Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}

This is where the Did you know section on the main page, its policies, and its processes can be discussed.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fixed. You don't need both, so I've redirected the older of the two.--Launchballer 11:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the standard syntax for the repeater DYK (a space in front or a numeral after)?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that the syntax for a repeat nomination is a space and numeral after, e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Stowe Gardens 2. TSventon (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With the redirect already pointing to the current location, what should we do to name it correctly?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue it should really be "Jordan Murphy (basketball) (2nd nomination)", absolutely not worth moving now.--Launchballer 12:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am sure that there have been several repeaters go through the system. I can see several possible conventions. (#, _#, /#, /DYK#,_(#th nomination)—underscore being a space). Before we have a whole bunch of each, can we come to a formal agreement? Then can we update the bot/tool to automatically name following an agreed convention?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am kind of disappointed that no one wants to try to have a formal repeat nomination naming convention discussion. I think we should figure this out for future consistency.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

Hi all

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks

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

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

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

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

Any more Ramadan?[edit]

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

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

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

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

More than one month old

Other nominations

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

Ending QPQ backlog mode[edit]

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

Spare reviews for donating[edit]

Notice to admins, reviewers, promoters and other elves:

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

Backlog metrics[edit]

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

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

Rejections as QPQs[edit]

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

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

Advice on MOS[edit]

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

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

Special date request[edit]

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

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

Queues are empty[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Liviu Holender in prep 7 is boring[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Do we have to keep doing this?[edit]

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

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

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

Queue 1[edit]

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

George W. Monroe (1911)
George W. Monroe (1911)
  • ... that Broadway and vaudeville star George W. Munroe (pictured) was known for his comic female impersonations of elderly Irish women? Source: "George W. Munroe, Actor, Dies'At 70; Once Star of 'My Aunt Bridget' Was Noted for His Characterizations of Irish Women". The New York Times. January 30, 1932. p. 17.
George W. Munroe (1911)

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

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

Queue 4 at 00:00 11 April[edit]

Pokémon Crystal[edit]

Queue 4: Pokémon Crystal (nom)

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

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

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

Kylie and Garibay (EP)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Drew Golz hook tweaks[edit]

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

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

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

Queue 6 formatting issue; admin needed[edit]

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

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

Beetle nominations, as well as WikiEdu nominations[edit]

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

WikiEdu nominations have over the years been known for this, but given how there had already been discussions before with WikiEdu regarding article and DYK quality control, it's a bit surprising this continues to happen. The course handling these beetle nominations is [1]; can one of us contact the instructors and inform them of DYK standards to ensure the articles done by the students actually meet requirements, as well as to discuss concerns regarding responsiveness?

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

Yep, I've noticed the same. I support that we contact WikiEdu. Schwede66 08:21, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've already contacted them multiple times in the past, and yet despite responses and even promises to change things, this still happens. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Ian (Wiki Ed) and Helaine (Wiki Ed), the two Wikipedian/WikiEdu people listed for this particular course. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:47, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We had an alert that told us when students nominated articles for DYK, but looking at my email archives it seems like it's been broken for a while.
I will contact the instructor for this class and remind them to remind their students that if they nominate an article for DYK they need to stick around and respond to feedback. Ian (Wiki Ed) (talk) 15:01, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you very much. But as this has been a recurring issue across years, I think a wider discussion about DYK's relationship with Wiki Edu also needs to be done to ensure this does not happen again, even with other courses. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:57, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What would the wider discussion result in? I guess what I'm wondering is if it's unusual that new editors who nominate to DYK are more likely to not follow through than experienced editors, no matter how they got introduced to Wikipedia. Or said another way, what do we have to gain from establishing a formal rule or decision that treats nominations resulting from WikiEdu work in a particularly different way? If a nomination isn't fit for promotion and the nominator isn't responsive, we don't advance the nomination, and we in the end fail it, no matter what the nomination's origin is. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:43, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
One argument could be that there is a WP:CIR issue with WikiEdu when this has become a recurring issue over the years. If it was just an isolated case, it may not be a problem, but WikiEdu nominations have been like this for a long time, across multiple nominations and courses. It's a project intended to teach Wikipedia editing, and if this is to be the case, it has to be done right.
One nuclear option would be a ban on WikiEdu nominations until the competence issues are sorted out. However, this would be unlikely to get any consensus and indeed even I would personally be against it. What DYK needs is more contributions, especially from new blood, not restricting it. The main reason I brought up the idea of a wider discussion is because this has been happening for years but the perennial issue has remained. Ideas probably need to happen on how to address this that isn't just simply "contacting the student and/or instructor" given the lack of success rate for the latter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand the desire for a different means when clearer instruction to instructors and students has mixed results (though I'd muse that discerning the success rate seems difficult; DYK probably only notices that a nomination is from an editor introduced to Wikipedia via WikiEdu when something goes wrong; if a nomination goes well, would DYK have any reason to notice its origins with WikiEdu?). I guess what I'm wondering is what purported solutions would look like. Somehow persuading (requiring?) the WikiEdu nonprofit to add a DYK unit to their curriculum, or them requiring(?) teachers and professors to have such? I'm not sure what influence DYK could or should expect to exercise over disparate faculty's classrooms. But that might be me putting the conversation before the horse when there can be all kinds of ideas others may think of. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 08:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember Ian and the project talked before about perhaps requiring some level of quality control. Either discouraging instructors from requiring DYK as a class requirement, or ensuring that the instructors would themselves be familiar with how DYK works.
One possible idea I have in mind, one that perhaps could also be implemented on the WikiEdu side, is that if a course is planning to have DYK in the curriculum, the DYK project is already notified in advance and one of us could be used as a resource and contact person. In many cases, the instructors themselves are unfamiliar with DYK or even Wikipedia editing in general, which makes things hard. Having someone from the DYK project being involved if only as a consultant or in another role might help prevent such issues from happening. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:29, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, in the case of this Behavioral Ecology 2024 course (timeline here), it appears that while it has two more weeks to run, the Wikipedia component has no more activities (the final ones were last week), and that DYK was an optional assignment in the first full week of March, a full five weeks ago. Ian (Wiki Ed), what are your plans—or that of WikiEdu as a whole—to avoid this kind of blindsiding that those of us here at DYK have to deal with several times a year? I think it's time and past for WikiEdu to be proactive rather than reactive if DYK is to continue to be an involuntary participant in your activities. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Most Wiki Education assignments get marked on the article's talk page as such. I wonder whether it's easy enough for a bot to mark Wiki Education assignment nominations to DYK? I suggest we put those nominations on hold until we have confirmation from the course coordinator that the students have been tasked with responding to reviews, and that their course timeline allows for that. Putting these nominations on hold automatically will stop a lot of reviewers from needlessly wasting their time. Schwede66 23:23, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We already have Category:Wikipedia Did you know nominations by WikiEd students but it's barely been used and hasn't had new entries since 2021. If we could perhaps have a bot or otherwise require the associated template with it for WikiEdu courses, maybe that would raise attention towards them. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:05, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this would only be useful if categorised by a bot. I didn't even know about the category! The bot could also place a template advising of the situation (e.g. the hold, if others agree with that approach). Schwede66 00:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The category is associated with {{Note DYK nominator WikiEd}}. I suggested before that it be made mandatory for WikiEdu DYK nominations and I still don't know why that never happened. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
an involuntary participant in your activities—are we? DYK participants choose what to review and what to ignore, what to pass and what to fail. I guess I'm struggling to see how we're being muscled into some sort of exploitative relationship with WikiEducation. Participation with nominations whose origins lie with WikiEducation seems as involuntary as participation with any nomination, or any nomination with a relatively new editor. I can sympathize with ill-prepared or unsuitable nominations being annoying, but they're annoying whether or not they have to do with WikiEducation. I can recognize there being some level of hassle hassle, but eventually it seems the injury to DYK amounts to—what? Commenting on a nomination that it's been prepared poorly, getting no response for a while, and then procedurally failing it? Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If these were just isolated incidents, it wouldn't be an issue, but the fact that WikiEdu nominations have been like this for years, and despite efforts to do something about them things have not improved, it shows there is a fundamental issue going on here. It's true that nominations by very new editors tend to have a high chance of failing in general, not juts WikiEdu nominations, but when one point of WikiEdu is to teach people how Wikipedia works, what's going on means it's not meeting that goal well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring Error in Submission[edit]

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

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

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

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


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

Which article are you trying to nominate?--Launchballer 15:54, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken the liberty of commenting it out. My guess is it had something to do with the numerous unclosed links (you'd used 'l' instead of ']' or '|' in a few places). I've created the nom for you.--Launchballer 02:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Judging from the fact that the error message incorrectly links to Template:Did you know nominations/ and that there is no DYKmake template in the commented-out wikitext, I'm gonna take a wild guess and say our friend here forgot to specify the article title in the relevant field. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Launchballer User:Narutolovehinata5, shouldn't we somehow enable the bot/tool to accommodate nth nominations, which would require a rule.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 02:53, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I addressed the wrong person.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a good idea, but I don't know if having a fixed rule on the naming conventions should be since that would require consensus. It might be easy to do through the Wizard at least. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:09, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
no, we don't need a community vote on precisely what convention to use. that would be silly. we just need it to be implemented in the code. if the author chooses something unworkable, we'll change it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:57, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know that it would be silly to decide by ourselves and give them a directive, but it is acceptable for them to implement a reasonable code. In the mean time I have nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Chris Hill (basketball)/DYK2, Template:Did you know nominations/Jordan Murphy (basketball)2 and Template:Did you know nominations/In a World...(2nd nomination), which is a bit silly.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:27, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I thought that this could use wider discussion. I had a chance to read the Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew Tate nomination. I was surprised to see editors ready to approve this hook ALT1: ... that one of the most-liked tweets of all time was Greta Thunberg's response to Andrew Tate (pictured) in December 2022?
The hook is less about this BLP article and more about the Greta Thunberg tweet which said, "yes, please do enlighten me. email me at smalldickenergy@getalife.com". When I read the hook I am more apt to be interested in the tweet than the featured article. I also think it violates our WP:DYKHOOKBLP.

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

Bruxton (talk) 15:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would be more than happy to never see an image of Tate on the Main page. And even a DYK hook with no image, would make me feel uneasy. How about changing "social media personality" to "alleged rapist, human trafficker and organised crime group member"? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:48, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Joking aside, it is odd how the facts are being downplayed and Tate is being portrayed as a "social media personality" instead. Although the relevant participants have repeatedly claimed otherwise, the DYK nom feels like an attempt at enabling some kind of image rehabilitation or public relations, which we should not be doing. I can't help but feel like we are all being played. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Only just seen this discussion, but really don't understand how you could get this impression. ATL2 that was initially included was "that counter-terror police have expressed concern over influencer Andrew Tate (pictured), due to an increase in cases related to incel culture?", before being removed due to NPOV concerns.
As the DYK and GA nominee, as well as main contributor to the article, I recommend you actually read the article and judge for yourself if it paints Tate in a good light. My main contributions to the articles sections have been war room, views & influence, reception, criminal investigations, as well as lead. My main inspiration to improving the article was lack of detailed coverage of Tate's activities, views and influence, given he is such an well-known figure. Let me know if you think was good PR for Tate or not.
To reguritate what I said in the DYK nomination about including such a controversial DYK:
"It's a shame that there appears to be a "fear" of raising awareness over what I would broadly consider a "toxic influence" to young males. Notably the UK education system thought turning a blind eye to Tate's influence was also the solution,[5] but along with Australia,[6] have done a complete u-turn,[7] realising that ignoring the problem doesn't make it go away, and instead worsened the problem.[8]. Lessons could be learnt here..."[2]
The real question is whether Wikipedia should be playing a role in highlighting how influential the likes of Tate is towards young males, with his brand of misogyny and toxic masculinity, or should we just ignore it and hope it goes away? I'll assume good faith here, but attempts to suppress such a DYK comes across as complicity, even if unknowingly, and survivors of sexual assault and harassment by perpetrators influenced by Tate deserve much better. At minimum acknowledging that Tate is part of the problem, rather than pretending he's not responsible for his influence. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:11, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I sympathize with the concerns and agree that Tate is a horrible person and should not be given a platform, but WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS might be relevant here. If not it specifically then the spirit of it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:23, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Tate may be a horrible human being, but that proposal would very much fall afoul of BLP if not BLPCRIME. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:37, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will say that "social media personality" would be a prime candidate for WP:DYKTRIM. (As would the quotation marks, it has to be said.)--Launchballer 22:42, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) It's not that the editors are ready to approve the ALT1 hook: the entire nomination has been approved and could potentially be promoted at any time. The question is, should Andrew Tate be featured at DYK—because his article was recently listed as a GA—since due to BLP the only hooks that can be run will have neutral characterizations of him when he's not a neutral person? BlueMoonset (talk) 22:50, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We do not feature neutral people at DYK. Reminds me of the saying, "well-behaved women seldom make history". We should promote a hook that directs people to the GA instead of the gotcha tweet. ALT0 was a fact that causes me to want to learn more ... that social media personality Andrew Tate (pictured) was the third most 'googled' person in 2023? But AlT1 directs me to look up the tweet. That is not what we want and probably not what the nominator wants. The person is a social media personality so objecting to that fact also seems wrong. Bruxton (talk) 23:06, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. As an aside, this entire section is faintly bewildering: you have editors openly advocating for WP:RGW bias and insinuating that trying to improve articles on bad people means you are running a PR campaign. I mean, ????? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:15, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like a bit of a catch-22. Tate is a bad person, but a DYK hook can't present Tate in a bad way due to NPOV and BLP policies. But a neutral hook must present Tate in a bad way, but it can't because... Viriditas (talk) 00:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
a neutral hook must present Tate in a bad way Where does WP:DYKCRIT state a hook must serve as a representation of the whole article Viriditas? If it does, we'll have to remove Yuki Sakakihara, Battle of La Haye-du-Puits, Gendarmerie (Czechoslovakia) and CSL Plasma from the next queue because they focus on trivial details. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:12, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The crux of the issue is "unduly focus". Viriditas (talk) 00:18, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided." is the only occurence on that page, and I do not see how that relates to a neutral hook must present Tate in a bad way above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:20, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It relates directly to this discussion and the nomination in several ways. The elimination of ALT2, for one example, which was eliminated due to its so-called negativity, however, it did not unduly focus on such negative features of the subject, but rather presented them in accordance with NPOV and BLP. I think this idea that we have to bend over backwards to avoid negativity is the problem. Tate is a negative character as his article illustrates, so a negative hook is not unreasonable. DYKHOOKBLP is being misinterpreted. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By way of aside, well behaved women seldom make history was an opening line in historian Laurel Ulrich's Vertuous Women Found: New England Ministerial Literature, 1668–1735, American Quarterly 28, no. 1 (Spring 1976): 20–40, here 20, and the full line is [w]ell-behaved women seldom make history; against Antinomians and witches, these pious matrons have had little chance at all. Most historians, considering the domestic by definition irrelevant, have simply assumed the pervasiveness of similar attitudes in the seventeenth century—a social history rebuke of the tendency to study the exceptional (and therefore rare) instead of the everyday (and therefore more commonly experienced), rather than an axiom endorsing controversy to get attention. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:32, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so she was just being factual. Did you know ...that Laurel Thatcher Ulrich was interested in Puritan funeral services and thought plural marriages empowered women?) I wonder, if Google had been around in 1933, how many hits Adolf might have got. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think ... that social media personality Andrew Tate was charged in June 2023 with rape, human trafficking, and forming an organised crime group to sexually exploit women would be a good option - given that coverage of Tate overwhelmingly mentions and focuses on this I don't think it would be undue focus. BilledMammal (talk) 11:30, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No objection. (Did you know... that Adolf Hitler's wife Eva Braun, owned two Scottish Terrier dogs named Negus and Stasi?) Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This doesn't sound compliant with WP:DYKHOOKBLP: Hooks that unduly focus on negative aspects of living persons should be avoided. The hook is focusing entirely and thus unduly on negative things. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would say that by far the most important word in that sentence is "unduly".--Launchballer 14:15, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. We need to be stricter that WP:BLP, and in particular, stricter than WP:BLPCRIME. Our assumption must be that Tate is innocent until proven guilty.
I don't really know what a good hook would be. I was blissfully unaware of Tate until Greta Thunberg's tweet mentioned him. Maybe just mention his kickboxing career? —Kusma (talk) 14:16, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, kickboxing. Always comes in handy. For Wikipedia Main page, anyway. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:21, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)@Martinevans123: I know you are trying to be funny with your Hitler hook, but here is a hook we ran in January 2024. ... that Genghis Khan was extremely charismatic and renowned for his generosity towards his followers? Khan may have been responsible for the deaths of millions more people than Adolf. Bruxton (talk) 14:33, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but I'm sure he was always good to his Mum. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can have a read of Hö'elün and decide for yourself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:54, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: Can you explain the nature of the perceived violation? A number of editors have pointed out that the key words there are "unduly focus" which this does not, but you didn't explain yourself so maybe you weren't mistaken and have an argument here... But you actually need to make that argument. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am approaching this subject dispassionately. But there are editors stating that Tate is objectively bad, and they suggest we need a hook that "takes him down a couple of pegs" or insults him with a WP:NEO tweet. Or an editor suggested a hook that accuses him of crimes in Wikivoice. I think it is a COI if an editor looks at a hook and thinks they need to fashion it to support a thesis. I think a hook should cause people to want to know more about the subject, Tate; and I think ALT0 does that. Readers can click on the article and see a rather comprehensive accounting of his life so far. Bruxton (talk) 17:23, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: I see this was promoted again, but I'm not seeing a consensus to do so with the used hook ("that Andrew Tate was the third most 'googled' person in 2023?") Can you revert the promotion to allow for addition discussion, including of the hook I proposed above? BilledMammal (talk) 06:28, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I think it is difficult to even write a neutral hook about Tate. ALT0 suggests he is "popular" rather than "infamous" (when in reality he was arrested in December 2022 in Romania and the vast majority of those Google searches are going to be people finding out about the story of his unpleasant alleged criminal exploits). Black Kite (talk) 10:39, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incorrect, as per the body: "Tate became widely known in mid-2022 and was searched on Google more times than both Donald Trump and COVID-19 that July"[3]. So he was already very popular prior to his arrest, even if the latter amplified this further. Tate otherwise isn't infamous, there are no RS referencing this. He is an internet celebrity, not a celebrity. CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 10:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would this be the same Andrew Tate who the British Government directed schoolteachers not to discuss with children? [4] [5] I'd say that's fairly infamous (actually, that might make a good hook were it in the article, but no doubt someone would claim it is too negative). Black Kite (talk) 11:03, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but it wouldn't, as since then UK & Austrlian schools have done a u-turn realising they need to train teachers and create courses to combat's Tate's brand of misogyny, as well as allocate substantial funds to do so.[6][7][8]. But I've been too busy wasting my time with this nomination to update the article accordingly. He otherwise does sound infamous, and in hindsight there are two RS claiming this which I hadn't noticed.[9][10] CommunityNotesContributor (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled the hook for now. Discussion on whether the new hook is appropriate, and/or if the article can even on DYK, can continue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History of Palestinian journalism[edit]

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

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

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

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

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

Robert Winterberg[edit]

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

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

Are we leaving backlog mode yet?[edit]

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

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

Islamic vegetarianism (nom):

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

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

My current suggestion is to just replace this by

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

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

Aiming stone (nom)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Kāneiolouma Complex (nom)[edit]

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

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

I'm back. I'll fill the gap now. Schwede66 00:05, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the comments have been addressed. Adflatusstalk 02:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Imamate in Zaydi doctrine[edit]

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

@Cplakidas, Sammi Brie, and PrimalMustelid:

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

@Z1720 It is indeed in the article. In Zaydi doctrine, unlike the Imami Shi'a, the imamate is not hereditary, The point here is that instead of being a hereditary position as in other traditions, it was something that you kind of earned by having followers or leading people in battle. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 01:09, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Sammi Brie: Thanks for the response. I still find this hook to be wordy and confusing. If I'm the only one that thinks this, I'll leave it as is, but I would like to read other editors' opinions first. Z1720 (talk) 01:19, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it's confusing, especially to those who might not be well-versed in Islamic politics. What is an "imamate", what are "public summons for allegiance"? I don't think the issue is the hook fact itself, just the way it's phrased. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:44, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Longlac[edit]

@P199, Coretheapple, and PrimalMustelid:

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

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

Jennifer Martz[edit]

@TonyTheTiger, Ktin, and PrimalMustelid:

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

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

Not in LEAD but with WP:ICs.

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

Finding unreviewed nominations[edit]

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

Scrolling down until I find something normally works, Panamitsu; right now, we have articles like Biodiversity Impact Credit, West Georgia Wolves football, First Shift (film), and Bayron Matos in and amongst the nominations under review. Otherwise, you can just go to the bottom and work up. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:47, 13 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

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