach, and is president of the Vanuatu Weightlifting Federation, but none of those is quite the same as being a competitive lifter herself. But if we could find a RS, it would make a great hook. Also, at the risk of being politically incorrect, I think a woman who lifts weights is more interesting than a man who lifts weights, so we should find a way to mention her gender in the hook. RoySmith(talk)16:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Query
Hi, I've been working on Abdul Ahad Azad since 22 September and expanded the article from 927 characters in this diff to latest version of 7087 characters. However, DYK check keeps saying that article has not been expanded 5X in past ten days and classifies the article as stub when it's not. Can I still nominate it, since it's been expanded 5X. Ratekreel (talk) 21:36, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
@Ratekreel: I suspect DYKcheck's picking up this edit, which was above 1469 characters. Per WP:5X, the "calculation is made from the last version of the article before the expansion began", so this is fine. You're going to want to rectify that {{cn}} tag first though. As for the stub tag, it was because it was classified as a stub on the talk page.--Launchballer21:52, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Launchballer, thank you for answering. This was annoying. I am planning to add a separate section for his works and remove the works listed from the section where you've added {{cn}} tag. Ratekreel (talk) 22:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Special occasion request for Nov. 5 (Election day)
Has anyone suggested doing a special DYK for election day? I think it'd be neat to have facts, articles, etc. related to the history of past elections!
There's two potential issues I can see, which I think we should take steps to address ahead of time:
As per WP:DYKELECT, none of the facts should be about this particular election. Ideally, facts should be about elections far enough in the past that they're no longer very controversial. (The more recent the fact, the stricter we should be about it not being controversial.)
We want to avoid any potential bias towards the US, so there's two potential steps we could take here. The first would be to plan out similar DYK occasions for other countries (which I think would be great—I'd love to see Canadian facts next Canada day!). The second would be to make the facts non-specific and have to do with elections, voting, or democracy in every country, not just the US.
We have had Canada Day sets before if I recall. I don't think there would be an issue with US electoral hooks being allocated for that day, so long as they steer clear of the current election (very broadly defined). CMD (talk) 01:02, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Or we could be the one website that doesn't drop everything else because there is an election in the USA. Canada Day is more interesting, I would not notice it happening at all without Wikipedia. —Kusma (talk) 14:52, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Could just be me, but I don't find most special sets very interesting. I would imagine ITN and OTD will also be doing election day coverage, and that's really more in their remit anyway, so we should let them take the lead on that. RoySmith(talk)17:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Picture hooks
32 out of the 136 hooks currently in the queue are hooks that contain (pictured), equivalent to 23%. Using the power of mathematics, this means that in order to to promote all the pictured hooks at the current rate of non-picture hooks, we'd need to include 2 pictures per set.
Obviously we can't include 2 pictures per set, but I'd like to raise this point that because of the amount of picture hooks, we are clearing them about twice as slowly as non-picture hooks. Is there anything we can do about this, like a message in the nominations saying "Hooks with pictures are likely to be slower to show up on the main page."
As a side issue, I've also noticed there are lots of hooks which don't contain (pictured) but do contain a picture included. Maybe this should also be specified on the nomination page or on WP:DYKIMG? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:52, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Should promoters removing images be a semi-regular thing? My (perhaps wrong) impression was that promoters only did that in special circumstances dependent on the hook. At the moment, reviewers only check if an image is technically necessary (clear enough, licensed) without having to check whether the image is necessary in the first place.
As for the pictures without (pictured), the media marker is specified in WP:DYKMOS, but the images I'm talking about do not have a media marker at all - entirely absent despite having an image.
Well, the technical requirements for an image are necessary, but not always sufficient, precisely because the competition is so high. Choosing an image (or not choosing one) is one of those areas that's pretty much entirely at promoter discretion – although if you disagree with another promoter's decision to not give the image slot to a particular hook, you can always try and sneak it into the top of another set :) so, yes, it is (and i would argue should be) pretty common for promoters to put imaged nominations below the top slot. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:37, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
If there are two image hooks for every slot, it should happen around once every set. Not every hook needs an image and some are just worse than others—see e.g the images in Prep 4 or Prep 1, which are both rather indistinct and low-quality. While we're here, WP:DYKVAR recommends against having two consecutive images in sets. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:31, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out; I've uploaded a better version of the Andrea Navagero image for prep 1. As for the prep 4 image, I generally think we should balance image quality vs historical importance. This is a 17th century engraving so it's likely we'll be unable to find any better quality image.
The OP says "Obviously we can't include 2 pictures per set" but this is far from obvious. The prejudice against pictures on Wikipedia is peculiar because a picture is worth a thousand words and so they are the most efficient use of space. Picture hooks usually get about double the views of pictureless hooks and so we should have more of them to give our articles more exposure. Isn't that our goal?
For example, in the current set, the article Vollpension has a striking picture (shown) which seems much more engaging than its ponderous and wordy hook. There doesn't seem to be any technical reason why this could not have been shown too and so we are not giving this topic its full potential.
200 characters applies differently to multinoms and I can see that being misinterpreted, so I've changed it to short enough.--Launchballer10:01, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Done And sorry for not seeing this discussion earlier. Schwede66 23:54, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
BorgQueen (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2024 (UTC)
--Global Donald (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2024 (UTC)
Redflag using the convenient {{redflag}} template. I suggest that others try this too to see if it's helpful.
Fixed – SD0001 (talk) 13:17, 4 September 2024 (UTC)
BorgQueen (talk) 00:07, 9 September 2024 (UTC)
Looks good overall, few things to work out! Article cites 232Eshkol, which is a blog – could that be removed/replaced? Also, it looks like the description of Berdichevsky's experience of the Oct. 7 attack is sourced to Berdichevsky himself (through interviews), so that should probably be attributed inline. Also, Gurvis 2024 doesn't verify 
![[13]](https://jacksonianamerica.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/madisonpresbyteryministersc1900.jpg){kind=link}
_(cropped).jpg){kind=link}
