Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 188

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 185 Archive 186 Archive 187 Archive 188 Archive 189 Archive 190 Archive 195

Template:Did you know nominations/District tartans of Australia

@Bahnfrend, @Ffranc, there's a missing citation for a paragraph, and that para is the clearest statement in the article that seems to support the hook. Valereee (talk) 21:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

It looked to me like the uncited paragraph under legal status was just a summary of the section below it. I have never seen an article written that way before though. SL93 (talk) 21:44, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes, the paragraph is just a summary of the section below it. That's why it begins with "As indicated below ..." I could add the citations to the paragraph, but that would be repetitive of the citations in the relevant paragraphs below it. You could therefore treat the paragraph as being equivalent to the paragraphs in the lede section of the article. (In accordance with common practice, the lede paragraphs do not include any citations because they are no more than a summary of what is below them.) Bahnfrend (talk) 04:44, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
A further point (and I should have made the point in my earlier response) is that the paragraph is essentially only a more specific restatement of par 2 of the lede, which, in line with the common practice I mentioned in that response, does not include any citations. Bahnfrend (talk) 08:18, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
@Bahnfrend, in the section (as opposed to the lead), it always needs a citation. The lead is allowed to not have a citation because what's in the lead is cited in the section. And for DYK the statement supporting the hook always needs a citation. Yes, if you could add the citations to that paragraph, we do need that taken care of before the hook can be moved to the main page. Valereee (talk) 12:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Also, I assume this should be states rather than States in both mentions? Making that change now, ping me if I'm incorrect. Valereee (talk) 13:13, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
The summary could also just be removed from the article. SL93 (talk) 17:16, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
The problem is that I'm having a hard time parsing it in the following paragraphs. That summary without citation is the one place the hook is clearly supported, as far as I could tell. Valereee (talk) 17:23, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Valereee I cited the info. SL93 (talk) 17:37, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Other issues in this queue

  • In the caption, replace 3 months old infant with three-month-old infant (make sure you don't change it in the filename)
  • In the lead hook, a link is incorrect: replace [[Sciography|skiagraphy]] with [[Radiography|skiagraphy]]
  • Add missing credit: * {{DYKmake|Eppa Hunton Jr.|Rockhead126|subpage=Eppa Hunton IV}}

 MANdARAXXAЯAbИAM  15:00, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Oooh, good catches, especially #2, I could have looked at that forever and never caught it.  Done Valereee (talk) 16:58, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Prep 5 / Titanokorys imag

I'm concerned about using File:Titanokorys gainesi paratype ROMIP 65168.jpg. It's complex and low-contrast. Even at full size, it's difficult to understand. At reduced size as it will be on the front page, I don't think readers will be able to figure out what it is at all. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

I will just unpromote it now. SL93 (talk) 20:32, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Complex yes, low contrast, not so much (for a fossil). the eay thing to do would be to just promote the hook without the image, or sub in the other taxobox media Titanokorys reconstruction video.webm.--Kevmin § 20:48, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
@RoySmith, SL93, and Kevmin: Wait, there's a video of a reconstruction? That would be something really cool and different for DYK, if it's allowed. I would strongly support running it with the video! — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordPeterII (talkcontribs) 21:14, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I like the video. SL93 (talk) 21:22, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Video licence checks out. We should use that video; it’s ubercool. Schwede66 21:33, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I boldly promoted it to prep 7, but I don't know what to use in place of (pictured). SL93 (talk) 21:38, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: I would suggest illustrated?--Kevmin § 22:26, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
I put (video illustration). SL93 (talk) 00:57, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I had a video hook the other month and it used (video featured). Schwede66 01:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
This is a long hook, at 190 characters, without the parenthetical note. Now (currently in Queue 7), with (video illustration featured), it's 220. Schwede66 (or another admin), could you change that to (video featured)? And while you're at it, could you remove the "the" before "Marble Canyon", and possibly replace "possibly" with "may"?  MANdARAXXAЯAbИAM  21:51, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
 Done (video featured) — Maile (talk) 21:59, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived over a day ago. I've created a new list of all 27 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 17. We have a total of 244 nominations, of which 137 have been approved, a gap of 107 nominations, a drop of 2 in the past ten days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these!

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:12, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Queue 7: Guide to the Free World

  • ... that the founder of the Guide to the Free World, helping people leave Russia after its invasion of Ukraine, was told: "It's good that you get out of Russia, but a pity that you won't be shot"?

The source is a quote from said founder, who is obviously not an independent source here, and I'm not happy saying something in Wikipedia's voice without attribution. I've tweaked it to "...Ukraine, said she was told..." but if anyone's unhappy with this, I can pull it for further discussion instead. @GRuban and Gerda Arendt: Vanamonde (Talk) 04:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

I'll accept "said she was told". --GRuban (talk) 13:41, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Redirect in two queues

Both the second hook of Queue 5 and the fourth hook of Queue 6 link to the redirect Movement for Socialism (Bolivia). These links should be replaced with Movement for Socialism.  MANdARAXXAЯAbИAM  23:14, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Since both subjects deal with Bolivia, it is relevant to pipelink to Movement for Socialism (Bolivia). Flibirigit (talk) 00:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. I'm suggesting, per WP:MPNOREDIRECT, that the link in Q5 be changed to [[Movement for Socialism|socialist]], and the one in Q6 should be [[Movement for Socialism]].  MANdARAXXAЯAbИAM  01:29, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
It would be best to use [[Movement for Socialism (Bolivia)|socialist]] and [[Movement for Socialism (Bolivia)|Movement for Socialism]], since both are specific to Bolivia. Flibirigit (talk) 16:59, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
No, it absolutely would not. Movement for Socialism (Bolivia) redirects to Movement for Socialism, so the target page is exactly the same, and WP:MPNOREDIRECT says that redirects should be bypassed on the Main Page "to avoid stealthy vandalism by retargeting redirects". @DYK admins: please take care of this.  MANdARAXXAЯAbИAM  18:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Amakuru, for eliminating both redirects.  MANdARAXXAЯAbИAM  19:30, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, it wasn't a redirect when I promoted the article that is now in queue 5. SL93 (talk) 01:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

5x expansion at Martin Pipe?

Xtools is telling me I've written 87% by character count of this article in the past few days, 83.3% by added text (whatever that difference means), either of which seems like it ought to mean a 5x expansion, but DYK check is telling me I haven't expanded it 5x. Can anyone advise? I'd quite like to nominate it for DYK, it's an interesting subject and I can think of multiple good hooks. Valereee (talk) 17:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Whichever prose size tool I have installed (don't remember which one) is showing 2042 bytes before your expansion, and 9850 as of this comment. So you're short by just a little bit. The difference between the added prose and the added bytes is probably due to you adding a lot more references. Hog Farm Talk 17:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
@Hog Farm, ah, so xtools is counting the references in 'character count'? I see, thanks.
Gah. Maybe I can find a list of notable horses lol... Valereee (talk) 17:30, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Unless I'm mistaken, xtools is looking at authorship, whereas DYK only cares about prose size. The difference isn't in the references (I believe), it's due to the fact that you likely revised some of the existing prose in addition to adding material; which raises your contribution, but not the prose size. Vanamonde (Talk) 20:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
DYK check is discouraging me from tightening the previously existing prose before it passes review. :D Valereee (talk) 21:58, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Classic example of the counterproductive effects of DYK's rule structure. EEng 18:51, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Right? I'm tightening now, thinking at this point it's safe. :D Valereee (talk) 20:18, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
At the present moment, DYKcheck says, Assuming article is at 5x now, expansion began 75 edits ago on October 15, 2022. Looks like it's set now, Valereee. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:08, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
Yep, I added a bit about notable horses. :D Thanks! Valereee (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

I've started messing with Prep 1

Hey folks, just fyi, I've started adding items to Prep 1 (but haven't finished it yet). Would appreciate it if someone took a second look before it's moved to queue, as it's my first time doing this. –LordPeterII (talk) 16:45, 20 October 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, actually I've got a question already: I've followed the instructions closely, but the closed DYK template Template:Did you know nominations/Rommy Hunt Revson now shows the "To Prep 1" thing at the bottom, which I don't see on other noms. Did I read the instructions wrong? –LordPeterII (talk) 16:51, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
@LordPeterII: That part isn't mandatory, and it's a little difficult to add into PSHAW, so, I...
... haven't yet. I might later! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 21:04, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Wait, what is "PSHAW"? But I see, it seemed a little superfluous to me, given that it is in the edit summary as well. –LordPeterII (talk) 16:36, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
... and I've switched to Prep 3 because other people are filling up Prep 1 and it's due soon. I had only added the main picture hook in Prep 1, but intend to fill Prep 3 completely. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:17, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
@LordPeterII: The Prep Set's Half-Assed Workbench! It's a script I made to assist with promoting preps to queues. Makes things quite a bit neater :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 18:44, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Ah, scripts, scary! Well, I might check it out at some point; for now I did everything manually (which is suprisingly exhausting, but mostly the fact-checking-everything-again). I've now finished Prep 3, and tried to keep it balanced. The hooks seem to be somewhat longer than what's currently on the main page, but I didn't see that many short ones, or ways to shorten the ones I chose. Please someone check that I didn't accidentally break any formatting (I almost made one error with the credits, but caught it before committing). –LordPeterII (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
@LordPeterII, once you understand the process from doing it manually a few times, you'll find PSHAW extremely helpful, makes the whole thing much less fiddly. Valereee (talk) 19:58, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Oh, and re: all the rechecking: As you work more, you'll recognize which nominators and reviewers are very good. You can focus more time on inexperienced nominators and reviewers. When you see a nomination from someone inexperienced that has also been reviewed by someone inexperienced, that's when you really need to do a full re-review. For folks who have 50+ noms, you can usually do a rougher check -- the most crucial is the hook itself and whether it's supported in the article, not a BLP concern, doesn't have excessive or not enough links, etc. When I was first working here, a set could take me a couple of hours to check. Valereee (talk) 20:04, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
Hey, @Theleekycauldron, about the prep-set's half-assed workbench...does it automatically include at the nom which prep it was promoted to? That would be useful for nominators' info purposes. Valereee (talk) 20:20, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: Yeah, at the edit summary – I can finally get around to putting it in the nomtext, if you'd like :) oh and hey, the modification detection bot is up at trial! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:26, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Oooh...that detects changes to hooks in prep/queue? And, what, notifies noms? Way cool! Valereee (talk) 20:34, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

@DYK admins: There's just one queue filled and it'll move onto the homepage in 4 hours. I've just filled Prep 1 (the quirky was missing) and that one's ready to go to Queue. Prep 2 has the same problem; the quirky is missing. I had a look through all that's approved and have identified a quirky but it needs to have its hook signed off on. I put a note into the spot where the quirky goes; revert that comment first if you use PSHAW. Prep 3 is full (thanks, LordPeterII!). Schwede66 07:42, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

Newspapers

Hello all, my newspapers.com and Newspaperarchive subscriptions have expired. I got them through Wikipedia. Does anyone know how I can renew them? Thanks all! Bruxton (talk) 19:24, 25 October 2022 (UTC)

Probably Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library? This is a better question at WP:Help Desk, though, there's bound to be someone there who knows. Valereee (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2022 (UTC)
Well, it's a bit of a pain in my experience. If they have limited numbers of licenses for a particular product, you'll have to wait until another one becomes available. Schwede66 09:01, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Ancestry is waitlisted, that's newspapers.com, but Newspaperarchives isn't. I've been waiting since January for TermSoup. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Clarification on quotes - prep 7

I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/NAFO (group) to prep 7 which has wikilinks in the quotes. I remember being told that wikilinks should not go inside quotes. I'm just seeing if that is the case. SL93 (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

Links may be added to quotations, with caution -- see WP:LINKSTYLE. Having said that, I don't think the link added to the NAFO hook in Prep 7 falls within the guideline's requirement that the link target correspond to the meaning clearly intended by the quote's author, since I (at least) am not really sure what a "tactical event" is. (Same goes for the link in the article itself -- shouldn't be there.) EEng 02:02, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Pinging Vanamonde, who moved the prep to queue, to see what their opinion is. SL93 (talk) 17:20, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
Oops. Vanamonde93. SL93 (talk) 17:21, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I have promoted, but have yet to check; as I have over a day, I was not going to rush it. I'm with EEng. We're allowed to link within a quote where meaning is unambiguous and it would aid the reader; while the latter case is true here, the former isn't. If we can find a hook without the quote, I'd prefer it, but otherwise I'd run it without the link. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:29, 24 October 2022 (UTC)
I can imagine some readers not knowing what “tactical” means, in which event Tactic (method) seems like helpful clarification, even if it does not entirely explain what the author was getting at. (For that matter, it’s frankly not clear to me that the author really knew what they meant either; “tactical event” is the kind of vague but snappy sounding buzzword some people like to pepper their speech with, without thinking too hard about whether it means anything.) If nothing else, the link might stop someone from searching separately and finding tactical event instead. –jacobolus (t) 03:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Did my second prep, Prep 7

So except for one entry, I did Prep 7. I think I am getting the hang of this, and it's not that hard to do, even manually (just time consuming). Still, since it's only my second prep, you might want to check extra carefully that I didn't screw up something (like the extra "pictured" last time). Thanks! –LordPeterII (talk) 19:52, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

How does the special occasion holding area work?

When I submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Cranksgiving, I asked for November 24, and the reviewer agreed. So what happens next? Should the reviewer have manually included it under WP:SOHA when they gave it a tick? Or is that something an admin does? Presumably I shouldn't do it for my own nomination? -- RoySmith (talk) 18:37, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

The reviewer should have done it, but anybody but you could also do it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Out of curiostiy, how does one move a nom to the special holding area, technically? I've been wondering that, and can't seem to find any instructions. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:48, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
@LordPeterII: manually, really. In the source editor, find the bit of markup that transcludes the nomination, and move it up to the SOHA (create a new third level headed if necessary). theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:59, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Ah! Okay, that's... kinda unexpected with all the technical stuff going on around DYK. But good to know I can do that if I come across such a case ^^ –LordPeterII (talk) 21:01, 27 October 2022 (UTC)

Prep area 2: Matthias Hanke. Post-promotion hook modifications

GalliumBot (talkcontribs) (he/it) 00:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I object to "later became responsible" because it makes the adult achievement appear disconnected with, or in contrast to, the boyhood achievements (and that is not the case). "in due course" is better because it indicates a development from the boyhood achievements (and that is true). Storye book (talk) 07:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I've just moved this prep to queue and amended the hook in question as requested. Schwede66 03:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66: I'm not sure why this was cut-and-paste transcluded – I suggested "eventually" on the original nom talk page. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 03:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't know what the problem is. ALT2a was approved. What's in queue now is very close to ALT2a. We haven't heard from Storye book yet. Unless they agree with "eventually", I don't see what's wrong with what we've got now. Schwede66 04:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, just seen this, been away. I have just explained this here. "Eventually" and "later" don't work in this hook because they do not make the same connection that "in due course" does. The dictionary definition of "in due course" is something like "at the right time for it in the future", but usage always involves some kind of cause and effect situation. Storye book (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Clarification for QPQ exemptions

So there seems to be heavy confusions over the QPQ exemption rule. Specifically on whether or not a QPQ is exempt for your first four or your first five nominations. I and others interpret the rule as your first four while others interpret it as your first five. So what is it? Is a QPQ exempt for your first four nominations or for your first five? Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:15, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Five. Schwede66 16:17, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Pinging User:Narutolovehinata5, who recently gave the opposite answer to a newer nominator. I also interpret the QPQ requirement to kick in after five nominations, but maybe there's a way the language could be clearer? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:08, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Seconding clearer language. I also used to interpret it as "greater than five", but when I re-read it, it seemed ambiguous and could also be read at "greater or equal five". –LordPeterII (talk) 20:52, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
I have to note that WP:DYK now says "nominated fewer than six articles" (meaning QPQ kicks in during your sixth nomination), but the last time I checked, it mentioned five. Strange. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:36, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Can we please just say that you get five free nominations? That seems so much clearer. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 22:43, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
That would probably work and remove the ambiguity. It would also codify the "five freebies" thing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:44, 26 October 2022 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I changed that page a few hours ago as "fewer than five" was wrong; it's always been five freebies. I agree that five free nominations would be clearer language. Schwede66 00:49, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
I've changed the language to be a bit clearer. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 05:53, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Thanks, it's much clearer now. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:50, 27 October 2022 (UTC)
Nice to see that we've come to a consensus Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

No filled queues 29/10

@DYK admins: we are down to one filled queue. Your help to move preps to queues is appreciated. TSventon (talk) 03:42, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@DYK admins: we are now down to no filled queues. TSventon (talk) 12:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Is the process documented somewhere? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions may be what you are looking for? CMD (talk) 15:12, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Yes indeed, thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
@DYK admins: There is one filled queue and 6 filled preps. SL93 (talk) 20:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
We now have two filled queues, so we're OK for 24 hours, at least. — Maile (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Update: As of right now, Queues 7 and 1 are filled and ready to go. This takes us up through October 30 in the USA, but Oct 31 for London to Sydney. — Maile (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Does this need citations?

I promoted Jozev Kiu to prep 5. The bibliography section isn't cited, but I didn't think much of it because the titles are cited in the body of the article. I can restate those citations in the bibliography section if it is an issue, but it does seem pedantic. SL93 (talk) 21:45, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: The citations of that article are a BLP issue -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I guess I need more of an explanation because the information is cited in the article. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Facebook, Wen Wei Po, and goodreads are being used as sources -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 21:52, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I was gonna say, the citation quality is a little concerning for me too... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 21:54, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
The Facebook source is an acceptable use of a self-published reference because it is the subject's Facebook page. I will look at the others. SL93 (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Pinging nominator Prince of Erebor. SL93 (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
@SL93, Guerillero, and Theleekycauldron: I have emoved the Facebook and Goodreads sources but kept Wenweipo, as this article was published in 2016 and not about political or controversial issues, the credibility and neutrality should not be a problem. I did not cite any sources in the bibliography session since all titles are mentioned in the Headline Daily source and already cited in the Writing session. --Prince of EreborThe Book of Mazarbul 01:25, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
My most recent DYK nomination was slapped with a big orange section tag by an IP because the bibliography didn't have cites, so it saves trouble to just duplicate your existing cites whether or not you think you need to. CMD (talk) 02:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Done! --Prince of EreborThe Book of Mazarbul 04:04, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Just fyi, I noticed the Facebook ref in my review, but thought it unproblematic since it only supported an uncontroverisal fact. I didn't see that Wen Wei Po was considered unreliable because I reviewed on mobile without the headbomb script; though again I doubt it should be shunned here completely, as it isn't used to ref anything political. As for the bibliography being uncited, that likewise likely was because I was on mobile and didn't notice it; I acknowledge the latter thing as a mistake on my part. –LordPeterII (talk) 19:40, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
As someone who edits almost exclusively by mobile, I usually flip between desktop and mobile view when doing reviews and such. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 19:52, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

9th Missouri Sharpshooter Battalion

I've just moved the 9th Missouri Sharpshooter Battalion hook to Queue 2. The hook says: ... that the steamboat carrying the 9th Missouri Sharpshooter Battalion back from its military service sank in the Red River of the South? The equivalent sentence in the article is this one: The battalion was sent back to Missouri on the steamboat Kentucky; the vessel sank in the Red River during the trip. One of the DYK requirements is that the hook is referenced directly at the end of the sentence where the hook fact occurs but there isn't a reference. In fact, before there is a reference, there is a change in topic. It seems this is unreferenced. Can this please be mended pronto? Ping Hog Farm as nominator. Heads up for Narutolovehinata5 (who suggested the unreferenced hook fact) and Dumelow (who promoted this). Schwede66 05:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Schwede66 I actually promoted it. I found the fact in the next reference in the Google Books preview. I also swapped the sentences. Both sentences are in the same source. SL93 (talk) 05:10, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Excellent. Thanks! Ah, yes, Dumelow signed off on it and you promoted. Schwede66 05:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I wouldn't say it's "unreferenced", but is in line with our general policy, which assumes a reader knows that a citation at the end of a sentence covers those preceding it. This is covered by Wikipedia:CITEDENSE and the article would easily pass at FA on this basis. I suppose it could be argued that by virtue of appearing on DYK the content in the hook is Wikipedia:Likely to be challenged and therefore requires an immediate citation but I am generally against duplication of references when it is clear to the reader where the information can be found. At the time of approval the section looked like this:

The battalion was sent back to Missouri on the steamboat Kentucky; the vessel sank in the Red River during the trip. At least 12 men of the battalion died in the wreck. Over the course of the unit's existence, about 550 men served in it. Besides those who died when Kentucky sank, 17 were killed in action and a further 24 died of various diseases.[45]

I'd say that because the last sentence mentions the sinking and the men killed in it it is obvious to the reader that the reference at the end supports that (and the earlier mentions of the deaths and the sinkings). I suppose a strict interpretation of our policy would render it thus:

The battalion was sent back to Missouri on the steamboat Kentucky; the vessel sank in the Red River during the trip.[45] At least 12 men of the battalion died in the wreck.[45] Over the course of the unit's existence, about 550 men served in it. Besides those who died when Kentucky sank, 17 were killed in action and a further 24 died of various diseases.[45]

For the purpose of satisfying this rule and avoiding any delay to Hogfarm's excellent article appearing I have duplicated the reference at the end of the "At least 12 men..." sentence - Dumelow (talk) 06:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure why you added a citation after the "at least 12 men" sentence. That part isn't in the hook and I already directly cited the part that is. SL93 (talk) 06:28, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, you are right (I misremembered the hook mentioning the dead). Thanks for reverting that and providing the initial cite - Dumelow (talk) 06:41, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

The Faulkland Quiz

Next query. I'm not 100% convinced that The Faulkland Quiz is notable. Tell me that my concern is unfounded, please. User:BeanieFan11, it's your article and your thoughts would be welcome. Schwede66 05:19, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  • I'd argue that there's SIGCOV here and here, enough to meet WP:GNG, which only requires multiple pieces of SIGCOV (the latter piece is reliable, see my comment at the DYK nom). I'd say there's also likely to be offline coverage in some of Northern Delaware's other newspapers of the time (plus some of the sources at User:BeanieFan11/Delaware newspaper sources may cover it, namely the 128-page A History of Newspapers in New Castle, Delaware (1968)), but even if not we still have a GNG pass IMO. BeanieFan11 (talk) 13:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
BeanieFan11 I promoted the article in good faith that the historical newspaper is notable. The second source seems to be an unreliable personal blog. SL93 (talk) 15:42, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Schwede66 I should have realized that the reference was unreliable at the time. I suggest unpromoting the hook. SL93 (talk) 15:47, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I thought when a blog was published by a "subject-matter expert" it would be considered reliable? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:49, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
It has to be reliably documented somewhere that the person is a subject-matter expert. SL93 (talk) 15:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
So being cited by the News Journal, the New Castle County website, and being interviewed multiple times by the WDEL radio station on the subject would not count? BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:51, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I never said that such a thing wouldn't count, but I can't read minds to know those things. You only stated that it's from a subject-matter expert. SL93 (talk) 15:54, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I said in my first reply "the latter piece is reliable, see my comment at the DYK nom." BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:56, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I forgot and didn't check back at the nomination again. You proved your point anyway. SL93 (talk) 15:58, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Original hook was

  • ... that Hasanpaşa Gasworks (pictured) survived its demolition through the resistance of local residents, became a festival venue for a time and was finally transformed into a museum after redevelopment?

I have added a "proposed" because it seems the gasworks was never demolished. But perhaps "escaped its demolition" is even better? Pinging nom @CeeGee, reviewer @ThadeusOfNazereth, promoter @SL93 so I don't mess anything up. —Kusma (talk) 11:38, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

  • I meant "escaped" but used the wrong word "survived". It can be changed in the way you say. Thank you for the correction. CeeGee 12:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
    Changed to "escaped". —Kusma (talk) 14:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks a lot. CeeGee 14:48, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Clarification: does the "no election candidate hooks within 30 days of an election" only apply to articles involving candidates, or does it apply to ballot measures too?

The nominator of Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Ohio Issue 1 has requested a speedy review of this article, as he wants it to run around the time of November 8, the day of the ballot measure's vote. WP:DYK states that hooks about elections can't run within 30 days of the election they're running in, but the rule does not mention anything about other kinds of votes, such as ballot measures and referendums. To clarify: does the rule only apply to elections involving people (i.e. candidates), or to all ballot measures? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:06, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't run anything election related on election day -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:44, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Hmm, does that only apply for things tied for that particular vote? For instance if you were to run a hook for something that happened in the past the same time as an election? Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 12:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
In this case I'm asking about an upcoming vote, not a past vote. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:16, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't see why the principles related to candidates aren't the same for other sorts of votes. CMD (talk) 13:43, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Historic elections are okay, but they should not be used to influence current elections -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 16:05, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Absolutely. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a lot of things, but not being a political influencer is pretty high on that list. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:50, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

Special occasion timing?

I'm looking at Template:Did you know nominations/List of compositions by Graham Waterhouse, which should run on Nov 2. It's of primary interest to people in the UK and Germany. If I'm reading the schedule right, prep 7 would show it from 0000 to 1200 local (I'm going by UK time, Germany is 1 hour later) and prep 1 would be 1200 to 2400 local. Neither is optimal.

Would it be better to go for the morning or the evening slot? For something like a sporting event, I would go with the morning slot because the "This event will be happening later today" aspect makes sense. For something like this (the person's birthday), I don't see any strong argument either way. What do people think? -- RoySmith (talk) 17:00, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt: may not be able to move her own nomination to the special holding date. But I think her opinion of which slot, would be the best choice. Whatever she thinks, go with it. — Maile (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for asking: I prefer the second slot, when I'm awake, and Europe is awake :) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:11, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
I looked now at the prep and see it in prep 1 which to my understanding is the afternoon of 3 November. If it just gets moved to prep 6 instead, we'd have two faces of musicians the same day, so I propose to postpone Talia Or (now in queue 6) to a later date. Sorry to cause work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt and Amakuru: not sure if hooks were moved since you posted above, but here's what I see: Talia Or is in Queue 5. Graham Waterhouse is in Prep 1. — Maile (talk) 21:56, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Which is exactly what I described. Waterhouse should be in prep 6 (per this discussion), and therefore Or leave queue 5 for later, perhaps much later - I proposed 20 November in the thread a bit below. If it's not too much of swapping, the musical hook by me already in prep 6 should also go to later, to avoid similar topics in one set. Repeating: Sorry to cause work. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

I've done the big shuffle:

I think that is exactly how it was requested and doing it this way, hook sets are kept balanced. Correct? Schwede66 23:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Balanced for me, not too much music in a set, or consecutive sets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks Schwede66, and sorry for not doing this, I've beem offline.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:59, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

One filled queue 01/11

@DYK admins: we are down to one filled queue. Your help to move preps to queues is appreciated. TSventon (talk) 12:35, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Currently at 3 filled queues, and 5 filled preps. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:29, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK suggestion?

  1. ... that in 1995, The Ultimate Warrior (pictured) agreed to make an appearance for the Las Vegas-based National Wrestling Conference after nearly three years in self-imposed exile? Simon, Harry (2005). "Behind the Pyro: The Ultimate Warrior". TheWrestlingFan.com.
  2. Alt: ... that the National Wrestling Conference formed a partnership with The Ultimate Warrior which included jointly promoting Warrior University? Simon, Harry (2005). "Behind the Pyro: The Ultimate Warrior". TheWrestlingFan.com.
    1. Alt: ...and that Warrior's abrupt departure weeks later, and his erratic behavior leading up to their debut event, is blamed for causing the NWC's first bankruptcy? Simon, Harry (2005). "Behind the Pyro: The Ultimate Warrior". TheWrestlingFan.com.
  3. Alt: ...that the National Wrestling Conference's controversial KKK storyline was the basis of an episode of the Netflix series GLOW? Stroud, Brandon (December 10, 2017). "The Stars Of 'GLOW' Revealed How Wrestling Superstar Virgil Inspired The Show's KKK Story". Yahoo.com.
  4. Alt: ...that during a National Wrestling Conference show, Cactus Jack piledrove Sabu onto a blackjack table at the Silver Nugget Casino? Johnson, Mike (April 14, 2020). "YOUTUBE CLASSIC: CACTUS JACK VS. SABU IN A DESERT DEATH MATCH". PWInsider.com.
  5. Alt: ...that the National Wrestling Conference pioneered the use of the internet to promote itself and interact with wrestling fans across the country using AOL Chat? "[CHAT NWC on AOL 8/25 pt.1]". Newsgroup: rec.sport.pro-wrestling. August 25, 1995.

173.162.220.17 (talk) 20:31, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Nominated at Template:Did you know nominations/National Wrestling Conference. In the future, WP:DYKCNN makes it easy to make your own nominations! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron Can IPs make their own nominations? I thought they couldn't because they are restricted from making new pages, which is why they nominate them here. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:57, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Ah, yes, I forgot that autoconfirmed status is required. My bad! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 21:01, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I thought autoconfirmed status was only required for creating articles, but other namespaces need either just an account or can even be created by IPs? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Anons haven't been able to create pages in any namespace (except maybe talk?) since 2005. This restriction is older than the requirement for registered users to be autoconfirmed to create pages, which didn't come about until WP:ACTRIAL in 2017. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 03:52, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

One filled queue 02/11

@DYK admins: we are down to one filled queue. Your help to move preps to queues is appreciated. TSventon (talk) 16:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@SL93, Lajmmoore, and Dumelow: Prep1 lead hook Rosalía Abreu image is pretty grainy and faded for a lead hook. If you have no deadline in mind, would you consider moving this to another prep, and submitting a request to Photography workshop user requests to improve the image? — Maile (talk) 18:40, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Maile66 I moved the hook to another prep and replaced it. I will open an image improvement request. SL93 (talk) 18:55, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Hooray! — Maile (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
It's a photograph from 1905, you can't expect perfect quality. The image is completely recognizable and I would say perfectly usable in its current form. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:08, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree which is why I used it. We are also currently running out of pictures of people. SL93 (talk) 19:10, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not suggesting we don't use it in an image slot. But it certainly won't hurt to see if the graininess can be cleared up a bit. — Maile (talk) 19:34, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
So, I'm not quite sure what to do here. It ended up in a non-image slot of prep 6. I really think it's a wonderful image and it would be a shame if it didn't get on the front page. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:07, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
RoySmith Maile66 I moved it back with the touched up image. It doesn't look too different, although it is better, but the image was always fine for being from 1905. SL93 (talk) 21:12, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Then, let's leave it this way. It's a smidgen better, but it will be fine, I think. Thanks for trying. — Maile (talk) 21:21, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
@Maile66 @RoySmith @SL93 - thanks so much for organising this and advocating for the image use all - I've not been on wiki today, but I'm really grateful for your work! Many thanks Lajmmoore (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
Heads up! I just promoted this prep to queue, and it will be the next one to appear on the Main Page. — Maile (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The main article text for Jordan Gray, currently in Queue 1, has changed since the nomination passed. Should I be worried? Launchballer 04:13, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

The article looks good but there is some debate over what Jordan Gray claimed for the hook itself. A point has been raised on the article's talk page and perhaps it should be put on hold whilst the issue is debated.--EchetusXe 10:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
A little late. It already appeared on the main page and is archived. — Maile (talk) 10:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

One filled queue 03/11

One filled queue 03/11 @DYK admins: we are down to one filled queue. Your help to move preps to queues is appreciated. TSventon (talk) 12:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

Barely any quirky hooks?

So is it just a recent issue, or my imagination, or are there really few "quirky" hooks that are good options for the last slot? I was just looking around now, and found probably less than a handful, and many only very recent. I'd consider Iowa Cow War, Cape Grim Air Archive and maybe Guns into Plowshares as quirky, but many others not. Is it because "hooky" hooks tend to be promoted first, leaving only the more boring ones? Do we need to promote "quirky" hooks first, in order to avoid a lack of them later? (I think I have seen you do the latter theleekycauldron.) Would be interested in your long-term insight into this! –LordPeterII (talk) 17:13, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

@LordPeterII: yeah, there's often a drought of quirky hooks :) *shrug* what can ya do. I usually promote the image and quirky first because they're the most difficult to find, and end up shaping the structure of the rest of the set. If you can't find a quirky to promote, at least try to find something upbeat :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 04:02, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Should the errors page be used for complaints on a hook being uninteresting?

theleekycauldron brought up an interestingness concern at WP:ERRORS about the article board game café. I think that such a concern should be dropped once a hook reaches the main page. At that point, the hook already went through a review, approval, prep, queue, and then the main page. I think that if the errors page can be used for that, then the hook should just be pulled. For those who care about such a thing, the stats for DYK won't line up correctly when the original hook version was already running on the main page. I'm not trying to start a fight, but I am trying to reach a consensus. SL93 (talk) 02:56, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Disagree with an open-door policy of pulling a hook because a user posts over there that the hook is not interesting. That's something that should be determined in the review, and no later than it being in Queue. To wait until it's on the main page is a virtual slap in the face to the nominator who had been led to believe all was taken care of before the main page appearance. And in some cases, "interesting" is in the eye of the reader. Errors should not be turned into an open door for having a hook yanked on reader perception. Do we really want to turn Errors into another forum to debate that which should have been settled before it went to the main page? — Maile (talk) 03:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I agree. Right now, there is an attempt to change the hook without the involvement of the nominator and reviewer. SL93 (talk) 03:16, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: I strongly object to that characterization – I'm realizing that my ping didn't go through, but I made a good-faith effort to involve all of the interested parties. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 03:37, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I stand by my comment. You said on the Errors page that an admin is now able to replace the hook, but neither the nominator or reviewer has chimed in. SL93 (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
@Maile66: That is reasonable, and I understand your concern. I'm feeling a bit frustrated, because I attempted to nudge the nominator and reviewer into adopting a different hook on the nomination – they fully ignored that request, no response given from either. I made an attempt to engage correctly, involve the nominator, I certainly didn't intend to mislead them. Would you advise me to have done something differently? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 03:59, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I feel that they have the right to ignore such a request if they disagree with it. I have noticed that you have sometimes not responded to questions on DYK nominations recently. SL93 (talk) 04:38, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: I'm quite forgetful, and handle a good many nominations. Feel free to ping me to any questions you feel I have left unanswered. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 21:11, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: My comment wasn't about anything you posted, nor of anyone in particular. I was speaking in the abstract. We need some parameters to keep ERRORS from being a catch-all. Wikipedia has contributors who rotate, so to speak, on whichever area they want to input in a given time. Along those lines, every once in a while, Errors gets a list of postings from one or another solitary editor who critiques multiple hooks in a set, or seems to be on a jaunt about a particular contributor. Quite frankly, I've seen it happen to @Gerda Arendt:'s hooks. It makes me cringe when that happens. Keep ERRORS from looking like an open door for such an over-kill method. Let ERRORS be for real errors, and let the extended non-error stuff happen either on this talk page, or on the nomination template. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maile66 (talkcontribs) 13:25, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Interestingness of the hook is a part of the DYK criteria, just like its verifiability. ERRORS frequently pulls hooks that fail verification, even though the nominator, reviewer, promoter, and admin all in theory did their checks. Why shouldn't it be able to change hooks that fail the interestingness requirement? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 03:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I see FA language edited, despite having passes a series of checks to ensure it's well-written and neutral. ITN items are pulled for issues that should have been caught during their candidacy process. None of our volunteer-led processes are immune to error, and I'm not sure the reasons given above—good ones, I think—are good enough to give up an opportunity for review and improvement. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:49, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Because what is interesting is subjective and not an error, along with multiple editors in the process having no issue with the hook. SL93 (talk) 04:35, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
ERRORS is the place to bring up any issues about anything on the current Main Page, even if it is not semantically an "error". I'm not sure what a proposal here could do: it can't stop people raising issues at ERRORs, or such issues subsequently being actioned. That is part and parcel of being on the main page. CMD (talk) 08:09, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  • We shouldn't formally forbid it, but really: such a thing should have been discussed before. It's not an error if some hook seems not interesting - vague anyway, and I confess that 90% or more of hooks are not interesting enough for me to click, and same the other direction - the Main page is not in danger. To request to pull it for this very unspecified thingy of interestingness seems overkill to me (but I have no time to look right now, still on my watchlist, and then two recent death articles) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with Gerda, but beyond that, many editors are terrible at judging what is and is not "interesting". Most of the people who complain have no idea of what is interesting or not. I've kept careful tabs on the page views of the hooks I've nominated or added to a prep area, and they can be categorised as obvious, intriguing and inexplicable. I can still be surprised by high page views on hooks I thought were mundane. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Hmm, I feel WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT doesn't really apply here. The hook "hookiness" is a requirement at DYK, so it's not an invalid argument to criticise boring hooks. Personally don't think a boring hook on the main page is an issue; but I suppose we can't prevent discussion about it at WP:Errors either. We could try to forbid it, but really, we could at best discourage it.
I feel we should catch such issues during review, prep and queue. If a boring but accurate hook makes it through, that should lead to a discussion afterwards about how such instances could be avoided in the future. I must admit I was considering whether or not to report that specific board game cafe hook when I saw it in prep, but in the end didn't do it because I felt it was borderline, and I had more important stuff to do.
Let's not get too worked up over this, it was a weaker hook but they happen. No need to have a big discussion about WP:ERRORS. –LordPeterII (talk) 16:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Hmm, having checked the nomination page again, I think an actual issue here was that theleekycauldron had just started the "interestingness" discussion when the hook was promoted by SL93. @theleekycauldron, in the future it might be best to put a "question mark" tick when you see an issue with hook interestingness, so that such things don't happen as easily. Conversely, @SL93 it might be advisable to check for comments added after the approval tick was given, and RoySmith you also "missed" one of these hook discussions at 2 Columbus Circle. So yeah, @theleekycauldron I think it's best if you put a tick there (and so will I) so that other people are aware of an ongoing discussion. –LordPeterII (talk) 16:07, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
    @LordPeterII I'm not following. I just re-read Template:Did you know nominations/2 Columbus Circle. What discussion did I miss? As far as I can tell, there's 5 possible hooks in the nomination (ALT0, ALT1, ALT2, ALT3, and ALT4), all of which were approved. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:24, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
    LordPeterII I saw the comment, but theleekycauldron didn't actually say that the hook wasn't interesting. She only suggested another hook. SL93 (talk) 17:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  • @SL93 and RoySmith: Yeah, I'm not exactly blaming you guys (that's why I wrote "missed" in quotation marks). It wasn't obvious, but at least at Board game café I read that comment as implicitly meaning that theleekycauldron had wanted to promote, but found the hook uninteresting. Likewise, I wanted to promote 2 Columbus Circle but didn't because the newly suggested hook wasn't approved yet (but I personally found some of the approved ones to be sufficiently hooky). Such post-approval discussion is not clear, at least not to me. That's why I said that if theleekycauldron or anyone else wasn't happy with a hook and didn't promote because of it (instead of just casually asking for another hook), they should rather put a tick with their comment so that it's explicitly clear to other editors. Without a tick, or at least without explicit language ("this hook is boring, can't promote") there's no telling. –LordPeterII (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
    Hmmm, what I wrote above is incorrect. There ALT0-ALT3 were approved; ALT4 had not yet been approved. But whether ALT4 was approved or not was moot; ALT1 was the one that seemed the best of the bunch to me, so that's what I promoted. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
    @LordPeterII: The story with these two is actually a little different. For board game café, yes – I didn't want to get into a confrontation, so I tried to gently nudge the nominator and reviewer into picking a better hook.
    The other nom is a different story – I trust RoySmith and Epicgenius implicitly on matters of hook interestingness. It happens to be that a latter and I agreed on a different hook offwiki, so I was leaving it there as a record. No sweat that RoySmith picked another one.
    As for the suggestion of leaving a {{DYK?}} – I don't like confrontation. If these larger discussions are the result, however, I don't mind holding up nominations until they produce a satisfactory hook. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 21:18, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  • Hmm okay, then whatever *shrug* I shall refrain from putting ticks on approved noms just for the sake of highlighting an ongoing discussion. I've already done it for a few, sorry about that; but I guess it makes no sense to retract them now. I'm also not confrontational in general, so sorry if I annoyed someone, I was only trying to... mediate? or sth like that. –LordPeterII (talk) 21:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
  • That's good and all, but I couldn't figure that out based on what was added. I have come across editors bringing up new hooks and it wasn't that the original hooks were not interesting, but just that they wanted to give other options. You didn't really say that the hook wasn't interesting. I didn't mean for this conversation to get so long and I have no hard feelings towards anyone, but I did want to see how the community felt. SL93 (talk) 21:41, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I also dislike confrontations. I'm a relative newbie at DYK; I've been submitting DYKs for a while, but only recently got involved in the backend stuff, so there may be a lot of DYK culture and custom that I just haven't absorbed yet.
One thought I have is that ambiguity leads to misunderstandings. You should be able to look at a nom and immediately tell which hooks are approved and which are not. If a reviewer (or anybody else) wants to add some commentary about ranking the approved ones, that's cool, but there should be an obvious "approved" or "not-approved" indication for each hook. The alternative is having to ask reviewers what they meant after the fact. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:46, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Special occasion hold until next March

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



There's a (small-scale) consensus at Template:Did you know nominations/Bob ("Weird Al" Yankovic song) to hold it until next March. Given how far away that is, I figured I should pass it by a larger group before moving it. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:38, 3 November 2022 (UTC)

That's too long to hold, especially for a date that nobody will care about. Just go for either November 11 or December 21. (... Says the guy with the mirror-image signature ...)  MANdARAXXAЯAbИAM  03:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't actually have any objection to long holds if there's a reason, but for most of the world 3-20-2023 is actually 20-3-2023. Still a cool date, but not a palindrome. Valereee (talk) 11:42, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Why not 22-11-22 (November 22)? - Floydian τ ¢ 11:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Fine with holding to 22-11-22 (which works for dmy dates but not mdy), but March 2023 is way outside the 6 week window, and it's not a compelling reason to hold it that long. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:56, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
@Cbl62 @BD2412 My apologies for not pinging you both earlier. How's 22-11-22 sound? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:45, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
My suggestions for November 11 or December 21 (just under seven weeks from now), ignoring the year, work for whichever date format one prefers. But it's unlikely anybody other than those who have seen this discussion will make the tenuous connection for any of these dates, so it really doesn't matter.  MANdARAXXAЯAbИAM  20:24, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
22/11/22 works fine for me, just a week away. BD2412 T 02:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm normally lenient when it comes to supporting special occasions as long as they're within the six-weeks-limit, considering the connection to the date (being a palindrome) is rather tenuous, I have reservations if this request is "sufficiently" special. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ichabod Chauncey

Template:Did you know nominations/Ichabod Chauncey is listed under Template_talk:Did_you_know/Approved, but it looks like the only tick in the template is one Cowlibob put there as an example. The cited source is to wikisource; is that allowed as a WP:RS? There's also no in-line citation for this fact in the article. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

PS, I sympathize with Chienlit in their frustration over the complexity of the review process. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Apologies. I did not know the bot would pick that up as an approval. Cowlibob (talk) 08:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron if I just remove the tick, is that the right fix, or do I need to anything else to get it back to the "needs approval" state? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:19, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
@RoySmith: That's about all you can do; I would note for BlueMoonset that both of Chienlit's comments seem to be technically inadequate attempts to approve the nomination, although I would understand not putting much stock in that. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 12:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Queue filling

It seems like we're doing an awful lot of pinging to the DYK admins in terms of the status of the queues. TSventon has certainly been doing fantastic work in their keeping of a watchful eye, but I wonder if a more regimented system could be easier? Say, admins in groups of 3 signing up in advance to handle specific weeks and make sure the queues are operational for that week. Would there be admins open to engaging with that system? Admins "on roaming" who help out here and there whenever, of course, are always welcome. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 21:21, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

I struggle very much to predict my RL workload ahead of time; I would never sign up, in such a system. I find the pings helpful, because if I log on with time to spare, and I have pings from here I come right over. I have no objections to others signing up if they wish it. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:29, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
Keep thinking up the good ideas. What happens with admins (and everybody else), is that the best laid plans are at the mercy of our unpredictable real lives. — Maile (talk)21:28, 29 October 2022 (UTC)
I believe Valereee had some ideas on this recently. I think it would be helpful if Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions was easier to find, at the moment it only seems to be linked to Template:Did you know/Queue. TSventon (talk) 08:24, 30 October 2022 (UTC)
One idea is to give admins moving preps to queue credit for qpq, maybe one non-donatable qpq for every move. Ditto those promoting noms to prep, maybe a non-donatable qpq for every 8 moves to prep. I think it would encourage people who are regular nominators to help out with the work. Valereee (talk) 13:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

If someone could make a little dashboard template thingy that displays how many filled preps there are, how many filled queues there are, and how long until the next update, I for one would transclude it on places I look when I'm looking for things to do. We could also stick it at the tip if this page, add it to the admin dashboard thing, and maybe find some other places to put it.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 00:02, 30 October 2022 (UTC)

I actually think the above dashboard template might be the better idea, of all mentioned in this section. I'm not interested in a QPQ-ish tally for moving the preps to queue. I do it when I have time, and I believe all involved admins are making closer checks of all the hooks before they promote to queue. Everybody does it differently, I think, and each according to whatever else they're dealing with in RL or at Wikipedia. We have at least one admin who will move a set to Queue, but not put the DYKBotdo (which identifies the admin) until they have checked every hook. I try to check before I move to Queue, but sometimes it ends up being after the move. Let's try the dashboard template idea. — Maile (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
The QPQ isn't meant to interest you, Maile. :D It's to maybe interest other admins who are regulars here but never move a prep to queue. It's to encourage other admins to maybe do that occasionally so that we maybe aren't so often having to ping the whole bunch. If every admin who regularly nom'd would move one set every time they made a nom, we'd probably rarely have urgent situations. Valereee (talk) 10:50, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I really like this idea; we currently have a yes/no for whether DYK is "backlogged", but a system showing the fuller picture would be very useful, I believe. There's a large difference in urgency between 1 and 3 filled queues, and a large difference in how much you can help between 4 and 7 filled queues or preps. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:46, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

"incomplete though not unfinished"

[1] I have an idea of what this might mean, but it should be more clear. DefThree (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

For the record, I saw this when you made the edit. I also have no idea that the phrase means. This was apparently added in July 9, 2014. (Diff) by Prioryman But what it means, is lost on me. I don't see how an article can be "incomplete (though not unfinished)". — Maile (talk) 17:25, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm thinking that a "complete" article would be a good candidate for WP:FA or at least WP:GA. Whereas a "finished" article would be reasonably well-sourced and follow basic conventions, but might still be somewhat bare-bones. DefThree (talk) 17:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
An unfinished article is a work clearly in progress of being written. Often with very obvious deficiencies, like an incomplete sentence. Schwede66 18:33, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I personally have no issue with articles being "incomplete" if they are otherwise compliant with policy. We should be encouraging new article creation, particularly from new users who might struggle to "complete" articles in time. I would note the supplementary guidelines at first glance appears to contradict the statement highlighted in the main rules ("It is fine for articles to be incomplete") by saying "There is a reasonable expectation that an article—even a short one—that is to appear on the front page should appear to be complete and not some sort of work in progress". It goes on to clarify that articles that would be incomplete under this criteria would be very basic, including empty sections or not detailing key parts of the subject. I appreciate that an article that is "incomplete" might "appear to be complete", but we should make clear what we are actually asking for here - Dumelow (talk) 18:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Can we just remove this whole sentence? "It is fine for articles to be incomplete (though not unfinished), to have red links, to be capable of being expanded or improved further, and so on." The surrounding text already makes clear that DYK articles don't have to be all that good, so this sentence is just redundant and confusing. DefThree (talk) 19:02, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
All righty, here's the rub for me: I interpret this as meaning that the article does not need to address the main aspects of the topic well. DYK doesn't and shouldn't have a GA-style "broadness in coverage" criterion, nor any weaker version of it. If a book article wants to spend all of its time covering real-world background and plot and not touching critical reception... well, that's really weird, but hey.
However, it should also be the case that articles present themselves nicely. There shouldn't be unfinished sentences, empty headers, passages that trail off into nothing, exceptionally poor prose, etc. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 19:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I don't necessarily see the rules as being contradictory. An article can be relatively complete but still not comprehensive. I think the guideline was just simply meant to make sure nothing major is being left out in articles. For example, in an article about a person, if it mentions mostly their career but not their early or personal life, that might seem weird. It wouldn't disqualify for DYK necessarily but it could be something that needs to be clarified in the nomination. Or Leeky's example above. A lack of critical reception may be allowed if no such coverage for the book exists, but as I said, it would at least need clarification in the nomination to prevent confusion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
At ITN I sometimes Oppose on quality if the article omits important details about the subject. For example a recent death which mentions early life and cause of death, but glosses over 30+ years of the career that made that person notable. This applies even if the article is fully referenced and non-stubby and so on. I would imagine the same rule should apply at DYK, although it could certainly be phrased better than "incomplete though not unfinished".  — Amakuru (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Suggested rewording
"Articles should be at least "start class" quality that contain the subject's basic elements."
Why add extra wording that will just confuse new editors who know nothing of GA, FA, etc.? At DYK we sometimes get hung up about cramming everything into instructions. Just a basic sentence would suffice here. — Maile (talk) 15:17, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Sybil Milton stalled?

Template:Did you know nominations/Sybil Milton has been stalled for a while pending fixes from Thriley. What's the right thing to do here? At some point do we decide that the nom has abandoned the effort and just close it as rejected? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:48, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

@RoySmith: It's not common that regular nominators say they'll fix an issue and not get around to it, after a while, without explanation – in that case, I try to gently set a time limit (usually one week) with a ping or talk page message. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 01:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Queue 5: Talia Or

@Gerda Arendt, Narutolovehinata5, Storye book, Theleekycauldron, Firefangledfeathers, and SL93: I don't like to be a trouble-maker, but I thought I'd flag this one as possibly not meeting the criterion 3a, "interesting to a broad audience". In effect, the hook is saying she recorded a piece of music with an orchestra and a conductor, in a city. Is that really remarkable? I'd have thought that's what musicians do, generally. I note that this was queried in the DYK nomination too, but the original hook was chosen nonetheless. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

It was discussed in the nom. Unusual piece, unusual conductor. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:44, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Wachet auf, ruft uns die Stimme is not really an unusual piece... indeed I've played it myself as a piano arrangement many times before. And if there's something unusual about her performing with Mehta then the article and the hook don't appear to make that clear. THanks  — Amakuru (talk) 13:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm inclined to agree with Amakuru. If you need to know music well enough to recognize that there's something unusual about the piece and the conductor, that's not really appealing to a "broad audience". -- RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I had mixed feelings, and I landed on thinking the hook was interesting enough to classical music fans. I still have mixed feelings, and I can't say I would go to the mat for this hook. I am still a relative newcomer to DYK, and I find it hard to review hooks that require some prior knowledge. Not trying to play OTHERSTUFF here, but I think this hook is comparable to "Hong Kongese wuxia author Jozev Kiu is an Eskrima coach and karateka", currently in the same queue. Both are likely to appeal to demographics that "get it". Prior knowledge is similarly needed to access Queue 5's "Samuel Hall established Salem's first newspaper, The Essex Gazette, in 1768, using it to support the colonial cause against British taxation" which requires readers to know where Salem is and the basics of late-18th-century political tension in the American colonies. I wouldn't stand in the way of all of these being promoted, or all pulled, or all tweaked. Tough calls.
For Talia Or, how about "that Talia Or's soprano was called "the undisputed ruler of the scenery?" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:52, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Do you realise that all it says is that some woman dominates? Is that interesting?? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:46, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict)

"Unusual" is not the same as "interesting". What we want, is for readers to click on it. Yes, they will click on weird stuff, but we are not here just to provide clickbait. People will more likely click on something which they know they will like, and what we are doing here is a form of advertising. We know that advertising works best if it is targeted. So you target your ad primarily at the readers who will like your product.
In advertising, if you are selling diapers (nappies), for example, you are not looking for a broad audience; you are looking for an audience which wants diapers. There is no point in trying for a broad audience there - and even if you do hook in a reader who has no place for diapers in their life, they will not be well pleased to find themselves looking at an article with pictures of diapers. I think they call that an Easter egg on WP? That is, a deceptive link.
If certain WP reviewers are anything to go by, then there are people in this world who not only dislike what they choose to call "classical music", but they appear to be antagonistic to being bothered with the subject. Therefore this hook is targeted at readers who will like the things mentioned in the hook. And what's not to like about the genius Zubin Mehta and Bach's cantatas? In general we know that if we have a hook about a popular celebrity then that hook will get plenty of hits, because the readers have seen something they like. "Like" is not the same as "interesting" either, but both "weird" and "like" get clicks, and if we target the right audience with some of our hooks, no harm is done.
One other point. If we try to distract from the musician and the music in a musician/music hook by finding something weird and clickbaitey, then the chances are that we are trying to dumb down WP. There are always plenty of other hooks in the DYK column which contain dumbdown qualities to haul in the clicks, if it's just click numbers that you want. Some hook subjects are good enough to deserve quality clicks, i.e. clicks by people who will actually read the article and feel grateful for its information. Quality of reader interest in the article is of more value than numbers of clicks on the hooks. So please let WP offer something for everybody, and not try to force hooks into the position of fooling uninterested persons into staring at text on a subject in which they have no interest. Storye book (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
ETA: Re the suggested ALT: What is Talia Or's soprano supposed to be? Her voice range? Another soprano whom she sort of owns somehow? And how can a voice range rule the scenery? We would need to explain those things in the hook, both for the cognoscenti and your imaginary "broad audience". Storye book (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
"own somehow" cracked me up, so thanks. Consider it changed to "soprano voice". I don't think the "rule the scenery" needs to be explained, as it's meant to leave some curiosity in the reader. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 16:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I was out and wrote my reply in a haste. Thank you, Storye book! I meant "interesting" or "great" when I wrote "unusual". Both cantata and conductor are pieces of knowledge good to know, and if readers haven't heard about them, that's their chance. I like that this hook combines something German and Israeli without mentioning nationalities, - I'm really not sure if she has one or two, but she is certainly influenced by both, and I like that Jewish woman singing a Christian cantata, with an Indian conductor. - - We could say "ruled the scene" about many, but the culture mix is rather unique to her. - Finally: with that image, it doesn't even matter much what the words say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
If, as Storye book suggests, the goal is not to be interesting to a broad audience, but to provide some form of "targeted advertising" for people already familiar with the subject, then we should hold an RfC and repeal criterion 3a. I do agree on the other hooks FFF mentions, and I hadn't got to those in my checking yet so perhaps I would have flagged them as well, hard to say after the fact... this one we're discussing here just struck me as a really obvious statement of someone doing their job, and to be honest I'm not even sure the significance from a musical point of view. If a soprano is notable enough to appear on Wikipedia, I'd expect her to also appear with notable conductors. From a contributor point of view, this could be seen as frustrating, everyone wants their work featured on the main page, and Gerda works incredibly hard on these articles. But the criteria as currently written are geared towards prioritise the reader and ensuring that hooks are interesting to them. As I say, either we should follow those criteria or we should amend them.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:57, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I thought the wuxia hook would have been fine since I did find it unusual that a fiction writer is also a karate coach. The Salem hook, though, I would agree would have needed additional context. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
But it wasn't just doing her job but going from Germany to Israel, - which we can't all explain in the hook, just hint at a few things good to know. Off to rehearsal. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I promoted the hook because Gerda, Storye book, and Firefangledfeathers seemed fine with the hook, while theleekycauldron left their own hook preferences out of the discussion. I was going by consensus that was established there by the participants. SL93 (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I disagree on the Salem newspaper hook. Just being the first newspaper in Salem is enough to get clicks in my mind. Same for the karateka hook because many people are interested in karate. SL93 (talk) 19:22, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I have to disagree on the Salem part. If the city in question were a well-known city like, for example, Seattle or Los Angeles, then yes I'd agree that just being the first newspaper in that city would be hooky by itself. But a place like Salem, Oregon, probably less so without additional context. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not so sure. I automatically think of the Salem Witch Trials when it is brought up. SL93 (talk) 22:40, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
That might be an issue. It isn't automatically clear in the hook which Salem is being referred to (hence why I assumed it was the one in Oregon not the one in Massachusetts). While a link could help, I don't think it would solve my concerns either. Maybe if the hook referred to the trials that could have helped, but mentioning "Salem" without additional context makes the hook rather pedestrian in my eyes (and I say this as a history buff). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
The "interesting to a broad audience" is tricky. The participants in the newspaper article nomination were fine with it, along with the admin who moved it to queue. With such a thing, we can't say anyone is wrong with what they think of as interesting to a broad audience. We then get long discussions as a result that can be longer than the article itself. I think we should make a clearer guideline than just "interesting to a broad audience". SL93 (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I am only commenting here because I was pinged, but from as far as I can tell, the idea that DYK is intended to be "targeted" promotion has no support on WP:DYK, rather that it's the hooks that are required to be interesting to a broad audience. In addition, as far as I can tell, the idea that hooks should not be "clickbait" actually goes against the spirit of DYK's rules, which claim that hooks should be "catchy, punchy", and "interesting to a broad audience". Now, there tends to be some argument over what "broad audience" means, but from experience and previous discussions here, the idea that hooks should mainly be "targeted" towards one audience contradicts that idea. As Amakuru said, if there's a desire to repeal the interestingness criteria we can have an RfC, but right now, "targeted idea" is not a concept that has consensus or support according to WP:DYK or WP:DYKSG. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 20:35, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I want to be promoting hooks if I am expected to go against the consensus of multiple editors. Promoters already have to deal with quite a bit, and I don't want to add more potential conflict to the already sometimes intimidating process. SL93 (talk) 20:50, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

Considering that's there are some disagreements over the hook, would it be a good idea to move the hook to a later prep or even to pull it entirely for now while the discussion is ongoing? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:01, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

The hook should be moved considerably later anyway because of the conflict with the hook discussed in a thread above, about 2 November special occasions, which would lead to two musicians pictured in a row. It could be moved to the last Sunday in the church year (20 November) because that would be suitable for the cantata. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:37, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
As part of a big shuffle (see above) and as requested by Gerda, I have reopened the Talia Or nomination. Schwede66 23:49, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
New day, new month: thank you for the shuffle! As for the hook, I thought Yoninah would have liked it. Jerusalem appeals to many, German - Israeli collaboration should interest the broad readership, no? - How about changing the requirement to simply saying "has to be interesting", to open what we offer more to the minority interests? We don't have to change the wording, just our thinking and handling of situations, especially for BLPs. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:53, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
Since there is a misunderstanding above, I feel that I should correct that. I did not say that every hook should be targeted at a particular audience, and I did not say that "broad audience" should be deleted from the guidelines.
I was explaining that in cases like this, where (as some WP reviewers have demonstrated) the subject is considered obscure and boring by some, the hook needs to be targeted towards those who would find it interesting per se, and don't necessarily need a quirky hook.
I do agree that the guidelines about how to make the hooks catch the reader's eye ought to be revised so as to give more leeway to nominators and reviewers, allowing us to use commonsense, rather than to just keep repeating (or weaponising?) the guideline words when those guideline words are not always helpful. That is to say, I agree that most of the hooky hooks now running on the main page are fine (some are great fun), and that most of them don't need targeting to a particular audience. But I disagree strongly with the idea that some niche subjects need to be either forced unnaturally into a false weirdness to catch the public eye and deceive readers into clicking on an article which would not interest them - or be excluded from DYK.
One of the WP guidelines is that we should use commonsense anyway, but sadly, instead of that, I have seen nominators being told that they should withdraw their nom if they can't make their subject sound interesting to a "broad audience" (where the definition of a broad audience seemed to be people who would not enjoy an article about that niche subject). Storye book (talk) 10:12, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Wide-angle lens

I've been sitting on the sidelines of this discussion for a while – now that Talia Or's hook has been pulled, I'd like to offer some insight gained by taking a step back.

It seems fairly clear to me that as demonstrated by pageview counts, hooks like the one proposed for Talia Or tend to fall short in enticing a wider audience to learn more. However, hooks in this category can certainly still carry much value – so called "niche" hooks can have value that stands independent of pageviews based on several factors. I'll use my own hooks as an example – I am simply a huge fan of The West Wing, a 1999 television show revolving around American politics, and I've run quite a few hooks on the subject. As you may have guessed, not everyone on planet Earth is absolutely nuts about The West Wing. However, some of these hooks do quite well with our readership anyway:

Article Date Image views vph DYK hook
The Supremes (The West Wing) 2021-10-26 8,009 667.4 ... that "The Supremes" was said to have foreseen the conflict following the death of Antonin Scalia, twelve years later?
17 People 2021-11-18 7,938 661.5 ... that The West Wing episode "17 People" has an entire website created by a "superfan" with the sole purpose of explaining it?
The Long Goodbye (The West Wing) 2022-01-26 11,463 955.3 ... that while Wired recommended that readers binge The West Wing, it also advised readers to skip the fourth season episode "The Long Goodbye"?

Notes


And when a hook does well (and isn't sensationalism), that's great! But, of course, can't win 'em all:

Article Date Image views vph DYK hook
Celestial Navigation (The West Wing) 2021-10-30 832 69.3 ... that CCH Pounder, who guest starred in The West Wing's "Celestial Navigation", was almost selected for the main role of C. J. Cregg?
Bartlet for America 2021-12-26 2,489 103.7 ... that a Christmas gift on The West Wing's "Bartlet for America", a napkin bearing the episode's slogan, was replicated for Jacky Rosen's U.S. Senate campaign?
Main Title (The West Wing) 2022-04-15 1,901.5 165.3 ... that The West Wing's theme music was only intended for use in one scene?

Notes


So, the question is: despite (relatively) poor performance, was it worth it to run these hooks? Take "Bartlet for America" – sure, 103.7 views per hour doesn't exactly burn down the house (I'd estimate that it's somewhere in the 10–20th percentile), but I'd argue that if you're interested in the nitty-gritty of American politics, this hook might be uniquely and particularly interesting in a manner that might outweigh whether or not it's a crowd-pleaser. It's a rather intricate hook that communicates something not just impressive, but noticeably unusual – it's unintuitive for life to imitate art in this way, and if you're someone who cares about this kind of thing, this hook might be something really worth your while. It might teach you something new, or make you think about something you're not normally thinking about. It wouldn't be plausible for this hook to be true about, say, Modern Family or Homestuck, it's something more special than that.

On the other hand, I don't think that line of reasoning is true for "Celestial Navigation" and the "Main Title (The West Wing)". The former in particular strikes me as awkward, in that the facts it presents are rather routine; you could swap out the four nouns in that sentence for any other actress, show, episode title, and character and it would still make about as much sense. In addition to not telling a story that's compelling to a broad audience, I'm not reading that hook as a West Wing fan and getting all excited – it seems pretty trivial. "Celestial Navigation" in particular seems to be rather unfocused on the bolded article (the thing I wanted readers to click on), instead using it as a pretense to tell some other fact that's only loosely related.

In other words: I've run hooks that "appeal to a niche" because they offer something new and exciting that still might not be interesting to others, and I've also run hooks that "appeal to a niche" because they simply aren't compelling enough to attract anyone who isn't already interested in the subject. These two kinds of hooks register at basically the same level on the DYK stats table, but one clearly has more value to DYK's purpose than another.

This notion that "niche" hooks can have value if they are particularly and uniquely interesting to that niche, rather than being routine or trivial, is not reflected in DYK's guidelines. It would seem that something has to give, though, because we already seem ascribe to something like this by running hooks that aren't interesting to a broad audience. So: do we want to enforce what we have on the books, or do we want to change it? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 09:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

I am in agreement with you on the above, theleekycauldron. Oh, and also a fan of West Wing. Yes, we need to adjust the guidelines to allow for niche-subject hooks. One difficulty might be that a lot of people don't realise how niche their favourite subjects are, perhaps because they live in an environment where all their acquaintances know and love those favourite subjects; for example Western team sports, Western popular music and other Western popular culture subjects. So it is tempting for them to define "broad audience" as their own social environment type. I would not be likely to click on a team sports hook on the main page, however brilliantly quirky it was; nor would most of my friends. We are all niche in our different ways. In that respect, there is no "us and them" here. We just all need to appreciate the fact that even the most popular article may have its own set of niche audiences. If we exclude "niche" from DYK guidelines, we exclude ourselves. There is no absolute "broad audience" which is definable by the attitudes of the society that we each live in. Storye book (talk) 10:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think we should be excluding topics from DYK solely because they are "niche". Indeed, if you know me, you'd know that I am a strong opponent of systemic bias on Wikipedia, and I think that all kinds of topics and subjects should be given their chance to shine. However, in DYK's case, it's not like niche topics can't be covered in a way that they can be interesting even to those who aren't fans or experts on the niche. Take Leeky's West Wing examples for example. I know nothing about the series other than the fact that it exists, but I thought the 17 People hook was something unusual and interesting even to non-fans. Instead of going for extremes (either solely appealing to broad audiences or solely targeting niches), how about trying to achieve a compromise? Meet halfway? Perhaps for topics that are more "niche" (for lack of a better term), how about proposing hooks that both specialists and non-specialists can enjoy, rather than only targeting specialists? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:36, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
I think we seem to be struggling to define a "niche" hook, then – I define it as the latter set of three. The former three are more just broad audience hooks that happen to be about The West Wing, and therefore also appeal to that niche. So the question isn't about "17 People", everyone's fine with that – it's about hooks closer to "Bartlet for America", where there isn't necessarily broad-audience appeal but maybe there still is value. Without an update to the guidelines, though, I don't see how we can continue to run those hooks. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:56, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
My point was simply that a topic that is considered "niche" does not need to have hooks that only appeal to fans or specialists of that niche. Meaning, hooks about such niches can be more like the former set (the one that includes 17 People) rather than the latter set (which admittedly has a less broad appeal). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:06, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

Edit request

Can someone add the {{DYKbox}} to Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination? For easy navigation in and out... my sandbox for reference. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 08:00, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

 Completed. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 11:19, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron @Paine Ellsworth This causes layout issues at narrow widths, such as at <1360px in new vector. The hook textarea shows up much further down below the label. One way to fix that would be to set the style display: table on #dyk-wizard-container,
but that also causes the container to become very narrow even when not required. – SD0001 (talk) 15:13, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
eraser Undone until this is resolved. P.I. Ellsworth , ed. put'r there 15:45, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

One filled queue 04/11

@DYK admins: we are down to one filled queue. Your help to move preps to queues is appreciated. TSventon (talk) 12:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Queue 5: Image

The image file File:Jubilee Memorial, Harrogate (1).jpg has a licence which says it is "in the public domain in its country of origin and other countries and areas where the copyright term is the author's life plus 70 years or fewer". Yet the photographer is stated as unknown, so we have no way of knowing when the author's life plus 70 years may have ended. 1887 may seem like a long time ago, but hypothetically, if the photographer was 16 at the time of the the photo (so born in 1871) and then lived to be 100, that would mean they died in 1971, which is considerably less than 70 years ago. Although Wikipedia itself only requires images to be licensed in the US, the main page I believe conforms to the Commons standard of requiring it to be valid in both the US and the country of origin, so I think a more valid licence would be required. Pinging @RoySmith, Storye book, and Onegreatjoke: who were involved with the nom. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not an expert on copyright, but I agree this sounds dodgy for the front page. Let's unpromote it for now and so there's less time pressure to sort it out. I'll leave it to somebody else to actually edit the queue page since I'm not up to speed on that yet. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough, although FWIW we do have the modern image File:Jubilee Memorial 1887 Harrogate 16 July 2021 (34).JPG which we could slot in its place instead if people thought that better than pulling it from the queue today. @RoySmith, Storye book, and Onegreatjoke:  — Amakuru (talk) 16:53, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
That works for me. I grabbed the image from commons, did a little tweaking on it, and uploaded a new version in-place. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I changed the tags at Commons to note that it's presumed to be in the public domain as it was published more than 120 years ago. It's a Commons consensus decision, and I'm not sure how much we respect those here. I wouldn't fight for it over the suitable modern image. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:22, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The image referred to above is a lithograph taken from an original drawing by the architect Arthur Bown (died 1916), and there should be no problem with that. I have clarified the image filepage to reflect that.
I should add that professional artists in the UK who contributed to newspapers in those days were apprentices until they qualified at around age 21, and newspapers like the ILN did not accept apprentice work when they had so many superb qualified artists available. In the UK in the 19th century, workers aged under 21 were not taken seriously because they had not achieved majority. In the UK at that time, people aged under 21 were formally called "infants" in law, and had to undertake formal matters in the name of an adult "friend" as the courts called it. So the idea of a published artist being aged 16 is invalid in this case. (I know one case of a published lithographic artist aged 16, but that work was published under the auspices of his employer and master, and not in a newspaper, and it was an exceptional case, as he had a scoop.)
However if you still don't like that, there is a large number of free, self-licensed, full-length images of the memorial in the commons category. I suggest the image by RoySmith (right), which is clear and used in the article page. Storye book (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, like I said, copyright policy is not my strength. If the people who do understand that stuff say the original image is OK, then I'm OK with it too. I like it better than the modern photo. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:57, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Up for grabs

I gotta get to the orthodontist, but someone should really investigate whether there's a DYK in this recent news report: A US Air Force flight spent 2 hours drawing a phallic pattern in the air near several Russian military facilities. EEng 17:09, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for that, EEng#s, great fun. Sadly, your linked report goes on to say that "It's unclear if the stratotanker's flight pattern was intentionally made to resemble a phallus", so theoretically it could be another of those famous-icons-on-a-slice-of-toast jobs. But thanks for the giggle. Storye book (talk) 17:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Well let's see how the story develops. EEng 19:16, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
”Phallic pattern”
over Khmeimim.
Accidental?
Odds seem quite slim.
Burma-shave
— ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 20:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Brilliant! EEng 20:58, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

WP:V and WP:NPOV violation in an article that ended up on the front page

I'm concerned about this nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Irreligion in Malaysia. The hook "atheists in Malaysia are often threatened with rape and murder" is written in wikivoice. Yet the source given doesn't actually say it in its own voice. The source given says ""Nurulhuda’s atheist meetings remain secretive, she stressed, to protect the closeted atheists. [...] Death threats online and over the phone are common, she said. [...] The most common threat to her and other ex-Muslim women is rape, she explained." (emphasis added)

When a RS doesn't say something in its voice, but instead chooses to attribute views to a certain individual, it appears incorrect for us to state that in wikivoice. Pinging @An anonymous username, not my real name: @LordPeterII: @Kavyansh.Singh:.VR talk 00:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I've identified several other WP:V and WP:NPOV issues with the article, including making statements that were either misleading or simply unsupported by the sources. How did this article end up on our front page? VR talk 05:32, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
It ended up on the front page, because everyone on Wikipedia is an unpaid volunteer. There are no language/religion experts here, as far as I know. It's good you caught this, and it would be good if Wikipedia-DYK was staffed by specialists on every subject matter that comes up. But lacking that, we human beings make mistakes, and some of them end up on the Main Page. The very existence of WP:ERRORS in general is a testament to "people make mistakes" and "we correct them when revealed". If you know a way to get an all-volunteer unpaid staff of experts on every subject matter that could possibly arise, please let us know. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 10:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Maile66: I understand that people aren't subject matter experts. But I was under the impression that DYK reviewers had to ensure the hook is actually verifiable to the source given, especially when the supposed source is available online and even more especially when the nominator has typed out the text from that source for you. I've reviewed my share of DYKs and I've always done that (exceptions being when the source can't be found online - but that wasn't the case here). IMHO this was not done here.VR talk 13:40, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Same opinion as you. Even if there aren't subject matter experts the source was right there for review. The reviewer should have at least put more analysis on the hook and its source. This isn't the fault of there being no experts but rather just a lack on analysis on the part of two reviewers. Onegreatjoke (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I've cleared up an instance of close paraphrasing too. The text feels broadly accurate, if unencyclopaedic in tone at parts, although of course it should be correctly supported by sources. It does seem like more editing was needed for it to appear, but that said, what is being looked for here? Mistakes were not caught as Maile says, but this happens, and I suspect those involved have taken note at this point. CMD (talk) 15:08, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: can we tweak WP:DYKCRIT #3 to say that the nominator must provide the text in the source that supports the hook and the reviewer must verify (based on provided text) that the source matches the hook? Or put it somewhere in our process so as to help reviewers be more careful next time?VR talk 17:50, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
You could try boldly making that tweak, see what happens. But new nominators -- this one has ~700 edits -- are already overwhelmed by the rules here and unlikely to even see that rule. And reviewers sometimes can't get to the source but accept it on good faith.
As Maile notes, this is a volunteer project. And unlike almost every other project here on Wikipedia, DYK has deadlines. Either 8 or 16 every day. If you'd like to help, there's always a need for folks to build preps. Building a prep involves doing 8 re-reviews to check for things like the one we're discussing here. Oh, and it's highly scrutinized, so try not to let anything slip through. :) Valereee (talk) 21:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Vice regent: Outch. I take responsibility. I think I've simply nominated and reviewed too high a volume of noms recently. I got careless: I skimmed over the source, saw the statement there, but interpreted it wrong (that is, not as only a personal statement). Sorry.
Tbh, I think my current ethos of "nominate as many different things as possible before they become ineligible" and "keep up with reviews" while at the same time trying to do preps is simply not feasible. I'll take a step back and an immediate wikibreak to get a clear head again. There are some pending nominations that may be failed if they can't be passed without me. See you all again in a few weeks or so. –LordPeterII (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@LordPeterII: you've done great work and my intention was not to discourage. Rather I want to help improve our process if possible.VR talk 01:15, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
If you actually want to improve it, go build a prep. Seriously. It'll give you some insight. Other prep builders will be happy to help you figure it out. We're on two-a-days right now, so it's tight, but if you start with the lowermost prep you probably have at least three days to get it together. Ta! Valereee (talk) 01:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

IAR exemption request

For Thurgood Marshall (nom) – it seems a shame to avoid running such an important historical figure simply because OTD got there first. Pinging @Unlimitedlead and Onegreatjoke as nominator and reviewer. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 00:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Well @Theleekycauldron: if we would want to add him into DYK it would require a rule change I feel. Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:07, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Now i'm not against this at all. I'd personally love for Thurgood Marshall to be at DYK but can we just give an exception like this? Onegreatjoke (talk) 00:17, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree! Surely the Thurgood Marshall deserves a DYK fact. Unlimitedlead (talk) 00:13, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
He's been featured at OTD four times by now. What you are basically asking is a rule change, because if we permit this here, how would we ever say no to another DYK nomination that's been on OTD? I suggest to go for FA and then it's not just a wee hook, but a whole writeup. Schwede66 01:12, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
That is a fair point, but do you happen to know why the OTD rule was implemented in the first place? It's something that has been bothering me for a while now. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:24, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66 and Onegreatjoke: you make a good point, I'd see a narrowly tailored rule change to be in order. @Unlimitedlead: OTD was added afterwards at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 113#Do previous main page appearances prohibit DYK nomination? It's a short discussion with a few participants, and I think it missed a key point: ITN's limitation to current events makes it a relatively narrow exemption, and one that prevents us from running articles that were newly created as newsworthy events (I don't think the GA rule existed at the time of the ITN rule). Exempting OTD, on the other hand, allows a section of the main page that can run pretty much any historical thing it wants to preclude us from running content that has been expanded or promoted to GA. That includes many high-profile sub-GA vital articles, such as Turkey, Taiwan, Wikipedia, Barack Obama, YouTube, and Fascism (based on a quick category search). That seems much broader than was intended. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 01:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
The comparable ITN search disqualifies about a third of the articles the OTD rule does. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 01:49, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron Thanks for replying. So should we give up on this DYK nomination, or is there a chance that it could come come into fruition? Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:54, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
With regards to the original request, it feels like a stronger argument needs to be made for IAR than simple historical importance. It was a shame, for example, that Man of the Hole didn't make DYK for similar reasons. That said, on the wider rules point, I agree that the main value of the rule is that it prevents articles from taking up multiple slots of the main page at the same time (or within a certain period). Appearing in multiple slots over time seems much less problematic, and the spirit of the rule change to include GAs would suggest that the desire is to note new work, even if the old work merited inclusion elsewhere (much like TFA). That said, I don't understand the OTD inclusion. Why does Thurgood Marshall appear OTD in four years, but not in other years? It seems a relevant point to understand to adjust the guidelines here. CMD (talk) 02:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis I think your idea about "appearing in multiple slots over time" is a great idea. If a discussion about the rules does end up arising, I would be happy to participate. Unlimitedlead (talk) 02:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Just for the record, if we agree to change the eligibility rules, that shall be fine by me. That's of course a broader discussion than just an IAR request. Schwede66 02:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Just wanted to say as the article's main author that I'm fine either way: obviously it'd be great to have Marshall on the main page, but I also understand why the rule is the way it is. Cheers, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 03:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

A thought

Been brainstorming this based on the discussion above, and I was wondering if some kind of exemption to the "no previous bolded appearances" rule can be added. I'm not sure exactly what would qualify under that exemption, but it could either involve the article in question being promoted to GA status, and/or it being X number of years since it last appeared on OTD and/or ITN. These are just ideas and not actual proposals, but could any of them be feasible? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:23, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

I would fully support changing our rules around this. From a reader perspective, there are more interesting facts available about the kinds of better-known topics that tend to have appeared on OTD/ITN than about niche topics that people have never heard of (that therefore have to establish within the hook why anyone should care about them, something many do not do). And from the perspective of DYK as an incentive to improve articles, we want to encourage and reward editors to improve articles on better-known topics, as they have far more pageviews and thus greater impact for readers. So from both angles, these are the kinds of nominations we should be welcoming, not blocking. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure why an exemption would be warranted. The point is that articles get one airing on the main page, other than at TFA. We already don't allow GA DYKs if the same page already ran as a created/expanded DYK, you might as well throw that one into the mix too if you're chucking out the rule. I'm not necessarily against a carve-out for GAs, but we shouldn't forget the principle that DYK is part of the main page, not standalone, and is principally to air things that haven't aired before. Appearing at OTD four times seems to preclude that.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with that – it did appear four times at OTD, after all. DYK is the only section of the main page that requires article to have never been on ITN or OTD – and it's only those two sections. Glass ran at DYK in 2020; it was an FA that ran at TFA, got delisted, and then passed GA. There are 1,100+ other articles that would be eligible for this if they were brought to GA. It's also entirely possible that if TFL beat us to the punch on a 5x expanded and newly featured list, we would run the DYK afterwards. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 09:01, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think the double DYK element should be removed, but articles clearly get multiple airings on the main page (the article in question has been on OTD four times), so that leaves the question of whether it is a valuable restriction for DYK. I don't think it is (excluding a certain period of time for articles created for ITN). CMD (talk) 09:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Yeah, I thought some more since posting this and you're probably right. Other sections, including TFA, do multiple reruns where appropriate, so probably the rule should go. Happy to see what's proposed in an RFC and contribute appropriately.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:46, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Marshall is an important figure, but he's been featured on the main page four times already in OTD, and is likely to be featured again in the future. Are we thinking of doing away with prior OTD and/or ITN appearances completely as a DYK disqualifier? I'm not sure that's a good idea. Another possibility could be blocking GA qualification for past TFA articles. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:09, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I am in favour of weakening the disqualifier. I would like to throw out the suggestion that appearance in ITN and OTD in the last six months prior to nomination apply as the disqualifier. This does not do away with the disqualifier completely, which I agree would not be a good idea, but does I would suggest remove an occasionally quite random stumbling block. Six months seems long enough for something to leave the news cycle and be a bit forgotten, and indeed perhaps time for some sources to come out that would merit expansion resulting in a DYK. It is also long enough that I do not feel a regular main page reader would think "hmmm Wikipedia sure loves Thurgood Marshall". CMD (talk) 02:27, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
I've opened an RfC on the topic below and invite everyone here to participate. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Edward Mosberg, queue 4

  • ... that after making an anti-Semitic remark, football player DeSean Jackson accepted an invitation from Holocaust survivor Edward Mosberg (pictured) to visit the Auschwitz concentration camp?

This strikes me as too negative a statement to publish on the main page. Rule 4a says to avoid unduly focusing on negative content about living people, and while the article here is okay, I'm not sure it's a good idea in a hook. "making an anti-Semitic remark" is also odd given that it was a social media post. @Schwede66 and Pbritti: Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

The only alteration I would suggest based on your comments is change "made antisemitic remarks" to "posted antisemitic quotes" based on sources. As Jackson is neither the subject of the article the hook is for nor does the hook suggest he has not reformed his views (I say the hook suggests personal growth and humility on Jackson's part), I think we're good on 4a. However, because of BLP rules, I would defer to the judgement of more advanced DYK team members and accept whatever consensus they arrive at. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:11, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing that up, Vanamonde93. The history of this DYK is that an IP editor asked on my talk page whether I would nominate this article at DYK, and that request included a suggested hook: that American football player DeSean Jackson accepted an invitation from Holocaust survivor Edward Mosberg (pictured) to visit the Auschwitz concentration camp in Poland? I did so but added how the concentration camp trip came about to give this context. I thought it was great of DeSean Jackson to do this after having caused great offence. Hence, I didn’t regard this as violating the negative BLP rule. I’d be most happy for the hook to be reworded to clarify that this was caused by a social media post. Schwede66 15:45, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
We should also give Maile66, who promoted this to queue, a chance to chip in. Schwede66 16:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
Well, let's see here. No opinion on the current hook. Since the image is Edward Mosberg in his concentration camp uniform, perhaps a hook like this,
ALT1 " ... that holocaust survivor Edward Mosberg (pictured in his concentration camp uniform) was awarded the Commander's Cross of the Order of Merit of the Republic of Poland for his efforts recognizing the Polish war-time rescue of Jews?"
This moves us away from the negative. I know it's not the subject that the article creator wanted, but I really don't have a definitive answer about the BLP concerns. I'm a bit concerned myself about the BLP issue. — Maile (talk) 16:55, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree that the narrative as a whole does Jackson credit, and I have no BLP concerns with the article(s). I'm not confident that that sense is necessarily conveyed by the hook, which is why I flagged it. I would slightly prefer going to Maile's hook, unless we can flesh out the "showed learning" aspect. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:36, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
ALT2 ... that after circulating antisemitism on social media, DeSean Jackson redeemed himself by accepting an invitation from Holocaust survivor Edward Mosberg (pictured) to visit the Auschwitz concentration camp?
  • Here's my attempt of keeping the affair in the hook, with a stronger positive element. Could also add the words "football player" before Jackson's name. Schwede66 21:48, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    I'm hesitant – I've never seen DYK make a value judgement about a person in its own voice. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 22:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    I'm not 100% sure that I understand what you are saying, Leeky. Vanamonde suggested that we could flesh out the "showed learning" aspect but when I attempt to, I'm putting a value judgement into Wikivoice. Is that what you are saying? For the record, I could live with ALT1 but have a preference for featuring this Auschwitz invite. Schwede66 22:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    @Schwede66, Vanamonde93, and Theleekycauldron: Please look closely at the articles on Mosssberg and DeSean Jackson. I don't see anything, sourced or un-sourced, that says DeSean Jackson followed through on the invitation beyond verbally accepting it. What am I missing? — Maile (talk) 22:26, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    I don't know whether the trip happened. What I do know, and what ALT0 and ALT2 say, is that he accepted to go on the trip. Schwede66 22:28, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    The source says the invitation to visit Auschwitz concentration camp was accepted via a Zoom call. Neither the Jackson article nor the Mosberg article says there was a follow up. OK, so my point here is that unless he actually made the trip, just verbally accepting an invitation is not redemption. — Maile (talk) 22:41, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    I've put ALT1 in the queue with less than 60 sec to go before it went live. Schwede66 00:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:22, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
    Thanks for resolving this, I expected to be back online 12 hours ago but was kept away. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Since the two paragraphs in the "synopsis" section contain secondary interpretation, they need to be sourced – that includes the sentence that includes the hook fact. Pinging @Unlimitedlead, Guerillero, and RoySmith as nominator, reviewer, and promoter. Should be a breeze, but I did want to bring that up :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:29, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron @RoySmith I am not well versed in these sorts of articles, so I'll leave that to someone more qualified. However, I did identify this as a potential source. It has already been used in the article once. Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:20, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
I have just done some work there. If someone else (someone more experienced in this department) could help me out, that'd be great. Unlimitedlead (talk) 01:07, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
This is now in queue 7. SL93 (talk) 19:39, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Queue 5: Jubilee Memorial, Harrogate

Copied from Template talk:Did you know nominations/H. E. and A. Bown. Hook modifications:

GalliumBot (talkcontribs) (he/it) 18:25, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

  • I can see why you did that (because "pictured" is next to Harrogate, not the monument itself), but the new hook is not an improvement, because the hook now looks as if Bown did the designing in Harrogate, and readers won't know where the monument is. Regarding the original hook, the readers won't really think that the picture is of Harrogate in general, and not of the monument, because all you can see is the monument - so you didn't need to change it for a more awkward hook. I don't think it needed to be changed. Storye book (talk) 21:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    if it is changed back, we'd need to put a GEOCOMMA after "harrogate". theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 21:43, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    would the following reordering work?

    ... that Arthur Bown designed Harrogate's Jubilee Memorial (pictured) to commemorate Queen Victoria's golden jubilee?

    dying (talk) 00:31, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
    That's perfect. Thank you, Dying.
    @Theleekycauldron: Please change the hook for the one above, by Dying? Thank you. Storye book (talk) 09:14, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
    @Storye book: as a non-admin, i am unable :) Amakuru? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 09:17, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
     Done — Maile (talk) 11:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The current hook in prep wasn't approved by Onegreatjoke, the reviewer – they modified their original review after new hooks were provided (do try not to do that, Onegreatjoke, to preserve the history at a glance). Rlink2, could you pick from the approved hooks? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 01:07, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: My mistake, I usually change the review box because it makes it easier for me to fix the problems. Though this same problem does also coincide with the 1920 xalapa earthquake nom as the hook that was promoted should have been replaced with the more accurate alt1 hook. @Rlink2: Sorry for causing you trouble. Onegreatjoke (talk) 01:36, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron @Onegreatjoke done. Sorry for the mistake. Rlink2 (talk) 12:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@Rlink2: sorry for the pings but you also forgot to change the hook for the 1920 xalapa earthquake nom as it was deduced that alt1 would be a better hook than alt0 due to the source that was used. Onegreatjoke (talk) 13:35, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm shaky on this one, if only because pop music hooks tend to perform rather poorly at DYK and therefore should usually be bolstered. I understand from the nompage that an ALT1 was being workshopped when ALT0 was promoted; could it be agreed upon and swapped in? Pinging @Onegreatjoke, Ippantekina, Sammi Brie, RoySmith, and Rlink2 as involved parties. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 01:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, I guess that was my suggested ALT1b that you're talking about. Obviously, I think it was better than the others, but I don't have any strong feeling either way. I'll let you folks make the decision. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@RoySmith @Theleekycauldron I agree. Switched to alt1a Rlink2 (talk) 12:44, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

Fictional universe hooks

I don't think this is important enough for errors, but @Unlimitedlead and @Onegreatjoke, I'm not sure the Taylor Swift hook passes C6: If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way. at Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines. Valereee (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

The "fictional character" is Swift's in-video persona, and the "real world aspect" of the hook is "in the music video for the song 'Anti-Hero'". Unlimitedlead (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that counts. If that is the case, any fictional universe hooks can be used just by tacking on the medium that the hook is in. SL93 (talk) 16:00, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: Fair point. However, the hook is worded in a way that could imply that Taylor Swift (our real-world Taylor) is imagining this situation that occurs the video, not that the Swift character inside the video is the one that is imagining being killed by her daughter-in-law. Not to get all philosophical, but if the in-video Swift gets murdered, she's not imagining it: it actually happened in that world. In our real world, Taylor Swift imagines this scenario. Unlimitedlead (talk) 16:18, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, the story in the video is fiction, so the story even if set in the real world is a fictional universe. A hook that doesn't involve the real world is basically "Did you know ... that in a fictional universe, anything can happen?" Because of course it can. If the hook had been, "Did you know ... that in the music video for Anti-Hero, the character who played Swift's murderous DIL is her real-life next-door neighbor?" we'd have been good. Valereee (talk) 18:49, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee I apologize if the hook I wrote sounded a little too on the fictional side. The hook was "Did you know that in the music video for the song "Anti-Hero", Taylor Swift imagines a scenario in which she is killed by her own daughter-in-law?". "Taylor Swift" in this sentence refers not to the fictional Taylor in the music video, but rather the Taylor Swift who exists in real life, whose vision guided the production of the video. The real-life Taylor was the one who "imagined the scenario". The imaginary Taylor in the video experienced that scenario. Unlimitedlead (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@Unlimitedlead, but that's true of all fiction. The real creator imagines the scenario in which the imaginary character experiences that scenario. Did you know ... that in fiction, a creator can come up with a scenario in which a character experiences anything the creator can imagine? Yes, everyone familiar with fiction knows that. It's not a hook. Valereee (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee Oh, I understand what you mean now. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Next time, I'll try to stray away from more fictitious hooks. Unlimitedlead (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
No worries, we have an overabundance of rules here, and some of them can seem a bit arbitrary. There really are actual reasons for them. Some of which I disagree with, but in this case I actually do think it makes sense from an 'interestingness of hook' standpoint. Valereee (talk) 20:24, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
Regarding "interestingness", anything DYK by Taylor Swift will do exceptionally well. Schwede66 04:47, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
It actually goes a little further than that. The real world TS imagined the whole thing, the fictional TS experienced a dream, and the dream TS (doubly fictional) experienced being killed by her daughter-in-law. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 11:39, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Local update times

The local update times currently don't match the order of when the sets will hit the main page. SL93 (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

@DYK admins: @BlueMoonset: I think I see what you say, but don't know how that template gets updated. — Maile (talk) 21:13, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't see what you say. Schwede66 21:28, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
For example, it says that prep 4 will be on the main page on November 12 00:00, but that isn't true. Prep 4 will be moved to queue 5 next, which by itself is messed up because it should be to queue 4. Prep 4 will actually be on the main page on November 9 00:00 after it is moved to queue 5. The local update times line-up does not match the current line-up of the preps and queues below it. SL93 (talk) 21:38, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps preps 4, 5, 6 need to be moved to preps 5, 6, 7 so prep 5 can be promoted to queue 5 as it should be. TSventon (talk) 21:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I think that I found the issue. I remember there being multiple empty preps in a row until prep 7, and Casliber skipped past those empty preps to promote the filled prep 7 to the next queue (which was queue 3). SL93 (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
I've shuffled a few things around and everything should be back in order. Please check. Also, I take it there aren't any special occasion hook in what is now Prep1 (was Prep4)? Schwede66 00:22, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
It looks good. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 13:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

SOHA template magic?

Somebody please explain to me what magic is happening with the display of promoted templates at WP:SOHA. I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/List of compositions by Graham Waterhouse. It appeared to disappear from the SOHA listing, leaving just the "November 2" section head. But, if I look at the wiki source, the template is still there:

 ===November 2===
 {{Template:Did you know nominations/List of compositions by Graham Waterhouse}}

Huh? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

When you promote it, you add <includeonly>{{#ifeq:{{NAMESPACE}}|Talk|</includeonly> to the top of it, which prevents the display of transclusions anywhere other than in the Talk namespace (e.g., on the talk page of the article). So it won't display in the Template talk namespace, which is where the SOHA is. WugBot will remove the transclusion itself from the page shortly (like this), but hiding it in the meantime helps reduce some of the clutter post-promotion. DanCherek (talk) 13:18, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
  • ... that the Taiwanese film "陽光普照" was translated to "A Sun" in regards to its homonym with "A son", with the film being about parental favoritism?

This seems awkward to me, and I would like to change it to

  • ... that the Taiwanese film "陽光普照" was translated as "A Sun" with regards to its homonym with "A son", the film being about parental favoritism?

Everyone OK with these changes? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:22, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

Another suggestion:
  • ALT1: ... that the Taiwanese film 陽光普照, about parental favoritism, was translated as A Sun to create a pun with "a son"?
This removes some unnecessary quotation marks and has a smoother wording. Frankly I'm not really a fan of including the Chinese characters here – they will be entirely opaque to most readers – but it's a minor quibble. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 10:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
i agree with Ravenpuff. i am not sure what standard dyk practices are, but i only know of one tfa blurb that used chinese characters. admittedly, though, romanization may be problematic, as there isn't a universally accepted romanization system in taiwan. two additional nitpicks: (1) presumably, the film wasn't translated as "A Sun", as a film over two hours long with two words of dialogue seems rather unusual; and (2) "A Sun" isn't a translation of the title either, but the english title of the film. (the article gives "Shining on All Things" as a literal translation of the chinese title.) would the following hook be an acceptable alternative?

alt1b: ... that a Taiwanese film about parental favoritism was titled A Sun in English to create a pun with "a son"?

although a bit of meaning is lost for those who can read chinese, dropping the taiwanese title entirely allows the hook to focus on what is presumably the more interesting part to most of the audience. dying (talk) 13:48, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
i mean, we do regularly use German in hooks... theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 20:11, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
German titles of a musical work are at least readable to users of English Wikipedia. Chinese pictograms are completely meaningless to 99% of English Wikipedia users. For this reason, we should IMO not be promoting hooks using such pictograms. Cbl62 (talk) 20:28, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

In a similar vein: should we remove the clown emoji in the last hook of this set? MOS:NOICONS states that icons (including emoji) don't belong in prose, and it's conceivable that the character might not display properly on some older devices. In any case, most readers should be familiar with what a clown emoji looks like, and we don't need to point one out to them. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

 Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:51, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I can't say that I've ever seen a clown emoji, but I don't really need to see the exact image to understand the concept of a picture of a clown. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:39, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

One filled queue 09/11

@DYK admins: we are down to one filled queue. Your help to move preps to queues is appreciated. TSventon (talk) 00:40, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay - RL has a way of sidetracking the best of intents here. Queue 6 was already up there, so I just now filled Queue 7. Only Preps 1 and 2 are complete at the moment. — Maile (talk) 04:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Two preps are now filled. SL93 (talk) 14:22, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived several days ago. I've created a new list of all 27 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 30. We have a total of 185 nominations, of which 73 have been approved, a gap of 102 nominations, a drop of 5 from last time. Thanks to everyone who reviews these!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:23, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Dangers of the Mail image main page appropriate?

Proposed detail crop
Proposed detail crop

Hey folks, so Dangers of the Mail by Valereee is intended to run with image now (it was approved a bit hastily before said image was added to the nom). I remotely remember some images being voted inappropriate for the main page (because readers can't avoid landing there), but don't remember where I read that. Given the explicit, if artistic nature of the image, I think we should have some discussion about it. Thoughts, opinions? –LordPeterII (talk) 19:56, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be included. Pictures of the Day with similar levels of artistic nudity and violence have been included (e.g. this one, that one) and this one has great hook–text synergy. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:36, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I think that it's fine. SL93 (talk) 21:14, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how DYK historically feels about these things, but I think it's fine. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:09, 2 November 2022 (UTC)
@SL93 I think in addition to the biscuit and violence, this one has elements of racism that the other two paintings you referenced lack, which makes it problematic in a way they are not. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 04:15, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I didn't reference anything. Though I have slept on the matter and I think you have a good point. I brought up part of that point below. SL93 (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, @SL93 that was @Firefangledfeathers who referenced the other two paintings. I misread the sig line on my phone. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 13:23, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
The image was created for a public hallway in the USPS headquarters in 1937. Yes, some people found it offensive then and some will find it offensive now, which is why I created a hook about how what people find offensive about it has changed. I think the image is a powerful illustration of that change. Valereee (talk) 11:25, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I wonder if the image isn't a good fit for the main page at this moment in relation to it almost being Thanksgiving. SL93 (talk) 11:39, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I'm all for having something on Thanksgiving day which recognizes the colonization/genocide aspect, but surely this isn't the right image for that. Maybe we could somehow fast-track National Day of Mourning (United States protest) through WP:GAN so it qualifies for DYK on Nov 24th? -- RoySmith (talk) 12:54, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
Oh, @SL93 I mis-interpreted your comment as suggesting that you wanted to run it on Thanksgiving, but upon a more careful reading, it's obvious that you were saying exactly the opposite. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
I didn't nominate it with any timing in mind. I nominated it because I reviewed the queue containing Karl R. Free, which discussed the mural but didn't include a link or image, and I thought, "Now, there's a likely-notable mural" and because there was a natural hook and a great image for illustrating that hook. :) Pure coincidence that I created the article a few weeks before a holiday associated with colonialism. Valereee (talk) 14:04, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Oh, I thought this was all about an image of/from the Daily Mail, but now I see it's another front in the culture wars. I think the image is ok, if possibly not for Thanksgiving (wouldn't bother us in the ROW, I can assure you). But you could fit into the article another crop from the other side of the painting, with just good old-fashioned American male-on-male violence. Nobody could object to that, surely? Johnbod (talk) 03:31, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
    Actually plenty of people have objected to that right from the beginning for historical inaccuracy, among other things. Valereee (talk) 12:03, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

1. LOL User:Johnbod 2. I created the Karl R. Free article mentioned by user:Valereee. I think DOTM is a horror show but I also think including an offensive work of art on the front page for a period of 12-24 hours is also totally fine and reasonable and even good as an conversation starter. jengod (talk) 16:48, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Queue 2: Meni

Minor point, but the attribution seems wrong on this one. The article and the subject of this hook are Meni (the overseer of...), but from the article we see that the line threatening the grave robbers was written by whoever did the inscription on the tomb, not by Meni himself. Pinging @Qoan, LordPeterII, Jengod, and RoySmith: who were involved with the hook. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru What's the specific sentence in the article that's at issue here? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
@RoySmith: there's nothing wrong with the article, it's purely the way the hook is phrased. From the article: "The reliefs do not only show Meni, but also his wife and children. One inscription also possibly mentions his mother. Among the common offering formulae, there is also a curse against tomb robbers. This curse is peculiar because it invokes danger from wild animals, namely crocodiles and snakes". So this was an inscription on Meni's tomb, and not a line written by Meni himself. So Meni is not threatening anyone with crocodiles, it's the people who buried him who threatened that. Yet the hook says that Meni threatens. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree it's an issue. I'd suggest "... that the tomb of the overseer ...". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 15:57, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
The phrasing of such curses is usually in the voice of the occupant of the tomb, and this one seems to be no exception. "The crocodile is against him in the water and the snake is against him on land, (2) he who will do something against this (tomb), (3) as I have never done a thing against him." That "I" is Meni. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:46, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
How about
(I wish we had a tomb curse explainer to link for the entry-level Egyptologists (such as myself!). Apologies to the original authors; I think my hook meddling complicated matters!) jengod (talk) 15:59, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
We have Curse of the pharaohs! Perhaps create that redirect? As for the hook, I don't mind the attribution, feels quirky. If it must change, then "tomb of the" seems a simple solution. CMD (talk) 16:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I've amended "that the tomb of the" per FFF for now, but happy to go with "the tomb curse of" as well if that's preferable. But I don't think we should write that Meni said something if he didn't, even if his death was a while back and he's no longer a BLP! Incidentally, on another point, having looked at this, I'm curious about describing the curse as "peculiar" - which I'm not certain appears in the source. @Qoan and LordPeterII: was it actually peculiar?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:26, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru Re the attrribution: While I'm not an expert, it looks like most tombs were built (if not completed) while the person who commissioned them was alive. This is certainly a known fact for most pharaohs. Data on private individuals is murkier, but this particular person might have built (at least) two different tombs during his lifetime. Indeed, his depictions in the tomb at Dendera were probably updated later, which might indicate he was a young individual when he first commissioned the tomb, and upon reaching a more advanced age he decided to leave proof of it. The curse, whoever, is in the tomb at Giza. But in any case, and despite the fact that there are a couple of known or suspected exceptions, it would be safe to assume that most of the time the texts inscribed in the tombs were decided by the person(s) who intended to use it as a burial, although you're right in that there is no certainty.
Re "peculiar": The curse is peculiar (or uncommon, infrequent, etc.) in that the order is reversed (punishment first, followed by the wrongdoing) and because only a handful of the curses included in that particular study mention animals (page 40 and 45 respectively). The author doesn't use the term peculiar but states the frequencies. I'm not a native English speaker so maybe this is not the best term. I'm happy to look at alternative wordings. Qoan (say it!) 20:19, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Unattributed quotes

Sorry if I sound like a broken record at this point, but can nominators, reviewers, promoters and admins please verify every time a hook with a quote is encountered, that it complies with MOS:WEASEL. Any quotes used in a hook (and preferably throughout the article itself too) must state explicitly who said that quote. Particularly if it is a quote where someone or something is "described as X".

In this case, from Queue 7, we have:

But when I checked, the article did not say who made this "stiffest challenge" comment, leaving the reader unable to know (without looking at sources) what the significance of this comment is. The fix is very simple, and I have already carried it out - simply include the names and affiliations of those who made the quote in the article text. Pinging @Mhhossein, LordPeterII, and RoySmith: FYI. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:36, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 @DigitalIceAge I think we have the same problem with Template:Did you know nominations/MoSys: Academics called the name a misnomer: "[1-transistor static RAM] is not really possible, but it makes for a catchy name" -- RoySmith (talk) 16:30, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I suppose that hook is still GTG with a simple change to mention "academics"? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:49, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 14 November 2022

The caption for the Ai-Khanoum image, currently in Queue 1, is slightly incorrect. Change from "Disc depicting Cybele, a votive sacrifice, and a Bactrian sun god" to "Disc depicting the Greek deities Cybele and Helios with Oriental religious imagery." Better accompanies the hook, as well. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I see that the caption has been copied from the target article, including a link to a dab page! If your caption is better, AirshipJungleman29, why haven’t you changed the caption in the article yet? The reason why changing the article caption first is that it gets the eyes of page watchers and if everyone is happy, it’s probably ok. I for one am no expert on these matters. Schwede66 17:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I should clarify that the hook changed since you commented following a complaint at WP:ERRORS (which BTW is the correct venue of asking for changes when something is close to going onto the main page). Schwede66 17:27, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
My mistake. I'll take it there, Schwede66. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Not a mistake; it’s impossible to know everything. I’ll close this request. Schwede66 17:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Below 60 approved hooks

@DYK admins: We are now below 60 approved hooks. I don't remember what time the change to 1 set a day needs to be made though. SL93 (talk) 20:43, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

We change after midnight UTC. Schwede66 21:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't know how the switchover process works, but note that Burton upon Trent war memorial, currently in prep 7, is scheduled for November 13th, UK time. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
@DYK admins: since it's after midnight UTC, someone'll need to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400 in the next ten hours or so. Many thanks! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 02:04, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
I've swapped it over. RoySmith, how to do the change is explained in the admin instructions. Once a change like that has been done, we need to check whether there are special occasion hooks. If yes, there's a bit of shuffling required. I'll look after the Burton upon Trent war memorial hook; thanks for pointing it out. Schwede66 02:09, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

One filled queue 11/11

@DYK admins: we are down to one filled queue. Your help to move preps to queues is appreciated. TSventon (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

on it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:37, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Date formats in hooks?

Template:Did you know nominations/Nathan Smith (footballer, born 1996) uses "6 August 2016". Is there a standard for how to format dates in hooks (DMY vs MDY), or is that up to the author? -- RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

I assumed that it's the same for articles, which is the standard date format for whatever country the article subject is in. SL93 (talk) 16:35, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Indeed. Reflect what is used in the target article, which in itself should use what is used in the relevant country. Schwede66 16:47, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
It should follow MOS:DATETIES- in this case, as Smith is from England which uses DMY dates, that is appropriate. Although do we really need the exact date of his debut in the hook anyway? "August 2016" or just "2016" would probably be fine in the hook, as there's nothing special about the 16th August. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Beyond my generic reply, I agree with Joseph. I can’t see anything special about the exact date; it’s too specific. Schwede66 17:33, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
OK, thanks. I've updated Queue 7. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:30, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

KrinkleBot

I believe KrinkleBot is down. I've left a note for Krinkle on Commons, but if the bot isn't back up in time for the next update, @DYK admins: should be prepared to manually take care of image protection (or find a Commons admin to do it).  MANdARAXXAЯAbИAM  22:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

@Mandarax: it's been a long time since I've done this, so I hope I got it correct. I believe adding the image at Wikipedia:Main Page/Commons media protection will also protect it, which is what I just did. At least, that's how I read the instructions at Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions. If anyone is interested, here is a who's who of Commons:Administrators. That list can be sorted according to language. — Maile (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
As I mentioned at WP:ERRORS, that doesn't work when KrinkleBot is down, and the instructions I linked to above are the correct steps. Thanks again to Schwede66 for taking care of this, enabling the DYK bot to perform the update. Admins should be prepared to do it again in case KrinkleBot is still down in eleven hours.  MANdARAXXAЯAbИAM  01:06, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I'll be available until about 21:00h UTC. Feel free to give me a ping before then if the next photo needs protecting, too. Schwede66 04:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
KrinkleBot is still down. Thank you for the offer, Schwede, but I've already gotten a Commons admin to take care of it, so we should be all set for the next update.  MANdARAXXAЯAbИAM  09:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I've restarted the bot, sorry about that. Legoktm (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Legoktm! BTW, I'm curious ... did you get my ping on Krinkle's talk page? (I get a notification of a successful ping here, and that's supposed to be my global preference, but I didn't get one for that Commons ping.)  MANdARAXXAЯAbИAM  18:32, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
No, I got pinged separately on Commons:AN. Legoktm (talk) 18:46, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Hmmm... that's odd. The idiosyncrasies of the notification system.... Thanks for the reply.  MANdARAXXAЯAbИAM  18:57, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
No, not odd but as designed. Mandarax, to trigger a ping, you need to place the notification AND your signature in the same talk page edit. Missing one or the other will not trigger a ping. Schwede66 19:09, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I did that: a new message with mentions and my signature all in one edit.  MANdARAXXAЯAbИAM  19:21, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
Ah; I looked at the other edits. Yes, that should indeed have triggered a ping. Not sure where the technical details are documented for Commons. Schwede66 02:18, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

New articles only for DYK a problem.

The criteria for mainly new articles for the DYK page creates an issue where mainstream pop culture, which generates a ton of the media links required to build articles, takes over.

Giving new articles some priority would be fine, but your 7 day system is leading to the spate of Taylor Swift DYK articles, sometimes every 3 days!

Your system has created a reverse cascading stock market crash- one sell causes another, in this case, media juggernauts like Taylor Swift completely overwhelm the system because they are big.

Perhaps a better analogy is how Penguin Random House has bought up 1/2 the publishing industry. You've created an environment where big monopolies control the information.

I'd suggest you relax the 7 day rule, and let editors cruise the more obscure articles for interesting DYK hooks, or limit the subject matter to 1 a year, or both.

Taylor Swift and US Radio stations are gaming the DYK page, and making wikipedia look bad. Our policy is driving this, and needs review.

Thanks all. Billyshiverstick (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

  • What appears on DYK are the products of various editors who are willing to do the work to get something nominated and passed. And as such, we tend to have repeat subject matter because one or more editors is willing to do the work. Taylor Swift might be your pet peeve about DYK content ... but I've been contributing to DYK for the last decade, and never even noticed Swift got any hook, much less more than one. As for the radio station contributions, I find them interesting and like seeing them. Different strokes for different folks. — Maile (talk) 02:22, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Not sure why relaxing the seven day rule would help with this goal. I'm sure there's hundreds more mainstream pop culture articles that would appear in that time frame. CMD (talk) 03:27, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
  • limit the subject matter to 1 a year – there's no way that I could support such a constraint. DYK is complex enough as it is. We don't need a topic area police that has to keep tabs on when a particular topic last made an appearance. Schwede66 04:29, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
    Agreed - plus problems of definition would be endless. Perhaps you didn't notice those 4+6 Taylor Swift hooks were spread over 10 months, though the first 4 were pretty close together. Johnbod (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
  • It is in the nature of editor work flows that series of articles on related subjects often appear together. An editor who has written one article on a carnivorous mushroom has the source material to create more. Many editors work this way exclusively, writing a series of related articles; it is quite efficient. Major sports events like the World Cup generate articles on soccer players, and elections trigger articles on newly-elected politicians. That doesn't mean that they have to appear in quick succession, but when I'm assembling a prep area, I can see the preps and queues, but not so easily the recently run articles. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 06:19, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
  • This proposal seems to misunderstand the very purpose of DYK, which is to showcase new or newly improved content. Every year, at least 3,000 articles are featured on DYK (assuming that the bare minimum of 8 DYK hooks appear every 24 hours - the hooks can be changed every 6, 8, or 12 hours if there are a particularly large number of nominations). As Hawkeye7 says, editors often nominate numerous articles about similar topics because they have access to sources that cover several related topics. However, the editors who are preparing DYK queues almost always spread out these topics so a queue isn't dominated by the same topic.
    In addition, the vast majority of Wikipedia articles are stubs or start-class articles, which can be improved relatively easily. It is already the case that editors can cruise the more obscure articles for interesting DYK hooks. The problem is not the fact that some people are submitting a lot of DYK nominations, it's that there is a shortage of nominators. As to OP's claim that a better analogy is how Penguin Random House has bought up 1/2 the publishing industry, that is an apples-to-oranges comparison. Anyone is free to create an article and nominate it for DYK, but many editors choose not to do so. The claim that the prevalence of certain topics makes Wikipedia "look bad" is not supported by any evidence whatsoever; if just a few editors had the ability to do that, then we would have a much larger, systemic problem that goes far beyond DYK.
    This proposal is not even a solution looking for a problem. The proposal itself is a problem, as it will create problems for other editors by introducing unnecessary bureaucracy. It is also overly draconian; not even WP:TFA limits any given topic (e.g. a Taylor Swift song or a radio station) to one per year, and there are only 365 TFAs in a year, not even close to the output that DYK produces. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:56, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Billyshiverstick in my 14+ years submitting articles to DYK I've written over 450 articles, almost all of which have been on fossil insects or plants, and at times has resulted in one or two nominations a week! Would you say that I should only have nominated one article a year, and had that same article volume take 450 YEARS to go through the DYK process?--Kevmin § 15:01, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I would expect the nominators to limit themselves, rather than expect DYK to limit them. If you are doing multiple very similar articles, does each of them really have an actually interesting fact or are you just nominating them to increase the number of DYKs you have? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
    +1, an example of why I oppose removing the broad interest criterion in the above survey. CMD (talk) 16:00, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
    I mean, "very similar" can just mean that they share a very specific set of defining characteristics. It's possible for several articles to be very similar but to also have many interesting, distinct, facts. For example, nearly all of the articles on Category:Broadway theatres have appeared on DYK, but each of them had a unique fact that reviewers found interesting. The problem with interestingness mainly arises when you have to combine several details to get a hooky fact, which mainly happens with shorter articles. If nominators can consistently create very similar articles that also have interesting facts, I don't think that should be a problem. – Epicgenius (talk) 16:40, 10 November 2022 (UTC)
I guess the simplest solution would be: if you don't think your article is a good fit for DYK, then don't nominate it. Not all articles are meant to be for DYK no matter how much we expand or improve them. And that's okay, DYK is just meant to be a bonus and not mandatory. If you improve an article, it will be appreciated by someone out there, even if it's not through DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:02, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I agree. There are plenty of articles that I've improved to GA, but haven't nominated for DYK, because there was nothing particularly interesting about that article. Similarly, not all new/expanded articles have to be on DYK even if they're long enough to be eligible. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:56, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
If you're annoyed there's too many Taylor Swift and radio station hooks at DYK, the solution is to nominate your own DYKs that are neither Taylor Swift nor radio station related. At least for me, my nominations (train related, obviously) are infrequent because I like to take a lot of time with my articles and only create or expand a few a month usually. You also have the option of simply not clicking on the links of DYKs that do not interest you. Tell me, Billyshiverstick, have you nominated an article for DYK before? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:29, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Just going to leave a comment here. Billy can blame me for almost all those radio—and TV—stations (proof). Why do I write so many? Because: 1) we have many gaps in our coverage and stubs, some of them mass-created a long time ago; 2) ample sources exist and are available to me to improve these articles, which include historical trade publications and U.S. regional newspapers, and I know where to go to quickly build out a page; 3) sometimes projects beget projects, like the California trio of KTVU (Stockton, California), KCCC-TV, and KVUE (California), which each have related histories, or KOCT to complement KOAT-TV and KVIA-TV; and 4) I enjoy it greatly. In many cases, in my field, works have inaccurate detail. I just finished an improvement of KOAT-TV for eventual GA status, and I got to correct an incorrect starting date and also disprove later newspaper articles wrong. Oh, and not everything I do starts with K or W. This year, projects have included broadcasting-adjacent items like Lifetime Medical Television, J. Elroy McCaw, and Dennis Swanson, as well as complete surprises like Luis Alegre Salazar, Ranchlander National Bank (which I discovered while working on a radio station project), and The Mutiny Hotel. Topics in prior years have included malls, university presidents, Mexican federal highways, local government in Iowa, and historic buildings. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 08:25, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi, @Billyshiverstick. I think the reason so many DYKS about Taylor have been popping up recently is because of the 7 day timeframe that DYK rules allow for a nomination. Because Midnights just came out, new articles pertaining to it are continually being created and expanded in order to keep up with incoming information, which means that it's now or never (unless there is a fivefold expansion or a GA pass, each of which could takes years to happen) for an appearance on the Main Page. I think we can certainly see a decline in Taylor-related hooks once a few months have passed following the release of Midnights. Also, I can't help but notice that you've never contributed to DYK before. If you want to help out with adding diversity to hooks, you should consider joining us here! Unlimitedlead (talk) 21:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

More prep builders needed

The main prep builders have been me and RoySmith, who has mentioned getting into burnout mode several days ago. Hopefully we can get enough editors building preps so that we won't go back to two-a-days for a while longer. SL93 (talk) 16:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Ping RoySmith SL93 (talk) 16:30, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
We certainly need more people working this, but that's not going to affect how long we can stay at one-a-day. The math is simple. As long as hooks get approved at the same rate, and promoted at the same rate (currently pegged at 8/day), the pool of approved hooks will grow and shrink based purely on the difference between those two rates. Those of you who studied calculus in school will fondly remember all those funnels and bathtubs filling and draining.
As I said in the RFC that's running above, rather than loosen the approval criteria, I think we should tighten it up. We'll be running better material and we'll have less burnout. Enticing more people to work on preps will help with the burnout, but it won't do anything about the quality of the material we push out the door to meet our numbers. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Sorry about my mistake. I was thinking of mentioning something else instead, and it wouldn't have come across as nice towards many of those who don't bother filling preps. I'm not always good at sugarcoating things. SL93 (talk) 17:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
@RoySmith: You might enjoy the charts at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 185#We're below 60! :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 21:02, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: I've been burned out for quite a while, but I can try to handle things this week. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 21:00, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • I'd love to help out with prep building once in a while, but a combination of on-Wiki burnout and real-life commitments are making it difficult. If I have time I may try contributing here and there. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

One filled queue 13/11

@DYK admins: we are down to one filled queue. Your help to move preps to queues is appreciated. TSventon (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I just saw this mentioned at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Awolf58. From what I can see, it's just generic vandalism, but worth keeping a closer eye on the article while it's on the front page. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:19, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Queue 6: Sarah Oakley

  • ... that Captain Sarah Oakley is the first woman to serve as the commanding officer of the Britannia Royal Naval College?

This is a bit of a nitpick, but the source discussed in the review doesn't support this; it only says it was the first time a graduation parade had occurred with a woman leading it. This should be an easy fact to source, if true, but a cursory search only found sources in the daily mail. nom link for convenience. The BBC source also isn't cited to support the hook fact in the body. @Moonraker and Bloom6132: Vanamonde (Talk) 17:58, 13 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this would count, but I found this source from Britannia Royal Naval College#Commanders of the college that has Sarah Oakley as the only woman in the list. It's a personal website, but the home page makes it clear that the author is a subject matter expert. SL93 (talk) 18:43, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I also found this about the author Colin Mackie. SL93 (talk) 18:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
Pinging Schwede66 for thoughts on new source or if the hook should be pulled since it will be on the main page soon. I can add the source to the article if it's considered good enough. SL93 (talk) 23:47, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I see that it hasn't been updated up to her assignment. I would pull it. SL93 (talk) 23:53, 13 November 2022 (UTC)
I've pulled it; it's now in Prep1. I've raided Q2 for an approved (bio) hook; sorry for that. I'm now offline for a few hours. @DYK admins: if somebody would like to plug the hole that I left behind in Q2, please do. Schwede66 00:02, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I suggest Katie Leung in prep 5 as a good replacement for a non-US bio in queue 6. SL93 (talk) 00:05, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Schwede66, if no one can find an RS which says exactly what the hook does, then surely just tweak the hook. Moonraker (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Alt1 … that the passing out parade at Dartmouth in August 2022 was the first with a woman at the helm?

Surely not, Moonraker. If a lengthy discussion here cannot resolve an issue and I see this a few minutes before it goes live, I am always going to pull a hook rather than make something up on the hoof. Schwede66 17:23, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
I boldly changed the hook to Moonraker's suggestion. SL93 (talk) 00:08, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Why did 1920 Xalapa earthquake get promoted without reapproval?

@Fram, Rlink2, and Dora the Axe-plorer: After Template:Did you know nominations/1920 Xalapa earthquake was approved, I raised a question about it. A new hook was written and then promoted without getting a new tick (and is now being discussed on WP:ERRORS). Was this incorrectly promoted? Or was my assumption that adding a question would cancel the prior approval incorrect? -- RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2022 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct. Noms with a query should never be promoted absent a fresh tick, and it's now the second time it's happened today after Shchors (opera)... Promoters need to check for this, alongside performing a general sanity check of the hook, although I assume that it was also never moved from WP:DYKN/A back to WP:DYKN, giving the initial impression that it was approved. That move has to be done manually I believe, as the bot only moves noms in the other direction.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
No, I didn't move it out of /A. I didn't know you were supposed to. To be honest, though, this seems like an area where some improved automation would help a lot. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Actually, just by looking at the number of submissions I see in /A that have disqualifying queries, I'll assume that nobody knows you're supposed to do that, and I just don't see it happening given how much manual work it is. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Wugapodes, you've previously said that you would get WugBot to take care of moving unapproved noms. Will you be able to do it, or should we seek someone else?  MANdARAXXAЯAbИAM  18:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Somebody should write a bot-writing bot. Then we would just have to say, "Metabot, write me a bot to do ...". That would get all these pesky humans out of the loop. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:40, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@Mandarax: I haven't had time. Happy to send the code to anyone interested or add them to the bot group on the tool server. Wug·a·po·des 22:10, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
RoySmith You're not the only one who didn't know it's supposed to be moved out of Approved if a new hook is suggested. I'm an admin, and if I was ever aware of that, it's buried beneath all the other details we have to pay attention to. When I think of all the suggested ALT hooks here on this talk page, some are already approved nominations and I don't remember this ever coming up. — Maile (talk) 19:16, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
For the record, I for one was unaware that manual moving of nominations is required. Schwede66 19:32, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
It's also not a practical use of time in most cases. Most hook changes for what is already on the main page, are resolved at ERRORS. And if not there, then here, and many are just tweaking an existing hook. — Maile (talk) 19:41, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
If I understand things correctly, Maile66, the hook got promoted because the nomination was hosted at WP:DYKN/A. Had it been at Wikipedia:DYKN, where it should have been, this wouldn't have happened. Therefore, having a bot that moves nominations from "approved" back to the non-approved holding area would prevent this mistake from happening. Schwede66 21:00, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66: As far as I'm aware, it isn't – just think there's a miscommunication going around. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 21:08, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Nothing is required, but moving a nom from the approved page back to the unapproved page is certainly advisable, both to avoid erroneous promotions to prep of the sort we've seen today and also so reviewers see the now unapproved nom in their list of things to look at. We had the same discussion a couple of years ago I think, there was a suggestion the bot could be enhanced to do this, but I don't know if that was ever enacted...  — Amakuru (talk) 00:00, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I've moved things back manually before, but this should be picked up by promoters either way. The icon to go by is the bottom-most icon, perhaps the instructions on this can be clearer? Anyway, the bottom icon is already the icon the approval bot reads to my understanding, so I hope an unapprove bot is simple enough to code. CMD (talk) 01:33, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron perhaps PSHAW could recognize an unapproved nom by looking at the bottom-most icon and put up an "are you sure" warning? -- RoySmith (talk) 03:31, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
I am fairly sure I was supposed to do that – gotta make my system more robust :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 04:34, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Flag families

Hello all, regarding Flag families - the image says freely licensed but I just checked one flag (Denmark) and they do not have FOP for 2d . Bruxton (talk) 01:54, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

The image was taken in Canada, and the flags themselves are ineligible for copyright under the threshold of originality. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 02:01, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Also interesting the inclusion of Puerto Rico under the heading of Current national flags in the stars and stripes family. Hog Farm Talk 02:02, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Canada. It cam from Flickr. FOP from Canada says: "Works of artistic craftsmanship" are OK, "graphic works" are not – see United Kingdom section for commentary." Bruxton (talk) 02:05, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
    That only applies if the graphic works are under copyright, right? They're not, so no one else can claim copyright to this work. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 02:06, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
That makes sense. NM Bruxton (talk) 02:22, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Looks like Yerko Núñez's hook is over-length. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 01:16, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

I think I took care of it. SL93 (talk) 01:41, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
It's 196 characters at the moment. Schwede66 04:42, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Streichmelodion

Somehow this got listed twice, under both November 12 and November 13. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:14, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for catching this. I removed the one under November 12, since it was nominated on Nov 13. — Maile (talk) 22:39, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
I moved it to November 12, which was the date the article was moved to mainspace, and thus the date the creation is considered to have occurred. Nominations should be placed under the creation date/move to mainspace/expansion start/GA listing, not the date they were eventually nominated. Courtesy ping to RoySmith and Maile. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for moving it and for clarifying this for us. — Maile (talk) 23:10, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

One filled queue 20/11

@DYK admins: we are down to one filled queue. Your help to move preps to queues is appreciated. TSventon (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@DYK admins: Two preps were switched around for promotion to queue because a prep had a missing hook, but Cranksgiving is meant for November 24. SL93 (talk) 16:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Are you asking for it to go to Q2? Schwede66 18:25, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Yes. SL93 (talk) 18:32, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

@DYK admins: I've done a round robin swap between Q7 and Q2. Whoever gets to promote the next set, please place Prep2 into Q7, and set the prep counter to "3". Schwede66 19:04, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. SL93 (talk) 19:06, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
The move should be reverted ASAP, as it messes up the history of the queues. —Kusma (talk) 19:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Fair enough. Have swapped it back and moved the content manually. The instructions for the next promotion to queue thus remain the same. Schwede66 20:07, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
@DYK admins: , can we please avoid promoting preps out of order in future? It never used to be an issue that we'd have out-of-order promotions, and now it seems to be a fairly frequent issue. Requests to fill preps if the next prep is missing a hook are likely to be looked at quickly and a swap-in done, or you can do your own hook move from a later prep to fill the current prep and then promote in proper order. Of course, having said that, we're now in the situation where Queue 7 is empty and needs to be filled from Prep 2, which was the original set of hooks created in Prep 7 for Queue 7 before the prep contents were swapped. If one of you could do that non-intuitive promotion of Prep 2 to Queue 7, we'll be set for the next little while. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:57, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
Just so that it doesn't get buried and to re-iterate what BlueMoonset says: Whoever gets to promote the next set, please place Prep2 into Q7, and set the prep counter to "3". Schwede66 23:05, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66 and BlueMoonset: Done, if I understand: Prep 2 promoted to Queue 7. Prep 3 is now at the top of the promotion tier. I hope we don't go through this again -- it makes for a confused thing, moving from a prep that is a different number than the targeted queue. — Maile (talk) 02:17, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

DYK credit for Albert Sack

For some reason I didn’t get credit for Albert Sack. Thriley (talk) 02:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

thhhat's my bad! theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 02:11, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Thank you leeky! Thriley (talk) 02:13, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Expedited review request for article with significant anniversary on Sunday (November 20)

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


I recently created and moved to mainspace Killing of Sara-Nicole Morales (nom here), about an event that marks its one-year anniversary on November 20, i.e. this coming Sunday. I am therefore asking if someone can review it ASAP ... if approved, it would likely go in Q5 or (better) Q6 (both of which, I am aware, are otherwise ready).

I am sorry this is near deadline ... I got bogged down over the last couple of months working on something else, and busy offline for the last couple of weeks too. Had I been able to do it earlier, I certainly would have. Daniel Case (talk) 20:31, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

I am willing to review right now. Similar request for 22 November: Template:Did you know nominations/Canticle II: Abraham and Isaac explained in detail in the nom. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:41, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I read the article and don't know why 20 Nov, when ibox and article body say 21 Nov, Daniel? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Typo, sources say 20 Nov. I've corrected the article. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 22:04, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I saw that much but she was pronounced dead 21 Nov, - so was she killed 20 Nov? I really don't know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:16, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
We have now an approved hook. It doesn't mention the anniversary of the shooting (20 Nov) or her death (21 Nov) but requires admin action if it should go to one of those days which would make sense to me.
Hang back just a moment, I've re-opened the nomination temporarily. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 11:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Current ambassador?

Is there any problem with current Ukrainian ambassador to Indonesia in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6, vis-a-vis "The hook should refer to established facts that are unlikely to change"? What's current today won't be current at some point in the future. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:52, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The evacuation was a specific point in time, so word tweaks might be enough? "... that the daughter of the Ukrainian ambassador to Indonesia was evacuated together with Indonesian citizens after the Russian invasion of Ukraine?" CMD (talk) 03:38, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
Done -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

... that John Foster, a Boston printer, made an engraving of Richard Mather around 1670, the first produced in colonial America (pictured)?

This is a "first" hook that requires extra scrutiny. My searches haven't found anything contradicting it, provided what we're referring to is printings of art rather than writing, presumably following an engraving; other forms of printing appear to have existed much earlier. Can the linking at the prose be adjusted to clarify them? @Gwillhickers and Blameless: Vanamonde (Talk) 23:35, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

I'm also rather skeptical of the claim that he printed the first bible in colonial America, sourced to an 1874 book. At the very least this should be clarified to say that it was in the British colonies; it beggars belief that the Spanish American colonies had no printed bibles before this. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:39, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
I'd imagine that those printed bibles could have been imported, rather than printed? theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 23:45, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: — I just specified 'British' colonial America in the article. The lede and the hook specify engraving, which of course was printed. - Gwillhickers (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: — In regards to the first printing of the Bible I also specified, "in the English language", supported by the existing source, Thomas, 1874, v. 1. p. 107, who to this day is one of the leading authorities of printing in colonial America. [Add: I also added a footnote clarifying that 'the' first bible printed, was Eliot's Indian Bible, with citations.] -- Gwillhickers (talk) 00:22, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
@Gwillhickers: Thank you, looks good. May I trouble you to find useful links for "printing" and "engraving" also? Vanamonde (Talk) 05:36, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
There is a space before the question mark that needs to be fixed (in the queue itself). SL93 (talk) 16:05, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Removed. Schwede66 16:20, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
@Vanamonde93: — Okay, we can link 'engraving' but would like to pass on linking 'printing', as this is a rather common knowledge term, and besides, I'm assuming we don't want too many links in the hook. As I'm not an administrator, would it be proper for me to edit the hook while it's in the Queue, or will you handle matters? In any case, thanks to all for your help, and for looking out. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:50, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
If it's just a plain link to "engraving" I can add that; queues are only editable by admins anyhow. Thanks. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:01, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
Once again, many thanks for all your help. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 22:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Only just seen this, but 1) "printing" is unclear and poor English. It surely wasn't the first printed book in British America? Do you mean "print", ie printed image? You could link old master print or popular print - on quality grounds it is perhaps more the latter. 2) Are we ACTUALLY sure this is an engraving? Looking at the pretty crude image, it could be an etching or even a woodcut. 3) Havana in particular had printing long before this, so any claim should be explicitly limited to British America. Johnbod (talk) 18:15, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Ok, the article actually says it is a woodcut. THIS IS NOT AN ENGRAVING AT ALL!!! FFS. It should NOT be called one. Johnbod (talk) 18:17, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
User:SL93, I very strongly suggest you de-promote this one - none of the current hooks are at all accurate. There is also the sock-puppet issue raised by Roy below. I have corrected all (I hope) of the basic mistakes in terminology in the actual article. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Johnbod I can't de-promote as a non-admin. SL93 (talk) 18:49, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
You are two days late. It already ran. SL93 (talk) 18:51, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Prep 5: I. C. Vissarion

I can see what the hook is trying to say here, that he was a novelist but some other novelist wrote a book inspired by his experiences. However, I think the hook as written can be interpreted as a bolder claim, that none of Vissarion's own books were inspired by his experiences. That seems slightly unlikely, and is I don't think supported by the source linked, which deals primarily with the other novel. Probably a slight rewrite of the hook would be in order. @Onegreatjoke, Dahn, and SL93:. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru: None of his published novels were inspired by that particular episode, that is indeed the case; the article pretty much summarizes all of them (the episode may be referred to in one of his unpublished novels, granted, but these technically do not exist, as far as wikipedia is concerned). This is not the main point of the hook, which can indeed be rephrased if it must, but it just happens to actually be the case. Dahn (talk) 19:15, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Also note that the hook has a verified ALT which we can switch to. Dahn (talk) 19:34, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Amakuru I changed it to ALT1. SL93 (talk) 00:09, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: OK thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:12, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Admin needed to fix hook formatting in Queue 4

The third hook in Queue 4 needs a space inserted between "..." and "that". Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:11, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Done -- RoySmith (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

The case for adding featured articles to newness.

Hey, so one of the things that I've had a question for a while is the fact that featured articles don't automatically towards the 7 day newness stuff, even though good articles do. I feel as If it should be and I'm going to give my reasons why.

Reason 1 - GAs have this ability to be allowed nomination after 7 days of their promotion regardless of whether they were expanded or not. I support this fully, yet I've never understood why this same logic doesn't apply for FA. FAs are wikipedia's best articles by quality having gone through heavy review by multiple wikipedians. DYK's rules says that "...DYK's main purpose is to showcase new and improved content.." and I feel that FAs are definitely one the best examples of this.

Reason 2 - TFA has never been a restriction for DYK nominations. The best example of this is Glass. It became a FA and then became a TFA. Then, it got demoted, promoted to GA, and THEN allowed to be a DYK hook. So the possible argument of "Well there's already TFA" doesn't apply here. Especially when there's an ongoing discussion on whether or not to remove some of the restrictions such as OTD or ITN. Basically, TFA shouldn't be a problem.

Reason 3 - The allowing of FAs shouldn't cause much of a problem in the backlog. There are usually on average 20-30 FA promotions a month. That's significantly less promotions than GAs. So the backlog shouldn't really be a problem.

I had like two other reasons for this but my brain has annoyingly forgotten about them. But yeah, it is my belief that FAs should be an option for newness along with GAs, Expansions, and Creations. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

The point of DYK is to give articles exposure on the home page. Don't FA's get that already? -- RoySmith (talk) 20:48, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
FAs can get even better exposure than DYKs as TFA, so it is fine not to also have them at DYK. Note also that most FAs go through GA nowadays. —Kusma (talk) 20:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
What's the point of newly-promoted Featured Articles being featured on DYK if they're already FAs? We already have TFA for such cases. And yes I note that this point has already been mentioned, but they're called "Featured" Articles for a reason: because they're meant to be featured on the Main Page. I however would not oppose the idea of delisted FAs that are brought to GA status being featured on DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:23, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
@Onegreatjoke: Please see Wikipedia:Did you know/Good Article RfC. Good Articles originally had no pathway at all to appear on the Main Page, while Featured content and DYK did. This had been debated back and forth for as far back as I can remember. And since GA is a process that exists solely to improve content, as opposed to the DYK criteria, there were suggestions over the years to completely replace DYK with GA content only. The RFC was conducted to gain a consensus to add GA to the DYK main page slot. Featured has it own main-page slots (Featured Articles and Featured Lists) already. — Maile (talk) 01:25, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, DYK is the only pathway for the GAs to be featured on the main page. But TFA can feature only a limited number of pages per week. --Mhhossein talk 06:07, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
But TFA is dedicated solely to FAs; according to Wikipedia:Featured articles that haven't been on the Main Page, the Main Page's topmost section has featured 88.1% of all FAs. 18.1% of current GAs have appeared at DYK, either before or after their Main Page run. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 09:47, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I disagree with including Featured Articles in our slot. TFA, TFL and TFP all have slightly different processes in how they get to the main page. Their screenong process is not like ours, where individual candidates have one reviewer.
  • Both Featured Articles and Featured Lists can be new content, but are are often improved very old content, and only achieve Featured status after grueling reviews by multiple editors who check every little detail. Date of achieving Featured status is not a factor for main page appearance, and all are eligible for repeat appearances over the years.
  • The daily Featured Articles WP:TFAR and WP:TFAP are suggested and voted on by any editors who wish to participate in that. As is their choice, sometimes they will put FA on the main page that has been there before, and/or very old or very new FA.
  • Featured Lists WP:FLC must go through a grueling review to achieve Featured status. Appearance on the Main page can be of any age and suggested by any editor, but not voted on WP:TFLS. The selection of what makes it on the main page is at the discretion of those who run TFL. Feature Pictures WP:FPC has a similar process.
DYK has no shortage of candidates on its own. — Maile (talk) 12:13, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
we're in agreement, then. theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 12:39, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
I don't think it helps readers to have an FA trotted out multiple times. Valereee (talk) 14:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
Here's a quick note, outside of very strange situations, articles can hit the main page currently four times as bolded items, but pretty much articles get twice if actively persued. Here's an example of how an article might become four time main bolded item:
Created item becomes in the News for a recent death, is then expanded by 5x to DYK (or passes a GA), and is deemed important enough historically to become a OTD news item. Eventually becomes an FA and runs as a TFA.
Most items either go through DYK or ITN on route to TFA; but if it's not nominated at that time, I don't see what we would gain by having FAs included as a part of DYK. It doesn't show new work, doesn't leave room for expansion/improvement and is going to be featured on the main page anyway. If your article has gotten to FA already, you really don't need it to go to the main page twice. Not to mention, it would completely kill the WP:FOUR award. Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 14:12, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
The article could also include a Featured Picture :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 19:28, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Approved hook has remained in nomination area for a few days; is there something I still need to do?

I'm not sure where the right place to ask about this is, but a hook I nominated received approval with a green checkmark a few days ago, but it's remained in the nomination area. Is there something I'm missing or still need to do? (link to the hook in question) I struck through the versions of the hook the reviewer was unsatisfied with, and the reviewer approved all the ALTs (ALT2–ALT5) I created as substitutes. It was my fourth-ever DYK, so it's exempt from QPQ. P-Makoto (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anything wrong with the nom. There was no space between a signature and the tick, so I added one. We'll see if that's what prevented the bot from moving it. If the bot doesn't do it on its next pass, I'll manually move it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:19, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! P-Makoto (talk) 18:28, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Don't worry if in future your approved noms take a while to get processed. Our reviewing, promoting and prepping volunteers work hard, but the workload is heavy, and most of the time they are short-staffed. That means that some noms can take more than a month to reach the Main Page, through no fault of the nom itself. Well done for getting this far in only 6 days. Storye book (talk) 18:29, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Upon closer examination, I noticed that the tick was 20px instead of 16px. I fixed that, and now I'm pretty sure the bot will recognize it and move the nom to the Approved page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:34, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
@Engmaj: in the future, you'll want to use {{subst:DYKyes}} to signal your approval of a nomination :) theleekycauldron (talkcontribs) (she/her) 18:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
The bot did move it. Thanks for bringing this up, P-Makoto. Now you'll just have to have a bit more patience until it's promoted. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:07, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much! I understand that the process of nominations getting to the front page can be slow, since there's a lot of content and a lot of work; thanks very much for all y'all do. I was just confused it hadn't been moved to the staging area after being approved. Glad to hear it was just an accident of text formatting, and thanks again for finding and fixing it. Now it's just a matter of (perhaps a lot, but oh well) of time before Hadley's moment in the sun. P-Makoto (talk) 19:47, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment: hooks from articles that previously appeared on the Main Page

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.




DYK eligibility criterion 1d currently states, An article is ineligible for DYK if it has previously appeared on the main page as bold link in "Did you know", "In the news", or the prose section of "On this day". (Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not count.) Should this criterion be kept as is or modified? If you !vote for modification, please specify how. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Background

A DYK nomination for new GA Thurgood Marshall was recently declined on the basis of criterion 1d, having appeared in OTD, most recently in 2014. In discussion above, some editors questioned the usefulness of the rule overall, suggesting it be weakened, such as by limiting the restriction to six months rather than indefinitely. This RfC seeks to more formally assess whether or not there is consensus to modify or remove the criterion. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Survey

  • Modified to limit the restriction to six months, or a similarly reasonable timeframe. Copying my rationale from above:

    From a reader perspective, there are more interesting facts available about the kinds of better-known topics that tend to have appeared on OTD/ITN than about niche topics that people have never heard of (that therefore have to establish within the hook why anyone should care about them, something many do not do). And from the perspective of DYK as an incentive to improve articles, we want to encourage and reward editors to improve articles on better-known topics, as they have far more pageviews and thus greater impact for readers. So from both angles, these are the kinds of nominations we should be welcoming, not blocking.

    {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
    I agree. Unlimitedlead (talk) 13:20, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
    I think this is a strong rationale and a good compromise. jengod (talk) 23:25, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Pinging participants above: @Unlimitedlead, @Onegreatjoke, @Theleekycauldron, @Schwede66, @Chipmunkdavis, @Extraordinary Writ, @Narutolovehinata5, @Amakuru, @BlueMoonset. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

Notified: WT:Main Page. {{u|Sdkb}}talk 05:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, but just the idea and not necessarily the timeframe. The timeframe I actually had in mind was a year, but I'm not sure if that or six months is a more feasible option, so I'll leave it to consensus. However, I don't think it's fair to deprive articles the right to be featured on DYK simply because they've already been on the main page before, especially if they would have been eligible otherwise. Indeed, if an article was formerly a TFA but has been delisted, but since promoted to GA status, why should it be prevented from running on DYK? It's not like TFAs can't repeat either, so it sounds fair. On the other hand, I'm not actually sure how much this rule change would impact things. Articles that are bolded links on OTD and to a lesser extent ITN are usually already of a sufficient quality that it's usually difficult for them to become eligible other than by attaining GA status. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:25, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
  • The current rule actually doesn't preclude ex-TFA runs, unless I'm missing something, and I belive it's happened at least once. Regardless, I broadly support relaxing this for ITN/OTD; oppose relaxing for articles that have already been in DYK, unless the article is a complete or near-complete rewrite (e.g. due to copyvio). And I also think it's good to allow for some flexibility. So maybe something like