Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 197

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 190←Archive 195Archive 196Archive 197Archive 198Archive 199Archive 200

Can someone explain what is happening with Template:Did you know nominations/Muskan Ahirwar

Hi all

A while ago I nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Muskan Ahirwar for DYK and its was approved but now I see it has been moved from the prep area of week 3 and then not transcluded anywhere else, can someone please tell me what is happening with it?

Thanks very much

John Cummings (talk) 14:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

It's back in the approved list. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks AirshipJungleman29 what does that mean in practice? That its just been delayed a bit because it didn't fit, or is there a problem and I need to do something to address it? Thanks again, John Cummings (talk) 04:03, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
The former. It'll be promoted to a DYK set in some time (could be tomorrow, could be in three weeks). If someone does find a problem, you'll be pinged about it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Ok, thanks very much, do I automatically get a ping when it happens? John Cummings (talk) 14:17, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
No, but if you have the nomination page watchlisted you'll see it come up. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:40, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Possibly worth adding something to WP:PSHAW? There's a custom edit summary already, so unless I'm completely showing my ignorance, editing that to ping the nominator/creator seems feasible.--Launchballer 14:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Thoughts theleekycauldron? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:51, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
I've considered it, but in the end, the vast majority of our nominations come from relatively experienced nominators, and i think they'd find that annoying. I suppose I could have it make a ping if the nomination doesn't have a QPQ, but... eh? ideally, nominators get notified when their work is on air anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:10, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Probably not a great idea to introduce new participants to a system that pings them and then have it stop pinging them at an arbitrary point. CMD (talk) 01:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

theleekycauldron I would really appreciate some kind of ping if its possible, for people inexperienced in doing nominations like me it was a lot of time and effort to work out how to do it. I would feel like a real idiot if I missed it being on the front page... Coincidentally is there a way to go to a copy of the front page at a specific time? If I do miss it being on the front page that would be a nice replacement. Thanks very much, John Cummings (talk) 07:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@John Cummings: You can access a snapshot, eg. Wikipedia:Main Page history/2024 January 2 (some have two snapshots eg. Wikipedia:Main Page history/2024 January 2b). All DYKs are separately archived to the (anachronistically named) Wikipedia:Recent additions/2023/December. CMD (talk) 08:09, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis thanks so much, and these snapshots of the front page include the correct DYKs? (I'm assuming so since the transclusion is to a specific DYK template). Also is there a way to know which version of the front page a specific DYK nomination appeared on? John Cummings (talk) 08:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
The snapshots generally have everything altogether as it showed in real time. Whichever shapshot your DYK shows on is very probably the correct one. CMD (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks Chipmunkdavis, John Cummings (talk) 09:34, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Hanging Stone and the Nomination

Wondering why this article got so many views. Five days ago I started this article about a large stone. It was nominated and it is approved but has not even appeared on DYK yet. I was gobsmacked by the 23,866 views for this granite stone. Bruxton (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

An internet search of "Hanging Stone" suggests Reddit may be responsible. TSventon (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
@TSventon: Interesting - I have never been on that site. Bruxton (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Really? It's the second greatest site on the internet, after Wikipedia. They've recently gone through a lot of corporate changes, so there's been a lot of growing pains and complaints. But it's the users there that are incredible. During the pandemic and lockdowns, I met people from all over the world through their live streaming platform (now defunct). Despite its problems, there is something magical about the site. Viriditas (talk) 18:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The depths, on the other hand, are something to behold, and not in a good way... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
When I'm on my deathbed, I will remember the warmth and friendship I felt on RPAN, seriously one of the greatest experiments of all time. I've never felt that kind of kinship with humanity before or since, and social media has nothing comparable to it. For me, it was my lifeline to the rest of the world during the pandemic. Viriditas (talk) 18:27, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Interesting. My well educated cousin is always talking about it. I feel like I am monitoring too many platforms already. Bruxton (talk) 18:31, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
There's a TV show called Treme that almost captures this feeling and bottles it for the viewer. The setting of the show takes place right after Hurricane Katrina in late 2005 and thereafter. YouTube had just gone live in February of that year. The show depicts what it was like and how it felt when people started uploading their personal videos for the first time. The feelings and emotions of those early Vloggers in the mid-2000s after Katrina is comparable to the state of mind livestreamers were in during the pandemic years later. Lots of similarities to be found between the two disasters in that show. Viriditas (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The Reddit image may be photoshopped. Or a great angle. Bruxton (talk) 18:55, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Adila Laïdi-Hanieh

Adila Laïdi-Hanieh

I have pulled this from Prep 6. The hook is sourced to Middle East Monitor, a pro-Hamas site reportedly funded by Qatar. The sourced article itself is not controversial, but I'm a little concerned that with current events, the source may attract controversy. Some of the other sources also look a little ropey. The article basically just doesn't look ready for prime-time to me. Gatoclass (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Gatoclass, did you restore the nomination to WP:DYKNA or WP:DYKN? I can't seem to find it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
No I didn't, because the nominator already responded, and I'm planning to handle it from here myself. Gatoclass (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about half a day ago, so I’ve created a new list of the first 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 11. We have a total of 320 nominations, of which 110 have been approved, a gap of 210 nominations that has increased by 7 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than two months old

More than one month old

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) 16:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Training wheels for new reviewers?

I recently had to demote Template:Did you know nominations/Baldwin-Reynolds House due to copyright issues which really should have been caught at an earlier stage. The initial review was done by Broc. They are a newcomer to DYK reviewing; this was about the 5th nomination they have reviewed. I'm absolutely not saying it's their fault. Indeed, I am sincerely happy that somebody new is willing to help with the job of keeping DYK running, and they should not in any way be discouraged from continuing to help and learn.

At the same time, we've got a plethora of complicated rules and it's unreasonable to assume first-time reviewers will understand them all. I'm wondering if we should have some sort of "reviewer in training" process which would alert subsequent reviewers to take extra care to double-check their work. Maybe a badge system would do that while simultaneously provide recognition and positive feedback for people who have gained a certain level of experience.

This is not a "place blame" thing, it's a "help educate the new recruits" thing and a quality control thing. The earlier in the process we spot problems, the easier it is to fix. By the time it gets to a queue and has to be pulled, a lot of extra work has been created. Even worse if it doesn't get picked up until WP:ERRORS. RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

I would expect that the promoters to the queue would catch a concern like this, as promoters are expected to be experienced editors at DYK. I encourage promoters to be strict about the rules, as it is better to address concerns early, and others can weigh in if a problem is raised. Z1720 (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, this one's on me. Apologies all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith, should the Prepper instructions mention a copyvio check? They don't seem to currently. TSventon (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
My view of things is that each person who moves the nomination along is responsible for making sure all the rules are met. When I promote from prep to queue, I check the things that I think matter the most: copying and to make sure the hook statement is stated in the article and backed up by a WP:RS. I trust that the two reviewers before me have checked things like length, age, if it's been on the MP before, etc. More to the point, if they haven't done those, I don't see anything horrible coming from it. I doubt anybody's going to pop up on WP:ERRORS and complain that we're idiots because we stretched the 7-day window to 10 days. RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, thanks for pointing this out—probably a rookie mistake from my side. I did use Earwig and the most it spotted was a 9% match (I just tried running it again to the same result), which did not seem very relevant. Maybe separately from here someone (maybe RoySmith?) could explain me what I missed? I generally agree that maybe a training process for new reviewers could be a good idea! Maybe 3-4 example pages to "test review" (e.g., old DYKs) before reviewing a real one? --Broc (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Earwig is a wonderful (and indispensible) tool, but like all good tools, it takes a little finesse to use it well. I use the big "Violation Unlikely: 9.1% similarity" banner at the top as only a vague indicator. You need to take a deeper look at what it flags. For example, it says that the string "The Crawford County Historical Society" exists in both our article and the source. That's totally meaningless; it's the name of something, of course it's going to appear verbatim.
On the other hand, it also flags "Just a few months after [the house was completed]". There's so many possible ways to say, "The house was completed. Then a few months went by" the fact that that particular phrase is a match gets my copyvio antenna quivering. So then I start looking at what comes immediately before and after that and can put together more bits and pieces that are almost very similar. Not identical enough for Earwig to pick up on it, but obvious that one was copied from the other. RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
In the words of Taylor Swift, "Shake it off". We need you participating here. Ping me or post here for others to check your next review. We need you! None of us gets it right all the time. Bruxton (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
That last post edit conflicted @Broc:. Bruxton (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
There are a lot of rules, but I'm not sure if training would help this particular case. Plagiarism is often misunderstood, and can be hard to pick up on, which is not a DYK issue but a Wikipedia-wide issue. We lay it out specifically here because we are pushing items to the front cover of en.wiki, but it is not specifically a DYK issue in the way that hooks are. CMD (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
A pragmatic way to deal with new reviewers would be to flag that they are new at reviewing. If that's obvious, then every subsequent reviewer could maybe pay even more attention when doing their checks, and check the relevant article broader and deeper. I wouldn't support the idea of doing dummy runs using old nominations; it's better to learn on the (real) job. Schwede66 02:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth, WP:DYKRI advises new reviewers to ask for a second opinion for their first few reviews (it's fresh on my mind because I'm currently waiting for one myself). It could be useful to make that a requirement rather than a suggestion. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

This is pointless IMO. Promoters and administrators are supposed to thoroughly check every article for compliance, regardless of who reviewed it, so I see no point in adding "training wheels" alerts. It will just add more complexity to an already complex process. Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

That's the theory. In practice of course things slip through the cracks, which we'd really want to avoid. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7

Andrew J. Evans Jr.

@AirshipJungleman29, Toadboy123, and Voorts: this needs an end-of-sentence citation for the hook fact in the article. It also seems odd that the article doesn't actually say what his rank was when he was captured. It says he was "deputy commander", but that's a job title, not a rank. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Citation duplicated from end of paragraph. I presume, since deputy commanders are always colonels in the US (see Structure of the United States Air Force#Wing) it is much more illustrative to refer to him as the former. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't put much credence in what another wiki article (especially one with a "citation needed" tag) says, but the citation you added works. RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! voorts (talk/contributions) 20:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

MLS Cup 2023

@AirshipJungleman29, SounderBruce, and Z1720: Most of this was created in Special:Diff/1188049671, which says "using MLS Cup 2019 as a template, see that page's history for attribution". It's almost identical, with names and dates changed. The attribution in the edit comment certainly satisfies WP:COPYWITHIN, but is this really what we want to be considering "new content" for DYK purposes? It's also an exact match to https://www.deviantart.com/the-17th-man/art/MLS-Cup-Title-Banner-1004217656, but I'm virtually certain they copied from us.

I don't see why not; if you're expecting editors to come up with a completely new organisation for each year's event, I think that's barking up the WP:BURO tree. The vast majority of the content in MLS Cup 2023 is original in any case. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm late to the party on this, but that website has clearly copied from us, as they published their article on 22 December 2023, whereas the Wikipedia article was written on 3 and 4 December 2023. I've tagged Talk:MLS Cup 2023 appropriately to show this. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

CaptainSparklez

@AirshipJungleman29, Vortex3427, and Johnson524: This has two entire paragraphs which is word-for-word from https://www.lyrics.com/lyric-lf/7048838/TryHardNinja. It's entirely possible that they copied from us, and I was just starting to investigate if that was the case when I noticed this was a GA. NegativeMP1 you did that GA review, but I don't see any mention of this in your review. Could you walk us through what investigation you had done regarding this and how you concluded that it wasn't a problem? RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Hmm, when I did the DYK review on the page, copyvio didn't come up positive for anything notable as far as I can remember, so I'm assuming lyrics.com is the culprit? Hope you get this sorted out for sure though, cheers! Johnson524 17:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I'm concurring the above. When I used the copyvio detector, it turned up what looked to be false positives and a percentage that would be completely insignificant. Additionally, I highly doubt that Vortex would have copied the entire lead section from lyrics, and also Tryhardninja and Sparkles are not the same person. I'm pretty sure it was lyrics that copied the text here. λ NegativeMP1 17:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
I can't find the lyrics.com page in archive.org, so yeah, I'm happy with assuming they got it from us. RoySmith (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

The Many Faces of Jesus

It's not technically a violation of DYK rules, but I'm a little concerned that we're running "Jesus did cocaine on a night out" (Queue 5) followed a few days later by "a pornographic script about Jesus" (Queue 2). I don't object to either, but maybe we should space them out more? RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

"Four days and four sets apart, Jesus was debauched at DYK..." I think it's fine, but I don't really mind. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Also, while this technically squeezes under the 200 character limit (discounting the second bold link), it really is a mouthful and could benefit from some trimming. If nothing else, condemnations by a pope and a queen, a firebombing, and the writer's ban from the UK is awkwardly worded; it looks like the firebombing and the writer's ban are both part of a list of things that condemned the script. RoySmith (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@Tamzin and Frzzl: pinging nominator and reviewer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I have no opinion on spacing w/r/t the cocaine hook. I feel that this—a two-article saga most interesting for its complexity and absurdity—is a good use case for coming right up to the maximum, and was careful not to exceed it. I do see the point about the list's wording, though. How about papal and royal condemnations? Flows better, and six characters shorter, too. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 18:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
How about:
... that a pornographic script about Jesus, condemned by a pope and a queen, led to a firebombing, the writer's banishment from the UK, and demands to ban a non-existent gay Jesus film?
RoySmith (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
To me that flows worse, and it incorrectly implies that the condemnation by Queen Elizabeth predated the firebombing, when it actually came several years after. How about
... that a pornographic screenplay about Jesus led to papal and royal condemnations, a firebombing, the writer's ban from the UK, and thousands of letters per week demanding the ban of a non-existent gay Jesus film? (181 chars.)
Previously I'd used "script" over the more standard "screenplay" just to stay under 200, but with some more wiggle room here I've used the latter instead. And if the first "ban" is undesirable, "denial of entry to" or "being barred from" would be more accurate than "banishment from". Thorsen did technically set foot on British soil, but never cleared Customs. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 23:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh and since the removal of "spawned a hoax" does potentially risk the misunderstanding that the screenplay and the non-existent film are the same thing, "the ban of" → "Illinois ban" is only +3 chars. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 23:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
It was just a suggestion; I'll leave it up to you. RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Well I appreciate having had the chance to think this over, Roy! I'd initially thought I got it as short as possible to convey what I wanted, but you got me to think further, and I find I like my new suggestion better than the original. If there's no objection, could you or another uninvolved admin swap them out? Thanks so much. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 01:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
 Done Schwede66 17:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Shilling (New Zealand coin)

@AirshipJungleman29, Generalissima, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: I don't understand this hook. Why "actually"? The article talks about how the figure is supposed to be performing a Haka, which is a kind of dance, so I don't get what the hook is trying to say. Not to mention that the article doesn't say anything about a uniform. RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Uniform is a synonym of costume here, but I see that this kind of variance isn't necessary. The warrior looks like he's in a war-like pose, not dance-like, hence the "actually". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
From the reception section; "The ahistorical usage of the piupiu garment (associated with modern haka dance and ceremony) in a combat scenario was criticised, alongside the awkward pose with which the taiaha was held." (There's also the letter to the editor in that quotebox explaining how this was incorrect) If he was depicted doing a haka as was originally requested, the piupiu would be correct, but he's crouching on some sort of cliff holding a weapon in a defensive stance. I clarified the text a little to specify he's not actually doing a haka on the final coin. Generalissima (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith I found the hook fairly straightforward: simply contrasting the intention of a warrior preparing for battle and looking rather fearsome, with what the coin actually displays, which is a man in the Maori equivalent of a cheerleading outfit, or something. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Gogoliad

@AirshipJungleman29, CurryTime7-24, and Gerda Arendt: I'm not seeing where in the article the hook fact is stated. RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith "John Riley ... observed that the unrealized Gogoliad "closed the loop [of the composer's film career] in two ways: with the director who... had been his first cinema collaborator..." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
OK, that works, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Asifa Lahore

May I suggest:

... that in 2014, BBC Three cancelled a debate on being gay and Muslim which featured a Muslim drag queen?

would be a snappier hook. RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Music of Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance

- I have pulled this hook from prep 1 as the hook is incomprehensible, as is the text in the article that pertains to it. Unfortunately I could not fix it on the fly because the source is offline. Also, the article as a whole is poorly written and badly needs a copyedit - how it managed to pass GA is a mystery. Gatoclass (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Pinging the editors who were involved in the Nomination: @NegativeMP1 and Kafoxe: and promotor AirshipJungleman29 Bruxton (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't see what's incomprehensible about the hook? What I took it to mean is that lyrics from the music of this game were compared to buffalo hunting. I don't see the issue there. I agree, on second look, that the sentence in the article about that comparison could be rewritten, but the article as a whole doesn't seem glaringly bad. Kafoxe (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm not exactly sure what desperately needs a copyedit or what is poorly written. I think the only issue I see in it in retrospect was a source I didn't use. I do agree that the sentence verifying the hook could have been written better–and I just attempted to make it better at that—but there was also an alternate hook that could've been used, which is verified in the article in its own sub-section. If it is truly written poorly enough to where it passing GA is a mystery, GAR exists. λ NegativeMP1 18:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses, but this discussion should be continued on the nomination page, where I will respond. I won't be able to do so immediately however as I'm about to log off for the day. Gatoclass (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

Rex Parker

@AirshipJungleman29, Hameltion, and Launchballer: The hook calls him a "professor of medieval literature and comic books". At a university, "professor of ..." is generally a specific job title. His university page says he's a Lecturer in "English, General Literature and Rhetoric". Calling him "professor of medieval literature and comic books" is, at best, misleading. RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: "teacher of ..." an okay replacement? Hameltion (talk | contribs) 00:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Maybe not the cleanest wording, but it would certainly be accurate. RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Kevin Lippert

@AirshipJungleman29, Thriley, and Prodraxis: I pulled this as a blatent copyvio. Several paragraphs are almost word-for-word from the NY Times. Come on, folks. You can't have

Mr. Lippert printed 1,000 copies and hawked them to students for $55 apiece out of the trunk of his car. They sold out immediately.
He printed 1,000 copies and sold them for $55 apiece from the trunk of his car. They immediately sold out.

and call it original. RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I felt it was acceptable paraphrasing. My apologies if it isn’t considered that. Thriley (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I looked at this some more. It's bad enough that I tagged it for WP:G12. RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@Thriley Pardon me for being abrupt, but you've been around a long time. I think you need to go back and read up on what "acceptable paraphrasing" is. RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I am truly sorry. Amateurish of me. Thriley (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I regard DYK as a very good area of Wikipedia if you want to become a better editor / learn new things. Don't be too hard on yourself, Thriley; it's a volunteer role after all and stuff happens occasionally. Thanks for all your good work. Schwede66 03:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Speedy was declined by A. B. – I agree that there's content worth preserving, i've cut the copyvio and deleted prior revisions. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, Leeky. Thriley (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Sorry, should have looked closer earlier. Prodraxis (talk) 02:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Nominations from January 16-18 are not being transcluded properly

Looks like we need to work on the backlog quickly as several nominations over the last few days are not being transcluded properly over at WP:DYKN. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah; saw that, too. I hate to say it but maybe it's time for 12-hour sets... Schwede66 03:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Would 12 hour sets help? The backlog is at WP:DYKN, not WP:DYKNA. I think the emergency QPQ requirement needs to be activated, and possibly enlarged. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
12-hour slots are a bad idea when we are struggling to maintain 6-7 filled queues. Instead, I encourage anyone reading this to go review some hooks at WP:DYKN. Z1720 (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
12-hour sets also won't solve the problem, which as AirshipJungleman29 notes is because we need more reviews to be completed and approved, which moves the approved nominations off the WP:DYKN page. The switchover happens at 10+ sets approved and 120+ noms approved, and we're not at either level at the moment. On the other hand, perhaps if we invoke the emergency QPQ requirement for the first time (people with at least 20 nominations have to review two articles per nomination rather than the normal one article for their QPQ), it would start helping with the backlog of unreviewed noms. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah, yes. Of course. Schwede66 03:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Let’s activate a temporary two QPQ request with the option to reuse the qpq later. Ktin (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
That is akin to kicking the can down the road. It won't hurt anybody to have to do an extra QPQ for a few days until the backlog is cleared. Gatoclass (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Possibility of reopening nomination for Young Girls

This nomination for Young Girls (painting) was closed on account of reviewer inactivity. Would it be possible to reopen that? I was not the nominator or original reviewer, but from what I see the nomination is ready to be approved. The only thing holding the page back was the original reviewer's dissatisfaction with an earlier proposed hook and their subsequent inactivity. Since I happened across the page and have already read it, I'm unexpectedly in a decent position to finish the review. I definitely understand the desire to clear out old nominations from the page; I only ask an exception in this case because I think this is one that I an approve so it can subsequently move to the approved P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

 Done No trouble; happy reviewing. Schwede66 20:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks very much; I just finished the review. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 6 only has seven hooks

Was there a reason for this I missed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Looks like @Weggers removed it from the prep in Special:Diff/1196104735 just before promoting. RoySmith (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Um, make that @Waggers RoySmith (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Waggers, if you encounter an incomplete prep set, the thing to do is to plug that hole (either by moving a hook from a later prep, or you could promote from the set of approved nominations). The former is easier, as another editor has already done the prep checks, but it does create a hole somewhere else. Schwede66 23:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @DYK admins: : can one of you please move a hook from a later prep into Queue 6 so it has its full complement of eight? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Moved M'liss McClure RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Noted, thanks WaggersTALK 08:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Advice for reviewing/promoting preps?

Hello! I'm a relatively new admin and I haven't worked in DYK before. I'd like to be able to help out in the future if there's a shortage of promoted preps, as there was over the last few days. I've been going over the policies and advice, but wanted to check here too. One question: is there any way to mark a prep as "I'm working on it" so you don't accidentally duplicate work another admin is already doing? Any advice from experienced DYKers on pitfalls to avoid? Thanks all! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Welcome, I am happy to help. One pitfall is trying to control a prep set - sometimes hooks get moved for balance. There are many gleaners in here who will quickly correct problems. So do not worry about making mistakes. For me I spot check the citations and then I check image licenses. Then I check Earwig, and I determine of a hook is interesting and accurate, and cited in the article. There is a lot to know especially about the DYKCRIT - and I have other rules that are reflexively checked that I am not calling out here so best to start and ask someone to look over your work. That is how I did it. You need the PSHAW tool. It makes promoting easy. Bruxton (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ganesha811: Also it seems to me the administrators who promote prep to queue - they promote the set and then do their checks. That way no other admin will be looking at the same prep set. If they see issues in the promoted queue they call them out here, and if they cannot be fixed, they swap the hook. But admins here can help you with the procedure. Bruxton (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense and is helpful, thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Yup, in theory, the right way to do it is check first, then promote. But in practice, it's so much more convenient to promote first, then check, and whine on this page about problems you find. When things are running well, the queue is deep enough that we'll have the better part of a week to sort out any problems. Unfortunately, when things are lean, we'll only have a day or two. If it looks like the problems won't get resolved in time, pull the hook and find something to replace it, but if we get to that point, it's an indication that something has come of the rails earlier in the review process. RoySmith (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
Checking after promoting also has the benefit that other admins aren't doing the same work, as it signals to them that you're checking that one. Valereee (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
It would be nice if PSHAW had a way to add an "in progress" indicator to a prep. RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Say if you want me to look over your shoulder while you check a set. And Bruxton is right; I don't think there's anyone here who checks first before promoting to queue. Schwede66 23:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
@Ganesha811, ditto. I would be very happy to recheck a prep you've promoted after you did the checks yourself. Thank you for offering to work here. I do know there are admins who check first, but to avoid possibly wasting other people's time, I always promote, then check. If I got into a situation where I promoted and couldn't finish the checks, I'd post here for help. Valereee (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Currently on the main age: Matthew Turpin

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Turpin

@DYK admins:

This was a slip-up on the review itself, I think. Anyway, it probably ought to be pulled but I think it's about to rotate off. — Maile (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Pulled. Saw this with 12 minutes to go. I would normally have procedurally closed the AfD (as you cannot nominate an article for deletion while it is on the main page) but with so little time to run, it's easier to pull and let the AfD run its course. Schwede66 23:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Stuff happens, I guess. — Maile (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
To be honest, I probably wouldn't have caught this either. I'm mostly looking for copying and being able to trace the hook back to a RS. WP:N just isn't something I'm looking at. RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
It develops one review at a time. — Maile (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Actually, reading WP:DYKCRIT, I don't see anything that says we're supposed to be reviewing for WP:N. WP:RS, yes, but that's not the same as WP:N. So I can't fault our review of this. RoySmith (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
WP:DYKHFC says "All content subject to the policy on biographies of living persons must conform with it". WP:BLP requires (among other things) Verifiability. And therein comes the problem with the vague claims about this person. — Maile (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I know there's been debate in the past about whether to add notability as a criterion. The main arguments against seem to be that GA and FA don't require it either and that it's additional work for reviewers for a fairly marginal benefit. (There isn't necessarily an inherent harm in a non-notable article running at DYK, if all other criteria are met.) But BLP does make things different. I would probably support modifying the BLP line of DYKCRIT to All content subject to the policy on biographies of living persons must conform with it; where an article's subject is a living person, this includes verifying that they are more likely notable than not, and that no privacy-based exception to notability applies. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 21:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

no longer "Wikipedia's newest articles"?

Wasn't "Did you know" once restricted to new articles? When did that change? (I'm asking purely out of curiosity.) —scs (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

It still has that restriction. Depends on how you calculate newness: WP:DYKNEW. Also, it wasn't always this many articles available. My first nomination was because an admin grabbed Estacado, Texas from the Special:NewPages. DYK didn't then have the glut of nominations it does today. Even when I joined, we sometimes had to go out looking for something to nominate. — Maile (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Gradually, over the years. But even with 5x expansions, GAs, & now repeat offenders soon to be allowed under certain circumstance, most DYK articles are still new creations. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Got it, thanks! —scs (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I started contributing to DYK in 2016 and I remember by then the "from Wikipedia's new and recently-improved content" line had already been deleted long before then, but I'm not exactly sure when that line was removed. In any case, since at least the "promotion to GA status" pipeline was introduced after 2012 (I can't remember the exact year), DYK hasn't been strictly about newness anymore, but can also be about newly-improved content too. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Move Carol Mutch to special occasion holding area

Hi could someone move Carol Mutch's nomination to the special occasion holding area for 22 Feb? The approved hook is dependent on it running on the anniversary of the Christchurch earthquake. Thanks. DrThneed (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I think the hook needs more work. Maybe:
...that Dr. Disaster's office collapsed in an earthquake on this day in 2011?
Valereee (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd be happy with that, thank you! DrThneed (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I've struck ALT1, which then leaves Valereee's suggestion, and moved the nomination to the special occasion area. Schwede66 04:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5: Central Archives of Gaza City (nom)

I just promoted this, but I'd like more eyes on this, as coverage of the Israel–Hamas war is a potential minefield. The main source is The New Arab, which seems reasonably reliable to me. Perhaps the sentence "It had been targeted by Israeli bombing since 7 October 2023" is not as neutral and neutrally-sourced as it could be. Any thoughts? Pinging nom Lajmmoore, reviewer Kingoflettuce, promoter theleekycauldron for awareness. —Kusma (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

I did allude to similar concerns in my review although it seemed just about O.K. to me. But perhaps we could err on the side of caution a little more and I would be happy to endorse anything that's more "neutral and neutrally-sourced". KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 23:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello both, thanks for picking this up @Kusma - I've edited the sentence to add the names of the news sources and I think toned the phrasing down a little Lajmmoore (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 6

How the Red Sun Rose

@Thomas Meng, AirshipJungleman29, and Dylan620:

I am not sure that this can be definitively proven, as the Chinese government would state that its narrative is correct and whether Western scholars accept it is subjective. I would prefer changing "demonstrated how" to "claimed that". Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: Not sure why I didn't think of that – sounds good to me. --Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure if that quite works; "sold a bill of goods" isn't a line from How the Red Sun Rose; it's from David Chen Chang's review of the book. In Chang's words, How the Red Sun Rose shows how Western scholars had been "sold a bill of goods". I understand not quite feeling right about this hook, but I don't think the proposed change quite works either.
The originally proposed hook (the current version was a "punch[ier]" version suggested by the reviewer) was as follows:
P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
both of these hooks seem to assert that the book is an accurate representation of scholarly consensus. does the sourcing in the article prove such a statement? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@leek: The relevant line in the article, Gao's book has contributed to rewriting scholarly understanding of the Yan'an Rectification Movement, is sourced to reviews by three separate historians, all of whom claimed the book obsoleted what had been at that point the scholarly consensus on the subject. I have a suggestion for an alternate hook:
Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Anna Nekhames

@Gerda Arendt, AirshipJungleman29, and Dylan620:

The quotes in the hook do not match the quotes in the article. The source for the quotes is in a foreign language that I do not speak (I assume German) so I do not know which quotes are better to modify so they line up. Z1720 (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: Hmmm... the source for the "coloratura acrobatics" quote uses the word "Koloraturakrobatik" which seems to verify the translation ("koloratur" = coloratura, "akrobatik" = acrobatics). The second quote should probably be rephrased, as the original text "scheint fast die stimmlichen Grenzen zu sprengen" appears to translate into "seems to break vocal boundaries" (emphasis mine). I'd value Gerda's feedback as her userpage indicates she is well-versed in German. --Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I gave my comment in the nomaination: don't use quotes. BlueMoonset made the hook. You could just say
and would say something interesting: we mention only four others who performed that (extremeky difficult) role with an interesting name. If you just add "in 2023" she will be the only one, the first of two performances in the composer's centenary year, two more to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I think what makes it interesting that she sang this dual role is that it's considered difficult, which wasn't even in the article. I've added it there. I think the hook needs that included in order to be something other than "singer sang song". At this discussion I added an alt:
...that at not yet 30, Anna Nekhames performed one of opera's most demanding coloratura parts, that of the dual role of Venus and Gepopo in Ligeti's Le Grand Macabre?
Valereee (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Valereee, I like that! It emphasizes the difficulty of what Nekhames accomplished at a relatively young age. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, @Dylan620! It would need an approval, does this count as that? Gerda Arendt, thoughts? Valereee (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an admin needed to approve changes to hooks that are already in queue? I'm a bit rusty, having just returned to helping at DYK within the last week or so after a long absence. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
You can approve the change, you just can't physically make it. Valereee (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I like it, thank you for offering, and making changes to articles. I'm the last person to approve, however. You probably know who reviews about all my nominations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey, Gerda, didn't mean to be asking you for the reviewer approval, simply wanted to know that you don't object to this ALT. Sorry, not following your final sentence...I think I've reviewed multiple of your noms over the past five years or so, but I've never noticed any one person doing it particularly often.
At any rate, so we can take this as you not objecting to that ALT? @Z1720, I'm not sure it would be kosher for me to replace that hook, would you be willing to? Valereee (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a rearrangement of the above hook and adds a wikilink for coloratura. @Gerda Arendt, Valereee, and Dylan620: Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Please make the link to coloratura soprano, piped or not, as we just deal with a coloratura contralto, Ewa Podleś. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Done. Z1720 (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I think we've got the hook. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

So this is what I get for not checking the article close enough: my proposed alt says that the part is one of the most demanding, but the article doesn't state that. ALT1 puts "fiercely demanding" in quotes because that is quoted from the source, and pluralises "parts" because that is how it is presented in the source. Sorry to ping again @Gerda Arendt, Valereee, Dylan620, and AirshipJungleman29: Is the new alt OK? Z1720 (talk) 02:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

No worries! Yeah this works for me. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 09:19, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I think the fiercely demanding was intended to mean performing both roles? Because some singers can't do both? Valereee (talk) 10:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I've revised per what I'm seeing here, feel free to object or tweak. Valereee (talk) 16:42, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Humboldt Wagon Road

@WeirdNAnnoyed, Cielquiparle, and Dylan620:

Neither source used to verify this hook mentions that the road does not reach Humboldt County, California. I think that the nominators and reviewers were trying to create an interesting hook, but I think this information is either original research or just not notable enough to be in the article. Is there a source that specifically talks about how this road does not reach the California Humdoldt, or should a new hook be used? Z1720 (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: (Courtesy ping to Lightburst who was also involved in reviewing the hook.) The cited route map does demonstrate that the route ends far away from the coast, while the cited government page for Humboldt County states it to be directly on the shore, but I take your point. If drawing the conclusion from those two sources is not enough, then I'd like to suggest a modified version of ALT1 from the nomination page: "... that stagecoaches on the Humboldt Wagon Road could make a 400-mile trip in under four days?" Revisiting the discussion, Cielquiparle's concern with the original version of this hook was that it gave the reader so much information right off the bat, they wouldn't be compelled to read the article. This trims the endpoints so as to make the reader wonder where the trip would be to and from, while also removing mention of the fares as well (the value of $60 in the 1860s was very different from how much it's worth today). What do you all think? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
We did all we could to make that hook work and I thought it may be enough to have a map showing that the route ended nowhere near. But I like Dylan620s idea of we cannot make that hook work. Lightburst (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Is it original research? Maps constitute secondary sources. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Z1720 It was the map on p. 11 of Leicester and Nopel (first source cited) that clinched it for me, plus the reminder that maps constitute secondary sources, It is because of the map that we've also carefully qualified the claim in the article to say "Between 1865 and 1867" (plus the rest of the article provides historical context). As for your other concern: It was just intended as a quirky hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Dylan620, Lightburst, and Cielquiparle: I see that the maps indicate where the Humboldt Wagon Road goes, but I haven't seen a map that indicates that the road doesn't go to Humboldt, or even indicates where Humboldt, California, is. Thus, there isn't a source that I've seen that indicates that it is notable or significant that the road doesn't reach the California Humboldt. I understand that this is meant to be a quirky hook, but I don't know if this can run as is. ALT1 should be OK to swap in. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Z1720, Fram has now raised this issue at WP:ERRORS, so swapping to ALT1 is a good idea. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC) Sorry, didn't realised you'd already seen that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Aptostichus barackobamai

@Etriusus, Generalissima, and Dylan620:

Maybe I'm getting old and grumpy, but does the main page really need to explain who Barack Obama is? Isn't it common knowledge that he was president of the United States? Can "the 44th president of the United States" be removed? Z1720 (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

I did wonder about this. I'd instead take out "Barack Obama" to avoid repetition.--Launchballer 00:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, I toyed with removing/trimming that clause when I promoted the hook, but hesitated. 86ing either the "44th" clause or "Barack Obama" would work for me. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I think that the updated version Aptostichus barackobamai is a species of spider named after Barack Obama, the 44th president of the United States?is punchier. Also, Z1720's removal of "the 44th president of the United States" works fine as well. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree, I would rephrase to just "is a species of spider named after the 44th president of the United States" Generalissima (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Would wikilinking "44th president of the United States" to Obama create an MOS:EGG, as we are asking readers to click on the link to find out who the 44th president is? I would rather leave it as Obama as I think it would make readers more likely to click on the actual bolded article, not the 44th link. Z1720 (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed, "...that Aptostichus barackobamai is a species of spider named after Barack Obama" is more direct than "that Aptostichus barackobamai is a species of spider named after the 44th president of the United States". I went ahead and changed it. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@Etriusus: Since the hook is in the queue, an admin will have to change it. I will wait until others opine before making the change (or another admin can do so for me). Z1720 (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Reverted, thanks for letting me know. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 01:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd have thought the phrase "barackobama" appearing in the name of the species would be a bit of a clue as to who the 44th president is.--Launchballer 01:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
We definitely do not need to contextualize Obama in hooks, no. This feels like a case of "trying to avoid Americentrism and overcorrecting" -- we've ran hooks regarding Boris Johnson without feeling the need to specify who he is. Having said that, both versions of this hook feel a little awkward due to the repetition/overexplanation in "barackobamai ... named for Obama". The article says it's also known as the "Barack Obama trapdoor spider" -- is there something we can do with that? Vaticidalprophet 02:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Something as simple and hooky as ... that a trapdoor spider species is named after a former U.S. president? JennyOz (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
I endorse JennyOz's suggestion and was in fact *just* about to comment something to that affect. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Obama's name is what catches eyeballs, but I feel like we don't do enough good nature facts. I'd suggest:
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:04, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I think this is pretty common in nature, and doesn't make the spider special. I think the Obama connection is more hooky. Z1720 (talk) 14:17, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
the Obama connection is what's hooky, but a hook like:
just seems like it's using 11 words to do what could be done in four with "Barack Obama trapdoor spider". If it's called that, everyone knows it was named after Obama (as opposed to, what, the other way around?). That said, it is still an improvement on the current hook. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

I have replaced the hook with the following:

I think this is a similar tactic that is used for radio/tv articles on DYK because it increases the click count of the bolded hook and avoids the repetition of Barack Obama in the hook. Z1720 (talk) 13:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

"Failed to get rid of"

In today's (January 23, 2024) DYK, the phrase quoted above is too colloquial to be accurate. He wasn’t trying to just give it away, he "was unable to find a buyer for" or "was unable to find someone to buy" the painting in question. If he only wanted to "get rid" of it he could have given it away or thrown it away. Wis2fan (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

That was Q1. RoySmith, any thoughts? Schwede66 04:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
We're talking about Sleep (painting), right? Meh. It's not formal language, but I think for this purpose it's fine. RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Quirky vs. clickbait?

There was a suggestion made by @Bagumba on WP:ERRORS about updating WP:QUIRKY. Just noting it here for wider attention. See Special:Diff/1193598287. RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

For convenient reference today's QUIRKY hook was ultimately toned down Is a caveat to QUIRKY needed?—Bagumba (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
My view is that we shouldn't be posting hooks that are blatantly misleading, as this one is- a capital P on Poison isn't enough for readers to understand that it's a quirky joke. Not least because not everyone will know the quirky hook slot. I think there should be a rule against deliberately misleading readers. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
If I was approving this prep set, I would have not changed the hook. I think we are underestimating our readers' ability to decode information: they are smart enough to realise that the original hook was not talking about poison, but rather something else. If anyone thought it was talking about poison, they would probably click on the link to find out more information, and realise that we were talking about a song.
I did a completely unscientific test where I showed the original hook to someone who does not edit Wikipedia: they said, "first glance, I thought it might be the substance, but then I see it's capitalised and in quotes, so it's probably not and I would need to click on it to find out more. It's definitely clickbaity." (I didn't ask if it was, they volunteered that word without prompting). Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I think it is safe to say that most of us will agree that this DYK should not have gone as-it-did to the mainpage. I think that is straightforward. Upper-case P vs lower-case p distinction will escape most of our readers.
That aside, often times, DYK editors and nominators are guilty of misconstruing "click-baitiness" with "interestingness". Even as I type this post, there are at least two threads upstream on this page that are debating interestingness. In my view, a good DYK is something that should make our readers learn more about a subject, and roughly go "Ah! I learned something today!". Instead, what we might be prioritizing here is our readers going -- "Oh! What could that be?" and then followed by "Eikes! Why did I click on that one!" Ktin (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah yes, they'd learn how to soothe all those babies. Especially if they'd already tried out Alice and all the 28 other songs with that title!! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Frankly, the most misleading thing about this hook to me was that the fact that we weren't talking about the Bell Biv DeVoe song. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@Joseph2302, @Ktin: You've both been selective in your recollection of the original presentation. It was "Poison", upper-case P and the word in double-quotes, which I maintained in the discussion is substantially different from poison. Bazza (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Neither of which is significant enough for most readers to notice a difference in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Meh. I don't object to the change -- 'the song "Poison"' isn't that much less quirky. But I also don't think the original was a problem. Valereee (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
@Bazza 7 I will admit, I missed the double quotes. It makes it only marginally better than without the quotes imho. Ktin (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
A key distinction between interestingness and click-baitiness.
Interesting: Reader clicks on the article to know more about the presented fact and / or learn more about the article now that their interest has been piqued by the presented fact.
Click-baity: Reader clicks on the article now that their curiosity has been triggered because the fact has not been fully presented or worse still has been presented in a misleading manner. Ktin (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
Criminal: Reader comes to DYK to learn more on how to poison noisy babies. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
How exactly was the hook "blatantly misleading"? Regardless of what hook slot it's in, I can't imagine a reader possibly interpreting this as a literal suggestion that poison soothes babies. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 23:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
I think it should be dictated by common sense. Let's not write something that may lead to less-observant readers giving babies poison. That, look, sorry it seems obvious. We run on common sense, and I think that slipped through because people were thinking more about the "interesting"; this should be a reminder to have a good hard look at hooks before they get to MP, but not a moment to codify something about no hooks on harmful substances. Kingsif (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
  • We seem to have forgotten the meaning of "quirky" lately. It should be something a bit bizarre but that's presented accurately. Tomorrow's is a decent one - "that although Olga Hartman believed that her basic research on marine worms had no practical value, it was applied to experimental studies of oysters?". Historically, we have allowed the other type of hook - ones designed to mislead or present things as other than what they're really saying, once a year on 1 April. I also don't like that myself, but you pick your battles I guess. The daily quirky slot was never meant to be an everyday version of April fools though, and today's hook veered too far in that direction IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)
While I understand the need to want to present funny or unusual hooks at the quirky slot, I do wonder if we're taking it too seriously. For example, I have seen in the past where sets even had to be delayed for lack of a quirky hook. Maybe we should make it clear that they aren't mandatory and that the last hook could be a regular hook if there aren't any suitable or available ones. In addition, given that there have been multiple discussions and complaints about the accuracy of such hooks, including concerns such as WP:EGG, maybe we need a discussion on whether or not we need more guidelines on how to deal with them? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I agree we should not be holding up a set for want of a quirky hook. RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
The instructions have always said that quirky is desirable, not an absolute requirement. WP:DYKCRIT currently reads, Consider picking an upbeat, funny, or quirky hook – if there is one available – and putting it in the bottom slot of the set. If there's a dearth of quirky available, make the set without it. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
So we can expect readers to understand the difference between an ice cube and Ice Cube (WP:SMALLDETAILS), but not between poison and "Poison"? That seems... weird. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I can see the vindictive headlines already: "Shock spate of A&E babe traumas after sick Wiki poison advice!!" Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
Seems more like WP:SMALLDETAILS is just a bad idea. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

It seems like we may need to discuss about quirky hooks in more detail given our experiences with them over the years, so I've started an RfC below. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

How should quirky hooks on DYK be handled?

Should we have guidelines regarding the use of quirky hooks on DYK, including how to define a quirky hook, what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in the case of hook wordings, and how they should be handled? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Background

As seen in the above discussion, there have been discussions over the years of what kind of quirky hooks are acceptable on DYK. Although WP:QUIRKY suggests (but does not require) DYK sets to have at least one "upbeat/funny/quirky" hook at the end of every set, this is not a mandatory rule and leaves open the possibility of sets not having such a hook. In practice, prep builders sometimes delay finishing a set if no quirky hook could be found, even if the guidelines suggest that while such hooks are desirable, they are not mandatory.

More importantly, the guideline does not define what counts as a "quirky" hook, nor does it specify any guidelines or restrictions regarding them. Editors have expressed varying views over the years about them, particularly when it comes to quirky hooks that are unusually written (see for example #Existence which is suggesting a hook that goes "... that ...") or intentionally misleading. Some support them running at any time, and some editors suggest that these hooks can only run on April Fools Day, which is the time we tend to be very loose with our rules. A common concern that has been raised over the years is that quirky hooks can either be intentionally or unintentionally misleading, along with how some quirky hooks rely on WP:EGG to work. In some cases, some editors have also wondered if accuracy or factualness had been sacrificed in the desire for quirkiness.

With this in mind, do we need to add anything to our guidelines regarding the use of quirky hooks, including defining them and if we need to set limits on their wording or use? Or is the status quo, where there are currently no guidelines regarding them, sufficient? Finally, do we need to codify the ambiguity in the guidelines, which suggest but doesn't outright state that quirky hooks are not required or mandatory in a set but merely a good practice? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

  • Clarify WP:QUIRKY so it is clear that 1) such hooks are recommended, but not required, and 2) that hooks chosen for "quirkiness" should not compromise their informativeness for the sole gain of "hookiness" (as I believe the song lyrics discussion concluded last year). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Besides clarifying that sets do not need a quirky hook, we could say that when approving hooks (at any stage of the process), meeting hook requirements cannot be sacrificed for the sake of quirkiness (except AFD). That will be a reminder to use common sense without encouraging quirky hooks to be passed over IMO. Kingsif (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  • A lot of the "misleading" hooks we get arise from us monkeying around with quotes – I wrote an essay about best practice in this area, and I would of course advocate that it be considered and ratified into DYK guideline. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Definitely agree with AirshipJungleman et al. that the rules for hooks should apply to every hook, even the last hook in the set. There is currently no guideline that says otherwise, but given the strength of the unwritten tradition that "quirky" hooks are exempt from the rules, I think it ought to be set down in writing that this is not the case.
    More generally, I'd like to endorse Ktin's comment in the section above: Often times, DYK editors and nominators are guilty of misconstruing "click-baitiness" with "interestingness" ... In my view, a good DYK is something that should make our readers learn more about a subject, and roughly go "Ah! I learned something today!". Instead, what we might be prioritizing here is our readers going -- "Oh! What could that be?" and then followed by "Eikes! Why did I click on that one!" Many so-called quirky hooks are pure clickbait, and the thing about clickbait is that it does not provide a positive experience for the reader. DYK is a reader-focused process. I'm well aware that one of its stated aims is to acknowledge the work of editors, but this does not mean that the accumulation of pageviews should be prioritized above all else. Honestly, I think even the use of the word "hook" rather than, say, "factoid" is a big part of the problem. As Ktin says, a DYK set should present the reader with a collection of interesting facts, and give them the option of clicking through to the article to learn more. If they click the link only to find out what the hook is going on about, and then shake their head and immediately click the back button, that is not a victory. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  • WP:QUIRKY should give more objective guidance on cases like the "Poison" and baby hook. Was it bad because it was clickbait and not "that" poison, or was it poor taste because someone might be harmed or offended, or was it simply because babies were involved? Or was the original hook fine? It's preferable to have a consistent process for nominators, reviewers, and posters, and not left to the common sense of those involved at any given time.—Bagumba (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Agreed with AJ29, TLC, and Sojourner. Talking to non-wiki people who look at the Main Page regularly, the impression I get is what we call "quirky" hooks are what many readers consider "cringey" and clickbait. JoelleJay (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Truthfully, the "quirkiness" standards of DYK are fairly low, since featuring new articles is ultimately the priority. The hooks people are complaining about here are no more risque or misleading than whats already common in headlines or other similar trivia-related media.Mach61 (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Before we start to engage in yet more instruction creep, somebody will need to convince me that this is a persistent problem and not just an inevitable occasional case of poor judgement. Gatoclass (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
    Considering we get discussions and arguments over if a quirky hook is accurate or not at least once a month, it does appear to be a regular enough issue to warrant discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Any chance you could point me to a few? Gatoclass (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Maybe "once a month" was a bit of an overstatement, but it has happened fairly often in the past. The above discussion is an example, there was also an archived discussion about poison at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 196#Poison: Iitai Koto mo Ienai Konna Yo no Naka wa, Another discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 195#CACP in P1 (which is actually more about the commercial advertising thing, though still involving quirky hooks), and a few others over the years (those are just examples of discussions I could find that mentioned "quirky" by name, there have been others that didn't bring up the term). Reading through the archives, there also seems to be that unofficial practice of quirky hooks being mandatory even if they're not.
Now that I think about it, it would probably be appropriate to get EEng's thoughts on the matter given that he is known for making such hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Here's a few recent ERRORS discussions about quirky hooks: [1][2][3][4]. Bear in mind that the response one gets at ERRORS tends to dissuade editors from posting errors there; I could point to many more problematic quirkies from within the past few months that never got reported. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
Sojourner, thank you for that. With respect however, none of those discussions are about DYK rules being bent or ignored for the quirky slot. Rather, they are just typical discussions about whether particular hooks are sufficiently accurate. That's a general problem for DYK, not one specifically related to quirkies. Gatoclass (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
Hmm, okay, I thought you were looking for "discussions and arguments over if a quirky hook is accurate or not". If what you're looking for is evidence that quirky hooks tend to get a free pass on the rules, well, I could probably find you some diffs but I don't think that point is really in dispute? It's frequently acknowledged by the DYK regulars (example). Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm leery of writing more rules to deal with this. I like seeing accurate quirky hooks, and I'd like to see one in each set, but what matters isn't an official declaration that having a set completed is more important than ticking the box for a quirky hook; what matters is editors informally saying things like "I can't find a quirky hook for this set" and someone else replying "No big deal. Just do the best you can", or someone saying "I don't think this hook is entirely accurate" and others pitching in to help correct it. Setting simple group norms will help more than an ever-expanding list of WP:CREEPY rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
    No one is proposing we do away with quirky hooks altogether, just that if there needs to be at least guidelines regarding them to prevent complains (as seen by the link Sojourner mentioned above), and to codify the implied but not-in-practice rule that quirky hooks are encouraged but not mandatory and sets can go without them if none are available. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
    I think the right way to look at this is that we've got a bunch of criteria for what makes up an ideal hookset; we're allowed to break pretty much any of those rules, but at a "badness" cost, and the goal is to minimize the badness. For example, we want 8 hooks; running fewer is bad, but as shown the other day with the New Zealand mega-hook, overflowing our allotted space on the main page is worse, so we went with fewer hooks. The quirky slot is the same way, and what I'm hearing in this thread (which I agree with) is that skipping a quirky hook gets a fairly small badness score. RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

Backlogs

We have a very large backlog at WP:DYKN, so much so that the WP:PEIS limit is occasionally breached, a problem normally reserved for the approved list. WP:QPQ refers to an "unreviewed backlog mode" where nominators of twenty or more articles are required to provide an extra QPQ. This needs to be activated, for technical reasons if nothing else. This would likely also push us above the WP:DYKROTATE boundary and into 12-hour sets; however, I do not see any alternative. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Or, if 12-hour sets puts too much stress on the @DYK admins: , we could temporarily bump up the number of hooks/set to 10 (which the main page has the space for). Regardless, something needs to be done now so we don't hit all-hands-on-deck panic stations in the next couple of weeks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
We could start rejecting marginal submissions. RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
We could also time out nominations that do not attract reviewer or prep builder interest in a reasonable period of time, perhaps with a newbie exemption. —Kusma (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
So you're suggesting we reject all workshopping of original hooks RoySmith? If a reviewer or prep-builder finds hooks to be un-runnable, it should be summarily rejected? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
No, that's not what I said. In any process that accepts submissions, if you have more submissions than you can publish, there's two things you can do about it. One is to increase your publishing capacity, the other is to sort the submissions by some quality metric and accept the best ones. It doesn't have to be as draconian as eliminating all workshopping of hooks, but I do think we need to move away from allowing an unbounded amount of time and effort being put into improving submissions. RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Any ideas for how to formalise that into the guidelines? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I like @Kumsa's idea of using time in queue as a proxy for quality. It's not perfect but nothing else will be perfect either and when faced with a choice of imperfect alternatives, picking the simplest way is attractive. Different reviewers/preppers will have their own idea of what makes a good hook, which will tend to even out individual differences. RoySmith (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Ugh, mis-pinged @Kusma, sorry about that. RoySmith (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Gatoclass suggested something similar below. @RoySmith and Kusma: What's the best cut-off time, in your opinions? Looking at WP:DYKN, maybe around 45 days? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
The problem seems to be WP:PEIS, so rather than setting a specific time limit, how about "Keep deleting the oldest entry in WP:DYKN or WP:DYKN/A until it's under the size limit"? Or more likely 90% of the limit to allow a little wiggle room. RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
This is a simple solution for the technical PEIS issue, so we should do that. I also think we should generally not allow noms to linger for such an absurdly long time. I haven't done any data analysis, but I think we should do something like close nominations that have been open for longer than 90% of the nominations we had last year, and/or close nominations that have had zero activity for longer than 90% of noms. If we can't get such data, I would suggest to close nominations that have been open for six weeks or that have not had any activity for three weeks.
From what I remember of DYK in 2006, it was normal that nominations that were not chosen within a few days were discarded. After all, DYK was supposed to be interesting facts from new articles. The boring hooks were more likely to be discarded by time out, which made the Main Page more interesting. We currently often have boring facts from articles that are two months old but have passed our byzantine set of rules and processes. I think we can do better. —Kusma (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith and Kusma: I'm not sure if that would end up being fair, I think sometimes noms get ignored for reasons other than being boring or poorly made. I know I sometimes don't commit to reviewing noms if they're complicated (non-English refs or topic I'm not familiar with), controversial (current events etc) or just aren't my cup of tea. Like this nom that's been languishing. BuySomeApples (talk) 11:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure "fairness" is something that can or even should be achieved. Most of us accept that there is no right to a picture hook, but people now seem to expect that every nomination eventually makes it to the Main Page unless it has identifiable flaws. I am not convinced that this expectation is good for DYK's overall health and the quality and interestingness of our output. —Kusma (talk) 11:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
This project has pretty much a perpetual backlog, and yet the people who don't do the work want to increase the workload. It's hard to understand. Valereee (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I think it's time change the QPQ requirements. Regardless of the rules, I always try to do 2-4 reviews for every one of mine. Viriditas (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I actually don't think it's the QPQs so much. They more or less balance out, with occasional backlogs, and the amount of work involved in asking people to do a few reviews is minor, so the backlogs tend to get dealt with. The chronic problem is the moves to prep and queue. Building a prep or moving a queue takes 8x the work of doing a QPQ, and it attracts hostile scrutiny. A lot of people understandably aren't interested in doing it. If you want to ease the workload here, build a prep. If you're an admin, move a prep to queue. But, yeah, if you slip up, someone's probably going to point it out. So. Valereee (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
That makes sense. I think you could still automate a bit more of the process by using more tags in the initial nomination phase. For example, the variety criterion could be facilitated by such nom-assigned tags (spec. occas., bio, short, quirky, US, etc.) Same thing could be used for quality control (short hook, long hook, no cite, etc.) Then automatically build the sets, but finalize them with real people. Apologies if that's science fiction. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
No idea whether it's science fiction or not. One of the things prep builders have to do is create a 'balanced' set, which means no more than 3-4 US-centric hooks, alternating bio vs. non-bio, and generally no more than one science or music or building or radio station or whatever other topic. An automatic process to build the sets would have to take all of that into account, which would mean we'd also need tags like bio, US, music, science, etc. Valereee (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm running a bot which automatically tags hooks as biographies or US-centric. The heuristics I use do a reasonable job, but they're not perfect. I think of it as an aid for human preppers to find what they're looking for. We may eventually get to the point where a bot can do the whole job, but we're far from there now, and I'm not sure I want to live in a world where it becomes reality. RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Also, WP:DYKPBI requires prep builders to do some checks on the nominations they choose, which I don't believe a bot could do. TSventon (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I think Viriditas is suggesting that prep builders could simply do the checks after the bot created the set. Although, for me, the building of the set is the fun part, the puzzle. It's not the tedious part. Valereee (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not building preps these days, but when I was, yeah, I was not just looking to keep the set balanced in terms of biography/US, but also looking at the previous days' sets to make sure we're not running too many pictures of frogs in a row, or too much Taylor Swift, etc. RoySmith (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Right, I was just hoping a bit more automation of the creation of the initial sets could allow preppers to have more free time to get creative with it at the decision-making stage, not replace them. I'm currently reading Brian Merchant's book Blood in the Machine. He makes an interesting, long-drawn-out argument about how automation can be more inclusive and democratic if we embed those values in the decision-making process. Viriditas (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Is that directed at me Valereee? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, @AirshipJungleman29, is what directed at you? Valereee (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

One proposal I have put forward in the past is that nominations whose nominators fail to respond to issues raised within a week should be discarded. The project should not have to continue to wrestle with nominations that their own originators have effectively abandoned. That may not get rid of a lot of nominations, but it would account for at least some. Gatoclass (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Alternatively, just fail nominations that have remained on the nomination page for a certain time period. That is actually what a previous administrator here used to do as a matter of course and there were never any complaints. Gatoclass (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Call me a soft touch, but I'd rather a nomination fail on its merits, rather than being arbitrarily timed out. I could absolutely get behind nixing noms with issues unresolved after a week though.--Launchballer 19:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
When I recently returned to DYK, I had planned to help out with queue promotion, but since it seems there is a more pressing problem with reviewing, for what it's worth I have switched to doing that instead. I've completed four reviews today and if I can keep up that pace for a while it might make a modest dint in the backlog. Unfortunately though, I can't guarantee that I will be able to find the time, we'll just have to see I guess. Gatoclass (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment: (edit conflict) I would be most unhappy if my own nominations were failed on technicalities or they timed out. I imagine in addition to myself, it may turn off editors who would otherwise become regular contributors here. For my latest submission I did two QPQs; that seems like a fair requirement. We have a crisis every once in a while here and This too shall pass. Bruxton (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I've cleaned out all nominations that were more than two months old. All of them weren't moving along for one reason or another. Schwede66 20:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Comment: I think that if a nominator fails to respond to review feedback, failing a nomination by "time-out" is understandable. However, I've seen some nominations stalled because a reviewer, after giving rigorous feedback which the nominator carries out, doesn't promptly (or sometimes ever) finish the review. In cases like that, I'd hope it could be possible to encourage participants to step in and finish such reviews, rather than leave nominators (especially potential newcomers to DYK) feeling as if they've been penalized for someone else not circling back. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
We could protect newbie nominations (i.e. QPQ exempt ones) from time out rules. —Kusma (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm sympathetic to the time-out rules but I don't know if we should be strict about them. For instance, sometimes the delays are on the reviewer side, as in the reviewer hasn't returned or commented for various reasons. Or sometimes an article gets stuck simply because the hook hasn't been reviewed at all. While this could be an argument towards the hook being uninteresting and thus being unsuitable for Wikipedia, it could also be due to the subject material. Several DYK articles about controversial topics, for example, can remain unreviewed for a long time since editors are often unwilling to touch hot potatoes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  • We do need to attack this backlog at both ends. Once we manage to hit 10 preps/queues, we should go into 2/day mode for as long as we can tolerate it (I will promote a few sets).
    To limit nominations (and to increase quality), another option I can see would be to require slightly longer articles. How about 1800 or 2000 bytes minimal size instead of the current 1500? —Kusma (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
    • We could do that, but I doubt it would have much effect. When, as a reviewer, I've sometimes had to point out that articles are a bit too short, they are normally easily padded out a bit. I'm not sure what proportion of noms are near the lower length limit. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
      This may also fall into the "be careful what you measure" category. If you tell somebody, "You need to give me another 300 characters", you'll get it. But that probably won't translate into a better article. RoySmith (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
      +1. I've written articles that are naturally short. We don't want to incentivize padding. Valereee (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
      I would really like to have higher quality articles and more interesting hooks. The length would be the easiest formal criterion to manipulate. For "interesting hooks", I would really like to try dropping nominations that are so boring that nobody engages with them in a reasonable amount of time. —Kusma (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
      Kusma are there any nominations near the top of WP:DYKNA or WP:DYKN that stand out? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
      None of those at the top stand out to me as "this must certainly go on the Main Page at some point" so I'd be OK with them timing out. —Kusma (talk) 12:20, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
      As a hook promoter, what would be helpful is a symbol I could drop on a nomination to say "this is uninteresting enough for me not to promote it, but others may disagree", which doesn't send an approved nomination back to the unapproved pile. As it is, most boring-but-true nominations just hang around at the top of WP:DYKNA for a while until someone feels sorry enough to promote them (see e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Wolfgang Wieland, which to me basically just says ... that a lawyer, who has done other stuff, did some lawyering; or Template:Did you know nominations/Exercise Hell Tank, which to me feels like "that a military exercise observer observed a military exercise"). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
      a symbol I could drop on a nomination to say "this is uninteresting enough for me not to promote it, but others may disagree" We have that. It's {{DYKno}}. RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
      which doesn't send an approved nomination back to the unapproved pile ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:47, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
      In practice, rejecting a nomination on interest grounds almost never happens because, more often than not, the nominator will ask for a second review, or a new hook is proposed, thus saving the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:49, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
      I mean, I could try an experiment and drop {{DYKno}} on every hook I find uninteresting at WP:DYKNA, pointing to this thread as justification? Ah, but then you're just setting yourself up for accusations of subjectivity and unnecessary hostility. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:51, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
      Well, to go back to something I've said a number of times, we've either got to reduce the number of submissions, increase the number of rejections, or increase our production capacity. It's a zero-sum game, so pick one. RoySmith (talk) 01:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
      I'll cite this discussion then, but if I get savaged by a mob of nominators brandishing their dull nominations and get no support, I won't be doing that again.
      Incidentally, while we're on the topic of dull rejections, Anna Nekhames, has finally workshopped an interesting hook after nearly 55kb of discussions (the article is 6kb). Yes, {{DYKno}} was dropped on the nomination quite early on. No, this didn't prevent anything of what followed over the next three weeks. I don't think I need to remind anyone. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
      If you get flak, ping me and I’ll back you. Schwede66 03:25, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
      Is Anna Nekhames the nomination that prompted that thread on ANI of all places? I think the pursuit of "hookiness" may be going too far when folks call hooks they consider less interesting an urgent incident or chronic, intractable behavioral problem. Every hook could be boring to someone. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:34, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
      Well, that hook was very literally boring to everyone P-Makoto—there are statistics to back it up. I was one of the most positive reactions, and even I thought it was pretty terrible. Was 50kb of discussion (more than any article you've created) worth turning it into something reasonable? Then bear in mind that the same chain of events happens probably around three times a year, and I don't think the words "chronic" and "intractable" are that out of place. Still, that's neither here nor there. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
      "Behavioral problem" is key. One might describe my contribution to Wikipedia as "chronic" (persistent and recurring), but duration on its own doesn't rise to a problem.
      For what it's worth, and as a two cents, I worry that the pursuit of "hookiness" sometimes risks emphasizing the scandalous or strange at the expense of what's at the heart of a topic. I remember a page I nominated, where the main hook I proposed was about this frontier woman being Arizona's first telegraphist, and as a teenager. But the ALT that ended up on the main page was about passing messages to her husband's second wife later in her life. Apparently the ALT was more interesting. But was it informative, and was it fair to the topic? I'm not so sure. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 07:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
      Well yes, there is a reason that ANI thread ended the way it did. The point of a DYK hook is not to act as a self-contained summation of the article—otherwise it would better be list of articles with {{annotated link}}. It is to get readers to click through to the article. In the case of the Ella Udall nomination, I personally think that the main hook is more likely to do that than the one that was chosen, but the then-promoter felt differently. What you could have done is simply not proposed ALT4 P-Makoto, if you felt it wasn't fair to the topic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
      @P-Makoto, the nom is also free to strike through any ALT they aren't happy with. Promoters are unlikely to promote such a hook without at least pinging the nom. Valereee (talk) 16:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
      I do regret proposing ALT4. It was one of my first nominations, and at the time I was proposed any "hooky"-seeming hookes that came to mind, especially since I remember there being at the time pushes to not promote "boring" hooks (a subjective measure). When I saw that hook make the main page and realized how it framed and limited the topic, I regretted it, and regretted that someone else thought the 'scandalous'-seeming hook was the 'more interesting' one. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:46, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Question about DYKCITE

Looking at Concha Liaño which is nominated for DYK, I am unsure if it meets one of the criteria. WP:DYKCITE says "The article must be based on reliable sources, which must be cited inline." This article does have sources, they are cited inline, and I don't see a lack of notability for the subject. But I don't know if the cited sources meet DYK's standards. There are only six, so I'll outline below:

  1. Published by an anarchist labor union, cited 3 times.
  2. Interview with the subject, cited 4 times.
  3. SlideShare is user-uploaded and I don't see an indication that this has been published elsewhere, cited 1 time.
  4. Interview with the subject, cited 2 times.
  5. Published book that seems to provide considerable coverage, cited 1 time.
  6. Published by an anarchist labor union, cited 1 time.

Much of the sourcing seems involved with the subject, but I am not familiar with the organizations. @Grnrchst, David Eppstein, Silver seren, and BlueMoonset: courtesy ping to all who posted on the DYK page. Rjjiii (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, in retrospect, the cited sources in this article aren't of high enough quality for DYK. I should have thought twice before nominating this one, apologies. Feel free to withdraw it. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
For me, this would be sufficient as long as the hook fact is sourced to 1, 5, or 6 or is so noncontroversial that sourcing to one of the interviews would be okay. The slideshare looks like it was uploaded by Mujeres Libres, so I'd probably accept it for a noncontroversial hook. The content from it seems to be properly attributed in the article, so I wouldn't have a problem with it in the article but personally wouldn't source a hook to it here if there was any other hook. Valereee (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee: The hook is sourced to citation 2, the interview with Aporrea. It was the thing that I found the most interesting about the article, which is why I put it for the hook. Citations 1 and 6 are mostly for general biographical information. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Grnrchst, I don't have a problem with that hook being sourced to an interview. She isn't saying anything extraordinary about herself. I searched her on google to see if I could improve the article, and I didn't find much beyond what you've used, but she clearly is a notable figure. The simple fact (Columbia University?) did an oral history interview is enough to convince me of that. Valereee (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Generally speaking, I think we should be okay with interviews as long as we don't have any reason to doubt their reliability or veracity. Even if the source itself might be potentially unreliable, if the information came from the horse's mouth and we don't think they're lying, it should be okay as long as it doesn't violate BLP or if the information is uncontroversial. Sometimes we overcorrect with regards to our treatment of unreliable sources and think that they're unacceptable in all cases when they can be usable in limited circumstances. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I didn't see an issue with the sources. SilverserenC 00:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I am concerned that the article seems to have no independent reliable sources, so I don't see how we can be confident that it has a neutral point of view. The book source, Nosotras que perdimos la paz, is only used to confirm its own existence, so the actual source is probably a Google books listing or similar. TSventon (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I’ve created a new list of the first 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 29. We have a total of 306 nominations, of which 145 have been approved, a gap of 161 nominations that has decreased by 49(!) 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) 19:05, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

Reduced limits on DYKs — does WP:DYKCNN need to be updated?

Does/should WP:DYKCNN need to be updated to reflect the reduced limits on new DYKs for articles that already had one? For example, I had to use Template:Did you know nominations/Plant (2nd nomination) instead of Template:Did you know nominations/Plant because the original DYK nom failed. It's relatively simple to do so, but I'd imagine it would be better if the user could simply specify within CNN, or if it could be detected automatically? I don't know. Cessaune [talk] 15:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Cessaune, did you attempt with PSHAW, or just manually? Valereee (talk) 16:26, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Manually. That's what I was told to do when I asked around. Cessaune [talk] 16:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not actually sure whether PSHAW is set up to handle this yet (@Theleekycauldron?), but if you're planning to make future nominations, WP:PSHAW automates the process fully and is in my tech-challenged opinion exceptionally intuitive. Valereee (talk) 16:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Ugh, I don't know what's wrong with me, it's not PSHAW (although that is everything I said, just for a different task here), it's User:SD0001/DYK-helper Valereee (talk) 16:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
yeah, DYK-helper unfortunately doesn't do this, which has been a perennial problem for people whose first nominations fail and want to renom at GA status. SD0001 made a fantastic tool, but isn't really active as a maintainer. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry for the stupid mis-ping! Valereee (talk) 19:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
all good! :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Time to switch over to 2 sets a day

Per the established rules, DYK switches from 1 set a day to 2 sets a day when there are 120 or more approved hooks and at least ten prep and queue sets after the midnight promotion. Tonight, there were ten prep and queues sets (now eleven) at the completion of the midnight UTC promotion, and 147 approved hooks (now 139), so it's time to make the adjustment. Pinging @DYK admins: to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200. Thank you very much.

Please note that two of the hooks in Queue 1 are special occasion hooks for January 30, and will need to be moved by an admin out of the queue and into preps after the switchover (and the queues supplied with replacement hooks):

  • A Stormy Night, the lead hook, is about a Romanian-language play, and since Romania is in a UTC+2 time zone, it should end up in Prep 6 (02:00 to 14:00 local time)
  • Titina Silá, the fourth hook, is about someone from Guinea-Bissau, which is in the UTC time zone, could run in Prep 6 (00:00 to 12:00 local time) or Prep 7 (12:00 to 24:00 local time)

The destination preps are based on the switchover taking place in the next nine hours. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I've changed the update time. I'll have time to move the hooks later today. Schwede66 03:04, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I've moved some hooks around. All sorted. Schwede66 08:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I thought we discussed all this above and decided we can't switch over unless there are admins committed to doing the work. This 2 set a day business doesn't work, and leads to dumbing down of standards.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I did also comment above that we need to switch to 2/day and promised to help with the additional promotion load (I hope to be able to promote one or two later today, but real life is unusually demanding at the moment). Our rules do already make us switch back to 1/day if too many admins are busy or on strike.
The whole thing would work a lot better if the majority of prep sets had no problems that need addressing by admins. I often start looking at a prep set with the intention to promote it and then give up after I discover that the first two articles I check are not up to scratch. —Kusma (talk) 11:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Many sets do seem to be requiring multiple questions here. It turns what's already a fairly large and tedious job into a frustrating one, and since the buck stops with the admin, it's also a high-risk job. And sometimes there's pushback from people pinged to questions that also makes it an actively unpleasant job. It's a problem, and with the tyranny of the majority to deal with, it feels unsolvable. Valereee (talk) 12:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Guys, here's one possible approach; if you find a set with a problematic hook but don't have time to fix it, add a checkY to the end of every hook you were able to verify, which will allow another admin to see which hooks have already been verified, saving time for everyone. Gatoclass (talk) 12:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Hm, not a bad idea...for one thing, it would mean preps could more efficiently be checked in prep, rather than after moving. It would break the job down so that when an admin had, say, time to do a few checks but not to do a full set, they'd have a way of signalling. It would let someone...oh, here's the rub. So admin A checks several hooks, admin B checks all but the final, and admin C comes along, checks the last one, moves the set to queue...and one of the hooks checked by A or B ends up at errors. Who gets chewed out? :D Valereee (talk) 13:22, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
My biggest issue with promoting to queue is the amount of time that’s sometimes needed. I don’t mind pushback from pushy nominators; if I’m not satisfied, I will push back myself. I’d do more queue promotion if some of the hooks had already been checked by other admins. Schwede66 13:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
One of the benefits of the current small number of admins working here is that we know pretty much everyone's an expert, and if new ones step up, like Ganesha, we can offer rechecks. Valereee (talk) 14:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I have returned to work at DYK for the time being, so that is one extra admin on the job. I am currently focused on verifying nominations to improve quality control and throughput, to take some pressure off admins doing set verification. Gatoclass (talk) 11:48, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
That's great, and perhaps things will be fine this time. I'll try to muck in where I can as well. I just take issue this formulaic "we must switch to 2 sets a day" line like the one above, with no regard for whether we have the bodies available to actually deliver that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I also take issue with the forced switch to two-sets-a-day. I did the majority of the prep-to-queue promotions in December and burned out of DYK. I was hoping other admin would step up if I slowed down in January, and some did, but DYK still struggles to have 7 filled queues. I think before any switch takes place, there needs to be at least 5 admin who commit to helping promote at least 1 queue every week. If not, we will continue to burn out the admin who volunteer here. Z1720 (talk) 14:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
We need 7-14 sets moved every week. Five people committing to one move per week isn't enough to even handle 1-a-days. The answer here is not making volunteers commit to something they don't want to do voluntarily. Valereee (talk) 14:54, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
In my opinion, 5 is the minimum admin we need, and hopefully these five will promote more than one a week and be supported by others. Right now, the system is "move to 2-sets-a-day when we hit 120 promotions and hope admin step up", which I don't like. If too many admin say that they are too busy to promote queues, then we shouldn't be switching. And committing to promoting preps is voluntary: if an admin can't do it, no one is forcing them to indicate that they will. I think we need admin commitment before this is implemented, and admin committing to do it will make them more likely to help out. I'm happy to increase the number of admin from 5 to 7 or 14, but in January, 9 admin have so far promoted to queue, and in December it was 5. Are there enough admin to get them to commit to helping in this space if we require more? I don't think we can get to 7 admin committing if we require this first. Z1720 (talk) 15:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you take issue with the forced switch, then the thing to do is to change the rules, or decommission DYK entirely. We set up the automatic changeover via RfC because every time we had too many approved nominations waiting for promotion, there was an extended discussion with consensus very difficult to achieve, and people got tired of that particular stressor. The whole point behind having the 10+ sets and 120+ requirement is that we take advantage of a (perhaps temporary) glut, and reduce the backlog while helping to avoid having the Approved page hit the PEIS limit. With the equally automatic reversion to one set a day when we get down below six sets, we have over five days ready for promotion. I realize that our admins are more stressed these days, as are our promoters to prep, but unless there is a more basic structural change to DYK involving fewer nominations passing through to the main page, this is going to remain an issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, and we've just changed the rules to allow more nominations. Valereee (talk) 15:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I mean, if you're saying our requirements to switch to 2-a-days need to include X number of admins commit to promoting 1 a week for the length of the 2-a-day run, I'm fine with that, but 5 might not be sufficient and 10 probably isn't possible. And if we can't get that commitment and don't go to 2-a-days, how do we solve the transclusion problem? Valereee (talk) 15:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I once made an attempt during a 2x cycle to get admins to sign up for queue promotion duty, with the goal of getting enough commitments to cover 14 promotions a week. It was a dismal failure.
I've also made offers to several DYK regulars to sponsor their RfAs. I am grateful that Leeky stepped up, and any other offers I've made in the past still stand. One of the big stumbling blocks at RfA is "why do you need the tools?" If you're a DYK regular, at the very least you'll have that one covered in spades.
My solution to not getting burned out by 2x cycles is to just walk away. I do promotions during 1x times, but when we switch to 2x, I find other stuff to do. I think the people who insist that more work needs to be done should be at the head of the line volunteering to do it. If they're not, I'm certainly not going to take their place. RoySmith (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
@Z1720 made a comment on discord trying to get more admins in light of this decision. I gave my standard response to when I've been asked about helping out here and Z1720 asked that I write something on this page so here I am: I try to avoid most main page work (epsecially DYK, ITN, RD) instead preferring to stick to less fraught areas of administrative work like ArbCom and AfD. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Hahahahaha! Valereee (talk) 18:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah, @Barkeep49, I see you're serious. I thought this was hyperbole. Maybe you'd like to expand on what you see as DYK being a more fraught area of admin work than ArbCom, which is 100% fraught, and AfD, which admins and ArbCom have been struggling to manage for years?
DYK struggles to get admins to work here, and certainly it's work that can be stressful, but my feeling has always been that it's more the admin task itself, which 98% of the time is simply time-consuming and tedious. Generally the regular workers here deal with even strong differences of opinion pretty reasonably. Valereee (talk) 12:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, this was definitely a serious point made in the style of a joke, If I am going to get yelled at for something, I either want it to be for my own actions, which I believe in and can defend, or because I think I'm serving a nobler purpose. With DYK I'm asked to essentially duplicate the work of ~six other people (the reviewer of each DYK plus whoever prepares the set) and accept full responsibility for any mistakes they might have made in an area where the critics feel mistakes are awful enough to offer no grace to the people trying to do the work. That's a lot of work with no real offer of satisfaction all to help bring a few thousand views to some random guy from Virginia. With AfD I can basically choose if I want to do work I'll get yelled at for or not and if I do choose it, it's going to be work of my own I'm ready to defend (or if it's not something I should defend it's relatively low stakes to fix it). With Arbcom I've volunteered to do work that I think essential to the encyclopedia and responsibility for a decision is always shared. I don't think it essential to the encyclopedia to have something about the writing style of some 90s children's book on the front page. It's nice, don't get me wrong, and no doubt motivates editors to produce content. But we could find other things to draw front page attention to if we wished and provide that motivation and that niceness doesn't counter balance the unpleasantness I see in some many DYK discussions. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I suspect that's not an uncommon feeling. The critics of DYK can be pretty openly hostile.
For me it's worth it because I can get things like Safe House Black History Museum seen by thousands of readers who've never heard of it, and I'm willing to accept the downsides because in order for that to happen, someone has to do the work. So it's a trade off. Valereee (talk) 16:52, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2: Epipterygium opararense

Here we go then... I'm reviewing a set for the first time in quite some time! On this one, just querying the "5-metre radius" bit... usually if we're using a phrase like that I'd expect it to be within a 5-metre radius of some defined point. A radius isn't an object on its own, without a point of reference. Furthermore, the hook itself says something slightly different. It says "all of them growing in two sites located within 5 metres from each other". So how is this 5 metre figure measured? Is it the centre of one population to the centre of the other population? Or indeed the distance between the closest individuals in each of the two populations? Because in either of those cases, the total radius of the whole population area could be bigger... As in here, the two populations have there centres 5m apart, but the total radius in which it's found is greater:

Example of how Epipterygium opararense population might be distributed for en-wiki DYK example

I'd suggest that the article should be clarified a bit, so we know what the true range is, and then the hook brought in line with that. Pinging @AirshipJungleman29, Dylan620, and Le Loy: who were involved with this one. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:20, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Amakuru, from what I understand from the source, the 5m is the shortest distance between the edges of each population; I'm not sure about the semantics of "radius", so simply changing it to "within 5 metres of each other", like in the article, would probably work. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: but even that's not logically correct then. If the closest members of each population are 5m apart from each other, then the farthest-away in the two populations are clearly a greater distance apart than that... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
The hook doesn't refer to the individuals in the populations, it refers to the populations themselves Amakuru. The source says both: "E. opararense [is found] at two separate sites along a 10-m stretch of track" and "these two sites are within 5 m of one another". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Why don't we simply say "within a 10m area" then? Because the hook as it stands clearly says to me that every individual is within a single 5m radius. Black Kite (talk) 18:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I don't mind. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Sounds good to me. Le Loy (talk) 02:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Tear it up and start again. That was the figure published in 2005 - later surveys show different results (and have they really not cultivated any "in captivity"?). Johnbod (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Interesting observation

I know that many editors who are active here are interested in pageviews. To that end, I thought I'd report the following observation from the recent New Zealand MP mass-nomination: whilst the articles simply listed the 29 without any bias (random order etc), the women received considerably higher page views than the men. Overall, there were 39,277 views while this was on the main page (stats come from the monthly DYK pageview leaders page). But the gendered views are rather different; on average, the women had 980 and the men had 656 views, respectively. That's quite a difference that I thought is worth sharing. The analysis is in this spreadsheet. Schwede66 21:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

What conclusion do I draw from this? If pageviews are important to you, write about women; the average reader is more interested in reading their bios. Schwede66 21:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Speaking only for myself, I'm mostly interested in their achievements, and how that is important to humanity. For example, "Alexander Fleming was a Scottish physician and microbiologist, best known for discovering the world's first broadly effective antibiotic substance, which he named penicillin. His discovery...has been described as the 'single greatest victory ever achieved over disease'." That's the kind of thing that interests me enough to click the link. Viriditas (talk) 22:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't know whether the pictures played a role. Most of the men are wearing suits and look rather similar. TSventon (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I kinda wonder if the relatively low number of views was, paradoxically, the large number of people featured, meaning people didn't have the time to go through all of them individually. For comparison, how did the individual MP hooks do view-wise? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:20, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
As you would expect, individual noms get much higher views as there's less competition. On average, views of the five individual noms were four times higher. Details are in the same spreadsheet. Schwede66 04:17, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I think the only useful conclusion we can draw from this data is that if you want a particular page to do well at WP:DYK as measured by pageviews, (1) you shouldn't have 28 other boldface links in the hook and (2) you shouldn't nominate New Zealand MPs.
Collectively the group hook got the second-most pageviews so far this month, but individually all the articles performed very poorly, including the eight lowest pageviews for the month, and all of them are well into the bottom third. As compared against the five individual NZ MPs from this parliament, only the best-performing MP in the group hook (not, btw, a woman) beats the worst-performing individual MP for pageviews; two of the individual MPs have more than twice the pageviews of any of the group. And none of them broke the 10,000 pageview barrier, which 61 hooks have managed so far in January 2024.
Incidentally, that 980 and 656 appear to be the sum of the average hourly views for men and women respectively, not the average number of views that men's and women's articles got. And I'm not convinced the evidence is sufficient to demonstrate that gender is the cause of this discrepancy: a hypothesis which looks to me to be at least as well supported by the data is that the people who don't have anglophone names get the most clicks. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:08, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I thought the theory from before was that people with non-Anglophone sounding names tend to be at a views disadvantage? At least I remember there being an observation like that before where non-Anglophone hooks in general tend to underperform regardless of the subject or topic. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
  • With a record number of general elections coming up in 2024 around the world (over a billion potential voters, is it?), I think the lesson is that this sort of super-multiple nomination should be avoided. It took forever to clear off the nom page, & was a general nuisance. Johnbod (talk) 00:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
    On the other hand, it did motivate Schwede66 and the nominator, and they have said that they would not have bothered with the nomination if no multihook was done. With that said, whether or not it was a net positive to DYK specifically is an open question, one that can be discussed here. I was personally against the multihook but not opposed to it running if there was consensus to do so, and the splitting of the best options into their own separate hooks seemed like a reasonable compromise if the other option was for the nomination to not continue at all. But given the underpeformance of the individual articles even if the hook as a whole did well, the question on whether or not this was the best option, and if we should allow something like this to happen again, is an open question. I know that there were other multi-article hooks other than the NZ MP ones (I think they're in the hall of fame?), so comparing how individual articles did for those hooks might be a good way to compare. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Doing partial checks before moving to queue

I'm trying out Gatoclass's idea in Prep 4, placing a tick if I've checked and found no problems, a ? if I've opened a question here. If others would like to check some of the other hooks in that set, yay, maybe we've found a way to break up this job so it isn't so time-consuming for a single person. Valereee (talk) 15:12, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh, side benefit...an admin would be able to do checks in a set containing a hook they nominated or reviewed. Win-win! Valereee (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee, I like this, thank you for boldly trying this out! I feel it may be better to explicitly say what we checked and who did the checking. So in the spirit of boldly testing, I have added a tick and a comment to a hook, feel free to revert. Something like putting ticks/comments into an extra line might make it easier for tools like PSHAW to remove such comments if we adopt this idea in general. —Kusma (talk) 15:46, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea, I was actually wondering how to mark my assessments in a way that would be both clear that it was me doing it and easy to remove by someone moving the prep to queue! Valereee (talk) 18:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I moved this to queue, leaving one question mark which I hope gets resolved soon. I currently think it is good to have a visible marker on hooks in queue that may still need work, but others may well disagree. —Kusma (talk) 06:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Now resolved by an alternate hook. —Kusma (talk) 08:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussing the DYK guideline of one DYK per article maximum

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus to loosen the previous near-complete ban on running an article multiple times at DYK. I've written closes for the individual discussions below, but the net effect of this not-an-RfC is actually quite simple: the word previously should be changed to the words in the past five years. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 03:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello everyone, I'm turning to this talk page to clarify a rule point regarding the DYK guidelines

Context

I've recently been working on improving an article (Yobidashi) and it's been promoted to GA status. In order to promote this work and facts that may raise the curiosity of readers I proposed it for a DYK mention. The problem was that the article had already received a DYK citation in October 2004. The DYK rules state that this makes the article ineligible:

An article is ineligible for DYK if it has previously appeared on the main page as a bold link at DYK, unless the article was then deleted as a copyright violation.

After discussing it in the nomination discussion, I'm turning to you to see if it isn't time to change the nomination rules a little.

Opinion/discussion

As mentioned in the discussion for the mention in the DYK, I would be in favor of an evolution of the rule. 2004 is a long time ago when most of the people actively participating in Wikipedia were not yet present.

Age of the previous mention aside, the article in its current form has nothing to do with its version of twenty years ago.

So I'd like to have a discussion about the possibility of adding new DYK mentions to articles that have undergone major changes or that had previously received this mention several years before. - OtharLuin (talk) 08:30, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  • See previous discussions: 1, 2, 3. My take is that articles that passed GA a couple years (ten is certainly enough) after being featured on the Main Page are deserving of another go at DYK, but at the same time we already have more DYK noms than we can handle, so I understand that there is overall little appetite for expanding the pool of potential nominations. —Kusma (talk) 10:12, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
    I think one issue here is how many additional articles would become eligible if we allow a repeat DYK nom for passing GA after ten years. I don't think it would be a significant number, but I don't have any data. Given that GAs are typically more interesting than short new articles, we might even get more interesting hooks, so allowing GAs to be reruns seems a net positive to me. —Kusma (talk) 13:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
I do wonder if articles previously featured on DYK can be eligible again after a minimum period. What I was thinking was five years, but other editors may find it too short. 10 years seems okay but could be too long for practical purposes. The idea I also had is that, if such an article is renominated for DYK, it must be under different circumstances from the previous nomination: for example, a previously-featured article as a new creation can only be featured again on DYK as either a 5x expansion or as a newly-promoted GA. In addition, perhaps it can only run if a completely new hook is used, as in the old hook cannot be used for the new nomination. In the discussion that relaxed the ITN/OTD rules so that said articles can run on DYK after a year has passed (previously, virtually all ITN/OTD blurb articles were totally ineligible), there was also talk about previously-featured articles to be given another chance at DYK, but there wasn't enough discussion regarding that specific issue to result in a consensus. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:34, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Anything before about 2010 had very little process or quality control, so I would say things that old should be allowed to run again for sure. Just because it ran under the archaic no-process DYK in 2004, that shouldn't preclude it running through the proper DYK process in 2024. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:50, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I agree the rule should be relaxed, perhaps to exclude articles which featured before the current process (or its like) was attempted (2010 ish?). I have also recently realised that I have broken the rule at least once before, with Battle of the Indus. Improving articles long-dormant is also a worthy goal. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:55, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

Question: Since the subject had apparently already been mentioned several times during DYK's existence, wouldn't it be better to turn this discussion into a consensus-building exercise on the new DYK eligibility conditions in preparation for a vote (I've seen a previous approach fail for lack of participants)? As mentioned above by Kusma can we agree that an item promoted to GA or FA can represent itself for a DYK heading? And what about a 10-year period between each DYK? - OtharLuin (talk) 14:04, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Why is this an age-limited discussion. As a 1500 characters article goes to 7500 and a 7500 character article goes to 37500 they become dissimilar? I think a second appearance should be required to be 5x of a first time appearance and I also believe a 3rd appearance should be allowed for another 5x. Basically, I think any 5x should be allowed a run, but a repeat run would need to be both 5x or GA within the last seven days and 5x of the version that went on the main page to start the original DYK run. I don't think just taking it to GA should renew DYK eligibility because then people might do DYK and delay GA certification just to get a 2nd run without expanding the article significantly. Thus, I think a subject should be allowed up to 3 runs.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:20, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
    Supporting DYK nominations if an article is extended 5 times since the last DYK-nominated version is something I could support. - OtharLuin (talk) 14:40, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
    I wouldn't want people to write a new article, have it appear at DYK, then expand it 5x, have it appear at DYK again, and then turn it into a GA and have it appear once more, all within a few weeks. Better to have a minimum wait time of a few years so readers won't recognise the topic as a rerun. I do not think people should be encouraged to 5x expand an article that has been 5x expanded before, but rather go for GA as that rewards quality of writing over quantity. —Kusma (talk) 14:57, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
    Understandable. But I imagine that extending an article by 5 times can be a good basis for setting a standard for an article to be renominated DYK after a certain period. - OtharLuin (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
    So if someone created an article at 1500 characters and nominated it for DYK, they could then expand it to 7500 characters and have another DYK as soon as the review was approved? Having the same article at DYK twice within a few weeks doesn't seem desirable to me. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 15:33, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
    I think this five-fold extension rule can be a good thing, though. However, each new nomination should be subject to a time criterion (a new DYK every 5/10 years, for example). - OtharLuin (talk) 13:37, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
  • There needs to be a standdown period to prevent GAMING. Something between 2 and 5 years. Beyond that, I'm happy with subsequent appearances under the normal GA criteria (5x expansion or GA). Schwede66 17:58, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Schwede66: How about a one-year moratorium for everyone except the original nominator of the article? The same person probably shouldn't be taking an article to DYK twice, but if we want to encourage finding and building on other's work... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:45, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  • I think even GAs would need to be 5x of the previous DYK. Thus, gaming would be less of a problem. There is no way for a GA to be less than 1500 characters, so we don't currently worry about character count of GAs. If we allow repeat DYKs we need to enforce 5x for all DYK appearances. Thus someone can not get a 1st or 2nd DYK at 7500 characters and then another for a GA of the same content even if time has passed.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:01, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
    Your suggestion encourages people to game the system by deliberately making their first DYK as short as possible. —Kusma (talk) 19:42, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
    All rules are made to be broken and gamed. If we require 2 years between DYK nominations, this might not be the case.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)
  • If we are going to allow all 5x, we should have a rule that 3rd time DYKs must pass GA before DYK promotion because if an article that is at least 37.5k characters in length can not pass GA, we might not want it on the main page.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:49, 8 January 2024 (UTC)

On reflection, I'm not at all keen on this idea, but if it were to be implemented, I think I would have to endorse leeky's suggestion that it not be open to the article's original creators to expand their own articles, because that could pretty clearly lead to gaming. And I could probably only support it if it was confined to non-GA articles being taken to GA. Also, there would certainly be no justification in my view for running articles more than twice.

Other than that, there is the obvious question of nomination volume; if the project is currently getting more noms than it can comfortably handle, perhaps this wouldn't be the best idea. There would also be the problem of finding new and viable hooks for the same article, as some barely have even one worthwhile hook to be found, and it would not be acceptable to run the same hook twice. And finally, there is the question of time period between hooks. Two years would be an absolute minimum I think, five might be better. But again, I'm still doubtful about the whole idea. Gatoclass (talk) 04:04, 9 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Support multiple appearances, with a three year minimum interval, no restriction on the same person doing/nominating. Johnbod (talk) 04:48, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see the harm of an article running on DYK multiple times, as long as a reasonable time has passed between appearances (probably at least five years or more), the context used is different (i.e. an article can't feature on DYK as a 5x expansion twice, but an article that was initially featured as a new article or a 5x expansion could later re-run as a newly-promoted GA), and the hook that runs on the second occasion is significantly different from the first time's hook. I do not agree that the first nomination's nominator should be barred from renominating the article in the future, not only because it is impractical, but also because it could discourage expansion and efforts to improve articles further. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:17, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
GA nominations and 5x nominations shouldn't become eligible again for being later expanded 5 times. My reasoning is that a 5 times expansion DYK is meant to encourage someone who finds a very small stub article to flesh it out. An article that has already been expanded 5 times from a stub, or that has been expanded to meet Wikipedia:Good article criteria number 3, is already there.
No strong opinions on other ways to run multiple times. Rjjiii (talk) 06:27, 9 January 2024 (UTC)
My opinion is that older DYKs should get the chance to appear at DYK again after at least 5 or 10 years. The current rules actually discourage people from expanding 2,000-byte articles that appeared at DYK in 2008 or something, even when enough sources exist to expand the page fivefold and/or bring it to GA. I don't think we should restrict re-nominations based on who was the original nominator.
This would have really helped me when I expanded 195 Broadway fivefold in 2020, only to find that the article appeared on DYK a dozen years ago. Even though it was only about 2,000 bytes before I expanded it, and even though I had four alternate hook ideas (which were substantially different from the hook that did run), I couldn't use any of these hook ideas, which I thought were far more interesting. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

 Comment. We now have a good idea of which themes need to be changed, but the discussion space is now a little too crowded to get an overall view of everyone's votes. So I suggest we note down the pros and cons in the table below, taking care to keep the development of our ideas in the discussion section.

Table of ideas

Proposer Who can now nominate DYK? What are the criteria for nominating a DYK? When can a DYK be nominated again? Should there be a limit to the number of DYKs per article?
OtharLuin (talk) no nomination restrictions current criteria are satisfactory allow a new nomination every 5/10 years on condition that the article has been extended by 5 times from the first nomination no.
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) anyone who has not previously successfully nominated the article reachieving any eligibility criteria is valid 1 year moratorium after a successful appearance no
Valereee For every full prep set you've built or moved to queue, you may nominate one repeat article Achieving any additional eligibility criteria 1 year after successful appearance No

Call to a vote

This I am calling this to a vote. There are several distinct sub elements that I think should be addressed separately.— Preceding unsigned comment added by TonyTheTiger (talk • contribs) 12:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:04, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Allow multiple DYK appearances for an article

Consensus for some sort of change. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 03:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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

  1. Support - TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. Support.--Launchballer 13:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  3. Conditional maybe. See below. - Gatoclass (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  4. Support. Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  5. Support. - OtharLuin (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  6. Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  7. Support :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  8. Oppose. We already have more nominations than we can handle. RoySmith (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
    User:RoySmith, we use to swap out sets every 6 hours. Why is 450 sets a year too much to handle?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:27, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
    Back in the before times where you could shoot a half-formed thought right at the Main Page? Sure, we could do cycles of that once every six hours, but the review process takes multiples longer than it used to. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
    Right now, we've got a big red box that says "There are currently 2 filled queues. Admin assistance in moving preps is requested." That's pretty much been the normal state of affairs for weeks. Sometimes we get up to three or four queues. A week or so ago, we got down to zero. We can barely keep up, and that's with us running 24 hour updates. RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
    PS, it's disingenuous to call for a vote and then argue with people who don't vote the way you want them to. RoySmith (talk) 16:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  9. Oppose. I don't see a good rationale for greatly expanding the pool of nominees, at the expense of the truly new nominees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Eppstein (talk • contribs) 18:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  10. Support. Allowing limited reruns makes some more interesting topics eligible. With more interesting topics and a larger proportion of GAs, perhaps we can strengthen the interestingness requirement in the future. —Kusma (talk) 18:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  11. Support in the general sense that I do not favor a blanket prohibition in principle. However, if no concrete proposal below gains consensus then of course we should still default to the status quo not allowing multiple DYK appearances. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:38, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  12. Support but there needs to be requirements before they are allowed to run again. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:22, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  13. Support in principle, subject to the agreement of tight restrictions as being discussed below. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:10, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  14. Oppose, and honestly unless you are actively building preps or moving them to queues, you ought to be seriously concerned about any proposal that increases the workload for those who are. One of the major problems at DYK is that the vast majority of participants have zero understanding of that workload. Valereee (talk) 18:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  15. Support as long as it comes with a standdown restriction. Schwede66 23:32, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  16. Oppose DYK is for new articles. If people would like articles to be on the main page a second time, please head over to FAC and hit a more rigorous set of requirements --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
    DYK is not exclusively for new articles, which is why recent GAs and 5Xs are also eligible. Curbon7 (talk) 10:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
    Tell that to Genghis Khan and Existence, Guerillero, which both featured at DYK recently despite having been around for a combined 44 years. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:31, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
    To quote the first line of DYKNEW "Articles featured at DYK must be new at the time of nomination." That goal has been part of DYK since 2005. Newness was watered down by adding GAs a decade ago, but the main goal of DYK remains the same. I think highlighting new articles is extremely important to novice editors and editors starting on their journey to becoming content creators. -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 12:44, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
    This. My first few DYKs were an absolute thrill. It was exciting to see my stuff on the main page of one of the world's biggest websites. I think my second DYK was American Bank Note Company Printing Plant, in March 2018. Today, almost six years later, it's on the verge of passing its FA review. DYK is a gateway drug for new editors and should remain that way. It's not a way for those of us who have been around a while to get another hit. RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
    I wasn't aware that new editors are only allowed to work on new articles, or that they are forbidden from articles that have been on DYK before? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  17. Oppose - some articles are fine without DYKs, if you are able to take a substantial article that has already had a DYK to a GA you aren't probably a newbie, neithier is the article "new" by any stretch of the imagination. Sohom (talk) 15:43, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  18. Support as long as limited to a minimum interval (5yrs) and max 2 per article. ResonantDistortion 15:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  19. Support. WP:NOT#BUREAUCRACY. The "minimum interval (5yrs) and max 2 per article", just above, sounds reasonable to me. Honestly, the idea that more than a handful of obsessive non-editor readers are keeping tabs in their heads about what has and has not appeared in DYK before is not very plausible. I don't think anyone really cares about this except for a few internal editors. It would not be good to regurgitate stuff at the readers in a readily noticeable way, but something DYK'ed many years ago and vastly improved since then is not going to do that. PS: As for the "it was always supposed to be about new articles only" stuff: Who cares? It much better serves the readership to point them to a complete and well-developed article than a minimal and shaky new one that barely squeaks by the criteria. I know DYK serves something of a new-editor, doing-stuff-well encouragement thing, too, but this proposal would not noticeably impede that.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:32, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    It's not really about who may or may not be "keeping tabs" on articles though. As Valereee noted, it's fundamentally about how many nominations the project can handle, and the tiny number of administrators who are willing to do the work to keep the project running, so any proposal that increases eligibility is potentially problematic and needs to be handled with care. Gatoclass (talk) 06:16, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    Maybe we need a QPQ system? For every prep you promote to queue, you get to vote on one proposal to increase your workload. RoySmith (talk) 13:09, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
    Broaden the editorial pool dealing with the queue is another option. There's no reason this has to involve admins only. An admin is needed only for the very last step.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
  20. Support per SMcCandlish above. I can't imagine this will add very many DYK noms to the (already vast) eligible pool. Ajpolino (talk) 03:49, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  21. Support this will slightly shift the balance towards GAs, which is good for having better vetted articles on the main page. As a new editor I was quite disappointed that few of my GAs were eligible for DYK. —Femke 🐦 (talk) 14:43, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  22. Support somewhat selfishly, as I'd like to get a DYK for my rewrite of St Melangell's Church, Pennant Melangell, which is currently ineligible because it had a DYK nearly 15 years ago. I also agree with the rationales presented above. sawyer * he/they * talk 03:41, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  23. Support provided that there are reasonable limitations (e.g. the five year limit proposed below), as not to over-burden editors and avoid repetition for readers. ― novov (t c) 01:41, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  24. Support under certain time limit conditions (I'm happy with the 5 year limit). S5A-0043Talk 13:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
  25. Support for reasons stated. (This came up years ago on the DYK talk page and I was in favor of it then, too - it's silly for a totally different stubby article which DYK'd in 2007 to block a 5x expansion or GA DYK by a totally different editor making essentially a different article.) Some sort of time limit is fine of course to prevent some sort of fast rotation into DYK twice in short succession, of course. SnowFire (talk) 15:01, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
  26. Support in principle, with provisions to prevent gaming the system. I'd also support a guideline that reruns should feature hooks based on content added to the article after the previous appearance at DYK – so that while the topic may be familiar, the content is certainly fresh. Complex/Rational 15:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
  27. Support one additional DYK feature being permitted for an article for each twenty-year period since the first one. jp×g🗯️ 03:12, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Require 5x vs. prior nomination

Consensus against. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 03:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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

"5X" refers to Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines § Fivefold expansion (WP:5X)
  1. Support - TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. Weak support, would prefer 5x from the previous front page appearance (so that front page traffic sees a substantially different article).--Launchballer 13:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  3. Oppose - x5 requirement has always been kludgy and probably needs reform anyhow, let alone being expanded into other areas. Also, encourages article bloat. Changing my !vote to support because I have belatedly realized that users could write a GA-eligible article but not submit it to GA at the time, and then down the track simply nominate exactly the same article for GA and get a second DYK that way. That would be blatant gaming and totally contrary to the aim of improving article content, so my position is now that articles will have to be x5 expanded and be recently promoted to GA to be featured a second time. Gatoclass (talk) 05:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  4. Weak support Support permitting 5x expansion; oppose as requirement. I'd prefer that GAs be eligible too (if it's impossible to expand 5x, but the previous version is already substantial). Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  5. Support if the previous version is the first DYK nomination. - OtharLuin (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  6. Oppose - would prefer only GAs as a second nomination. After quantity should come quality. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  7. Oppose as a requirement, neutral on allowing 5x expansions. —Kusma (talk) 18:48, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  8. Oppose any kind of 5x condition for a 2nd nomination, i.e. it is neither necessary nor sufficient. Sometimes an article is already long enough that it would not benefit from being expanded 5x, and we should also be aiming higher on the quality scale the second time around. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:44, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  9. Oppose, that leads to either 25x expansions or another series of layered rules. CMD (talk) 05:01, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  10. Oppose on chronic workload and staffing concerns. Valereee (talk) 18:24, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  11. Oppose as a GA nomination by itself is fine enough. We shouldn't have to pad articles out unnecessarily before they can become GAs. Schwede66 23:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  12. Oppose due to the added complexity --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  13. Oppose as a requirement, though it seem like a good milestone to treat as a qualifier.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  14. Oppose. If we allow a second appearance, it should only be for bringing the article to "GA", and two DYK appearances should be the absolute limit. The notion of multiple trips to DYK would encourage extreme gaming. Cbl62 (talk) 13:36, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  15. Oppose length does not correlate to quality past a certain point; 5x expansion should be allowed as long as it doesn't present new problems (TOOLONG etc), and it should not be required for articles that are already sufficient in length. sawyer * he/they * talk 03:48, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  16. Oppose articles should be well-written, not well-padded. ― novov (t c) 01:43, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  17. Oppose. The fivefold expansion rule for first-time DYKs is valuable as a mechanism to encourage the expansion of stubs, but requiring fivefold expansion to articles that had already been DYK-ready is more likely to encourage WP:EXCESSDETAIL than further article improvement. I have no objection to allowing past DYKs to be re-nominated on grounds of fivefold expansion, but such expansion isn't going to be desirable on a consistent enough basis to justify a requirement. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:40, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
  18. Oppose as a requirement, as an unreasonable expectation for editors – except for articles that begin as very short stubs and could realistically be expanded 25x. Not to mention that reviewing such a nomination would also take significantly longer. Complex/Rational 15:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Require newness (5x in last 7 days)

This is, I'm just going to be honest, an exceptionally poorly-framed proposal. There's clear consensus against it, but not all opposers seem to agree on what they're opposing. The most literal reading would be "in the course of allowing 5X expansions, maintain the newness requirement used for first nominations", but it's impossible for me to read the opposition here as amounting to "abolish the newness rule for 5Xs but only on rerun"; that simply doesn't follow from the text of most opposing comments. To the extent that this could mean "require 5X expansion for a GA", there is strong consensus against. To the extent that this could mean "allow 5X expansions but not GAs", there is strong consensus against. To the extent that it could mean "allow 5X expansions as well as GAs", this was better discussed in the section below (despite the confusing section titles). -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 03:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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

  1. Support - TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. Not necessary if the second nomination must pass GA, which is my position. That is to say, the second nomination will be time-dependent on the GA pass, not on when the article was x5 expanded, just as long as it has been expanded x5 since the first nomination. Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  3. Weak support Support permitting 5x in last 7 days; oppose as requirement. I'd prefer that GAs be eligible too (if it's impossible to expand 5x, but the previous version is already substantial). Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  4. Weak support. - OtharLuin (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  5. Question does not make sense, unless it proposes that second nominations are exempt from an expansion deadline, for whatever reason. If so, I oppose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
    User:AirshipJungleman29, I do not understand what you are confused about, but I think you mean to support requiring that second nominations to be subject to an expansion deadline of having been expanded a further 5x in the most recent 7 days.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:50, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  6. I am opposed to requiring expansions (GA should be enough). Neutral to weak support for allowing 5x expansions to be eligible. Also, why are we counting the total number of comments? (Someone changed my * to # although * seems more suited to sections with all kinds of comments). —Kusma (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  7. Oppose any kind of 5x condition for a 2nd nomination, i.e. it is neither necessary nor sufficient. Sometimes an article is already long enough that it would not benefit from being expanded 5x, and we should also be aiming higher on the quality scale the second time around. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  8. Oppose I think, although 5x expansions are already required to take place within the last 7 days and I do support that. CMD (talk) 05:05, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Chipmunkdavis, AirshipJungleman29, Kusma, and King of Hearts:, This got confusing when User:Gatoclass split the 5x from the GA which are the two ways for an article that is not new to qualify for DYK. My intention was to clarify whether you supported an article that meets either 5x/7day expansion or GA for a repeat nomination. When this got split out it became a requirement rather than an alternative. I.e., the intention was to vote on whether 5x in the last 7 days was an alternative way to qualify for renomination to GA, not an additional requirement on top of GA.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:20, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  9. Oppose on chronic and ongoing workload and staffing concerns. Valereee (talk) 18:26, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  10. Oppose as per Kusma. Schwede66 23:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  11. Oppose due to the added complexity --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  12. Oppose. This seems weird and bureaucratic. A requirement for the improvement work to be done over a single week is ridiculous and impractical. The best article improvement I've done took something like 6 months of in-depth research. If (as I'm gathering) there's already something like that in one or another of these rules, it's a bad idea.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:52, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  13. Oppose. As noted in my vote above, the second DYK should be limited to a "GA" promotion. Cbl62 (talk) 13:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  14. Oppose per my vote in the above poll sawyer * he/they * talk 03:49, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  15. Oppose for the same reasons as opposing a required 5x expansion with respect to the prior nomination, compounded with the fact that a second such expansion would be quite burdensome to complete in seven days. Complex/Rational 15:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Require expansion to GA standard

There is no consensus to require that reruns be GAs. In other words, 5Xs are permitted—although just as the default outcome of there being general consensus for reruns and no more specific consensus against 5X reruns, not based on an explicit consensus for them. Like any no-consensus finding, this could be revisited after a few months if desired. It's also worth noting that in practice many past DYKs, even many on the shorter side, will simply be too long to be 5X'd. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 03:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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

  1. Support as alternative to x5. together with x5 expansion; see my changed !vote in the x5 expansion proposal for the reasons. Gatoclass (talk) 05:57, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. Weak support Support permitting expansion to GA standard; oppose as requirement. I prefer GA status to be provided alongside 5x expansion. Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  3. Support as alternative to 5x expansion. - OtharLuin (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  4. Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  5. Not sure it should be a requirement, but support for eligibility. —Kusma (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  6. Support as the sole necessary and sufficient criterion for allowing a second DYK. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:46, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  7. Oppose on workload/staffing concerns. Valereee (talk) 18:27, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  8. Support as I prefer a GA for a subsequent nomination. Schwede66 23:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  9. Oppose If people would like articles to be on the main page a second time, please head over to FAC and hit a more rigorous set of requirements --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:52, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  10. Support as alternative to 5x expansion, but not as the sole requirement.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:07, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  11. Oppose as a requirement, though it seem like a good milestone to treat as a qualifier.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:48, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  12. Support. Overall, I'm opposed to any repeats, but if we're going to have them, reaching GA should be a requirement. Consider the alternative. Previously, it had to have been 1500 characters of prose (let's call it 300 words). Bringing a stub up to 300 words probably adds real value, so the basic 5x rule makes some kind of sense. Another 5x would bring it to 1500 words. If you've managed to write 1500 words on a topic and it's not good enough for GA, you're just churning out drivel.
  13. Support. I am concerned with the concerns of queue builders and also with quality control. Without a "GA" limitation, a 5x expansion option opens this up to gamesmanship where low-quality word bulk is pumped into the article to get a second (and then a third) DYK for the same article. Accordingly, I support extending the rule to allow a second DYK only when it has gone through some decent level of quality control by going through the "GA" process. Cbl62 (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  14. Support as a natural second milestone, after the 5x expansion for the first nomination; also helps prevent gaming the system. sawyer * he/they * talk 04:08, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. If an article that was previously featured as a new creation is then expanded 5x after a sufficient amount of time has passed, even if it has not reached GA status, we should reward such efforts instead of requiring what can be a far more involved process. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:26, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  16. Support as a natural milestone for articles that first appeared at DYK as new creations. Articles that first appeared at DYK following 5x expansion should not run twice with almost the same content, however (as substantial expansion can be a part of preparing an article for GAN) – I'd think a rewrite or expansion (smaller than 5x, but enough so there's substantial new content to write hooks from) should be required. Complex/Rational 15:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Require a hiatus between repeat nominations (2, 3, 5, or 10 years)

Consensus for a five-year hiatus. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 03:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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

  1. Support 3 years - TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. Support 5 years or higher. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:11, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  3. Neutral - I can see prepbuilders staggering them if push comes to shove, and there's a natural limit to how long it takes from being 5x expanded/getting through GA, not to mention how long it takes to get through here. If there is to be a hard limit, it should be measured in months, not years.--Launchballer 13:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  4. Obviously - the question is how long. Gatoclass (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  5. I think 5 years would be a good starting point. Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  6. Support 5 years or higher. - OtharLuin (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  7. Support 5 or 10 years ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  8. 1 year if disallowing repeat successful nominators, 3 years otherwise. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  9. If we did that at all, 5 years would be a minimum. RoySmith (talk) 18:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  10. If we are going to allow repeats at all (which I oppose), we should also require a hiatus of at least 5 years. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:39, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  11. Five years. —Kusma (talk) 18:51, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  12. 10 years, with 5 as a second choice. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  13. 5 years is my preference but I will not mind a longer term depending on what consensus dictates. One year is too short, two years or even three are probably also too short. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  14. 5 years or greater makes sense. Maybe even make that 8 years. But a more pertinent question to ask is – why? Do we have a paucity of new articles seeing a reduced inflow of nominations? Nothing wrong and repeating articles. But in my view, there has to be a driver. Ktin (talk) 16:34, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  15. Oppose any increase in workload on workload and staffing concerns. Valereee (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  16. Support anything between 2 and 5 years. Schwede66 23:39, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  17. Oppose If people would like articles to be on the main page a second time, please head over to FAC and hit a more rigorous set of requirements --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  18. Support minimum 5 years between nominations. ResonantDistortion 15:48, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  19. 10 years, if repeat nominations are allowed at all. The pool of potential DYKs is enormous compared to how many we run per year. Readers shouldn't recognise an article as something they've seen on DYK before. — Bilorv (talk) 23:37, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  20. Support 5. Ten years is forever on the Internet, but 3 or so is too short (readers are apt to remember already reading about this subject via the front page).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:37, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  21. Support 5 years as well per SMcCandlish above. Ajpolino (talk) 03:50, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  22. Support. 5 years. Another good way to (i) limit gamesanship and (ii) to avoid excess burden on queue prep, and (iii) avoid reader weariness at seeing the same articles featured too quickly. Cbl62 (talk) 13:45, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  23. Support 5 years. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  24. 5 years is sufficient I think, but I'm not opposed to higher limits. sawyer * he/they * talk 04:02, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  25. Support 5 years or above. ― novov (t c) 01:39, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
  26. Support 5 years or above. S5A-0043Talk 13:52, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
  27. Support 5 years as simplest and fairest option. If an astute reader recognizes the "same" article twice, and the article somehow isn't greatly different 5 years later (perhaps a very belated GA nomination of essentially the same work?), and they complain, then I am in favor of offering them a refund of their money back as compensation. SnowFire (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
  28. Support a hiatus. (Five years is my preferred duration for the hiatus, but I'd also accept any of the other proposals in the section header.) In my view, the hiatus would be the most important part of any renomination system; one of DYK's leading goals is to emphasize the range and diversity of Wikipedia's content, and if articles are returning to DYK when they're still fresh in people's memories, it would impede that mission. ModernDayTrilobite (talk • contribs) 15:45, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Limit to number of DYK appearances

There is no consensus to impose a specific limit. Commenters note that, due to how the rest of the rules are structured, 2 will likely serve as a practical limit in almost all cases. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 03:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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

  1. Neutral as long as 5x vs. old is required that should limit it to 3 (1500/7500/37500). I don't see 5xing from 37500 characters.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. Oppose - simple maths provides a natural limit.--Launchballer 13:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  3. Limit to 2 max. There are always more than enough new topics to write about, and we already struggle to keep up with the number of nominations. Gatoclass (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  4. Support limiting this to two appearances maximum. We should not be having a situation where someone can create an article, nominate for DYK, wait a few years, expand it fivefold, nominate for DYK, wait a few more years, nominate for GA, and nominate for DYK yet again. On further reflection, no limit is necessary as long as there is a minimum of at least 5 years between DYK appearances. Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. I don't want to put any unnecessary barriers in the way of recognising efforts to develop articles. - OtharLuin (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  6. Limit to 2. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  7. No limit necessary. Would love to see how many times a single article can go through the process. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  8. Prefer limit to 1 max but failing that, limit to 2 max. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:40, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  9. No explicit limit necessary with other eligibility criteria and five year rule. —Kusma (talk) 18:53, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  10. Oppose as unnecessary. The combination of options that I have supported above naturally result in a limit of 2, but this is not a number that should be hardcoded. (For example, if another eligibility criterion is proposed and accepted a few years later, we don't want to have to remember to update this number.) -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  11. Keep limit at one appearance, on workload and staffing concerns. Valereee (talk) 18:28, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  12. Limit to 2 max, with GA at the second time. Schwede66 23:40, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  13. In practice, articles that would be permitted renomination would probably be nominated no more than twice for practical reasons, with thrice only happening on very rare occasions (i.e. if somehow an article managed to feature as a new article, then is 5x expanded, and finally brought to GA status). Thus, I do not see the point in enforcing a maximum number of features on DYK given that in practice, articles will rarely ever be eligible more than twice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:35, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  14. To 1 and only 1 appearance --Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:51, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  15. Limit to 2 max, as long as minimum 5 years between. Second should be 5x or GA. ResonantDistortion 15:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  16. 2 max seems reasonable. We don't need the same article coming up again and again because it was new, and then it was 5X and then it was GA and then it was FA and whatever. The general point of this proposal seems to be that something that was DYKed over a decade ago but which has been vastly improved in the interim should qualify again; not to enable a couple of "award collectors" to dominate the process unduly.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:40, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  17. No limit as long as there's a hiatus decided above. If the thing hasn't been run in 5 years, and it's dramatically transformed by expansion or GA, who cares how many times it has run before? The readers won't remember it from 5 years ago. Ajpolino (talk) 03:53, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  18. Limit to 2 max to reduce gamesmanship, avoid over burden on queue prep, and to avoid reader weariness with repeats. Cbl62 (talk) 13:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  19. Oppose hard limit as unnecessary per King of Hearts. I think 2 is a good limit generally, but I don't see a reason to make it a hard rule if other sufficient requirements are implemented (eg GA, hiatus) sawyer * he/they * talk 04:13, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  20. Moot as long as time limit is used which seems very likely to pass. I think that the odds of a valid 3x appearance are beyond remote for new, gap, 5x, gap, GA. (And even then, if there's shenanigans involved, no need for a special rule - DYK coordinator can just refuse to promote the third time if something funky is up, e.g. the article isn't greatly different between the 5x appearance and the GA appearance. For the one time per decade, at most, this comes up.) SnowFire (talk) 15:25, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Restrictions on who can nominate

Consensus against. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 03:43, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

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

  1. Oppose. I don't believe original nominator should be excluded (or required).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  2. Oppose.--Launchballer 13:30, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  3. Support. Original creators should not be permitted to get a second DYK for the same nomination, because that clearly opens the door to gaming. Allowing users to re-submit their own previous nominations would be an actual encouragement for them to submit worse articles the first time around so they can more easily expand/improve on them later, and that is the exact opposite of what we would want to encourage. If the object is to add an incentive to improve old, substandard DYKs, then there are countless old DYKs for users to choose from without returning to their own articles. Gatoclass (talk) 14:03, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  4. Neutral. On the one hand I think this is introducing too much bureaucracy to the process. However, we should also discourage people from sitting on decent articles just so they could renominate them later. Epicgenius (talk) 16:18, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  5. Oppose. - OtharLuin (talk) 16:33, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  6. Support ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  7. Support per above and Gatoclass :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 17:41, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
  8. No need for restrictions here. People can always nominate each other's work and it is not worth policing this. —Kusma (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
    I think a five+ year rule will make gaming not worth the effort. —Kusma (talk) 19:08, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
    There would be very minimal "policing" needed for this. Gatoclass (talk) 06:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
    But you are correct Kusma that anyone can nominate a DYK. This is an example of another malformed question, because the question should not be who nominates the DYK but who should be permitted to get more than one DYKmake credit for the same article. Gatoclass (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  9. Oppose allowing any repeat nomination, even by a new nominator, on workload and staffing concerns. Valereee (talk) 18:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  10. Oppose any restrictions on who can renominate. It would be deeply unfair to any nominator and/or contributor who was done a lot to improve their article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  11. Oppose any restrictions on who can renominate. I don't see the point and if we were to restrict it, this can be GAMED very easily. Schwede66 23:41, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
  12. Oppose no need for this especially if a time interval is mandated between appearances. ResonantDistortion 15:46, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  13. Exclude previous credit-holders: I don't think someone should be able to claim a DYK twice for the same article. If I were to run through a load of my previous DYK credits, tweak them to get them through GA, and then renominate them by the dozen then DYK/GA would have failed to incentivise significant improvement of the encyclopedia. — Bilorv (talk) 23:41, 13 January 2024 (UTC)
  14. Oppose the entire notion as rather un-wiki. I get Gatoclass's and theleekycauldron's concern, and maybe the question could be revisted if it turned out to be a problem, but it seems much more likely to me that some noob editor woudl try for a DYK and fail because they weren't really up-to-speed on encyclopedic research and writing, then try again 5 years later when they're an entirely competent Wikipedian and have produced something very good. Gatoclass's later "who should be permitted to get more than one DYKmake credit for the same article" might address this, though I think how these things in DYK and ITN and even GA are handed out is rather weird and arbitrary. E.g. I got a "helped get an article to GA" thing for an article I did rather minimal work on, but didn't get one (no one delivered one, anyway) for something I wrote about 90% of. [shrug] Anyway, even aside from this re-nomination of one's own work question, I wouldn't want to see this turn into a "how else can we restrict who can nominate?" thing. If I run across a hidden gem and just polish it up a little, I should be able to nominate it to bring it to reader attention and pat the real editors behind it on the back a bit.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:47, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  15. Oppose. The original creator should be encouraged to improve their earlier work. With the 5-year hiatus and 2-appearances max limit. Cbl62 (talk) 13:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)
  16. Oppose per opposers. Johnbod (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
  17. Oppose per SMcCandlish. Well said! sawyer * he/they * talk 04:16, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Separate rules

  1. No. All other DYK rules are fine.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:57, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Discussion

TonyTheTiger, what is the meaning of the third ("Require newness (5x in last 7 days or GA)") and final ("Separate rules") subsections? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:23, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I split the first question into two separate ones as they are effectively separate proposals. Gatoclass (talk) 14:12, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Gatoclass, by doing the split, you are asking whether a new GA still has to be 5x and whether a new 5 x still has to be GA instead of either/or. This has caused some voters to oppose 5x saying GA is enough. However, if your intent is to present a multi-article hook you can not control whether they both make GA in the last 7 days. However, if you ask the joint question, then people can do multiarticle repeat nominations.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
That doesn't matter, in the event that this proposal passed, a rule could simply be added that the nomination time limit applies from the last GA completed. It pretty much works that way already anyhow. Gatoclass (talk) 06:17, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
This is a very badly malformed RFC. There is no option for stating "I like the status quo". As it is, we are going to get some number of supports for "allow multiple" and no clear opposition to it because there is nowhere to say that one is opposed. That is not the way to determine consensus. We should stop this bad process, determine a single clear yes-or-no question to decide, and discuss that one question rather than having many different "let's change something" options with no room for "let's not change anything" and no guidance on how to combine the results from those options. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:01, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
Add to that that only one person has a clue what the last question means. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:05, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm assuming those who prefer the status quo can just oppose the first proposal (Allow multiple DYK appearances for an article) and oppose the others as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 18:31, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
That is completely non-obvious to me and probably non-obvious to other participants. It looked to me that the list of names under the first question was a list of supporters, only, and that there was nowhere to go to express opposition. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:37, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
David, this is a straw poll not an RFC. However, I agree that some of the questions are malformed. This is why I have repeatedly advocated for requiring consensus on the wording of polls/RFCs pertaining to rules changes prior to them being started, because far too often inaccurate wording has led to problematic outcomes. Gatoclass (talk) 06:54, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Can an RFC be done in stages? In this case, could the first RFC just be how many times can an article run on DYK: one (status quo), two, three, or more? Or even just can a DYK run multiple times: yes or no? And only if the answer is yes to multiple times, poll how? I didn't comment above because it looks so chaotic and hard to parse. Rjjiii (talk) 08:14, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
Again, this is not an RFC it's a straw poll. But yes, when the time comes we can run multiple RFCs, or an RFC with multiple parts, as required. But if you just want to answer yes or no to the question of whether articles should be run multiple times, just answer the first question in the poll above; you are under no obligation to respond to them all. Gatoclass (talk) 11:48, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Post-close discussion

  • User:Tamzin, Thx for a commendable close on an unanticipatedly complex polling. A lot of people were discussing this and many issues arose. I attempted to get everyone to opine on all the issues. Then, User:Gatoclass edited my poll in a way that I think made it confusing (splitting the current DYK alternative requirements for non-new articles that they either be 5x expansions or GA into two mandatory requirememts). It seems like change may be coming but it sounds like a formal RFC may be in the offing. Your simple rule change suggestion to change "previously" to "in the past five years" might be the answer.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
  • @Gatoclass, RoySmith, Schwede66, and Theleekycauldron: Based on the WP:DYK, you are the admin leaders of DYK who participated in this discussion. Apologies for overstepping by putting forth the poll. Are we going to go forward with an RFC on the simple change suggested by this close or something else?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't see a case for a new RFC on the basis of the straw poll above. The poll established that there might be support for allowing articles to be run more than once, and if so for a five-year hiatus between runs. But there was no agreement on the conditions for allowing more than one DYK appearance.
So if you still want to run an RFC, the issue of conditions will have to be addressed somehow. Regardless, you will need to get consensus on the wording of any RFC before initiating it. We have had far too many problematic outcomes from poorly worded RFCs in the past, and we don't want to go there again. Gatoclass (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
ON one hand, yeah, I think it was a bit of a BOLD move to make a rule change based on what was meant to be an informal discussion. On the other hand, I think the conclusions reached in the closing statement(s) were a reasonable summary of the discussion. At first I thought the "Require expansion to GA standard" section was closed incorrectly, but upon reading the discussion more closely, I see that several of the nominal "support" statements are really "support as one option, but opposed to making it a strict requirement", so yeah, no consensus seems about right.
I don't see this a making a major difference one way or another, and we've wasted more than enough time arguing it about. I say let Tamzin's close stand and move on to actually getting useful work done. Running an RFC at this point would just be disruptive. RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
I don’t see the point. The discussion had a clear enough outcome; why waste more editor time? Schwede66 17:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)
gotta agree with this one. We can talk about this more later if there's problems, but i think we're in pretty good shape and the cost/benefit ratio of an RfC wouldn't make sense to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger, are you thinking there is an RfC formulation that would get buy-in for proposals that would add to this? And I don't think you overstepped, anyone can ask a question. Valereee (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, the close was reasonable and something that makes sense to just go forward with. As I think of my next potential DYK candidate, Joanne McCarthy (basketball) that I have 5xed over the weekend, the new set of rules allows two alternatives. 1. I could DYK now and GA-DYK in 5 years with minimal change 2. I could GA now and DYK within 7 days after it gets approved with a 2nd DYK only possible with another 5x in 5 years. I wish we had ratified a 5x of the original DYK 2 eliminate option 1. I doubt there is an RFC formulation that will get us to that. Since 3 of the 4 admins who participated think we should just go forward with the close, that is probably sage advice.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
Here's a third alternative: concentrate on writing good articles and don't spend so much time worrying about how to game the system to get more DYK credits. RoySmith (talk) 21:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
That's a really interesting point. There are folks who are very much motivated by recognition, and possibly wouldn't improve articles without it. Is that the basic point of DYK? To motivate people? Valereee (talk) 22:53, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
User:RoySmith, I am just saying I am not 100% down with the result, so I am just letting you know what is coming whenever you go live with the new rules with a real article as an example.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
User:Valereee, Dunno exactly. I guess sort of.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:40, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I guess that's not what I think the primary goal of DYK should be. For me the goal is getting eyes on brand new articles in order to increase the chance they'll be improved. The fact it motivates people to create those new articles is great, too. But we shouldn't be encouraging people to try to play games so they can be the winner.
If you're writing a stub when you could write b-class because you want to DYK it twice, then take it to GA so you can get a third DYK because your actual goal here is to get as many DYK as you can for it, that's kind of counterproductive to what we're supposed to be doing here, which is writing or improving articles, not providing opportunities to win awards. If people are bummed they have to wait five whole years before they circle back and 5x or GA to get the second DYK, that's kind of really problematic. Valereee (talk) 10:31, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I like what WP:FOUR does. The rules say you need to bag a DYK, GA, and FA, but the GA and DYK can be in either order. That keeps people from holding back on good work just to make sure they can get their DYK first. Gamification is a two-edged sword. The getting of an award should be the recognition of a job well done. When the award itself becomes the goal, you're in a bad place. There will always be people who chase awards to the detriment of the greater good. No amount of rule-writing will change that. RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Tamzin, I didn't realize you had done that and I have reverted. There was no consensus on the conditions for re-running articles after five years in the above discussion, and quite frankly some of your closes in the discussion above looked problematic to me; I didn't follow up on that at the time since I didn't know you had referenced them to change the guideline. In any case, your change to the guideline would seem to contradict your own closes, since the net effect of your change would be to require either a x5 expansion or a newly-promoted GA as the guideline is currently expressed. Gatoclass (talk) 17:44, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
To be honest, I don't think anyone really knows what the "require [XYZ]" parts of the poll above actually meant in practice (I know TonyTheTiger says there was a mid-poll change, but from what I can see it was pretty incomprehensible beforehand). The only real part of the poll where there was an intelligible consensus for a change is the re-running of articles, and I think as no one really wants another RfC, Tamzin's adjustment worked for most. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:59, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Nitpick, but, there was also a clear consensus for the 5-year limit. And as I said in closing, the proposal to make 5Xs ineligible was no-consensus (defaulting to "allow" because the !RfC was framed as "yes"/"no" and then proposals for restrictions on top of "yes"), so, like any no-consensus close, it is ripe for review in a month or several. My prediction, either way, is that this distinction will affect less than one nomination per month. To illustrate:
  • Looking at the 9 DYKs that ran 5 years ago today, the shortest is International Encyclopedia of Women Composers at 2,626B. Do you think you could add 10,504B to that? I don't think I could.
  • 10 years ago, shortest of 8 is BX Circini—1,639B, so 6,556B to add. Google Scholar suggests that's still a tall order for the topic at hand, although I don't know much about stars.
  • We have to go deeper. 15 years. Kbely Aviation Museum, shortest of 8: 2,773 bytes behind me, 11,092 more to go (reference), actually larger than our 5ya and 10ya winners.
  • And then 19 years because DYK's not quite 20 years old. Interestingly, the only set of the four with no GAs/FAs/FLs. Shortest of 8 is Duncan Ball, 2,790B, so our longest shortest of all; 11,160B more needed.
I'm sure someone will occasionally find that article that's stalled at 1,501B (or snuck in under the radar) for 5 years and where there's some untapped trove of sources as to justify 7,500B of prose. I don't think that will happen often, though. I expect that the vast majority of reruns will be GAs. Mind you, none of this is an argument for or against allowing 5Xs, which as closer (and honestly, even with closer hat off) I take no opinion on. I'm just giving my best neutral assessment of the consequences of my own close. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 19:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Tamzin, I'm afraid that I am struggling to follow your logic. There was no proposal at all "to make 5Xs ineligible", the proposal was to make x5 a requirement. And you said in your close that there was "consensus against" making x5 a requirement, but then you make an edit of the guideline that effectively does require x5, and are now arguing in favour of it? Gatoclass (talk) 19:36, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@Gatoclass Could you clarify what the word "requirement" means to you in this context? I think I—and most !voters—may have interpreted it differently than you intended. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 19:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: It was never on the table that we would allow repeat DYKs without them becoming eligible again somehow. I would speculate that TonyTheTiger's proposal, wholly incoherent as it was, was aimed at requiring a 5x expansion on any resubmission, regardless of any other eligibility criteria it might pass. That would count as an added restriction on eligibility. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:49, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@Gatoclass, there is consensus to allow reruns after five years and no consensus to add any extra conditions to them. If you want additional rules, you can start a new RfC. I have reverted your undo. —Kusma (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
In fact, consensus to allow reruns has been found here also a few years ago, just never enacted. Personally, I think time will tell whether additional rules are needed; so far we have not had any reruns since the rule change. —Kusma (talk) 18:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
So Kusma, you are happy with DYKs being run a second time after five years, so long as they are either x5 expanded or been brought to GA in the last seven days? Because that is the net effect of Tamzin's addition to the guideline. (I might add, as I noted previously, that her addition appears to be in direct contradiction of her own close in the straw poll above, in which she concluded (erroneously in my view) that there was "no consensus" for a GA requirement). Gatoclass (talk) 19:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't follow the contradiction here, Gatoclass. There was no consensus to require GAs. Given that there are only two ways to get a second run—5X and GA—this is the same thing as there being no consensus to exclude 5Xs. As to the merits of that sub-close: 7 editors (including you) supported both 5X and GA routes, although 5 called this "support as alternative" or similar and 2 called it "oppose"; 5 clearly supported GA-only; 2 supported GA-only in the context of 5X first time, GA second time, but didn't discuss the broader scenario; and 2 opposed because they opposed allowing any reruns. I discounted the last group as off-topic for that part of the discussion, but otherwise saw no reason to give more or less weight to any !votes. There's a few ways you could add up these numbers, but I don't see how any sum to consensus to require GA/exclude 5X. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 19:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: I think that will work, yes. In my view, allowing fresh GAs as reruns is a Good Thing (I would like to generally see more quality at DYK, and GAs are a good source of quality content). I don't really think the 5x expansion thing will be used very often for reruns, so I don't think it is worth worrying about the hypotheticals all that much. If I'm wrong and it becomes popular to expand articles 1500 bytes -> 7500 bytes -> 37500 bytes -> 187500 bytes prose every five years just to have more DYK credits, we can revisit the issue in a few years. The old "no reruns ever" just doesn't seem fair for articles that have been totally rewritten and turned into wonderful GAs since their first appearance at DYK 15 years ago when we had no proper sourcing requirements. —Kusma (talk) 19:38, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, okay - and I am inclined to agree with your position Kusma - the problem is that that does not in my view conform with the results of the poll. And why are we rushing to make a major change of the rules on the basis of a poorly-worded 7-day straw poll anyway? A change like this, if we were to go ahead with it, should be done with a full RFC, and any RFC as I noted above should not be run until consensus is achieved on the RFC wording, so that we don't end up yet again debating what it all meant, as we are having to do now over this. Gatoclass (talk) 19:46, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I do find it slightly ironic that you complain about poor wording when you were the one mainly responsible for the confusion, as you removed the option "require 5x or GA" and introduced instead the completely different "require GA" and "require 5x" that made it impossible to vote for "one of the criteria is enough". In any case, there is no demonstrated reason or consensus for any additional rules, so "require 5x or GA" wins by default. —Kusma (talk) 19:56, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Not surprisingly I disagree with your criticism of my rewording, but I'm tired of debating poll issues right now as we are in the middle of a 12-hour cycle and I have better things to do. I will return to this when I have some more time to devote to it. Gatoclass (talk) 20:08, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4 Feb 1b

(Now in queue because we need to free up prep sets urgently). —Kusma (talk) 06:32, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Poecilia picta

I'm confused as to what a fancy guppy is. Two other species of guppy are mentioned in the article, but neither of them is called a fancy guppy, which just redirects to guppy, and the word fancy isn't used in the target article and is only used once at guppy, which says only A variety of fancy guppy strains are produced by breeders through selective breeding, characterized by different colours, patterns, shapes, and sizes of fins, such as snakeskin and grass varieties. The hook support at the nom says Using tests of female preference we show female P. picta are not more attracted to red males, despite preferences for red/orange in closely related species, such as P. reticulata and P. parae, so no mention of fancy guppy there either? Pinging Surtsicna, Guettarda, Rjjiii. Valereee (talk) 13:00, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed that this needs work. I tried to check where this hook is supported in the article, and ctrl-F fancy did not help me. —Kusma (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Try "Poecilia reticulata".[5] There is this line from the abstract, "Poecilia reticulata, has long been a premier model for such studies because female preferences and orange coloration are well known [...]" and the line quoted above. Thanks for checking it out, Rjjiii (talk) 17:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
@Rjjiii: While the hook fact is likely true and supported by the sources, the problem is that the article Poecilia picta seemingly does not contain a sentence confirming it. As long as the Wikipedia article does not say what "fancy guppies" are, the hook is not acceptable. —Kusma (talk) 17:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I misread "article" to mean the cited article. @Surtsicna: do you want to update the DYK hook or Wikipedia article? Rjjiii (talk) 00:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
The simplest move would be to change to ALT0. I will do that if there is no consensus otherwise in the next 12-15 hours. —Kusma (talk) 06:34, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I am fine with ALT0. Thanks for looking into it, Rjjiii (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I have changed to ALT0,
If there is appetite for further changes, we still have a little bit of time to fix this, but I think it hits the Main Page on 29 January (morning UTC), not 1 February. —Kusma (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Coco & Clair Clair

Can someone confirm that a Discography section can be almost completely unreferenced? Ping Launchballer, Muboshgu, AirshipJungleman29. Valereee (talk) 13:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

All the unreferenced tracks should be covered by WP:REPCITE.--Launchballer 15:19, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
If this is an issue, I believe there were primary source inline citations in an earlier version that were removed. Is the thought that the discography itself works an in-text citations? Rjjiii (talk) 17:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
So there were, and I really have to go out. I'll attend to this later.--Launchballer 17:53, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry to keep you waiting. All of the tracks that aren't mentioned in prose should have a reference, unless I've missed one. (The next prep, prep 5, is one I had a go at promoting, and I'd be lying if I said I wasn't nervous.)--Launchballer 23:33, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Hey, @Launchballer, thanks for working on promoting, and don't be nervous, there's a learning curve and people bringing up concerns understand that! If anyone finds something, they'll post here (and generally will ping the promoter).
You can also put that prep on your watch so you see what changes people make that don't get brought up as questions here, feel free to ask them about their reasoning if it's not clear from the edit summary. Valereee (talk) 13:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

This issue has come up before and the consensus was that lists have to be fully cited, even if some items in the list were already cited in main body text. Gatoclass (talk) 15:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Done.--Launchballer 18:10, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Guidelines for multi-article nominations?

I recently made my first multi-article nomination and have already ran into a couple stumbling blocks, as I wasn't able to find clear information about how to go about this in the DYK guidelines. For example, I'd anticipated that there may have been a problem with one of the articles being made before the cut-off date, while the other two were made within it (I'd held off nominating the other as I thought this hook required more than one of the people involved). But the reviewer has now informed me that as this is a multi-article nomination, I apparently need to satisfy QPQ for every article in the nomination, so that means I will need to review two more nominations. Is this the case? I've felt a bit out of my depth doing this nomination, so I'm wondering more clarification could be provided in the guidelines. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:16, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Grnrchst, I think the guidance is clear, but not necessarily easy to find. You can search for multi in WP:DYKCRIT.
You would need to get consensus on this page to include Maria Kovalevska (created 1 December 2023‎, nominated 25 January 2024) as a bold link. In future I recommend using drafts when you know you are planning a DYK nomination, as then you can publish the article(s) when you are ready to nominate. If the article is not included it can still be a link but not a bold link. You don't need to do an extra QPQ for a non-bold link.
WP:QPQ says Where a nomination offers more than one new or expanded article, an article-for-article quid pro quo (QPQ) is required for each nominated article. TSventon (talk) 15:40, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Ach, I must have missed that part of WP:QPQ. Thanks, I'm seeing to it now. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:45, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
As for Kovalevska, I understand that I could just un-bold her name, but I think that would look rather odd. This was an action these three women took together, and as such I think they should be equally highlighted, even if I fumbled the nomination. --Grnrchst (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
No objection to bolding all three women. Valereee (talk) 14:31, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Special occasion move?

Template:Did you know nominations/Safe House Black History Museum has been approved, and the reviewer supports an IAR to appear on April 4, which is the anniversary of Martin Luther King's assassination. Would someone be willing to move it to the Special Occasion holding area for that date? Valereee (talk) 20:23, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

@Valereee: I moved it Bruxton (talk) 22:04, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Valereee (talk) 22:11, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I was wondering why this isn't a special occasion request for March 21, which was the evening that Dr. King stayed in the safe house, two weeks before his death. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:05, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset, I'd actually have preferred that, but I saw two different dates and wasn't sure how to solve that. I'll go back and read the sources, perhaps one is simply a typo. Valereee (talk) 14:00, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Welp, I know I made several other boners that day, so this must have been among them. All currently-used sources that mention the date agree on it.
Revised hook for March 21:
  • ... that one of the buildings that houses the Safe House Museum (pictured) was where Martin Luther King, Jr., hid from the Ku Klux Klan on this date in 1968, just weeks before he was assassinated?
Valereee (talk) 14:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Good hook Bruxton (talk) 15:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Bruxton! Do you think it needs a comma after 1968? Valereee (talk) 16:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I think so. I just added one above. Bruxton (talk) 17:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

Ingush towers

@Muqale, Onceinawhile, and AirshipJungleman29:

There is uncited prose in the article, which I have marked with a cn tag. I also think the block quote at the end of the "Towers with pyramidal roofs" section is too long and opens Wikipedia up to copyright concerns. This should be summarised in the article instead. Z1720 (talk) 18:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

There are more issues. The quote about the "land of towers" translates as "birthplace of towers" for me. Also, this looks like an unattributed translation from ruwiki. —Kusma (talk) 19:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Hello Kusma, the Russian word "родина" translates as "homeland". As a proficient Russian and English speaker, I didn't feel that "homeland of towers" was a good way to translate the slogan, so I shortened it to "land of towers". But if you feel that "homeland of towers" is more accurate, I have no issues with keeping your suggestion. Muqale⠀ོ 18:24, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
@Muqale, I think the source with "родина башен" is not sufficient for the "country of towers" claim in the hook. Speaking of sources, I just checked Dolgieva et al. p 136 ([6]), and could not see any mention of Ingushetia as "country of towers". Could you give a more explicit source that confirms "country of towers" or "land of towers" instead of "homeland of towers"? —Kusma (talk) 20:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
1. The statement in the article has a reference to the state newspaper of the Republic of Ingushetia in which the tourism committee announced the patent approval for the slogan. See here
2. Two other references to books are alse linked to this statement in the article:
a) Basilov, Vladimir; Kobychev, Veniamin (1971). "Галгай — страна башен" [Galgai: country of towers] (PDF). Советская этнография (in Russian) (3). Moscow: Nauka: 120–135. (p.s.: Ghalghai is the self-name of the Ingush people)
b) Tarakanova, Marina (2023). Самые лучшие места России и мира 4D [The best places in Russia and the world 4D] (in Russian). Nalchik: Mezhizdat. pp. 50–51. ISBN 978-5-17-152205-6. (see first paragraph on page 51) Muqale 19:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Manual update

Bot seems down, I'll do a manual update. Update times will be slightly different from noon/midnight for a short while, but should return to normal once the bot is back. —Kusma (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Update and credits all done. Hope the bot restarts soon, but we'll need someone to pay attention around 03:00 UTC to potentially do another manual update. Don't worry about the noon/midnight stuff, just try to give each set 12 hours and let the bot correct this via "drift" when it is back. —Kusma (talk) 15:21, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Kusma, I'm not sure if this is a bot issue, but my recent nom is not appearing in DYKA. voorts (talk/contributions) 18:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
@Voorts, your nom has been correctly moved to WP:DYKNA by a different bot than the one that is currently down, but the nominations at the bottom do not display properly because of a technical issue (we have exceeded the "post-expand include size", if you need to know). It will become visible there once more of the nominations at the top have been processed further. (WP:DYKA is where hooks go after they have been on the Main Page; this is affected by the bot that is down, but I have manually done the archiving). —Kusma (talk) 19:06, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Thank you, I meant to link to DYKNA, not DYKA. voorts (talk/contributions) 19:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Lewis Pragasam -- Discography Support and Review

Greetings,

Do we have a member here who is well versed with discography sourcing? Need your assistance in continuing the review at Lewis Pragasam. Context can be seen at the nomination (link here) and at a thread that I started at WP:RSN (link here). Both the reviewer and I agree that we would benefit from another reviewer's assistance to complete the review. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Maybe Ritchie333? Valereee (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)
THanks Valereee. @Ritchie333: -- please can I request your assistance on that review? Thanks. Ktin (talk) 05:48, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Don't discographies, like filmographies and bibliographies, treat the works themselves a source for their existence? See for example Sophia Agranovich and Nephi Anderson. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:32, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
That’s what one of the editors at WP:RSN suggested. But, I will be honest I dont fully subscribe to that one. Wouldn’t that result in a proliferation of unsourced content? But, if that is indeed the case, I will defer to others on this one. Ktin (talk) 06:56, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
It's un-footnoted content, but it's not unsourced. WP:V and WP:RS do not require you to use a single footnote in an article, if you can avoid anything falling under WP:MINREF. WP:DYKCITE, however, is a bit stricter, and does require footnotes, and while it makes an exception for plot summaries, it doesn't make one for other statements about a work. When GA discussed copying over DYK's rule, I suggested changing the plot summary line to "statements drawn from a work being discussed". Several editors supported that, and I actually don't think any opposed, but it wasn't discussed as much as other concerns. Personally I resolved to just construe "plot summary" very broadly going forward. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe) 07:08, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Other than plot summary, I have personally held myself to a “every sentence has to be cited” standard which I think has held me alright all these days. That said in this case I have actually sourced the albums to Deezer, Spotify, Apple Music webplayer where one can actually click on the album and listen to the songs. I don’t know what else I can do. I had included Last.fm webplayer as well. However, someone came by and removed it. No one has been able to definitively say why the webplayer with the actual album is user generated content on Last.fm. I can understand biographies and artist profiles being user generated content. Either way, even without Last.fm, I truly believe we should be good. Ktin (talk) 07:15, 24 January 2024 (UTC)

No Articles created/expanded on January 22?

I just nominated an article for DYK that was created on January 22. Looks like that date dissapeared from the nominations board. Thriley (talk) 21:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

I made you one. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

DYK hook templates are usually transcluded on talk/listing pages, but there is no direct link to view the hook templates themselves. Should a "View template" link be added next to "Review or comment"? This would make accessing the template easier. DirtyHarry991 (talk) 07:42, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Sorry, @DirtyHarry991, maybe I haven't had enough coffee...you can view the template on any page it's transcluded to? Valereee (talk) 10:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee: The DYK toolbox with the Earwig link is only visible on the template when it is not transcluded. I agree with @DirtyHarry991 that it would be helpful to have one-click access to the template, not just the current two-click via the edit window at "review or comment". —Kusma (talk) 12:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh, I see, thanks! Yes, I've often done that 2-click. Valereee (talk) 12:57, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
This is on my short list of most-needed improvements. I once looked into doing it but got lost in the template magic. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

In next queue the first hook was replaced but not the credit. Can an admin pls make swap? JennyOz (talk) 13:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@JennyOz: Thank you for reporting, done! —Kusma (talk) 14:26, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

Roanoke, Virginia

@DrOrinScrivello, Thriley, and DirtyHarry991:

Some of the information in the Demographics section is uncited, including the first two paragraphs. This needs to be resolved before it can appear on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 02:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Apologies, that was my mistake. Should be resolved now. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 03:19, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
My concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 03:25, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Women in prehistory

@Orchastrattor, Gobonobo, and AirshipJungleman29:

I have added two "citation needed" tags to the article which will need to be resolved before this article appears on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 02:58, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Done. Orchastrattor (talk) 05:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Keith Marshall (musician)

Resolved

@Launchballer, Storye book, and AirshipJungleman29:

  • ... that after no label would release Keith Marshall's "Only Crying", his manager set one up himself?

The article says "After UK labels were unwilling to sign him, Blaylock set up his own label, Arrival Records" and does not mention "Only Crying" until after Arrival Records is mentioned. The source also doesn't mention labels refusing to release "Only Crying" before the label was created. I think the hook needs to be reworded. Z1720 (talk) 03:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The article could also use a copyedit, if unencyclopedic phrases like Bob Bradbury told Will Hodgkinson's 2022 book are any indication. I was also looking for something more about Marshall himself; aside from his birth, it's just one release after another, sometimes with charting info. The last definitive date given is 1981, and he's (presumably) still alive, with over forty years having passed since then. BlueMoonset (talk) 07:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I have rephrased the awkward sentence which is mentioned by BlueMoonset above. I feel I should make the point that in my experience professional soloist musicians never want to admit to retirement from the music business, some retaining that attitude even unto their deathbed, so I suggest that we are very careful not to mention or imply the R word unless we have a direct quote from Marshall about the fact, from a reliable source.
ALT1: ... that after no label would sign musician Keith Marshall, his manager set one up himself and released "Only Crying"?
I understand that as I am reviewer, any ALTs suggested by me must be approved by someone else. Any offers? Storye book (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Musicians don't retire, the phone stops ringing. ALT2: ... that after no record label would sign Keith Marshall, his manager set one up himself and released his 1981 UK Top 20 single "Only Crying"?--Launchballer 11:45, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Substituted ALT2, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 16:00, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5

Exercise Hell Tank

@Maury Markowitz, Seddon, and Launchballer:

  • ... that a British Army participant in 1967's Exercise Hell Tank, testing the use of missile-firing helicopters, suggested the helicopters killed 45 tanks with no losses when the tanks attempted an offensive breakout?

At 213 characters, this is too long. Please reduce the size. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 01:37, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Wow, that was a silly mistake from me approving that. "... that a British Army participant in 1967's Exercise Hell Tank, testing the use of missile-firing helicopters, suggested that they killed 45 tanks with no losses when they mounted an offensive breakout?" is 200 dead.--Launchballer 01:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I find this a very dubious hook. The source said "45-love", which to me seems to invoke tennis, though the "love" scores in tennis are actually 15-love, 30-love, and 40-love. Saying that "45-love" is the equivalent of "45-0" as in 45 kills to no losses seems to me to be a major stretch; the source actually reads, As a result of our superiority in infantry combat teams in the close country, we reckoned that we came out about 45-love over the armour; however, the research computers (if they have not yet been axed in the Defence cuts) will have to give the final verdict on the winners. If there were 45 kills and no losses, it seems unlikely the research computers would have been invoked here. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:35, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
This is indeed weird. If we think of tennis scoring, 45–love sounds more like 3–0 than 45–0. —Kusma (talk) 06:42, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
There is also no mention in the source of an offensive breakout or even the "attempting to move forward" stated in the article. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Pinging Pbritti for his input. I'm between 'let's see another hook' and 'I should have noticed this, let's pull'.--Launchballer 12:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I think we should pull it and promote the rest, but I had to use the time I intended for that to do a manual update, so perhaps someone else can have a look. —Kusma (talk) 15:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm pulling the hook. Z1720 (talk) 16:33, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Apologies, there is a few things here I should have caught, the hook length being the most blatant. Seddon talk 16:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Geez, I hadn't even considered that the terminology might have been slang from tennis. Thanks for the catch. I don't know what the next, correct move would be now that the hook is pulled. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:58, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Re-open the nom and discuss a new hook? Seddon talk 17:43, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
As it was nominated over two months ago and we're trying to halt the practice of indefinite hook workshopping, I think it should probably be left closed. Apologies. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:15, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29: The hook has not been debated for two months, the nom sat around doing nothing for two months. The entire debate took less than one day, on a weekend, without waiting for input from the author. I think I deserve the chance to fix things. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:08, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Maury Markowitz, apologies for the lack of ceremony, but the DYK process is under strain and consensus above was clearly to depromote. A DYK hook is intended to attract attention, and this hook, as you say, sat around doing nothing for two months. That was the time to fix things, by suggesting new hooks or pinging the reviewer. If I had to guess, the nomination failed to attract much attention because it was fairly long-winded; next time, I would suggest making the hook more concise. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
You claim "we're trying to halt the practice of indefinite hook workshopping", but as one sees in the dicussion above, the only person suggesting this is you. Actually, that's not quite correct, initially you are arguing that reviewers should have the right to summarily reject any nom they don't like. Contary to your statement that this reached concensus, Naruto immediately pretty much rejects it, to which you make this interesting reply:
"I mean, I could try an experiment and drop on every hook I find uninteresting at WP:DYKNA, pointing to this thread as justification?"
I'll spare you the accusations of "subjectivity and unnecessary hostility", but I will ask why I would not be correct to accuse you of WP:POINT?
Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Sorry, the ping didn't work last edit. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Maury Markowitz, "the only person suggesting this is you" is not quite correct. RoySmith first suggested, inter alia: "We could start rejecting marginal submissions", "we need to move away from allowing an unbounded amount of time and effort being put into improving submissions", "Keep deleting the oldest entry in WP:DYKN or WP:DYKN/A".
Another administrator, Kusma, agreed, saying "We currently often have boring facts from articles that are two months old but have passed our byzantine set of rules and processes. I think we can do better", "people now seem to expect that every nomination eventually makes it to the Main Page unless it has identifiable flaws. I am not convinced that this expectation is good for DYK's overall health and the quality and interestingness of our output".
Gatoclass, a third administrator, chimed in with the suggestion "just fail nominations that have remained on the nomination page for a certain time period". Schwede66 soon implemented this: "I've cleaned out all nominations that were more than two months old."
It is only then that, in response to Kusma's follow-up suggestion to "[drop] nominations that are so boring that nobody engages with them in a reasonable amount of time", that you find the response you misread above. So that's not the "only person suggesting it", but around the fifth. I think you might also find that Naruto's comment was agreeing with me (we have had several discussions on the topic), and that my "interesting reply" was in fact stating my reluctance to to do so (if you read the second sentence).
I then get immediate reassurance from two administrators, one of whom asks me to ping them if I get attacked by a nominator brandishing accusations in my general direction. Do you think "why I would not be correct to accuse you of WP:POINT"? counts as an accusation? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Homecoming_(photograph)

Done.--Launchballer 17:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, Launchballer...huh. I have no idea what I was doing wrong. Valereee (talk) 17:18, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

DIY medicine

@Buidhe, Queen of Hearts, and Launchballer:

I don't think this article passes WP:NPOV in its current state because the article only discusses the benefits, while not talking about any negative consequences. Therefore, I don't think it passes criteria 4 of the eligibility requirements in WP:DYKRULES. Also, I do not feel comfortable with the hook as it is providing a medical opinion which might be detrimental to readers: I think a better hook can be written. Z1720 (talk) 17:13, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

  • I have promoted the set but left the question mark in. I agree that the hook is dangerously close to "that DIY medicine is safe and effective", which would be not a good idea to run (and violate WP:MEDRS). Not all DIY medicine is safe or effective, and we need to be very clear on that. —Kusma (talk) 17:22, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
    I'm always a little concerned about MEDRS. Is there anyone here who is an expert? Valereee (talk) 17:48, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
    I wish Sandy was active, but this article 100% has to meet MEDRS and I don't think it currently does -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 17:53, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
    Set to go live in less than 2 days. Maybe pull until this is resolved? Valereee (talk) 18:14, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
    I'd like to give buidhe a chance to resolve this, but I don't think we can wait much longer than 12 hours or so. —Kusma (talk) 19:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
    Reping Buidhe Valereee (talk) 22:25, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Courtesy ping to Freedom4U who also helped approve the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:50, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
    The cited source for the information is a review, which should be an ok source for the content it supports. The key word is "some" and "all" is never claimed. I think that the article does cover downsides and dangers, for example, "People trying to buy pharmaceutical drugs online without a prescription may be the victim of fraud, phishing, or receive counterfeit medication" and points out the danger of self managed abortions that are not performed according to medical recommendations. (t · c) buidhe 02:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Buidhe, the issue I see is that the article says nothing about the key danger that self-diagnosis can go wrong and may lead to missed opportunities for early intervention and so to bad outcomes. —Kusma (talk) 07:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
    This wasn't mentioned in any of the cited sources though, which mainly focus on self treatment rather than self diagnosis. (t · c) buidhe 08:09, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
    @Buidhe, the lead (which is a bit on the short side) mentions self diagnosis, but nothing is said about its potential harms. Indeed we have some critical content in the article, especially "unlicensed sales of prescription drugs online are a significant public health threat" but that is not in wikivoice.
    I am not happy how the hook cherry-picks two area where DIY works well (glucose control for certain diabetics (the article cited says "DIY AID systems are therefore not suitable for patients who want to “give up” their diabetes, but for patients who are highly motivated and have an affinity for technology."), self-managed abortion with medication). We could equally well run
    • ... that parts of DIY medicine have been described as a "significant public health threat"?
    but we should aim for something that isn't potentially misleading in the hook.
    If we can run the article at all (input from other @DYK admins would be welcome) I think the hook needs to leave no room for misinterpretation. —Kusma (talk) 11:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
    ... that although some DIY medicine is safe and effective, some of it is not?--Launchballer 14:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
No DIY medicine is "safe and effective", period. It depends entirely on the circumstances in which it is taken. As a GP once said to me, almost any substance can be toxic if taken in sufficient quantities. Also, the article says "Self-managed abortion with medication is safe and effective", a gross overgeneralization. Gatoclass (talk) 15:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the article self-induced abortion is much more nuanced on this point. I have pulled the hook and reopened the nomination, please direct further suggestions to Template:Did you know nominations/DIY medicine. —Kusma (talk) 15:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The claim that "some DIY medicine is safe and effective" is so broad as to be basically meaningless. Sure, putting a band-aid on a paper cut is safe and effective. Quite apart from any MEDRS concerns, this just isn't a good hook. Spicy (talk) 15:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Can experienced DYKers comment on...

The nomination has been closed as unsuccessful. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Harbu Darbu, which I am (perhaps unfairly) leery to promote, considering the subject matter and background context. I honestly don't know if it crosses the "excessively sensational or gratuitous" line, or if it's actually nowhere near the line and I'm just being over-wary. Thoughts? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:02, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

First thought is often the best thought. I think your judgment is correct, but obviously others disagree. Yes, one can make all kinds of arguments promoting this hook, and indeed, that what we see on the nomination page. IMO, it's feeding into and perpetuating the whole IP conflict, and the editors on the nom page insisting that it's entirely innocent are just wrong. Viriditas (talk) 22:09, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
My first thought is that "innocen[ce]" is not the measure of fitness for Wikipedia or for DYK. DYK's guideline is that excessively sensational or gratuitous hooks should be rejected. As I was the reviewer who approved ALT2, may I ask @AirshipJungleman29: what it is about the hook ... that Billboard magazine included a song that calls for the death of Dua Lipa in a playlist? that you find outsizedly sensational and gratuitous for DYK, beyond acceptable hooks? (and, if you would like to, about the other hooks you and Narutolovehinata5 did not want promoted.) There are and have been other approved hooks related to matters pertaining to Israel–Palestine (ones that are much more overt about it than ALT2), and there have been other hooks about violence, threats, etc.
My second thought is that I don't think this song appearing in Wikipedia's Did You Know...? box and describing its lyrics, in accord with what reliable sources say about the song, is going to play a role in perpetuating the whole IP conflict, as if mentioning on Wikipedia for a day or half a day what has already happened in, with, and around a song would affect the geopolitically complex Israeli military action in Gaza.
I find myself in agreement with the nomination's original reviewer, Surtsicna, who acknowledged that the article and hook are heavy but added that [t]he suggestion to avoid mentioning Israel or Palestine is simply unrealistic. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:17, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Forgive me if you didn't understand how the word "innocent" is used here. It is not a measure of anything, the word is used to imply that you and others think that the hook does not fall afoul of sensationalism or gratuitousness. In other words, the hook is "innocent" of breaking the rule. That you point to other stuff existing does not help your argument. Viriditas (talk) 23:26, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, it's half that I know that I (and especially the relevant admin) will be the ones set upon at WP:ERRORS and elsewhere for approving sensationalist hooks, if such an objection is raised, and half that I personally don't want to promote a hook that wouldn't look out of place as a headline in your chosen tabloid. I probably am invoking that paragraph on subjective decision-making at the top of WP:DYKCRIT—that's why I'm asking for other opinions here. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:28, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
  • This doesn't seem particularly sensationalized of a hook. I've seen far more graphic and sensational hooks at DYK (some of which I was opposed to, some I was fine with). From the sounds of things, it feels like you're finding the subject matter/content of the article to be the issue here. The hook itself isn't really. SilverserenC 23:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Given that there have been multiple editors who have objected to either the nomination, the article or both, I am not seeing consensus to run the article at this time and thus the nomination might have to be rejected. The concerns raised regarding sensationalism are merit and serious, and while at first glance the other hooks that are not about IP might seem fine, enough concerns have been raised about the neutrality of the article that this might be a can of worms that we're better off not opening. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:47, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
And yet you were the one complaining about it originally and made this conflict. With multiple other editors reviewing and passing the nomination and hooks given. With you arguing and complaining to them each time. You were the one that wanted the most to cause enough conflict to prevent the approval. SilverserenC 23:52, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how Narutolovehinata5 "caused" any conflict. I don't think DYK should run any hook that calls, directly or indirectly, for the deaths of anyone or anything, even as a description or explanation. I think it's quite simple to run a hook that doesn't do this. Viriditas (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
I'd emphasize that the hook itself is not calling for anyone's death. I realize you said indirectly, or even as a description, but to say this is a hook that calls for someone's death is, I think, a mischaracterization. The article passes no approval for the call, and no endorsement (which of course it shouldn't, because of WP:NPOV). If anything, I think burying the lede on this song so to speak—if the hook were about some other attribute of the song like its rhythm or popularity, and didn't mention this content, I think that would be akin to bowdlerizing it. If you think it's not right for this song to be calling for people's deaths, I agree wholeheartedly. But presenting this song as if it doesn't do that wouldn't be informative. Those Wikipedia readers who don't click through would get an incomplete impression of the topic and its significance. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:32, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
My reply is very simple: you are mistaken. ALT0: "a song that calls for the death of Dua Lipa"; ALT1: "calls for the deaths of Bella Hadid, Mia Khalifa, and Dua Lipa"; ALT2: "a song that calls for the death of Dua Lipa"; ALT3: "calls for the deaths of Bella Hadid, Mia Khalifa, and Dua Lipa". Viriditas (talk) 00:43, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I will first maintain that describing something else's advocacy is not an endorsement of that advocacy. Conflating documentation with participation comes across as a potential inadvertent misread and misunderstanding of what Wikipedia does. I think our collective horror at the calling for harm (possibly death) to specific named living people is a horror reasonably directed at the song; that's part of "Harbu Darbu"'s critical reception; media criticism of its content and tone is something the article documents as part of its notability. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 17:30, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
That's not it. When I said "multiple editors" objected to the article and the hook, I was referring not to myself but rather to this discussion. Other editors have also expressed concerns about the nomination independent of my thoughts. Had it been just me who had raised such concerns I would not have participated here further as I already knew I was in the minority.
For what it's worth, I had been the first to comment in the nomination and right from the start I stated I had reservations about the hook, so I'm not sure where the impression "you were the one that wanted the most to cause enough conflict to prevent the approval" considering from the start I had already raised concerns even before the initial approval. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I understand not running the hook at this time in light of objections/concerns from three editors (Narutolovehinata5, AirshipJungleman29, and Viriditas). That three other editors (myself, Silverseren, and Surtsicna; or four counting the nominator, Gobonobo) are at ease with the hook isn't much of a consensus. That said, I don't think there is consensus to remove the article from consideration for DYK either. In light of the very even split on the question, how about we not have the hook to a prep or queue at this time, but also not fully eliminate it either, and leave this thread open so other editors have more opportunities to see it and comment? The thread was only created today, and it seems like a decision not worth rushing, whether to push the nomination through, or completely reject it from promotion.
Not that we need to do something this second, but are there any WikiProjects or boards it would be appropriate to crosspost to, in order to have more input and arrive at a consensus? P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:27, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Better idea: come up with a new hook that doesn’t call for the deaths of living people, no matter who said it. There are many unstable people who could read that hook on the main page. Try to think about the unintended consequences. Viriditas (talk) 03:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

I really don't want to get involved with this nom as I just haven't the time right now, but one thing I would say is that I don't think any of the hooks proposed thus far should be run, because it isn't clear from the article sources that the song literally calls for the killing of the celebrities. One says the song uses the phrase "X out", a vague phrase that could be interpreted multiple ways. Others simply say the song calls for "retribution" against them, or that they will get their punishment in the end and so on. And the sources which interpret the words in the song to mean killing the celebrities are not of the highest standard or are partisan.

More generally, for anybody preparing a nomination that is likely to be controversial, my advice would be to keep the article in user space and get a neutral administrator or two to look over it and any proposed hook before moving it to mainspace, to avoid the possible disappointment of having your nom rejected because of outstanding issues. Gatoclass (talk) 03:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

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

Gasparilla Pirate Festival

Per comments made by User:Zeng8r in the nomination, this is a formal request to move Template:Did you know nominations/Gasparilla Pirate Festival to the special occasion holding area to expedite a review before the 27th, which is the start of the Gasparilla Pirate Festival. I also think the image should be changed as it doesn't display well at that resolution. There's a lot of images available here, but in terms of what is already in the article, this image displays well; possibly this one as well or this one. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)

Viriditas, there has now been a review, but nominations that have not yet been approved should never be moved to the special occasion area, which is for approved nominations waiting to be promoted to prep only. A reminder here when the nomination is approved, if it isn't then moved to the special occasion section, would certainly be appropriate. I'd like to suggest that the image issue, if it hasn't yet been mentioned on the nomination page, should be done there right away. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:59, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
Got it. Thanks for addressing this. Viriditas (talk) 19:07, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I submitted a few different hooks and images. Not sure we can get this promoted by the 27th as the nominator has not edited today. Unless someone takes the place of the nominator? Bruxton (talk) 23:33, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
I think you're right. I've been trying to maintain my distance and continue to feign disinterest due to my involvement in the GA review. Any ideas as to who can help this move forward? Viriditas (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
@Viriditas: Let's see if they come back by tomorrow. Even if they do, this is going to be difficult because it involves queue 5 and we would need a willing administrator to move the hooks. Fingers crossed. Our guideline WP:DYKSO says: The nomination should be made at least one week prior to the occasion date so we will be IARing. Bruxton (talk) 00:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Well, at this point, after the more than month-long GA review, I think I know the nom's work schedule. They won't be around until the weekend because of their full-time job as a teacher, so tomorrow is very unlikely. Let me know if there are other alternatives. I mean, I get it, we've done all we can reasonably expect to do. I do, however, feel slightly responsible for the short deadline since I didn't close out the GA review until the other day. Viriditas (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron and RoySmith: to get opinions. Bruxton (talk) 00:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm afraid I haven't been following this, so it's not clear that my opinion would be valuable. RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Given that neither of the hooks are reliant on the date, while it would understandably be regrettable if the special occasion is not approved, it probably wouldn't be a big loss if the occasion is missed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
In any case, it's now the 27th and the article remains unapproved and thus unpromoted, so I guess this discussion is now moot and the article can run as a regular hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:41, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the Parade of Pirates took place yesterday, but there's still a logical date for a modified Gasparilla DYK to run: March 2, the date of the Outbound Voyage. To wit:
DYK that... the Outbound Voyage is the culminating event of the Gasparilla Pirate Festival, which first held in Tampa, Florida in 1904? [7] Zeng8r (talk) 02:19, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Need a new reviewer

Resolved

Template:Did you know nominations/I'm God is looking good and is ready to be reviewed. I was a bit too involved in the last review so I'm requesting a new reviewer to have a look and close this out. Viriditas (talk) 20:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Sure, I'll need a QPQ for Tasha Ghouri when I finish my draft. If I could humbly request a look at some of the hooks at Template:Did you know nominations/No Rome, I would really appreciate it, because it's getting really near the top and I'm getting increasingly worried about it being timed out.--Launchballer 21:18, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Looking at it now. Viriditas (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Done. Viriditas (talk) 23:35, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

did manual update

would appreciate if someone did the talk tags (not credits, just talk tags) from T:DYK/Q2 :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Done the remaining talk tags. Assuming that DYKUpdateBot is still down, should we try to manually drift towards noon/midnight updates again (say, 14:00 UTC today then 01:00 UTC then 12:00 UTC)? —Kusma (talk) 12:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
The bot doesn't seem to be back, so I'll do the manual update now. —Kusma (talk) 14:28, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Done. @DYK admins: assuming we need to do this by hand for the moment, we need people to be around at switchover time. I set the update time so it will become overdue at 01:30 UTC (which is in the middle of the night for me). Can somebody be there and do an update as close as possible to that time? We can then try to get closer to noon/midnight updates by just setting the "update time" to something like 01:00 or 00:45 UTC (and then do a noon UTC update on Monday). Rationale: the first manual update was over 3 hours late, and we're slowly returning to standard update times instead of immediately jumping to noon/midnight so we don't have one set that only gets 9 hours of Main Page exposure. —Kusma (talk) 14:48, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm around and shall do a manual update at the appointed time (i.e. in 15 minutes) if needed. Schwede66 01:14, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 Done – Schwede66 02:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
And another manual update done. @DYK admins: next one at midnight UTC. I hope @Shubinator can restart the bot soon. —Kusma (talk) 13:09, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Just nudged DYKUpdateBot so it's back up and running! I'm not entirely sure why it went down (there's a cryptic "503 Server Error: Service Unavailable" message in the logs), fingers crossed it won't crop up again. Sorry for the delay, I'm traveling so more sporadic than usual. Shubinator (talk) 17:50, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
That did the trick. Thanks! Schwede66 00:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

KSEE (nom)

The article doesn't clearly state that the bee was the mascot. Pinging @Sammi Brie, The Night Watch, and AirshipJungleman29: —Kusma (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

I clarified the detail that the bee was a mascot for KMJ-TV. Does the iteration I added work? The Night Watch (talk) 22:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
@The Night Watch Yes. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:04, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks all, this is resolved. —Kusma (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

W. C. Renouf (nom)

The article says he wrote this in a monograph. The Times source calls it a "bulletin". Hook seems OK though. @Philafrenzy and Whispyhistory: —Kusma (talk) 22:12, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

It was an article in the Bulletin of the Punjab Department of Agriculture. I have changed the article accordingly. Philafrenzy (talk) 23:27, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, this looks fine now. —Kusma (talk) 09:11, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

noinclude for nom discussions?

Could we solve the WP:PEIS problem by simply not including the full discussion in the index pages? I played with this a bit in my sandbox: Special:Permalink/1200056816 and User:RoySmith/sandbox/flaco. The index page could include the top part, which I think is what most people care about when looking for hooks to review. But the full discussion (which is what eats up most of the PIES quota) would only be visible when you click on the "review or comment" link. I'm sure somebody who knows a lot more template/lua magic than I do could figure out a way to include a bit more information. A line like 37 days old, 114 comments by 7 reviewers, currently in state "Maybe", last edit 12 days ago, for example, would be useful. RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith, that could be quite nice, but I can't tell whether it would scale. Presumably the nice status line you suggest would have to either be generated by an external bot (and recent burnout from manual updates makes me a bit wary) or come from Lua magic that might run into other memory and time limits. I do assume that the whole DYK nominations template would benefit from a complete redesign. —Kusma (talk) 14:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

Nevoid melanoma query (prep 3)

The nevoid melanoma hook says "unlike most skin cancers" - the article talks about the symmetry but doesn't emphasise that it's unusual so that part of the hook doesn't reflect the article content. Is that ok? The other hooks all look fine to me. WaggersTALK 11:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Nom. Now in Queue 3. I agree this needs to be in the article, and sourced properly per WP:MEDRS. @Just-a-can-of-beans, @Zanahary, @DirtyHarry991: thoughts? —Kusma (talk) 15:49, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
The article states "In most cases, the melanoma will appear with smooth, rounded, regular borders; all of these qualities are seen in harmless skin nevi but not other forms of melanoma, adding to the difficulty of identifying a nevoid melanoma." and is cited DirtyHarry991 (talk) 23:29, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

Hackaball (nom)

@Schminnte, Sohom Datta, and DirtyHarry991: This is sourced to a Medium post, which is user generated to not usually a reliable source. —Kusma (talk) 15:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@KusmaThe blogpost is by the makers of the tool, which should be reliable per WP:ABOUTSELF since this is not a exceptional claim or otherwise disqualified from being reliable :) Sohom (talk) 15:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Hi @Kusma, the Medium article is posted by the official Made by Many account. I assumed that this would be fine per ABOUTSELF as (according to that section's guidelines):
  • it is not unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim,
  • does not involve claims about third parties,
  • does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source,
  • and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity.
If the problem is that this is a primary source, I provided other possible hooks in the nomination. All the best, Schminnte [talk to me] 15:58, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
@Schminnte: I would prefer to have something that has been noticed also in secondary sources, not just a story told by the creators. —Kusma (talk) 13:58, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
@Kusma: How about the ALT2 suggested then (slightly tweaked):
  • ALT2: ... that children have programmed Hackaball as a Magic 8 Ball, a whoopee cushion, and an alarm clock?
Source is Creative Review ("children have also used it to make ‘Magic 8’ balls, whoopee cushions and alarm clocks"). All the best, Schminnte [talk to me] 14:50, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I've used that. I can't access the source for more context, but at least it is other people reporting on what the creators say. —Kusma (talk) 15:27, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Prep 5 outsized transliteration characters

The hook in question appears as follows:

I have nothing against the hook, but because the {{transliteration}} template is used, the normal yobidashi turns into yobidashi, and the other two Japanese non-bold italic links are affected as well. Is there any reason why the transliteration template is needed here, since the template changes the font size and doesn't match the size of the rest of the DYK hooks? Perhaps there's another valid template that wouldn't cause this issue? Pinging nominator OtharLuin, reviewer UndercoverClassicist, other participant theleekycauldron, and promoter AirshipJungleman29. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

BlueMoonset, the transliteration template is required for accessibility. See MOS:OTHERLANG. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:12, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
This is weird. It displays at the same size for me in Chrome, but looks terrible when I view it in Safari (logged out, so it is not my choice of skin etc.) —Kusma (talk) 20:21, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm in Chrome, and I can't see any difference. In general, though, I'd agree with Airship that accessibility trumps aesthetics, even on the front page -- however, I wonder if this is worth raising with the people behind the template as a compatibility issue?? UndercoverClassicist T·C 20:36, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Also looks fine for me in Firefox. @BlueMoonset, what browser are you using? —Kusma (talk) 20:53, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm on Safari. Looks like it's a Safari issue, because it isn't happening on Firefox. Sorry for not thinking of this possibility. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:29, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
safari
chrome
For me, it looks fine in Chrome, bloated in Safari (MacOS Ventura). RoySmith (talk) 21:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
This is now in Queue 5. I'm not sure whether we can/should do anything about it, but we should expect this to come up at ERRORS. —Kusma (talk) 14:01, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
There's only three possible ways forward. We could fix the problem, but I don't think that's something within our power. Which leaves us with either pulling the hook or letting it run this way. To my mind, the later is clearly the lesser of two evils. RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
While it looks ugly, it won't break the 'pedia. Let's ignore it when it comes up at Errors. Schwede66 19:17, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I’ve created a new list of the first 35 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 8. We have a total of 271 nominations, of which 116 have been approved, a gap of 155 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) 19:02, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5

Carmen Valero (nom)

@BeanieFan11, @Oltrepier, @AirshipJungleman29: this is true only in the narrow sense of "athlete" as "track and field athlete", not in the wider sense of "sportsperson", as there were women in Spanish Olympic teams earlier, both for winter and summer olympics. This might be a WP:ENGVAR issue, but is far too easily misunderstood for the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, seems like in North America, you're supposed to use "track and field" to refer to athletics. I suppose you could just add that to the hook for clarity? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
@Kusma Sorry, I wasn't aware of this...
As suggested by @AirshipJungleman29, I think we could just add that clarification to the hook, at this point; it should already be a bit clearer on the article's lead section, by the way.
Anyway, thank you for flagging it! Oltrepier (talk) 19:43, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Added "track and field" to the hook. I think the article could still be a lot clearer on what exactly the scope of her "first" was, so the female tennis players competing for Spain at the 1924 Summer Olympics won't feel forgotten. —Kusma (talk) 22:45, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
@Kusma I've boldly added a slight clarification to the original article. What do you think about it? Oltrepier (talk) 20:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
@Oltrepier, that looks fine. —Kusma (talk) 20:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Poecilia vivipara (nom)

@Surtsicna, @AryKun, @AirshipJungleman29: I am not convinced that "opportunistic matings" and "sneaking up to females" are exactly the same thing. Should we go for ALT0 instead? —Kusma (talk) 13:53, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

The article does gloss opportunistic as "sneak and chase", which is why I thought that hook was okay. I thought alt0 was best in any case, as mentioned in the review, so I'd be fine with switching to that. AryKun (talk) 16:04, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Based on the reaction to a similar hook at WP:ERRORS, I felt that ALT0 was too much of a potential timesink. I also think that "opportunistic (sneak and chase) meetings" is very likely the same as "sneaking up to females", but I'm not a fish expert. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:37, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

WP:DYKRR about approving hooks

Nominations and how we traditionally approve Hooks.

Here is what WP:DYKRR says.

You're not allowed to approve your own hook or article

  • Scenario 1: Nominator writes a hook - reviewer approves.

Contrast with

  • Scenario 2: Reviewer writes a hook, nominator approves

In both scenarios above the reviewer and nominator are not approving their own hook.

For Scenario 2, our practice (occasionally) is to require another reviewer to sign off on the hook. Maybe we can clarify and codify whether Scenario 2 requires another review. Theoretically the hook gets approved two more times. Bruxton (talk) 16:55, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

A second review

Narutolovehinata5 has kindly suggested a second review of Template:Did you know nominations/James Townsend (abolitionist), an offer I avail here by solicitation.
Narutolovehinata5 was of the belief that the article failed under DYKCOMPLETE due to "the weight given to the parts not about him" (Townsend, the subject of this BDP), specifically a section about his relatives and associates. I countered by offering to purge this content from the article, at which point it would still meet the DYK character minimum and would be entirely and exclusively about Townsend without mentioning his extended family. In surrebuttal, Narutolovehinata5 requested I instead expand the article. I explained that there was nothing with which to expand it as the content currently in it constitutes the whole and complete universe of information published in RS about the subject. Thereupon, Narutolovehinata5 closed the nomination. While I may be reading DYKCOMPLETEE incorrectly, I don't believe it requires us to include information about which no sources exist, but rather only requires us not to exclude information if it can be documented.
Thank you, in advance, for a second review and thank you to Narutolovehinata5 for this thorough primary review and feedback, which helped to generally improve the article. Chetsford (talk) 00:22, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

I am happy to take a look. Only thing I can see right away is that the article doesn't assert its importance (or implicit notability) in the lead. Viriditas (talk) 01:12, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
It looks like Narutolovehinata5 was objecting to what they saw as a WP:COATRACK. I don't know if that is the case, but I think that's the central concern for them. Viriditas (talk) 01:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't say WP:COATRACK because that mainly refers to topics that are only tangential to the subject, which isn't exactly the case here. Though I guess the concern here is similar even if it's not a coatrack case per-se. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability: "A living person's single event notability can be disguised by also including the subject's life history, such as graduating high school valedictorian or being interviewed by a local newspaper. The editor includes these events, usually accompanied with valid sources, attempting to establish a reputation for the person. Merging multiple unrelated non-notable accomplishments takes focus away from the true purpose of creating the coatrack article. Numerous infoboxes and navigation templates that present the article as part of a series on the subject's family, religion, political party, field of research etc. may detract from the fact that nothing at all other than the most basic biographical data is publicly known about the subject, due to a complete lack of notability." Viriditas (talk) 01:47, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I will note that the article claims NPOL notability, as he was elected to the Indiana state legislature. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:50, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Perusing the sources, it turns out he was also elected to the state legislature in Union County, Kentucky. His father was a Major. Viriditas (talk) 02:46, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I've gone back and forth on this a few times, but on the balance, I think that Narutolovehinata5 is wrong on the letter of policy – but this article should be IAR declined. DYKCOMPLETE is meant to deal with articles that don't look presentable, as Chetsford points out. The guideline points to rookie mistakes like unexpanded headers, and though the article does have giant holes, I think it basically meets the burden posed by that particular guideline.
That being said, the holes are concerning, and I'd personally be very queasy about actually running this article without significant expansion. I would argue that if this is the extent of the sources, the article shouldn't run. Single sentences where there clearly could be a lot more information on the entire incident, but there isn't, don't make me feel great from a quality-control standpoint. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:38, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
To clarify here: my initial concern was indeed WP:DYKCOMPLETE (for example, initially Townsend's death was only mentioned in the lede but not the body, and the body was also missing aspects of his later life). However, the current concern was giving me pause was the fact that about half (actually slightly more than half) of the article is about his descendants and not Townsend himself. In this case, I don't think WP:DYKCOMPLETE was really the relevant guideline anymore, but I don't think it matches WP:COATRACK either. Maybe WP:WEIGHT, but I'm not so sure. As for the earlier offer to delete the information about the descendants, I wasn't okay with it either since it would also lead to the article feeling incomplete as well. I wasn't actually opposed to the descendants stuff being in the article, only that it seemed to make up the bulk of it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:19, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Looking closely at the current version, I think the problem is the way Chetsford tried to create a separate treatment of each subtopic instead of working towards a narrative synthesis. Take the treatment of Putnamville, Indiana, which is one of the more notable subjects. It is basically either ingored or split up into different sections. The lead says he was an early pioneer of the town, but the sources say he was pretty much responsible for it. The establishment of the church is in the late life section while the pioneering aspects are in the Family, associates, and legacy section. Meanwhile, it doesn't call him the founder (which he apparently was) and it says nothing about the abandoned factory he tried to build, or his failure as a prospector. So, it seems to me, that Chetsford could have easily constructed a more solid biographical narrative that could easily withstand DYK. Alternatively, this information could be used to expand the small article on Putnamville, Indiana, instead of focusing solely on a bio. So there's more than one way to do it. Viriditas (talk) 02:32, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
These are certainly interesting points and would definitely be appropriate to bring up in a Good Article review. Chetsford (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
"However, the current concern was giving me pause was the fact that about half (actually slightly more than half) of the article is about his descendants and not Townsend himself." As noted, I'd be happy to purge this content from the article, at which time it would continue to meet all the DYK criteria as well as what you've expressed is your personal preference. You indicated that's not an acceptable solution. This is a bit of a confusing requirement, that the article fails due to the presence of content (not the lack of content), but the content that is causing it to fail can't be removed. Chetsford (talk) 05:03, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
For starters, the content has to go somewhere if it is to be deleted from the article. Viriditas's proposal might be a suitable solution. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:54, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
 Done Thanks! Let me know if there's anything else. Chetsford (talk) 06:43, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
"the holes are concerning" Thanks for the feedback, theleekycauldron. To help me remedy any deficiencies that are causing this to fail WP:DYKCRIT, could you specify what holes are causing concern? Thank you! Chetsford (talk) 05:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
I can't see much wrong with the article in its current form. It's short, yes, but above the minimum required length, and the content is actually quite interesting. Gatoclass (talk) 03:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Review of DYKN and GAN

This is just an FYI that I am aware of the rule regarding reviewing a GAN and then reviewing the same article for DYK. nor may you review an article if it's a recently listed good article that you either nominated or reviewed for GA. I came to DYKN and reviewed a nomination. The article was also a GAN so I started a review on that same article after the DYK review.

It is a nearly 10k word article and my DYKN reviews are comprehensive enough that I got interested in the building and got a start on the GAN review. So I am just placing a note here in case anyone sees an issue. Bruxton (talk) 16:11, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Bruxton The DYK review was started today 2 February at 4:45 and the GA Review was started today at 04:57, and both are in progress, so the question is whether it is a good idea for one reviewer to do both reviews at the same time. If that is OK here, you should perhaps ask the same question at WT:GAN. TSventon (talk) 16:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
I would have preferred that the GA review was started after the DYK review was finished, but heigh-ho. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:43, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict)TSventon Yes the difference in timestamp is a bit misleading because the DYKN took me about 45 minutes (long article) and I only published the review when it was completed. Procedurally, I do a read through, then post a {{reviewing}} template, and then I start reviewing. Good advice, but I have not seen a similar rule on WP:GOOD. Bruxton (talk) 16:50, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Prep 1

Template:Did you know nominations/Jenny Suo has an inaccurate hook:

  • ... that at age 14, Jenny Suo conducted a science experiment that resulted in Ribena pleading guilty to breaching consumer protection laws?

Ribena did not plead guilty, it was GlaxoSmithKline, the then-manufacturer of Ribena in New Zealand, who pled guilty. I would suggest replace "Ribena" with "GlaxoSmithKline" in the hook. I don't think the name of the drink is needed, what's hooky here is that a science experiment by a young teen (actually two young teens, one of whom was Suo) led to guilty pleas on 15 charges by a global conglomerate. Perhaps, rather than "resulted in", "ultimately led to" would be a more appropriate phrasing.

Pinging nominator Panamitsu, reviewer Grnrchst, and promoter AirshipJungleman29. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:39, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Yes you're right. How about "... that at age 14, Jenny Suo conducted a science experiment that ultimately lead to GlaxoSmithKline pleading guilty to breaching consumer protection laws?" —Panamitsu (talk) 04:51, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Good catch, support Panamitsu's proposed alt. --Grnrchst (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Pushing the same subject too often

In recent months, I've been constantly seeing new DYK articles about the same somewhat obscure artist on Wikipedia's front page - Amrita Sher-Gil. I think that there should be some kind of rule against such use of Wikipedia to promote a certain subject at an editor's discretion - in a way, it goes against the whole ethos of the policies on WP:Undue Weight and WP:NPOV. Looking at this project page for such a rule, I see two possible objections based on the page, in that such a practice:

  1. runs counter to the goal of DYK to 'highlight the variety of information on Wikipedia, thereby providing an insight into the range of material that Wikipedia covers'. Constantly adding information about the same subject is the opposite of variety and, if anything, creates the impression that Wikipedia has too little information about other subjects.
  2. contradicts the principle that DYK should not be 'a means of advertising, or of promoting commercial or political causes. While it is fine to cover topics of commercial or political interest, DYK must not provide inappropriate advantage for such causes.' The constant featuring of Amrita Sher-Gil certainly benefits her estate or whoever owns her paintings and provides them with a potential commercial advantage by hyping her and raising her profile. In the future, an artist could just hire people to organise a hype campaign by writing DYKs about him. It could also be viewed as a political cause, an effort to Right Great Wrongs by making more of a household name of an artist that fashionably checks several 'marginalised' boxes - female, 'mixed-race', non-European, LGBT. It's difficult to tell what the motives are - an editor can just be a fan of an artist; but whatever the motives are, individual editors' preferences arguably shouldn't be allowed to shape the front page to such an extent that the objective effect looks like that of a political or commercial campaign.

Still, I suppose that neither of these rules is stated in such a categorical way as to prevent such a tendency. It can be argued that too much repetition does not prevent variety and that an artist's reputation is not a clear case of a commercial entity. To the extent the current DYK project's guidelines do not prevent such a phenomenon, they should arguably be changed in order to do so. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 18:07, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

Can you list the DYKs that we've had about her? I know we had Sleep (painting) a few days ago, but what are the others? RoySmith (talk) 18:40, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I seem to remember a similar concern a while ago—a year or two?—about a series of DYK nominations for songs by a popular music artist; Taylor Swift, I think? In any case, that passed, and it's reasonable to think this will too. The editor that has been nominating these pages, Whispyhistory, seems to simply be interested in Sher-Gil's art lately. They have an extensive history of contributing to a wide variety of topics. So long as Wikipedia's guidelines and DYK's rules are being followed, I don't see anything wrong with the contributions. The IP claims the objective effect looks like that of a political or commercial campaign (italics in original), but I think their emphasis is instructive: this is a matter of what the IP thinks it looks like, which is subjective perception, not objective fact or effect. In the long run, I don't think readers of Wikipedia will think DYK has an undue promotional goal. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith, I found six nominations since November 2023 Template:Did you know nominations/Hill Women, Template:Did you know nominations/Self-Portrait as a Tahitian, Template:Did you know nominations/Sleep (painting), Template:Did you know nominations/The Little Girl in Blue, Template:Did you know nominations/The Story Teller (painting), Template:Did you know nominations/Young Girls (painting). TSventon (talk) 19:22, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Interesting. I know just enough about Swift to have recognized all the noms related to her, but up until today, didn't know anything about Sher-Gil, so all those went right by me without my even noticing the connection. I'd be curious to hear from people living in India if they had the reverse experience. RoySmith (talk) 19:37, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Regarding The editor that has been nominating these pages, Whispyhistory, seems to simply be interested in Sher-Gil's art lately. They have an extensive history of contributing to a wide variety of topics. - I'd like to point out that (at their request) I have been maintaining a list of Whispyhistory's DYKs, which may be found here. As I write this, there are 470 of them; I suggest that people look through it to see the sheer variety. Very few have concerned paintings, and if one topic seems to dominate, it is medicine - in all its aspects, from surgeons to hospitals to pharmaceuticals. Regarding I found six nominations since November 2023 - of the six named, two (Hill Women and The Story Teller (painting)) were not Whispyhistory's noms. Of Whispyhistory's five DYKs so far this year, one (Lloyd George envelope) was about as far removed from Amrita Sher-Gil as you can reasonably get. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 09:32, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
It is pretty normal that Wikipedians write a series of articles on related topics, then find a new topic and write multiple articles about that. It leads to enough variety overall, even if we sometimes have a lot of similar stuff for a few weeks. —Kusma (talk) 19:46, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I also note that Amrita Sher-Gil is listed as a vital article, which seems at odds with the OP's characterization as a "somewhat obscure artist". Also, it's a well-known problem that DYK leans US-centric, so even if we are overweighting our coverage of Sher-Gil, I can't get too worked up over it. RoySmith (talk) 19:52, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't have a problem with series of articles on related topics being nominated for DYK, provided that the facts chosen for blurbs are not basically the same as each other. Hypothetical example, if someone writes 37 articles on small species of fish from mountain streams, they would need to find something more to say about them than "Did you know ... that Blankus blankitia is a small fish found in mountain streams in Whereveristan?" --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 18:58, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
Being a Level 5 vital article doesn't necessarily mean the topic isn't obscure as, according to the WP:VAFAQ the list promotes geographic diversity by including "a number of important topics less-known to the average American or Brit". TSventon (talk) 19:22, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
There's no evidence supporting anything you've said except that there have been at least six DYKs on the topic. No indication of political soapboxing, righting great wrongs, or any odd motives of any kind. You're barking up the wrong tree. Viriditas (talk) 19:51, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
They used to come for Taylor Swift, now they're coming for Amrita Sher-Gill, soon they'll be coming for YOU! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:14, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Fnord. Viriditas (talk) 20:56, 28 January 2024 (UTC)
Sher-Gil is definitely not an "obscure" artist; she's one of the best-known 20th century Indian artists. There's also only 6 hooks in the last 3 months; it's not like we have a hook about her every single day. Plus, the hooks are all reasonably interesting. I honestly can't see a problem here unless we just want to tell people who primarily edit in one topic area to just stop nominating their work at DYK. AryKun (talk) 16:11, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
Agreed. And if I'm extremely charitable to the OP/IP, the only hook even approaching this concern (and even then you have to make it fit) is The Story Teller, given its focus on monetary worth. Journalist Bianca Bosker recently published a new book on the current state of the art world that is pretty damn disturbing (Get the Picture) so in spite of the fact that the OP/IP is wrong on this, we should all keep an eye out for shenanigans of the kind the OP/IP describes. Viriditas (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2024 (UTC)
I really doubt the amount of influence a DYK hook will have on an artwork's price. There's like 5,000 people who view an average hook, and I doubt many of them are the multimillionaires you'd need to target if you want to increase the auction price of a painting by a well-known artist. AryKun (talk) 14:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
There are 5,000 who click, but probably a lot more who look at the hook without clicking. Nevertheless, I think the "advertising" influence of DYK on actual sales or prices isn't nearly as large as some people think. Taylor Swift would likely be an obscure artist without the free advertising provided by Wikipedia. —Kusma (talk) 14:55, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

Paraphrasing

A perennial issue at DYK is WP:CLOP or "close paraphrasing". Many editors make a good faith effort to follow the rules only to have their work shot down by hard-asses like me. I often struggle to explain to these editors how their efforts were insufficient and I know I often fail in that effort, which just leads to frustration on all sides. I recently discovered that our Paraphrase article describes the problem more clearly than I've ever managed to do. Quoting from that article:

Fred Inglis identifies five levels of paraphrase:

  1. replacing words with synonyms
  2. varying sentence structure
  3. reordering information
  4. turning long sentences into multiple shorter ones (or vice versa)
  5. expressing abstract concepts more concretely.

most editors are working at about level 1 or 2, which is usually enough to keep our automated tool (i.e. earwig) from detecting anything, which lulls people into a false sense of safety. The problem is, we really need to be in level 5 territory. RoySmith (talk) 21:32, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

I could use some help with paraphrasing over at The Best Sleepover in the World. The primary editor has expressed concerns that paraphrasing could be a NPOV issue, so they favor direct quoting of commonly used words and phrases instead, which leads to excessive quoting. Viriditas (talk) 21:37, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the list! Good advice. Bruxton (talk) 23:02, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Here is how I avoid CLOP. I read a source, and scribble down somewhere the main points that I want to include from that source, then organize the points from all the sources into the sequence I want to present them in. Just changing the sequence alone is a major step toward avoiding CLOP. Then when I start writing the article, I use my notes as the reference for the first draft. It's a sure-fire way of avoiding CLOP, because you can't even remember how the points were phrased in the original source, and thus have to express it in your own words. One can of course frequently refer back to the original sources when necessary for clarification and confirmation that you got it right, but by that time, you have already structured the prose around your own notes and CLOPping from that point would actually be harder than simply modifying your existing prose a bit to ensure accuracy. Personally, I think CLOPping is more trouble than it's worth. About the only time I run into CLOP issues is when most of the info is coming from just one or maybe two sources, and it's already structured in a very logical way that is hard to deviate from. Gatoclass (talk) 23:59, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. I am going to try the @Gatoclass: method. Bruxton (talk) 23:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, what Gatoclass describes is clearly the ideal process. RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4: Elijah Hewson (nom)

Perhaps it is just me, but on first read I assumed that there was a U2 album reaching No. 52 at the same time as the Inhaler album topped the charts. @Launchballer, Panini!, AirshipJungleman29: can/should this be clarified in the hook? —Kusma (talk) 07:48, 3 February 2024 (UTC)

ALT2: ... that Elijah Hewson's band Inhaler's UK No. 1 debut album charted 51 places higher than the debut album of his father's band U2? (I'll leave it to you to decide which links constitute MOS:OVERLINKing.)--Launchballer 15:54, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
Both of the links to the debut albums can probably be done away with. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:16, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Used Launchballer's most recent suggestion with the two album links removed. —Kusma (talk) 11:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Prep 3 Pohang Space Walk Nom

SpaceWalk (walkable sculpture, Pohang 2021) Mutter Genth 01

This is about an image we are set to run for DYK. It is puzzling to me how the image is ok for commons. South Korea has very restrictive restrictive copyright laws; as in no FOP {{NoFoP-South Korea}}.

FOP can be confusing, and this one went through a commons deletion process. Maybe the workaround was to obtain the designer's permission? I want to ask GRuban or others who may know. Bruxton (talk) 16:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Krd: Looks like it. The deletion request was for images of ten sculptures all designed by Heike Mutter and Ulrich Genth, and is the sum total of the uploader's contributions: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Fixateur. That doesn't seem like a random tourist snapping photos, these sculptures are on multiple continents, this looks like someone who specializes in their work. It looks like VRT has confirmed that the uploader is a representative of Mutter and Genth, so has the rights to release images of their work. I'm not a VRT person (any more), so can't read the release email chain itself, but that is what it seems like to me. Pinging Krd who is a VRT person who marked the file to confirm; but if no one says one way or the other, I'd say we should take VRT's word for it, that's their purpose. --GRuban (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@GRuban: Thank you much for your thoughts here. Bruxton (talk) 17:49, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Lobster-eye optics

I'm a bit confused about the WP:DYKLEN requirements in regards to Template:Did you know nominations/Lobster-eye optics and whether the nom is acceptable. I will number the concerns for ease of reading:

  1. Lobster Eye Imager for Astronomy was created on 8 September 2022‎.[8]
  2. It was expanded 5x on 29 December 2023, at about 1670 characters (268 words).[9]
  3. Later that same day, most of the new 5x expansion for Lobster Eye Imager for Astronomy was used to create a new article, Lobster-eye optics. Upon creation, it was 3727 characters (603 words).[10]
  4. Lobster-eye optics was submitted for DYK on 5 January 2024. At the time of submission, it was 4595 characters (713 words).[11]
  5. As of today, Lobster-eye optics is now 4922 characters (765 words).[12]

Does Lobster-eye optics require further expansion or is it at an acceptable length based on the import of new, 5x content from the older article? Viriditas (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas: The controlling factor would be whether at least 80% of the current content of Lobster-eye optics was put into mainspace no more than seven days prior to its nomination. Any new content from Lobster Eye Imager for Astronomy would be fine, but any old content from that article would have to comprise less than 20% of Lobster-eye optics. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Right. That means the nomination is acceptable. Just checking to make sure. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I do not want to be a wet blanket, but I am concerned that this image fails de minimis as it is used to highlight a logo that is still protected by copyright. @Bruxton @AirshipJungleman29 Thoughts? Bremps... 03:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Probably just as well I haven't promoted it with the image (reasoning that the logo itself is rather small there). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict)@Bremps: I considered that and must admit I do not know the answer. There are many images on commons of players in uniforms with various logos visible. Including many images of players with this logo. So I will ping GRuban who knows more about images. I can find five or six other players wearing the ball-in-glove logo on commons like this one of Bill Schroeder File:Bill Schroeder Brewers.jpg. Bruxton (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The issue is weird. It's not so much that the logo is depicted, it's that the way the image is used draws the focus to the logo itself (non-free) instead of the player (completely free). Bremps... 03:20, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
It can be swapped with many others File:Moose Haas Brewers.jpg so I will hope that GRuban can or another editor can help. Bruxton (talk) 03:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Concur, I think GRuban will be able to explain any copyright concerns better than I can. Bremps... 03:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Eh. This is such a hairsplitting issue, that whatever I write here I will regret the next morning. It's true that we have any number of perfectly fine free images of Brewers players that show the logo, as just a part of their uniform, however, this article is specifically about the logo, so we can hardly argue it is "de minimis" here. Our Wikipedia:Logos guideline allows, and almost encourages, using a logo even on an article about the company as a whole, so it would certainly approve of using the logo on an article about the logo itself, even if we had to use it under "fair use". On the article itself, I could even see a whole gallery of free photos showing slight variations of the logo, the same as Gallery of Miss Universe crowns on that article. However, on the EN Wikipedia front page, we should try to cross the "t"s and dot the "i"s, so I would recommend not running this image as the DYK lead image. I'm sorry; I greatly support the use of images on articles and absolutely love it when a DYK I write gets the lead image slot, but in this case I think we should not use it in the interest of avoiding the debate. --GRuban (talk) 14:21, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you again GRuban! Bruxton (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2 issues

Joan Phillip (nom)

The hook makes it sound like "good whack" is quoting Philip, but according to the source she said "I’d have to get my little SIA stick out for those bits for those people who are misbehaving in the house." Instead of the "good whack", which is quoting Rob Shaw, should we just go for whack without quote marks? Ping @Ornithoptera, Bruxton, AirshipJungleman29. —Kusma (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Kusma:, seems I missed this, I will see if Ornithoptera comes here to comment. Bruxton (talk) 14:54, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I will implement my suggestion for the moment, happy to hear other ideas. —Kusma (talk) 11:20, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Ibedul succession dispute (nom)

I'm wondering whether adding that this was in 2023 (dispute started in 2021) will make this hook more attractive. Ping @Sahaib, Toobigtokale, AirshipJungleman29 for opinions. —Kusma (talk) 11:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't think the year is really relevant here because the turtle blood part by itself is hooky. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:00, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Sure, my point was more that looking at the hook I thought this was something that happened 200 years ago. —Kusma (talk) 12:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
You could make it "2021–2022 ibedul succession dispute? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:34, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

Bot is down

We need a manual update. @DYK admins: can you help? I'm in a call and might not be able to do it for a while. @Shubinator for info. —Kusma (talk) 13:56, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

I've notified Shubinator on their talk page. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 15:13, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I'll do the manual update now. —Kusma (talk) 15:32, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Done. @DYK admins: next update is scheduled for 1:30 UTC, please keep an eye on it and do a manual update if necessary, perhaps with a time reset to midnight. —Kusma (talk) 15:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Just got online, please hold off on a manual update, let me see if I can get the bot back up and running. Shubinator (talk) 02:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Both DYKUpdateBot and DYKHousekeepingBot are back up! Shubinator (talk) 02:16, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Native American genocide in the United States

Hi all. I would appreciate a second opinion on this particular review. The issue at hand is whether the overall general inferred meaning of a chapter can be used to verify a hook; even if the hook fact isn't directly stated within an easily parsed quotable text. This will require a bit of textual analysis/reading in order to comment and form an opinion. Best.4meter4 (talk) 02:48, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I haven't looked at the article or hook, but best practice is to only promote hooks that are unambiguous and directly found in the sources. If you need to infer anything or interpret something, then it should be automatically discarded, IMO. It should also be easy for the nominator and reviewer to agree to discard and choose a new hook, so in practice, you shouldn't waste time discussing or analyzing a problematic hook; instead, you should move on to the next one. Viriditas (talk) 03:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I looked at the hook and at the book being cited, and I think this hook is reasonable and unproblematic. It's apparent that a chapter titled "Pestilence and Genocide" in a book titled American Holocaust regards the deliberate routing of Cherokee displacees through disease-affected regions (as described in the book) as genocidal. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@P-Makoto That is what I thought as well.4meter4 (talk) 03:53, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
(while I'm here) Did a quick Google Scholar search and these books/papers seem to verify the hooks: Finzsch 2008 pp. 221-223, Lewy 2007 pp. 667-670, Stiffarm & Lane 1992 pp. 31-36. Levivich (talk) 04:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Pulled Template:Did you know nominations/HorsegiirL

This had a hook with the person's real name, contrary to BLP privacy and (apparently) the wishes of the subject or her management. There was no good secondary source for the real name given in the article HorsegiirL. I will not be promoting this without such a source. —Kusma (talk) 09:17, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure it was required, but I've revdel'ed all the revisions which contained the private information. RoySmith (talk) 11:57, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Zanana

"... that zanana can refer to a nagging wife in Egypt, or to Israeli drones flying overhead in Gaza?"

This is currently on the mainpage in the quirky slot. I read the article and it came across as quite slanted and tendentious, contrary to WP:NPOV, WP:NEOLOGISM, WP:COATRACK, &c. This seems quite remarkable when the topic area is so contentious per WP:ARBPIA. Ostensibly it's about a buzzing sound but it focusses mainly on other issues. Now maybe there's an article to be written about Israel's use of drones and the air war over Gaza but I'd expect this to be written here under an English title, rather than under a slang word in Arabic. And note there doesn't seem to be a counterpart article linked in any other language.

I'm starting here rather than WP:ERRORS or by tag-bombing the article as the issue may have been discussed already. I looked at the nomination but didn't see any consideration given to the controversial nature of the topic. What gives?

Andrew🐉(talk) 19:28, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Got to admit though, the sound is annoying. I've had neighbors fly expensive drones for real estate photography near my place and it drove me nuts. In other words, I think there's a legitimate topic here if the sources are good and aren't being used for WP:SYN. If you haven't been up close and personal with drones flying around you in an urban area, you have no idea how much noise pollution this generates. There's also the psychological aspects to it, feeling like hellfire is going to rain down on you at any moment. While there may or may not be IP conflict POV behind the subject, I can understand it just from being around commercial drones and I think it's an important article. Does it belong on Wikipedia? No idea. Viriditas (talk)
Thanks for bringing this here, Andrew Davidson. I hope this discussion can help improve the article.
As original author and nominator, I'll note that I paid particular attention to NEOLOGISM and COATRACK while writing this article. Reliable secondary sources discuss the term rather than just using it, satisfying the former policy. My understanding of the latter, which is an essay, is that it is not appropriate to add information about other tangentially related subjects to an article. I don't think I've done that in this case, as all the background information is included as relevant background in the sources that discuss the term; I've carefully avoided WP:SYNTH. As for NPOV, I believe the article is a balanced and proportional representation of all the reliable sources I was able to find. I'm sure there are additional reliable sources out there, and of course they ought to be added.
I'm not sure what consideration given to the controversial nature of the topic you would have hoped to see during the DYK review. Broadly speaking, although it goes beyond the scope of this discussion, I think we need to be careful not to create a chilling effect by acting as though there are some articles which for whatever reason should be held to a different (unspecified, abnormally high) standard than what is required by our existing policies and procedures. Careful adherence to existing policies should be enough, whether an article is about banana or zanana. — ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 20:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
You did a good job with it. It reads neutral, it's informative, and it documents a problem not widely known about. Viriditas (talk) 20:37, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
None of this is new and we have lots of existing articles including:
  1. Aerial bombing of cities
  2. Aircraft noise pollution
  3. Drone warfare
  4. Acute stress disorder
  5. Health effects from noise
and so on. These are written in a general way as these various aspects occur in many places and times. For example, I'm in London which suffered a bombing blitz during WW2 including buzz bombs, which were an early drone. And I live under the flightpath of a major airport. And nowadays, there are regular waves of drones attacking Ukrainian cities and civilians. The article presents the issue as a uniquely Palestinian experience, using it as a vehicle for the history of that specific side of that specific conflict. This is supposedly justified by a particular Arabic slang word but this is the English language Wikipedia and so is not suitable for Arabic slang. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Category:Slang by language shows that we do cover slang terms in various languages. —Kusma (talk) 21:43, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Hardly - there are few entries and none in Arabic. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
The article presents the issue as a uniquely Palestinian experience, using it as a vehicle for the history of that specific side of that specific conflict.
I agree with the part about the unique Palestinian experience, which is obvious, and is part of the historical narrative we refer to as people's history in the states. But I don't see your point about "using it as a vehicle for the history of that specific side of that specific conflict". Can you say more about this? I think you are reading your own POV into it here. Just because something fits the context of people's history, doesn't mean it is pushing a POV. I admit, there is a bias against telling history this way, going all the way back to the founding of Wikipedia, but I think the site has liberalized in the last few decades to allow for this POV. In other words, it is perfectly acceptable for us to write articles from one side or other or both, provided the policies and guidelines are followed. Your primary objection seems to be that people's history should not be allowed at all, and that was once a popular POV during the founding of Wikipedia that I think has all but disappeared. Viriditas (talk) 02:35, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
WP:NPOV is still a core and fundamental policy. This means "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." For an example of a source which does a better job of presenting a variety of views of this topic, see On naming drones.
That set is now off the main page and so there's a new hook in the quirky slot. This uses an interesting story about Ribena as a coatrack for a flimsy BLP which adds "Suo enjoys pottery. She started dating her boyfriend Michael around 2019." There have long been complaints that DYK's quality is weak but this is to be expected for new articles. So it goes...
Andrew🐉(talk) 08:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Is writing about and explaining the Palestinian experience a form of "taking sides"? I don't think NPOV and false balance are the same thing. Viriditas (talk) 09:22, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes. What's also an issue is presenting this harrowing experience in jocular terms by comparing it to a nagging wife. I'm still amazed that this passed without question. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:36, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Given the traditional religious and cultural conservatism of that region, and their concommittent gender roles steeped in Arab and Islamic values, how do you see the concept of a "nagging wife" out of place or as unusual within that culture? Should we only write about their culture, as you seem to be implying, from our POV from outside of their culture? Marriage between men and women is an institutional value in this culture. It is not surprising then, to find an enormous amount written about what they perceive to be the appropriate duties and roles of wives and husbands, often couched in a religious context. From this framework, the concept of a "nagging wife" is frequently discussed, usually in terms of maintaining a harmonious marriage or fixing one that is problematic. It therefore makes perfect sense for this cultural idea to be elevated as a metaphor, not in a jocular manner as you interpret it, but in terms of seeing the noisy chaos in this environment with the same eyes and trying to make sense of it as a member of that culture. Viriditas (talk) 17:19, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Per WP:QUIRKY, this slot at DYK is for upbeat and funny hooks and so that's the way this will have been taken. Downbeat topics are therefore not appropriate and a mixed metaphor will confuse too. The expectation for controversial topics is that we "err on the side of caution" and this was not done. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
You’re right on the money with that. It should not have been in the quirky slot, and that fact escaped me. Viriditas (talk) 23:14, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination

Wondering if this is eligible. Ran on DYK some time ago. Lightburst (talk) 04:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

We recently changed the rules so that former DYK articles are allowed to run again at least five years after their previous run. Considering the article was featured way back in 2008, it should be more than eligible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Thanks for the response!Lightburst (talk) 04:32, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Same day nomination to prep seems awfully quick

While it's great that a nomination can be reviewed and approved the same day it's made, I'd like to suggest that rather than promoting it to prep that same day, or even in the first few days, it can wait in favor of one of the dozens of long-since-approved noms. It's very rare that we're running so low on approved noms that making a balanced set requires a newly approved nom, though it can happen. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Another advantage of having something sit around for a while is it tends to get more people looking at it, so a greater chance somebody will notice a problem that would have otherwise gone undetected. RoySmith (talk) 01:35, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
For context, could you please link to the nomination in question (if possible) so that editors here can understand what's going on? Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:45, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is a problem that needs solving unless there is something else going on. If interesting noms were to get promoted quickly while boring noms languish forever, that would mean getting closer to the spirit of "interesting facts from our newest articles". —Kusma (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Honestly I don't see what difference it makes where the noms are taken from, the important thing is that the sets have a good balance, recommending that promoters give preference to older noms is just going to make their job harder. Gatoclass (talk) 11:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Exactly. Where possible, we should make the jobs of DYK volunteers easier and more fun, not harder. —Kusma (talk) 11:23, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 the nomination was Template:Did you know nominations/MyNoise. TSventon (talk) 11:25, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Is it just me that thinks that a hook of "... that in 2018, myNoise received a million views per month?" is a little too promo-y? Black Kite (talk) 11:41, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
It is a bit. It's not very informative either, I probably should have nixed it. The ALT is a lot better IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 14:47, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
My first impression was that this probably doesn't pass WP:NCORP, but after looking more closely at the sources, I think it would be darn near impossible to sell that at AfD. I do think we missed an opportunity for a much better hook: the product is something you listen to, but the success is being measured in views. I can't figure out how to turn that into a hook, unfortunately. RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I know I'm probably a little biased thanks to writing the article, but I disagree that it wouldn't pass WP:NCORP - the amount of significant coverage in reliable sources is easily enough, and it's lasting coverage (2014-2020, with some in between). You're right about the first hook, and I'm glad the alt is being used instead. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 01:47, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I have substituted the alt. Gatoclass (talk) 15:07, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Gatoclass Sorry to be a pain, but does the article actually source the alt? The website might well have got a million hits, but did "office workers use myNoise to remind them of their workplace?" All it appears to say is that the app exists and could do that. This is the problem with articles like this. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Black Kite, yes, the sources definitely support the hook, there are individual testimonials cited,[13][14] and according to CBS, more than a quarter of a million downloads of that particular soundscape.[15] Gatoclass (talk) 00:39, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Even as the nominator I was extremely surprised at how fast it got through, I'm used to waiting over a month :P I definitely have the feeling that earlier nominations should be promoted first, but as long as it's a couple isolated incidents and not a pattern, I guess it's fine. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 01:43, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
To a certain extent, sure, Gatoclass, but I don't see the problem with having the oldest waiting accepted nom to be where a prep set is started from. SilverserenC 01:46, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Back in the day when I was regularly building sets, I took hooks from absolutely anywhere, solely dependent upon how well they fitted in with the set. It's immaterial how long a hook waits for promotion, they will all get promoted eventually and nobody is missing out on anything because one hook goes to the main page faster than another. Gatoclass (talk) 08:27, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't mind nominations going through everything in a short amount of time (especially if they're a time-sensitive nomination), but I think I can see the point here. Letting nominations stick around for a while gives more time for rechecks and to make sure the nomination's actually fine. If the nomination speeds through, there's the risk that an issue or issues could be undetected. Once it's up to Queue, it can be hard to pull/postpone if necessary. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Back when I was regularly building sets, I started at the top of the page with the oldest noms and worked my way down, but sometimes ended up far down if I couldn't find the right mix. The lead/picture hook tended to shape the rest of the set, since we typically had a surplus of both bios and US hooks available, and the upper limit of 50% for each made for interesting hook juggling. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

SOHA to queue

Template:Did you know nominations/Siege of Baghdad (1258) is at WP:SOHA for 10th February but has not been added to a prep set. Could someone please promote it to either prep 7 or 1? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Can go into the hole in Prep 7. I don't want to do it myself because I still seem to be doing most p2q moves, so I'd rather not rule myself out. —Kusma (talk) 17:32, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
When the requested move discussion has closed I'll be more than happy to.--Launchballer 17:44, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
A move tag is not pretty, but I don't think it is disqualifying. —Kusma (talk) 18:15, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
 Done – Schwede66 18:42, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I have just realised that as we have now gone back to 24-hour-cycles, the hook is in the wrong queue. @Kusma and Schwede66: could the hook please be moved from queue 7 to queue 6 so it can run on 10 February? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Done. —Kusma (talk) 08:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Question about QPQ

I'm just about reaching the point where I'll have to start doing QPQs, but I'm a little bit confused - WP:QPQ says that QPQ is required after nominating five articles, while I've seen other places say it's just DYK credits that count (like the QPQ checker). Which is true? And if it's the former, do rejected DYKs count as a nomination? Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 12:01, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The rules were updated semi-recently – yeah, it's five nominations, not five credits. Rejected nominations do count, but drive-by nominations don't. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:03, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Ah, looks like I have to go do a QPQ then :P Thanks very much! (My one current outstanding nomination is my 6th including one rejected so I thought I was fine, oops) Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 12:05, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Time to go back to 24-hour cycle?

Hi! What are our policies on when it's appropriate to go back from 12 to 24-hour update cycles? I think 120 approved is the trigger going the other direction, correct? —Ganesha811 (talk) 00:00, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

See WP:DYKROTATE RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
In short, no, it's not time yet. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
But, @DYK admins: , if a prep or two is promoted to the queue in the next four hours, it very well might be... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:17, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
The rule works on the sum of filled preps plus filled queues. Promoting a prep to a queue has no effect on the rule. RoySmith (talk) 20:22, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
No, WP:DYKROTATE works on the number of approved nominations, and promoting a prep would allow more nominations to be promoted from WP:DYKNA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:25, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Ah, I see your point. RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@DYK admins: , now down to 57 queues, so it will be time to go back to 24-hour cycles, unless the situation changes before midnight UTC. TSventon (talk) 21:59, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
@DYK admins: sorry for the repeat ping, but WP:DYKROTATE is now satisfied; could one admin please update User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Done. RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith (or any other admin), might you be able to move the Baghdad hook from Queue 7 to Queue 6, swapping it with another hook in Queue 6? This is a special occasion hook that is supposed to be on the main page on 10 February, and now that we're back to one set per day, it will need to move to appear on the requested date. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Done. —Kusma (talk) 08:53, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Thank you to everyone who helped out during the 2-a-day sets: the reviewers who decided to review extra articles (some of which will never be used for a QPQ), the prep setters who have been excellent in keeping preps full, and the admin who took extra time away from other parts of Wikipedia to promote preps to queues. DYK wouldn't be possible without your support and valuable time. Z1720 (talk) 15:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Training Season

There is a time sensitive hook here that would need to go up before 15 February. I would appreciate any help with getting this up in a timely manner.--NØ 10:45, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

What is the current feeling about hooks appearing in relation to a commercial event? In this case, the occasion on 15 February is the commerical release of the song "Training Season", hence the proposed hook ... that training season begins on 15 February? Placing a hook on the release date of a work has been a controversial thing to do, but I'm not sure how it applies with the proposed "creative click bait" hook in the nomination or the desire to have it run before said release date rather than on it. For that matter, "begins" in the hook could be changed to "began" for a post-15 February run if the original hook threads the click-bait needle. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I think WP:DYKSO is the most relevant thing that would apply here: The hook should not put emphasis on a commercial release date of the article subject, but simply listing a hook on a specific date does not, in and of itself, make a hook promotional. With that in mind I think it needs a new hook if it's going to run. - Aoidh (talk) 04:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Noting that although the hook has changed, it has been promoted to Prep 4, which is the set that will be running on the main page on the song's release date, 15 February. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Judi Singh

Is the term "Indian" (see Native American name controversy) as ambiguous in Canada as it is in the states, or is the hook OK as is? Mach61 (talk) 13:44, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Her ancestry was literally Indian, not native American, so I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. Gatoclass (talk) 14:42, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
No, I mean will people not realize she's descended from the country of India and not Native American. Mach61 (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, that's their problem isn't it? I mean, people from India are called Indians. What else are you going to call them? Gatoclass (talk) 14:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I just thought it may be prudent to disambiguate, like with "South Asian Indian" or something (well, that's a bit akward, but you get what I mean). Of course, if the term "Indian" only has one connotation in Canada this would be unnecessary. Mach61 (talk) 14:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
That just sounds patronizing to me. And who refers to native Americans as "Indians" in this day and age anyway? It's hard to imagine anybody in 2024 getting confused or upset about referring to Indians as such. Gatoclass (talk) 15:35, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, LOTS of people do still use such nomenclature. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
People might, but media organizations don't, as the vast majority of people must surely realize by now. I can't even remember the last time I saw a media outlet referring to native Americans as Indians. It just isn't done anymore. Regardless, we don't need to be referring to Indians as "South Asians", that's a term confined mostly to the British Isles I believe, and doesn't compute in other parts of the English-speaking world. Gatoclass (talk) 16:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
From living in the States, "South Asian" is a familiar term, but generally used in a regional sense to mean not only India but perhaps also Pakistan, e. g. "South Asian history". In any case, when I've seen "Indian" used to refer to being indigenous to the North American continent, outside of colloquial speech I always see it as "American Indian" rather than "Indian" alone, so I agree that describing Judi Singh as Indian is sufficiently descriptive. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
1) Not sure that it really matters here, as the point being made is that her family was not "white"/European. That would be true for either sense of "Indian", provided that any Native American ancestry originated outside Alberta (the families were described as "settling"), 2) the national origin of the name "Singh" is fairly well known. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 15:39, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I’ve created a new list of the first 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 15. We have a total of 238 nominations, of which 70 have been approved, a gap of 168 nominations that has increased by 13 over the past 9 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Special occasion request loophole

It's happened a few times where a special occasion request should have not been permitted for being outside the six-week requirement, but the review ended up taking so long that the review ended up being within six weeks or close enough to the requested date that the request ended up being granted anyway. I know WP:CREEP and all, but isn't this going against the spirit of the rule? For example, a nomination being nominated for a special occasion request (for example, Campus of the College of William & Mary), then hanging around unreviewed long enough for the nom to be reviewed close enough to the requested date where it running "wouldn't hurt". This could leave open the possibility of noms being unreviewed on purpose just to make IAR easier.

Come to think about it, if the six-weeks rule is almost always ignored anyway and IARs are liberally given, it makes me wonder if the rule is even worth implementing anymore if it being broken is, in practice, more common than it being implemented. Given how, in practice, the six-week rule is more commonly IAR broken than requests being declined per it, it opens the question if the rule should be just done away with or modified.

Courtesy ping to Z1720. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:35, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

How can noms be left "unreviewed on purpose"? Reviewers are completely independent of nominators. You can't control who reviews your nom.
As for changing the rule, I can't see any benefit to that. Even if the rule is honoured more in the breach than the observance, it is still providing at least a ball-park proximity to the special occasion date. Gatoclass (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I prefer hooks to run on days of special occasions if appropriate, as I think it makes DYK more special and prevents the reader from wondering things like, "Why is this running today and not on their birthday in 4 weeks?" I understand the six-week rule is there to prevent nominations from sitting at DYK, it is not the nominee's fault if no one has reviewed their article.
I do not see the harm in running a hook outside of the six-week window. I do see the harm in being strict about that rule, as it can disappoint new editors who worked hard to improve an article, understand our DYK rules, waited a long time to get their article reviewed, and then be told they can't have their article appear on a certain date because it is "against the rules". If someone tries to game the system by delaying a nom's approval, it can be discussed at WT:DYK. I think the "case-by-case" system we have in place now for articles nominated outside the six-week window works and should not be changed. Z1720 (talk) 17:17, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
I vaguely remember a discussion to loosen the timeframe, giving a bit more space to get the article up for the nominator, and more lead time to have it reviewed. CMD (talk) 17:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7 sanity checks

Walkelin (nom)

The main source says "1079 or 1080", but most sources I see do indeed say "1079". But shouldn't it be "commissioned the construction" or something as he didn't personally build it? Ping @Godtres, @Gatoclass, @AirshipJungleman29. —Kusma (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

  • The beginning and ends of years were different back then. 1079 was the contemporary date; I think 1080 was added later to show the margin of error. I'm not 100% confident with this explanation, but I'm confident that enough sources say "1079" without "1080" that it is a safe thing to claim.
  • I think it's ok to say "began the construction", because there's no implication that Walkelin himself actually did any building. I agree there would be a problem if it were simply "began to build". Do we need the definite article ("the") before "construction"? Worth considering.
  • I'm unsure about the style rules on this, but should "bishop" be capitalised?
Godtres (talk) 14:03, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
We can probably leave as is then. Style rules for titles are MOS:JOBTITLES, which is fairly anti-capitalist stingy with capital letters. —Kusma (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

The sources were offline for me, so I AGF verified those hooks, and therefore I think the folks who can actually read the sources will have to sort this one out. Gatoclass (talk) 14:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Cliff Davis (nom)

In a BLP I would not want to point out such a misfortune on the Main Page. As Cliff Davis is dead, this argument doesn't apply, but I still don't like it much; it seems to be sourced to newspapers only and does not look like something he would want to be remembered for. Happy to hear opinions on whether this is appropriate to run on the Main Page. Ping @Jon698, @Kingoflettuce, @AirshipJungleman29. —Kusma (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

I question why that is even in the article. Do we list every time one of our biographical subjects is a victim of a crime? User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:30, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I am inclined to pull this if we don't find a better hook soon. Maybe something involving "His campaign spent $53 in 1960 and $105 in 1970"? Ping again @Jon698, @Kingoflettuce, @AirshipJungleman29. —Kusma (talk) 09:15, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
No opinion on if the claim should stay in the article or not nor about the hook, but isn't "it seems to be sourced to newspapers only" normally a good thing? At least sourcing wise. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:54, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
The theft is sourced to newspaper reports about the prosecution of the perpetrators. That does not mean it is WP:DUE for inclusion in a biography of the victim, especially if other sources focussing on the victim do not mention it. It is verifiable, but verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. —Kusma (talk) 10:04, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@Kusma: ... that Cliff Davis spent $53 during his 1960 campaign for a seat in the Wyoming House of Representatives? Jon698 (talk) 13:28, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
@Jon698: I think that is much better and have used it. It is not currently clear in the article that it was his money, but it is how I understand the source. —Kusma (talk) 14:08, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Newspapers, especially local ones, are pretty low on the source quality scale. JoelleJay (talk) 19:07, 10 February 2024 (UTC)
My suspicion is that the very reason that information about the theft is on the page is specifically in order to be a hook, out of an abundance of caution that a hook describing something Davis would want to be remembered for—something about his career, perhaps—would be deemed insufficiently interesting for DYK. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 04:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Nominating twice

Hi! I had a quick question, just to make sure: I gather it isn't possible to nominate an article for DYK if it already has in the past, is that correct? (for example, if it is expanded after its creation or upgraded as a good article). Best wishes, NoonIcarus (talk) 13:02, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

It is possible - there must have been at least 5 years since the article last appeared on the mainpage with a bold link. See WP:DYKNEW. ResonantDistortion 15:16, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@ResonantDistortion: I understand, many thanks! --NoonIcarus (talk) 17:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

Campus of the College of William & Mary

This probably shouldn't be stated in wiki-voice. RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 @Sammi Brie @Pbritti Any thoughts on rewording the hook? RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
I frankly don't have any thoughts on how to handle this. "should" to "are recommended to"? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:22, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith: is "might wish to" acceptable? ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Actually, perhaps "are encouraged to" is how I would prefer to rephrase that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:57, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm fine with anything that makes it clear that it's not being presented as fact. @Pbritti's "are encouraged to" wording sounds fine. RoySmith (talk) 23:19, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Mike "Hitman" Wilson

@Rjjiii, Launchballer, and Silver seren: Maybe it's there, but I'm not seeing where in the article the hook fact is stated. RoySmith (talk) 16:56, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

"He produced "Another Sleepless Night",[14] which was initially released in September 1990 as "Mike "Hitman" Wilson featuring Shawn Christopher",[15] and appeared on an Arista Records compilation album;[14] with this credit, the song charted at No. 74 on the UK Singles Chart.[15] After the song topped the Dance Club Songs chart, Clive Davis summoned Christopher into his office, and convinced her to rerelease the song under the name "Shawn Christopher", on the grounds that she was the artist;[14] with this credit, the song charted at No. 50 on the UK Singles Chart.[15]" Simple calculations are permissible per WP:CALC.--Launchballer 17:00, 9 February 2024 (UTC)
Ok, that works, thanks. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 21:55, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Environmental effects of bitcoin

Sometimes articles languish in the approved section if issues come up after they were ticked. This hook has sitting around for two months. In an attempt to clear the backlog, I just put in an opinion at this discussion that is counter to the objecting opinion, and argued for the approval of the hook as nominated. In order to build WP:CONSENUS we need others to comment. All opinions welcome. Best.4meter4 (talk) 17:02, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

Per the comments and input I have closed the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:06, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

What would solve the problem if we could get buy in from the majority

Since burning out a while back, my solution for my own mental health is that for each nomination I make, I do my required QPQ, and then I either move a set to queue or build one, whichever need is highest. I'm therefore doing 9 reviews, but I only get credit for 1, so I feel I'm doing more than my share of the work to keep this project going. We could absolutely motivate more people to do this work if they actually were rewarded for the tedium and frustration and risk and unpleasantness that often accompanies it if we changed our system so that every review counts as a QPQ:

  1. Reviewing a hook counts for a QPQ
  2. Promoting a hook counts for a QPQ
  3. Moving a set to queue counts as 8 QPQs
  4. Each nomination after the 5th requires 1 QPQ
  5. Each nomination after the 10th requires 3 QPQs

This obviously requires buy-in from the vast majority here, those who nominate regularly and would be required to do 3 QPQs for each nomination, since every nomination actually requires 3 reviews.

It means recognizing that many of those doing the work are often stressed by it. It means being willing to help alleviate that stress by doing more themselves instead of simply loading more and more work onto the minority. I'm afraid I'm not optimistic that we can get that buy-in, but I'll give it another shot. Valereee (talk) 12:40, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

On the one hand, I like this, because I do a lot of promoting; on the other, prep-building will become negatively affected—it's typically a one-person job at the moment, and I don't know the repercussions of making it an eight-person job. Why don't we just rule that each nomination requires two or three reviews, and two or three QPQs? That would get the quality control business out of the way at WP:DYKN. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
That seems like it would just lead to loading up the approved hooks page; how does it get hooks to prep and preps to queue, which is the main problem here? Each nomination already requires three reviews; it's just that prep builders and movers-to-queue aren't getting credit for theirs. Valereee (talk) 13:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh, so you're saying prep builders and movers to queue don't need to do quality checks at all? I think that's a recipe for a ton of ERRORS reports, and the admin who moves to queue is going to get the brunt of it. As an admin, I wouldn't be willing to send a queue full of eight hooks I hadn't even glanced at to the main page. Admins would still end up doing 8 full reviews and not get credit for them, which means they'd still have all the same tedium and frustration and risk and unpleasantness associated with it, except now we, too, would have to do 3 QPQs for every nomination. Valereee (talk) 13:12, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Well yeah, it would probably need some intermediary infrastructure, but promoters/queuers wouldn't have to focus on quality control either. I don't know.
Also, are admins/prep builders typically the biggest nominators? By this system, I would have around 30 QPQs for this month alone (after nominations are factored in). It seens to me that we'd have people with gigantic QPQ stockpiles that would never be used. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
You can donate QPQs. That happens often. And unless it didn't motivate people to build preps or move to queue, which would mean it was a failure, there shouldn't be many such people. No, I don't think admins or prep builders are typically the biggest nominators. There's one admin who was an extremely prolific prep builder and nominator when she was active, but typically the biggest nominators don't move to prep or queue. Which wouldn't frustrate me nearly as much if they were doing 3 reviews for each and I could count all the reviews I do. Valereee (talk) 13:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Sure, I'm up for it then? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
If you think there's an issue with having too many cooks in the kitchen when building preps...maybe a prep builder could mark the prep as in use to indicate they're intending to build the entire set? And also much of the actual balancing could be done via switchouts. That is, when someone is switching hooks from set to set to improve balance, they don't usually do a full review of a hook that's already been checked by the promoter. Which means there could be people who specialize in the balancing of sets, which is the actual fun part of prep building. We used to have a prep builder, the much-missed Yoninah, who did a lot of that, and was excellent at it. Valereee (talk) 14:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
While I understand that this would give more recognition to prep building (and request more participation from frequent nominators) I don't think this proposal addresses the main flaw of DYK right now: we have too many steps where people can lazily assume that others already did their work properly. We have reviewers who assume that the sources support the hook without checking, we have promoters who assume that the reviewer checked the hook fact (or that an admin will do so later), and we have admins (including me) who assume that others have checked hook and article length and other formal requirements, and sometimes admins who do not check anything at all. This means that despite three levels of checks that are supposed to be done, some hooks do not get proper scrutiny at all.

Here's my proposal:

  • 5 or less nominations: no QPQ required
  • 6-25 nominations: 1 QPQ required, can only be a review.
  • 26+ nominations: 2 QPQs required. At least one QPQ must be a review. The second QPQ may be a review or a promotion. Only promotions after the implementation of this new system will count. (I do not think I should be able to use a promotion from 3 years ago, as the goal is to reduce the backlog by encouraging more involvement.)
  • Trial run in February or March (of whatever is chosen) and reassess at the end of that month.

This system will prevent newer reviewers from attempting promotions to get their QPQs (as I think promoters should have experience reviewing before doing promotions). I do not want to increase to 3 QPQs yet because DYK might run out of unapproved hooks. I would rather start with a lower number and increase it if needed later. I also am not convinced that promotions need to be counted: DYK has been pretty good about having enough prep sets built and struggles with getting reviews approved and getting admin to promote to queue. Z1720 (talk) 14:35, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

This effectively punishes movers-to-queue by requiring them to also do 2 QPQs when they're doing multiple reviews every time they move a set to queue. Valereee (talk) 14:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm worried that if we allow movers-to-queues to use these as QPQs, it will contribute to the "awaiting reviews" backlog. I won't be bothered if a QPQ for prep-to-queue is implemented and tweaked if needed. Z1720 (talk) 14:56, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Sorry, @Z1720, not following...those two sentences seem to contradict one another? Valereee (talk) 14:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee: I would prefer not to include prep-to-queue as a QPQ. However, my feelings are not strong on this specific topic and I won't resist if the consensus is to include prep-to-queue or promotions to QPQ. Z1720 (talk) 15:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah, gotcha, thanks! Valereee (talk) 15:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I can certainly support Z1720's proposal, if a QPQ for a move-to-queue is included, as it's exactly what I'm doing now out of a sense of duty and might help encourage people to promote. But it doesn't do anything to encourage other admins to pitch in. It's basically saying to other frequent-nominator admins, "Okay, you have to do two QPQs, but if you prefer, you can do 9 instead."
If Z1720's proposal doesn't even include a QPQ for a move-to-queue, I oppose. That turns it into 10 reviews for me each time I nom, and frankly at that point I'd feel like I really need feel no sense of duty to keep overcontributing in an area that simply keeps asking me for more and more and more. Valereee (talk) 15:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Instead of giving everyone credit no matter how terrible their work is (an admin can literally just click PSHAW to promote p2q and just pretend they have done the checks; they should not receive 8 credits for this click) we need to make sure more of the people involved do their work properly. In particular, more rigorous QPQ reviews would make everyone else's lives a lot easier. Perhaps we should invalidate QPQs when serious issues with a nomination are found later. Bad (too friendly and not rigorous enough) reviews are the source of our problems, let us address that. —Kusma (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I dunno, Kusma, given how many questions are brought up here at the move-to-queue step, I think admins are doing their jobs. No objection to removing QPQ credit for "bad" reviews, not sure how that would work but I'd support something that didn't simply cause more work for those doing the work. Valereee (talk) 17:00, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, most admins are doing their job, but my proposal is about QPQ reviewers who are not doing their jobs, not about admins. I want to lower the workload for admins instead of paying them with (mostly irrelevant) brownie points. —Kusma (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
It's not brownie points to tell admins they can count a moves-to-queue as QPQ reviews. It's lessening their workload in a way that encourages them to make such moves. Valereee (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
given how many questions are brought up here at the move-to-queue step, I think admins are doing their jobs It also means that prep builders aren't doing their jobs, and that reviewers aren't doing their jobs. It should be rare for admins to find errors at such a late stage of the process, and not something that happens with the vast majority of p2q promotions. —Kusma (talk) 17:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
p2q? Valereee (talk) 17:15, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, moves-to-queue? Valereee (talk) 17:16, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
"prep to queue". —Kusma (talk) 17:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, stupid of me. Valereee (talk) 17:24, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
I should really not introduce my own ad hoc abbreviations and expect everyone to understand me. —Kusma (talk) 19:02, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Some practical things about the proposal are very unclear. Currently, QPQs are very easy to check manually (you use up one every time you nominate, and you have to state clearly which one it is), but with the proposed system we would need to have a massive database somewhere that keeps track of everybody's credits. This is massively complicated and potentially error-prone, I would rather try to keep it simple. —Kusma (talk) 17:09, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
We could just trust regulars to keep track? I keep track. This would primarily affect people who have over two dozen noms. Valereee (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Prep-to-queue promotions are kept track of in Template:Did you know/Queue/NextPrep. One option is to allow admin to replace their QPQ requirement with a prep-to-queue promotion, and they can use a diff from the above to verify the completion of QPQ. Z1720 (talk) 18:23, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
There is no easy way to check whether that diff has been used before, and it would be easy to lose track for the admin. It would be easier if we made these QPQ credits expire, say, by allowing an admin to nominate what they want for a week after each p2q, as a time limited flat rate. —Kusma (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
No objection to that. I trust admins wouldn't game it. Valereee (talk) 19:11, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
  • Anyone object to putting this discussion on hold while we decide whether breaking the checking of hooks in prep into 8 single actions helps solve the problem? I'm good with it. I like it, actually. It means I can skip over hooks where I have zero knowledge, etc. Valereee (talk) 18:23, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
As someone who has been a contributor for over 15 years and as such as 460+ noms, BUT less then 10 noms a given year in the last 5 years, I WHOLLY object to being punished with extra QPQ requirements. Regular contributors are not the source of the backlog and should not be saddled with cleaning up the backlog that happens when editors do the 4 "free" noms and then bail.--Kevmin § 21:25, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
@Kevmin, but each nomination requires three reviews. QPQ only requires you to do one. Someone else has to do the other two. Those someone elses -- a very small group -- are the ones doing the heavy lifting here to allow you to have 460 examples of your work appear on the main page. Anyone know how to figure out how many editors have done four and only four noms? Valereee (talk) 22:38, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't think this directly answers your question, but the only recent case I can think of where an editor made multiple nominations but was unwilling to do QPQs was Owais Al Qarni back in December. He nominated several articles, but four of them required QPQs. He declined to make any QPQ reviews, so the latter four were ultimately rejected, the others were either promoted or were rejected on their own merits. Other than that I can't think of any cases of people declining to do QPQs or quitting DYK immediately after their fifth nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:28, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
WTF? We actually had somebody who refused to do a QPQ??? RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Oh, my. Special:Diff/1192685118 RoySmith (talk) 22:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 196#Requesting guidance. The tl;dr is that the editor in question declined to review articles even after the QPQ requirement kicked in. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:33, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Another case I can think of was Venkat a few years back, although to be fair that was due to inconsistency in the guidelines (back then, the wording suggested that the QPQ wording kicked in after five credits regardless if they were the creator/expander's nominations; in fact, it was that case that led to the current clarification that it's five nominations). In any case, Venkat did ultimately start providing QPQs once the discussion took place. Other than that, I can't think of any other case of editors declining to do QPQs or retiring from DYK once they were required to do QPQs. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Im going to be blunt, that's not the problem of the nominator, Nominators are responsible for presenting a hook to the project that "should be" ready. Years of drama at MP:Errors has resulted in an exceptionally overburdened reaction to DKY appearances. "The heavy lifting" is NOT my responsibility and for many years it was not the ADMINS responsibility. However, a vocal minority from outside the project have created a culture where everything is looked at with MORE intensity than is done for ANY other main page section. The fact that DYK reactionaries have convinced you three separate passes on a nom/article are required is a massive creep in project structure and rules, and it should be examined, not foisted off on me. ITN, FA, OTD, etc are all looked at with less intensity and appear at Errors as frequently if not more frequently then this project. If the admins here feel they WANT to do this level of overworking, its on them. ALSO as I say my numbers have happened over 15 years, YOU are NOT the one that put in the effort of of writing 465-sh start class articles on subjects that did not exist on wiki prior, so do not denegrate the effort of writing an article that meets wikipedia rules and standards in the first place, and is comprehensive of the subject before it even reaches this project.--Kevmin § 02:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I won't be shouting back. As you point out, the work has become risky, but that certainly isn't the fault of those doing it, so please don't shout at us when we ask others to do a what really amounts to a small bit more. Because unless someone does it, the project will screech to a halt and none of us will have access to it any more. Those who have been doing the work often end up burning out. And for the record, I am one who has put in the effort of writing nearly 300 articles -- many of them well beyond start class -- over nearly 18 years. Valereee (talk) 11:19, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
"Risky" per whom in this project? The biggest voices that have always demanded the 3+ checks are found outside this project, and notably are voices that have in the past few years, been topic banned from mainpage workings due to constant problems. There needs to be a full discussion of why every single person that touches a nom is now being required to duplicate the QPQ process. Is it actually a failing here or is it a response to external voices that have also continually called for the full disbanding of this project, and when that has failed, have actively cultivated an excessive level of implied "need" to bog down the project.--Kevmin § 18:52, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Kevmin, risky as in the buck stops here. When something gets through, it's generally me getting called on the carpet. And I'm fine with that. I'll take responsibility for not checking closely enough. But since it takes me on average hours to check a queue -- eight checks, plus dealing with any questions that arise, sometimes over days -- it would be nice if other people were pulling their weight instead of characterizing themselves as being punished because someone asks them to do three.
I guess you could guarantee that every nom and every hook and every review you ever do will never have anyone ever question anything about it...admins/promoters could then not check your own noms/any noms you've reviewed, count them as the check required of the promoter or admin, and point to your statement if it ever ends up at talk or errors. Bucks stops in that case with Kevmin? I mean, I wouldn't want to guarantee that for my own noms. I make mistakes here and there, and the extra checks are helpful, for me. But if that's how strongly you feel about the work you're doing here, I'll make a note. Valereee (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
There is value in having multiple people review the same thing. Different people have different skill levels, concentrate on different aspects, or just plain have bad days. For example, I'm hard-nosed about copyrights, but get less worked up over hooks being "interesting". Other people are more into the interestingness aspect. By having multiple people do reviews, you're more likely to have all the aspects examined carefully. RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Yep. Just trying to help those polymaths out there avoid two extra QPQs. Valereee (talk) 19:47, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree that we need people to be a bit more chilled about the Main Page. I do not agree that it is just DYK that receives this amount of scrutiny/abuse. A few years ago we had an article about the characters of a TV show that was sourced to 2010 standards (lots of interviews and forum posts by the creators) as TFA. It caused a riot at ERRORS, but other than that did zero harm.
Nevertheless we should not run wrong or misleading hooks or copyvios. We either need admins doing checks for this, or we need to increase the reviewing standard of the QPQ reviews. The project in general has experienced a rise in standards (new FAs and GAs these days also tend to be much better than ten years ago, and articles that would have been DYK-worthy 15 yeas ago would not pass New Page Patrol nowadays), so it is natural that expectations at DYK are also rising. Asking for one decent review before an article hits the Main Page should be acceptable, the question is how we can ensure that this happens other than by burning out admins. —Kusma (talk) 12:10, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Kusma I already do a full QPQ review when i nominate an article for DKY. However the problem is that Valereee is proposing here that for me to continue participating I will be requited to do triple that, with this proposal say that I will need to complete 3 QPQs/reviews simply to nominate an article. The requirement that every article be fully reviewed by every single person that touches it at every single step of DKY movement is what needs to be looked at.--Kevmin § 18:46, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
@Kevmin, we are in a bit of a crisis at the moment (and have been for a while), mostly at the admin end of things, so many people including @Valereee are throwing out ideas how we can reduce admin stress and burnout. From what I see in practice, there is not currently a "full review by every single person" in a DYK hook lifecycle; instead, we have a first ("QPQ") review that should be thorough and look at everything, but often overlooks some important aspects. Then there is a second light-touch review by the prep builders, and I think most of them focus on interestingness and hook copyediting. The promoting admin then does a final sanity check (in my case, it goes something like this: does the hook seem to be correct? Is it fully sourced in the article? Is the article copyvio? Are there any BLP or other issues giving me pause?) Sometimes people also pick up problems via WP:ERRORS, ideally before the hook hits the Main Page.
The second crisis we are in is one of too many unreviewed nominations. The "5 free nominations without QPQ" (which is important not just to be nice to newbies, but also in order to avoid reviews by inexperienced people) is likely the main culprit here. Without a good supply of volunteers who do more reviews than they nominate, we need to find some way to deal with the resulting backlog, and "ask for more QPQs from experienced nominators" is one possible suggestion that has been thrown out a few times.
Can we make the whole system more light touch? Perhaps, but it seems hard without a radical overhaul, and it is difficult to get consensus for large-scale system change. Creative ideas are always welcome, though, and especially small or technical improvements do get picked up (like the wonderful scripts @theleekycauldron has written). —Kusma (talk) 20:24, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I do my part in trying to cut down the backlog (I do a lot more reviews than articles I nominate), but there seems to be an unwritten rule or guideline that encourages reviews only if the editor has an open nomination. Of course, no such rule exists, but in practice, most editors only review if they already have a nomination. Making it mandatory to review more than what is nominated is unnecessary of course, but I wonder if we should encourage that more, as in if you can review nominations even without an open nomination, as long as it's kept optional and it's kept as the user's choice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:22, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I think we should encourage separating the reviewing from nominating. I have kept a few spare reviews for a few years now, as it makes nominating a lot less stressful. And I just review when I feel like it, not when I make a nomination. —Kusma (talk) 22:43, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment. I will be honest, I have not read the entirety of the text above. But, if I try to breakdown the problem
  1. Each of the nominations should be balanced by a QPQ review, 1:1 (let's keep exceptions like re-reviews, exemption for first 5 reviews, etc aside for simplicity). Let this be activity 1.
  2. That leaves, promotions to queues / Set-building / Pre-building (whatever we call it). Let us call this activity 2. Now, I understand it is this activity that is finding it hard to sustain volunteers, further stressing the regulars who have been doing this job.
My view is that, any attempts to subsidize activity #2 by providing relief on activity #1, will throw the balance in activity #1 off. At the same time, given the recent scripting tools from theleekycauldron, activity #2 can really be broken down to a granularity of a hook. i.e. one can advance a single hook to a prep / queue / set. That gives us some levers to play with. Particularly, I would suggest combining activity #1 and #2. How? Tie them with the QPQ requirement. Today, QPQ requirement requires 1 nomination = 1 review. If you change that to 1 nomination = 1 review + 1 promotion. This would significantly ease any effort on prep-building. Now, the flip-side is that we might see some quality issues surfacing every-once-in-a-while. I think this has to be handled as a part of the exception process.
tl;dr -- My suggestion is to change the QPQ process. QPQ for 1 nomination = 1 review + 1 promotion (via PSHAW). Ktin (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
We really really do not want new-to-DYK editors pushed into doing promotions and doing a pro-forma job of it because it's required. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
A promotion review isn't really any different from a nom review, which kicks in at five noms. It's the puzzle-building that is new, and others can handle the swaps if they don't also have to do the reviews. Valereee (talk) 22:36, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
A promotion can be done with very few clicks in PSHAW, and there is currently no way to tell whether a review has been done or not while promoting. This is very different from a nom review, where we usually expect some evidence of reading the hook and the article. Anyway, the suggestion does nothing about our current main bottleneck, which is that not enough admins do the prep-to-queue click. —Kusma (talk) 22:40, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Or 1 review + 1 admin check of a hook after promotion/before moving to queue? Valereee (talk) 22:41, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I see many editors above want to include promotions in the QPQ in some fashion. However, the bottleneck at DYK is not with prep promotions, but with the backlog of reviews at WP:DYKN and a lack of admin promoting preps to queue. I think letting people use promotions in their QPQ, regardless of how it works, has the potential to cause harm while at the same time bringing little benefit to the project, as more preppers is not a need right now. I am in favour of any solutions that make prep-to-queue work more appealing to admin and getting nominations reviewed faster. Z1720 (talk) 23:21, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, I know I've suggested this before and gotten shot down, but I'll try again. We could uncouple the reviewing from the promoting. Allow non-admins to perform the final review and mark the prep set to indicate that it's gotten its third review. Then all an admin has to do is click the promote button. We require admins for the final promotion to the main page to prevent vandalism, and that just takes a quick look. The time-intensive part of the promotion checks are verifying the sourcing and checking for copyright problems, neither of which need a mop. RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I would be in favour of this, and allowing anyone with a certain number of promotions to perform this task. WP:DYKPC already tracks how many promotions each editor does, so modifying that script to show whatever number we want to set to give editors is extra capability is (hopefully) very easy. Some admin are already using the small notes in prep sets to indicate articles that have received a third check, so this process is already set up. As a point of comparison, at OTD almost any editor can swap hooks and this area receives similar or fewer complaints than DYK at ERRORS. Z1720 (talk) 23:37, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
Having recently done some OTD sets and been surprised at the relative simplicity of it compared with DYK, I fully agree. I'm not an admin, and I wandered in there, swapped some stuff around, and –well, the result is on the main page right now (along with the DYK set I also prepped). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:56, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I would support this. Valereee (talk) 00:30, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I think the whole prep/queue, then copy to the DYK template setup is rather old fashioned and should be changed. All other parts of the Main Page work with subpages for every date that are protected (usually automatically via cascading protection) when they are about to hit the Main Page. We should not have separate preps and queues, but just have subpages like Template:Did you know/7 November 2024 for direct Main Page transclusion, together with an easy thumbs-up approach to indicate approval, and a one-click tool to raise an issue at WT:DYK. It is not 2004 anymore, we shouldn't require everything to be manual, and we should not need to rely on an admin bot that fails a couple of times per year. —Kusma (talk) 10:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
This makes total sense to me. Having to move hooks around is a lot of work; PSHAW automates some of it, but things like pulling hooks is still all manual work. Copying also messes up the edit history. If I want to see how a hook has evolved, I often need to go digging through the prep/queue edit histories. Creating a new page for each set would also solve the problem of people wanting to build sets but there's no room to do it. And it would greatly simplify the handling of special occasion hooks. If you want it to run on a specific date 6 weeks in the future, you just create that page today and put the hook there. RoySmith (talk) 15:49, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
It would also be simple enough to keep admin approval for the main page, if wanted. Build preps in draft Draft:Did you know/5 February 2024, and rely on an admin to move it to Template:Did you know/5 February 2024 (or Wikipedia:Did you know/5 February 2024 if that move finally succeeds). No copy pasting, a single edit history. CMD (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I wouldn't bother with the draft space. Just have a bot that watches the queue and protects pages as they near the top of the queue. Just like happens for images. RoySmith (talk) 16:41, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Why use a bot? Cascading protection could always protect the next three days without any intervention. The only bots needed would be Krinklebot for the Commons protection and another one for credits. (Archiving would also be automatic). —Kusma (talk) 18:45, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not up to speed on the details of how cascading protection works, but if it can handle this automatically, that's even better. RoySmith (talk) 19:23, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
uncouple the reviewing from the promoting – I'd be in favour of this. Schwede66 08:40, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Adding:
My suggestion above (i.e. 1 nomination QPQ = 1 review + 1 promotion (via PSHAW)) ties the nomination and prep-building process. So, this will ensure that the two will roughly be aligned in terms of rate of inflow / rate of outflow, once we achieve steady state. Some exceptions will exist as noted (e.g. need for re-reviews, no QPQ until 5th nom etc), but, for simplicity lets proceed with this.
Quality: Yes, this could be a potential problem, but, we will have to treat it on a case-by-case basis. If we trust reviewers with the reviews, we should trust them with the promotion to a prep piece.
Traceability: There is a comment above that the promotion to a prep-queue does not have traceability / evidence of quality checks. I am speaking for theleekycauldron, but, this can be solved by adding a notes field to the tool, or a checklist, prior to prep.
Lack of admins to promote from preps to queues: This is a whole different problem. We have a general scarcity of admins. We have the same problem on the WP:ITN side of the house too. I think the long term answer to this is some sort of an WP:AWOT, where Wikipedia as a whole needs to create a new class of admins with a limited scope of a project or two. The current admin process clearly is not attracting enough admins, and the admins from prior generations can not be expected to stay engaged forever. The medium to short term answer is that we should consider non-admins to promote to queues as well. Maybe we create a workaround to the AWOT system by nominating a handful of long term project members who can be trusted to move contents from preps to queues. Ktin (talk) 23:56, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm totally in favor of more unbundling of permissions. In the prehistoric days of software, permissions tended to be an all or nothing thing. Gradually, the world has moved to a more fine-grained permissions concept, but we're still mostly stuck in the "admin == superuser" mode. Which means we can't give somebody permission to update the DYK section of the main page without also giving them permission to block users, view deleted revisions, protect and unprotect pages, etc, etc. Which means it's a big deal to get a mop, which means RfA is a sewer, which means people don't want to be admins. RoySmith (talk) 00:46, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
Yep. Valereee (talk) 01:06, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't think forcing people to do prep building is a good idea. It has its own rules and it can be tricky even for experienced users. Like the others said, one of the main difficulties with prep building is to make sure the original check is fine and nothing else was missed, which could be done by non-sysops. So just unbundling the steps, instead of forcing prep building, itself a very stressful activity, would only make the problem worse. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:26, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
My 2c. We need to move away from this mindset. One of the big wins of the PSHAW tool is that it decomposes prep-building / set-building to hook-promotion. I think that is truly a game changer. If we believe editors can be hook-reviewers, they can 100pc be hook-promoters. Ktin (talk) 03:04, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm with Narutolovehinata5 on the prep building issue. It's complex. Schwede66 08:38, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I, for one, am very likely to give up DYK if continuing to contribute to it (something I do maybe a couple times a month, max) can only be done by installing someone's half-baked script. If it's an editing task, as un-onerous as QPQ reviewing is now, fine. It it's turning me into a script-monkey, no. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:57, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
You don't have to use the script to promote a hook to prep or move a prep to queue, if that's your worry. It just makes the process easier. Valereee (talk) 11:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
Can't get on board with the notion of forcing people to do promotions, sorry. That is just likely to result in random sets and less scrutiny (since there is no formal requirement for reviewing promoted hooks as there is for QPQ). If there is a problem with insufficient nom reviewing, then probably an extra QPQ per nom is a better option, although I'm not sure how viable that would be either. Gatoclass (talk) 15:00, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree. Some stuff on Wikipedia is just complicated and better handled by people who can pass the knowledge barrier to get there. Zanahary (talk) 00:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Auto-reviews for trusted editors

  • I agree with Kevmin that we should rollback the creepy increase in the workload. If it is taking set-builders and promoters hours to process a set because reviews have to be done in triplicate then that burden has clearly gotten too great. And if it is causing them to burn out then something must be done.
As DYK has lots of regulars who know the ropes then I suggest that it introduce a system like autopatrol which was likewise introduced to help lighten the load for new page patrollers. Editors who have submitted numerous DYKs without major problems should be trusted to fill in a checklist themself for their own nominations. So, veteran DYK editors would do a QPQ for a newbie's article and the first stage review for their own nomination. The set-builders and admins can do spot checks if something doesn't smell right, but they shouldn't have to make an onerous review from scratch for trusted editors. If a trusted editor gets too sloppy then they can be taken off the list, of course, just like autopatrol.
Myself, I have not been submitting DYKs for some time as I found the triplicate regime too heavy-handed. A trusted editor system of self-certification would encourage me to return.
Andrew🐉(talk) 14:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I think the idea of "trusted nominator" is not a bad one. As an admin, I'd be willing to skip the admin check for someone who'd been given that permission under the condition that anything that showed up at errors was absolutely 100% their problem, and not in any way the fault of the admin, and that any hook that needed to be changed while on the main page was reason for stripping someone of the permission. Valereee (talk) 14:52, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree that the idea has potential. I would suggest that articles on WP:Contentious topics should be reviewed independently, even if they come from a "trusted nominator". TSventon (talk) 17:30, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not totally opposed to this, but I'd hate to see is get into a situation where it's possible for a nom to self-review, then the set builder skips their review because "I trust them", and then the queue promoter also skips their review for the same reason, and we end up with stuff on the main page that got no review at all. RoySmith (talk) 17:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
+1 to what @RoySmith has said. ─ Aafī (talk) 19:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith, but it would only happen once? Then we take them off the list. Valereee (talk) 01:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Also they wouldn't be doing the original review of their own hook, would they? Valereee (talk) 11:24, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
I do not agree with this. The whole point of QPQ was to ensure that it was experienced editors, not necessarily newbies, who were doing reviews given that they are more likely to be familiar with the rules. In addition, having an "auto-review" status opens the door to articles just breezing through the process even if there are serious issues with the article and/or nomination. DYK has higher standards than new articles, so what can work for NPP may not necessarily work for DYK. I'm not comfortable with any proposal that would open the door to problematic articles going all the way to the main page even with their issues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Over the past couple of years GAN culture has shifted significantly as an informal trusted nominator culture was found to let significant errors through. Even at the best of times mistakes happen, and I doubt the "absolutely 100% their problem" guarantee Valereee mentions can be relied upon to happen. CMD (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree, and think better solutions are what Kusma and RoySmith outlined above: improving the prep/queue system either by overhauling the old-fashioned system or by allowing experienced non-admins to do the prep-queue promotions. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:33, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
On top of that, there's a bunch of simple things we could do to eliminate a lot of the drudge work. For example, here's a bunch of things I find myself doing over and over:
  • Going through multiple clicks to get to the nomination template.
  • Opening each of the bolded links in a set in each own tab.
  • Running earwig on each of those tabs.
  • Starting a thread about a hook on WT:DYK, complete with links to the queue or prep, to the nomination in question, and crafting a ping template to bring their attention to the thread.
  • Slogging through a nomination to find the nominator, the approver, and the promoter so I can build the above ping.
All of those seem like something that somebody who knows their way around JavaScript could automate. And that would probably cut the time to review a queue promotion in half, and I'd be a lot more likely to do more of them. RoySmith (talk) 23:29, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree, it would be great to have a button I could push that would start a section with a link to the prep/queue, and then for any hook I'm questioning add to that section a subsection with a link to the nom, a copy of the hook, a ping to the nom/reviewer/promoter, and give me an edit box to ask my question in. Valereee (talk) 11:42, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
But CMD, if one of their hooks appears at ERRORS, they're no longer a "trusted nominator". They have to do 3 QPQs or do X promotions/moves just like everyone else. Some are saying they'd stop nominating if faced with that extra burden. Which is too bad, I'd be sorry to see some of these excellent new article not be able to appear, but that would in fact also help solve the problem of too many nominations and not enough worker bees to handle them. Valereee (talk) 11:29, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
  • As a sample, here's the current set:
  1. Hill Women by Whispyhistory
  2. Silang tanmu by Kingoflettuce
  3. W. Seavey Joyce by Ergo Sum
  4. Barley, GA by Chiswick Chap nominated by Bruxton
  5. Bridger Zadina by Bruxton
  6. Poecilia orri by Surtsicna
  7. Michael Artiaga and Andrew Artiaga by Johnson524
  8. Winchester College football, GA and nomination by Chiswick Chap
Most of these editors seem to be highly experienced veterans who can be trusted to get the details right. If I were handling this set, the only hook that I'd spot check in detail would be the Artiaga brothers as the editor is not so experienced and there are potential BLP issues.
One issue might be the WikiCup though. It's my impression that events of this sort often drive a lot of activity here and so there might be competitive pressure to cut corners.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:00, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
This is already somewhat the case informally, in terms of my review process. I do full checks on every hook I promote, but in case there's an emergency and I need to grab a hook now, I'm not grabbing a new nominator's experimental article, I'm grabbing an Epicgenius or Sammi Brie hook right to the Main Page, and doing the checks post hoc. In my experience, though, a careful reviewing admin might find a not-insubstantial number of holes in even experienced nominators' hooks. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely I do bring hooks by very experienced regulars here for questions, regularly. My point is that if these highly experienced editors, who should know better, don't want to do extra reviews and don't think their hooks need the extra scrutiny, then fine, they can request the "trusted nominator" designation, avoid the extra work, stop causing extra work for others, and accept the burden of their shoddy hook getting on the main page onto their own shoulders. It's 100% them who gets raked over the coals at ERRORS. If that happens, and a hook by them needs to be pulled or fixed for factual errors or negative BLP content, they lose that trusted nominator designation and have to do the extra work, whatever we decide that needs to be. Valereee (talk) 11:18, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee regarding I do bring hooks by very experienced regulars here for questions, "very experienced" does not always imply "trustworthy" RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely. But if you'd have to apply for this permission -- and get it revoked if it turned out you weren't trustworthy with it, and as a result be required to do more work -- maybe these highly experienced nominators, who should know better, would actually become more likely to police their own noms? Valereee (talk) 00:11, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson: I got excited for a minute when I read "highly experienced veterans" until I read I was the one exception lol. I think if this could help solve the backlog problem, it's probably worth it to start issuing a "trusted nominator" designation for the reasons listed above. I hope something at least can be worked out, cheers! Johnson524 11:37, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
@Johnson524, just FTR, it's not in any way a comment on your work, the trusted nominator designation would probably be limited to something along the lines of people who've done at least 50 reviews and at least 10 in the past year, something like that. Valereee (talk) 11:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
@Valereee: Oh no I agree, I only have 12 DYKs and 15 reviews, so I'm definitely a still newbie here, it was just fun to read 😁 Johnson524 11:57, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Link to DYK nom page in talk page transclusions

Maybe I'm stupid and just not figuring it out, but when I see the DYK nom transclusions on article talk pages, I can never figure out where to click to get to the DYK nom page so that I can watchlist it. For example, right now at Talk:Chicago Community Bond Fund#Did you know nomination, I see these links:

  • "Review or comment" which takes me to the page but in an editor
  • "Article history"
  • "will be logged" to GalliumBot's darn page
  • redlink to the nom talk page
  • "consider watching this nomination" links to Help:Watchlist but not to the nomination

None of these link to the nom page--I go in with the editor and then hit escape. But it'd be cool if there was a link somewhere there to the nom page to make it easy to watchlist. Levivich (talk) 01:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Levivich the same suggestion was made a week ago. TSventon (talk) 01:50, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I've implemented the changes in the sandbox, so that it generates something like:
(
)
Anyone object to me pushing to prod? Also... why is this is in Lua? Something like User:Theleekycauldron/Templates/DYK nompage links is way simpler. Literally took me 20 seconds to get something that does (view | comment | article history) with special pages. Did the special pages not exist at the time? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:10, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
I would very much appreciate this. Sure you can just click on the "Review or comment" link then just click "Template", but that's too much effort especially now with the toolbox being moved to the main template page rather than it being an edit notice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:28, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Brilliant. Do it, Leeky. Schwede66 03:41, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
update: multihooks, uh-duh. {{trout}} for me :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:30, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, please. This is pretty close to #1 on my list of annoying things about DYK. RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 7 February 2024 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron Where do we stand on this? RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
Can "( Comment or view • Article history )" be changed to "( Comment • View • Article history )" please?--Launchballer 21:37, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

QPQ tool is down?

Betacommand's tool is giving a 503 error at the moment. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:41, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 I'm poking around a bit and don't see anything about it. How recently was it working? RoySmith (talk) 03:59, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
Tracked in Phabricator
Task T319587
Oh, I see. It looks like it was running on the old GridEngine infrastructure which is in the process of being turned off. Reading the phab ticket, I'm not optimistic it's going to get fixed. RoySmith (talk) 04:09, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 Could you give a description of what the QPQ tool did/should do. Sohom (talk) 16:31, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
It should simply give list how many credits a user has had.
One of the issues is that it doesn't distinguish between nominations and credits, meaning people who were credited as an expander or co-nominator can be given a credit even if they didn't actually nominate the article. The rules were changed not too long ago to change the QPQ requirement to kick in after five nominations, instead of credits like it was before (since it would mean users who had never had a single nomination but had over five credits would have needed to do a QPQ). The tool was never updated to reflect the change, however.
Still, it was the best tool we had and otherwise we will have to rely on manually checking nominations to ensure QPQ compliance, which can be a bit of a pain unless a new tool is made. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:45, 12 February 2024 (UTC)
I never ever use that tool because I find it too unreliable; it regularly said I had under five when I have more than 200. I usually just go through the nominator's contributions in the template namespace.--Launchballer 23:41, 12 February 2024 (UTC)

I remember that a while back, Theleekycauldron wrote up a replacement tool that took into account nominations instead of credits. Maybe that tool can be revived as a replacement? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:51, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, I wrote a small tool right now, you can use https://qpqtool.toolforge.org/qpq/<username> to check for previous nominations here. Sohom (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Is the source for this available? RoySmith (talk) 22:31, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
The source code should be availiable at https://github.com/sohomdatta1/qpqtool under the MIT License :) Sohom (talk) 23:02, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Cool, thanks. Could you update the entry at https://toolsadmin.wikimedia.org/tools/id/qpqtool to make it easier for people to find? RoySmith (talk) 23:04, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Sure, done :) Sohom (talk) 23:11, 13 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks a lot for the tool! However, I'm testing it right now and it's rather slow at the moment, taking minutes to work or give results. Is there a way for the tool to become more efficient so it can give results faster? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 It should get faster the more people use it :) (It stores previous results in a cache so it has lesser edits to check the second time you use it on somebody). Sohom (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Also, looking at the logs, there were some timeout issues going on, I pushed a fix for some of them :) Sohom (talk) 11:14, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@Sohom, I'd love to hear about the timeout problems you've had (but maybe hijacking this thread isn't the right place). I see you use redis. I've also seen problems with connections to the toolforge redis service timing out. I've love to compare notes to see if we're hitting the same problem. RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I believe it's the same/similar issue. At times the redis connection times out with redis.exceptions.TimeoutError: Timeout reading from socket
That being said, yes, lets take it to a different thread :) Sohom (talk) 21:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Why don't you fill in your details on T318479 RoySmith (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Amrita Sher-Gil strikes again

This discussion is not going to go anywhere so it's being closed rather than being dragged on further. If there are concerns about certain subjects or topics being overrepresented on DYK, a more general discussion is always welcome to be started. If there are any concerns about Sher-Gil nominations specifically, it may be better to discuss with the nominator. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions)

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

Here. Is there any other single individual that has been mentioned more often over a shorter period of time in DYKs? I recently raised the issue and I see everyone was outraged by the suggestion that DYK shouldn't be a megaphone for Wikipedians to persistently broadcast to the world information about the same narrow subject over and over again, just because they happen to be currently obsessed with it. Of course anyone is free to write series of articles about the same subject, but why make more than one of them into DYKs? No, I neither knew nor wanted to know that 'Amrita Sher-Gil's painting Hill Women appeared on a 1978 Indian postage stamp', and I see nothing intriguing whatsoever about that piece of information. The standards for 'hooks' seem to have got impossibly low, but even if there were anything remotely interesting about this, it still would have been annoying just because of the repeated subject. DYK is supposed to be at least somewhat random and unpredictable, most of it still is, but this is the exact opposite. 62.73.69.121 (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Who was outraged? Valereee (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

P.S. The fish series is at least humorous. It can be tolerated at small doses.--62.73.69.121 (talk) 00:02, 14 February 2024 (UTC)

Have you tried asking at User talk:Whispyhistory for something different to be offered, instead of complaining here? On that note, have you checked out the sheer variety of the 471 DYKs listed at User:Whispyhistory/Userboxes DYK? --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 00:05, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
I’m not a fan of this particular hook, and I think it could have been worded differently for interest, but that opinion will get me less than a cup of coffee. Recommend closing this discussion per WP:DENY. Viriditas (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
Consider me fascinated; I've learned something about the history of stamps and about 1970s India, and all while getting to see a very beautiful painting. IP, if you're not interested in paintings by Amrita Sher-Gil, there were ~7 other hooks on the main page. IP may personally think the topic is a "narrow subject", but Amrita Sher-Gil, as was brought up in the last thread, is a level-5 vital article and there is plenty of interest in her oeuvre as part of the history of art. Suppose we started to refuse hooks about North American subjects, on the grounds that they're over-represented at DYK and are a "narrow subject"? I agree with closing this discussion. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
"I see everyone was outraged by the suggestion that DYK shouldn't be a megaphone for Wikipedians to persistently broadcast to the world information about the same narrow subject over and over again, just because they happen to be currently obsessed with it" And yet you're still here, complaining. Perhaps the outrage should be over your inability to grasp what WP:CONSENSUS means? Yes, someone please close this WP:TIMESINK of a discussion. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:10, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:SOHA Feb 22

With apologies, a few days ago I promoted a hook from WP:SOHA which was meant for February 22. But I think it will be run on another day since we changed speed. I have since forgot which hook. Anyone remember which hook needed Feb 22? Lightburst (talk) 04:48, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Carol Mutch I just found it! @@DYK admins: it is in Queue 6 but now needs to be in (I think) Prep 4 Lightburst (talk) 05:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
It is, and has been, in Prep 4 Lightburst; I dont't know where you got Queue 6 from. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 06:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Might be a case of a late-night oops. Thanks. Lightburst (talk) 14:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Lightburst, it looks like you originally promoted the hook to Prep 3 on 12 February, but minutes later moved it to Prep 4, where it needed to be. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:09, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:DYKN is busted again

At least on my end, all nominations from January 13 onwards (except for one on the 13th) are not being transcluded properly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:37, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

For me, it's reaching the transclusion limit on 24 January noms. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Sammie Brie, I assume breaking the DYK nominations page in this edit was an error? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Sammi Brie, fix ping. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:33, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
The page should be fixed now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:10, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 Yes, my bad. I was trying to insert the message for Twinkle to handle new DYKs on 2/12 (it had been removed). Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:15, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

FYI Queue 5

FYI there are two American sports hooks in the next queue FYI Queue 5. Lightburst (talk) 15:59, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Further to queue 5, there are also two American sports hooks the day after in Queue 6. ResonantDistortion 16:05, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I promoted that, but to be honest, that's not something I look for when doing queue promotions. In any case, it seems to meet the "No topic should comprise more than two of the hooks in a given update" constraint of WP:DYKVAR so I think we're good. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks RoySmith. I know we had discussions about it in the past so it is an FYI. Lightburst (talk) 16:49, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure about this. I remember there being complaints in the past if two of the same topic were promoted on the same day, and if two hooks about similar subjects ran on consecutive days, so I'm not sure why it's okay now when there were concerns about doing the same in the past. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:38, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
If somebody wants to change it, I have no objection. RoySmith (talk) 22:55, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
It is a best practice to avoid two of the same in a set, and maybe two queue's in a row with two each (which is 25% of the hooks) is too much. Bruxton (talk) 23:57, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
It's not the same topic, by any meaning of the word. Just because they are American sports does not mean much; I have promoted preps with up to four American biographies without objection. And no, I am not American. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:42, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes AirshipJungleman29 four bios is good - one in every other slot. That is different than two song articles, two opera singers, two radio stations, two architecture articles, two American sports articles. Lightburst (talk) 05:01, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

I'd like to disagree with the two per set wording, which was a "bold" update by A.D.Hope last summer to the supplemental guidelines shortly before the comprehensive rewrite of DYK rules by theleekycauldron. The previous wording for this section was as follows: Because of the disproportionate number of US-related hooks and biography hooks, it is usually appropriate to have roughly 50% of hooks in a given update on both US and biography topics, but no more than half. That is to say, in an eight-hook update you should have roughly four hooks per update on US topics, and four on biography. These are not mutually exclusive, for example if you have two US bio hooks that would count as both two US hooks and two bio hooks. Note that "roughly 50%" means just that – this is not an absolute; you can have less of either if there are not many currently available such hooks to choose from on the Suggestions page. Note however that as a general rule you should almost never have more than 50% of hooks on US, biography or any other topic. The new wording allowing two per topic was not accepted practice at the time, and I think we should remove that. The idea that, as DYKVAR currently says, you can have two hooks on cooking and two on fish would make for a very unbalanced set; it is not that hard to find a better balance. If we are going to allow any twofers, which I'm not sure is a good idea, I'd set a limit of one per set, and to avoid repetitions of subjects from set to set. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I remember a few years ago that there was a concern raised here when Konomi Suzuki and Minori Suzuki were scheduled to run close together and if we were becoming an "anime fanzine", so Minori was moved. Not sure why such close runnings are not considered an issue anymore. In any case to be on the safe side it might be a better idea to spread out the hooks at least. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:03, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
The old wording technically allowed four hooks (and in exceptional circumstances more) per topic – Note however that as a general rule you should almost never have more than 50% of hooks on US, biography or any other topic. I can't find or exactly remember the discussion which led to the change, but I think it was agreed that an explicit limit of two was an improvement.
If the consensus is now to restrict sets further, why not simplify the guideline and just have it say something like 'Do not run similar hooks within the same set or on consecutive days'? I'm sure we could rely on editorial judgement to work out the rest. A.D.Hope (talk) 01:12, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
The entry before the one I quoted above said, Make sure to choose a varied selection – don't choose half a dozen people hooks, for example, or a bunch of hooks about one particular country or topic. Variety is the spice of life. (However, see the following clause for an important qualification). The varied selection, at least when I started over a decade ago, was treated as if, by the time the 50% bios and 50% US were dealt with, to get that variety over the remaining hooks, holding it down to one of any other subject or country was the best way to get that variety. Going to two was a rarity, so one sports, one music, one flora or fauna, one history, one cooking, and so on—that was the best way to get variety. As it reads now, having two of each seems to be desired, rather than something to avoid unless it's very difficult to do so. Because about half the nominations over time are bios, and a similar half (with overlap) are US, the special exception was made for them to avoid backlogs in those particular areas. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

QPQ for you

If anyone is in need of a qpq or two, I can provide. Just message me on my talk. Tomorrow is Friday so have a great weekend! i will be traveling for a few days so if I do not respond you can take a QPQ from here User:Lightburst. Lightburst (talk) 04:39, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

Lewis Pragasam

@AirshipJungleman29, Ktin, and Launchballer: the article says "heart attack", the hook says "heart failure". It's not clear those are the same thing. RoySmith (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Happy to change. Thanks for the catch. I am tagging @InedibleHulk who at some point had noted a similar interchange on a different article. IH - please feel free to chime-in. Ktin (talk) 01:59, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith @AirshipJungleman29 @Launchballer @InedibleHulk -- I gave this some thought. My request is to substitute the phrase "heart failure" with "fatal heart attack". Hope this helps. Ktin (talk) 07:52, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
done RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Someone should really correct that redirect. Launchballer 21:18, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Anthony W. Case

I'm a little concerned about WP:CLOP from the New Yorker article. Somebody else should take a look and give a second opinion. RoySmith (talk) 01:26, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: If we do not consider the quoting it still appears to need attention for some CLOP. Also the nomination does not appear on the article talk page for some reason. Maybe you should ping the participants? Lightburst (talk) 14:55, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29, Daniel Case, and Muboshgu: RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I removed it from the talk page because it had been closed and archived. Should I have waited? Daniel Case (talk) 16:27, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I like the talk pages that have an "article milestones" section at the top, with one line for each event (DYK, GA, FA, whatever). I assume there's some bot that does that. At least I hope there is and we're not making humans maintain all that boilerplate. RoySmith (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I can take a closer look at the paraphrasing. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I have already done that in Earwig. Outside of the quotes and some passing phrases that come under WP:LIMITED (I think), there's maybe one or two things we could rephrase if desired. Daniel Case (talk) 18:16, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
There are bots which occasionally do that RoySmith but none that do it on a consistent basis. Well, not yet; DeadbeefBot has recently been given the approval, so it could be soonish. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Well, since DYK is the only one for this article so far, we'd only have DYK. Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
In the future RoySmith, might I request that you provide specifics when mentioning CLOP so that a full analysis is not needed? Most of the article is fine (there are a couple of irregularities in bold below) but the ending two paragraphs needed to be cut and rephrased, which I will do shortly.
Wikipedia article New Yorker article
"At Thurston he played trombone in the school's jazz band. He was also an athlete; by his junior year he was a pitcher on the varsity baseball team" "Tony Case, a pitcher on the varsity baseball team and a trombonist in the school’s jazz band...Tony, a junior"
"with the two pistols and semi-automatic rifles he was carrying in the trenchcoat he was wearing. Case took cover under a table, but four of the 51 rounds Kinkel fired struck him anyway—three in the back and one in the leg." "The next day...wearing a trenchcoat and carrying a semi-automatic rifle and two pistols ... Kip had fired fifty-one rounds ... When he realized what was happening, he dived under a table, but Kip shot him three times in the back and once in the leg."
"The shooting, the latest of several at schools over the preceding 18 months, attracted national media attention due to Kinkel having opened fire in a crowded cafeteria with a semi-automatic rifle, suggesting more serious homicidal intent than the perpetrators of the previous shootings despite the minimal death toll. Life magazine ran a 10-page article about the aftermath illustrated in part by a photograph of Case in his hospital bed. He received get-well cards from all over the country, many sent by elementary school groups or youth baseball teams." "Mass school shootings were almost unheard of before the 1997-98 school year. That year, there were a handful—including in West Paducah, Kentucky, and near Jonesboro, Arkansas—and then Kip’s shooting eclipsed them all: he had opened fire with a semi-automatic rifle in a packed cafeteria...Life published a ten-page story about the shooting victims, which included a photograph of Tony in his hospital bed...Tony came home to bags of get-well cards from all over the country...Some were made of construction paper and signed by classrooms of children; others had been sent by youth baseball teams."
"After a week Case was discharged." "After two weeks in the hospital"
"The plea included sentences for the murders that could have led to Kinkel being eligible for parole in 25 years, if no further sentence was imposed for the attempted murder charges. At the sentencing hearing on those counts two months later, Case, by then studying at Lane Community College, was among the last of the victims and family members to make a statement. Recounting how it was still extremely painful for him to walk without shoes, he said "Because I will be affected for the rest of my life, I feel that he should be, too." Judge Jack Mattison sentenced Kinkel to another 87 years for the attempted murders, bringing his total sentence to nearly 112 years, effectively a life sentence without parole. "Kip would plead guilty to the charges against him—four murder charges and some two dozen attempted-murder charges—and, in exchange, he would receive a prison sentence of twenty-five years for the murders. This plea deal was a gamble, because it did not include his sentence for the nonfatal shootings...One of the last to speak was Tony Case...now enrolled at Lane Community College, in Eugene...he described how a bullet had severed an artery in his leg, making it excruciatingly painful for him to walk without shoes...“Because I will be affected for the rest of my life, I feel that he should be, too,” he said...Judge Mattison sentenced Kip to nearly eighty-seven years in prison for his nonfatal shootings. This, combined with the previous sentence, brought Kip’s total punishment to “111.67 years, which is more than anyone will ever serve,” Mattison said. There would be no possibility of parole."
"Case later decided that the long-term effect of his injuries precluded him playing baseball at the college level, and turned to scientific study." "Tony had imagined that he might play baseball in college, but he dropped that idea after he was shot"
"Case has kept the bullets that were removed from his body and stores them with his high school baseball trophies and other mementoes of that time in his life. His right ankle has never regained full mobility" "He still has limited mobility in his ankle...After the bullets were removed, he brought them home. Today, they are in a crate in his basement, along with his high-school baseball trophies."
"but other than that he has no impairments from the shooting and engages in recreational activities like hiking, bicycling and running." "but he said that he can hike, cycle, and run"
"The effect of the injuries led Case to his present career, he believes. Had he, as he had originally hoped, been playing baseball in college "[I might not] have studied physics and ended up working on all the cool stuff that I've worked on ... If I had been pushing more toward baseball, there's no way I could have been studying as much." "If his injuries from the shooting had not led him to give up his baseball ambitions, would he “have studied physics and ended up working on all the cool stuff that I’ve worked on?” he asked. He doubted it. “If I had been pushing more toward baseball, there’s no way I could have been studying as much,” he said."
"In 2021, Kinkel, who was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, now controlled by medication, after the shooting, applied for clemency when Oregon's then-governor Kate Brown announced she would consider those requests from adults incarcerated for crimes committed as juveniles. Case followed the story online; Kinkel's request was ultimately rejected. "It's literally been more time since the shooting than time he was alive before the shooting. It's more than half a lifetime ago for him, just like it is for me", Case observed. While at the time he had felt Kinkel's motive was irrelevant—"can't we just call him a bad person and a criminal and a murderer, and not worry about whether it was a mental illness?—he now appreciated the role it played: "It's hard to look back and place the full blame on him, to be honest," he told The New Yorker in 2023. Had Kinkel's mental illness been properly dealt with prior to the shootings, they might not have happened, Case speculates.
That level of understanding might carry over into the present or future, Case told the magazine. While Kinkel is seen as highly unlikely to be paroled anytime soon due to the high-profile crime he committed, "if the judge of the courts of Lane County came to me and said, 'Look, all of the survivors voted, and it's tied. You get to cast the deciding vote whether we give him parole or not'—that would be a tough choice for me", he said. He ruled out only one answer: "I would not be a hard no." 		"it was evident that he had been following Kip’s efforts to get his punishment reassessed. “That one can be driven by mental illness to do something like that, to me at the time—and maybe still, to some extent—sort of seems like a lame excuse,” he said. “You know, can’t we just call him a bad person and a criminal and a murderer, and not worry about whether it was a mental illness?

“But I think just over the years I’ve sort of moved away from that hard stance and more toward, you know, mental illness is a real thing that we need to be seriously treating,” he said. “It’s hard to look back and place the full blame on him, to be honest.” Had Kip received better mental-health care, he added, “I’d like to think that may have resulted in a different outcome.”

When Kip first started appearing in his Google alerts, Tony was taken aback by the more recent photos of him. In his mind, Kip was still a teen-ager. “With criminals, there’s the mug shot—and then there’s nothing, right?” he said. “And think about him,” he added. “It’s literally been more time since the shooting than time he was alive before the shooting. It’s more than half a lifetime ago for him, just like it is for me.”

It was apparent that the news stories he’d seen had prompted him to reconsider how he felt about Kip’s fate. “If I had to choose,” he said, “if the judge of the courts of Lane County came to me and said, ‘Look, all of the survivors voted, and it’s tied. You get to cast the deciding vote whether we give him parole or not’—that would be a tough choice for me.” He sounded uncertain about how he might vote. But, he added, “I would not be a hard no.”"

might I request that you provide specifics when mentioning CLOP so that a full analysis is not needed? I think it's valuable for another person to do their own analysis. RoySmith (talk) 17:19, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Looking closer, there are a few phrases that can be reworded. a pitcher on the varsity baseball team ... in the school’s jazz band ... a friend running for student-body president ... One of the surgeons who operated on him ... get-well cards from all over the country ... painful for him to walk without shoes,. Please address these Daniel Case. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Will do.  Done Daniel Case (talk) 18:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Much better. Earwig is down to 42.9% on that source, but that's mostly due to the quotations. There's still the school's jazz band and the varsity baseball team and I also see in physics from the University of Oregon ... closer to the Sun, but these seem minor to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:14, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Sacred Heart Cathedral, Kaifeng

I keep coming back to the image we're using. I know most of us are hobby photographers, but this is really a poster-child for how not to do architectural photography (i.e. the extreme keystone effect). I tried doing some post-processing geometry correction, but it's not really fixable using digital tools. Is there a better image we could use instead? RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This one, if you don't mind all the wires in the way.
I'm going to have a go with perspective correcting this ... yes, there's not a lot to work with, but ... this is where AI-generated fill on the sky can help. Daniel Case (talk) 16:39, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Never mind! I was able to correct the perspective in Photoshop without resorting to anything more than the usual cropping (also did a little automatic lens correction ... I am happy to see that the newer versions of Photoshop have an algorithm for all the iPhone lenses (but why would I have expected them not to?) Daniel Case (talk) 18:41, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Cool, you did a much better job than I managed! RoySmith (talk) 18:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Cloaca (art installation)

Template:Did you know nominations/Cloaca (art installation)

Pinging nominator @Vladimir.copic:.

This nomination is currently held up as I have an objection to an edit to the article made by the nominator who claims that his edit "better reflect[s] the source". On the contrary, it is a plain misstatement of the source in my view.

The argument arose as a result of the nominator wanting to refer to the end product of this machine in his proposed hooks as "shit", without qualification - an understandable desire given that qualifications generally weaken a hook's impact. Any such concern, however, cannot be allowed to justify error.

My initial objection to the nominator's argument was on the grounds that one of his sources includes a discussion citing three art critics who conclude that the end product of the machine is not shit, but, in the words of one, "shit's representation". The critics come to this conclusion based on the fact that the end product of the machine is not a byproduct of digestion - a process whose purpose is "nourishing and providing energy" to a body - and therefore, not real faeces. The very fact that several critics have repudiated the notion that the machine's product is real faeces is sufficient by itself to invalidate any hook describing it as such in my view.

In response to my argument, however, the nominator decided that he had misstated his sources, and made this edit to correct the alleged error. The edit reverted the following sentence: Critics Christian Denker and Isabelle Loring Wallace have discussed whether the material produced by the installations can be called faeces and changed it to Critics Christian Denker and Isabelle Loring Wallace have discussed whether the installations' work can be identified as digestion. That does not correct an error in my view, but introduces one, because the critics discuss no such thing. They do discuss the relation of the machine process to that of "human digestion", but that is not the same thing as discussing whether or not it can be considered human digestion, which clearly it is not. More importantly though, the edit buries the central question pertaining to this machine, which the source puts as is the resulting material "feces", a term that is normally used for the excrement of living beings? and can we say ... that this machine really shits? (both of which they answer in the negative - source here, requires registration).

In short, I believe this edit needs to be reverted before the article is featured (as well as a hook selected that does not describe the end product of the machine as unqualified "shit"). The nominator has refused to revert, so I have brought the discussion here for wider input. Gatoclass (talk) 09:23, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

This has been a bit of an issue with DYK hooks for a while now. Hook accuracy, or even article inaccuracy, are sometimes being sacrificed in the name of hookiness. In any case, no one, not even the article creator or main expander, owns an article, and you are always free to revert the edits yourself. Pining AirshipJungleman29 for his input as well as he was the reviewer. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:28, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I’ve really lost interest in the dyk nom at this point. My edit improved the accuracy of the article in relation to the source - I laid this out in the original dyk discussion for those interested. I’m not willing to play this game where I am forced to make a revert I believe to be detrimental to the article for the sake of a silly dyk. I don’t own the article, as mentioned above, so anyone is free to improve it. @AirshipJungleman29 seemed to agree with me that the edit was fine. I urge people to read the actual source paragraph and my edit. Probably the last I’ll say on the matter. Vladimir.copic (talk) 12:01, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
The source says, "But can we say that, unlike Vaucanson's duck, this machine really shits? Christian Denker has described the process as both a "simulation" and an "imitation of biological processes,” while Isabelle Loring Wallace writes that "what the Cloaca machines show us, at considerable expense and labor, is not digestion, but digestion's facsimile, not shit, but shit's representation. An important criterion for Denker is that Delvoye's machine mimics only part of the functions of the human organs, while others -like the primary function of nourishing and providing energy - are lacking."
And the Wikipedia article says, "Critics Christian Denker and Isabelle Loring Wallace have discussed whether the installations' work can be identified as digestion. Denker described the work as a "simulation" and "imitation" of the biological digestive process that omits the provision of nourishment and energy which is the primary reason for digestion. Wallace commented that what the installations demonstrate, at a great cost, is not the digestive process but rather "digestion's facsimile, not shit, but shit's representation."
Regarding the DYK process, ALT5 is not affected by the change being discussed here. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 17:51, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I do not believe that Gatoclass's conclusions are logically correct. "The very fact that several critics have repudiated the notion that the machine's product is real faeces is sufficient by itself to invalidate any hook describing it as such in my view." No hook describing it as such has been approved, and the article does not claim this. Broeckmann 2016 refers to the product as "virtual feces", which "smelly faeces" encompasses.
As for "They do discuss the relation of the machine process to that of "human digestion", but that is not the same thing as discussing whether or not it can be considered human digestion, which clearly it is not", I don't know how "can we say that this machine really shits?" is not asking whether it can be considered digestion. Contrary to the assertion "they answer in the negative", that is only halfway through the discussion, which ends connecting the Cloaca to a "human being without a soul" and considering its product as "virtual faeces".
If it is felt that a "central question pertaining to this machine" has been buried, anyone is free to add it into the article. As for me, I do not feel that the article's accuracy is been sacrificed in the name of hookiness. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Looking at the nomination, would ALT5 be a solution to the matter? It is talking about the machines themselves and not the product, and the hook makes no mention at all as to whether or not that is made really is feces. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:35, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
"I don't know how "can we say that this machine really shits?" is not asking whether it can be considered digestion." AirshipJungleman29, the critic is asking what shit is. He concludes that shit is a byproduct of digestion, and that therefore, because this machine isn't engaged in digestion, it isn't producing real shit. The point here is that there is no debate about whether or not the machine is engaged in digestion - it's taken as a given that it is not. The critic is simply pointing out that as shit is a product of digestion, the end product of the machine cannot be considered real shit either, but "shit's representation" or "virtual shit". Virtually the entire page in the source is concerned with the question of whether the machine shits, not whether or not it digests. Also, you appear to have overlooked the fact that the commentator describing the machine as "a human being without a soul" is not one of the critics, but the artist himself.
So I maintain that the article's statement that the critics "have discussed whether the installations' work can be identified as digestion" is at best misleading, and needs to be reverted or modified in some way. Given Vladimir's apparent resistance to reverting, I thought it more appropriate to bring the discussion here instead, but maybe I will just try modifying it myself. With regard to the hooks, I agree that the ALTs you identified are all viable, my issue is with the altered statement in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 13:10, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: "the project's core issue: what is the relation of this machine-based process to the process of human digestion?" (page 215). Rjjiii (talk) 01:53, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Gatoclass believes there is a difference between 1) discussing how much the two processes are related and 2) discussing whether they're the same. I must admit, they seem like the same discussion to me, but I don't have the energy to logically reason further. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 04:21, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Rjjiii, there is a world of difference between asking "what is the relationship between A and B?" and "are A and B the same thing?" The critics are not puzzling over whether or not the process "can be identified as performing digestion" per Vlad's edit - there is no such argument in the source. Rather, they simply observe that it is not performing (human) digestion, with one additionally noting an important distinction between the two processes. So Vlad's edit is at best a misstatement of the source.
Other than that, the reason I objected to this edit is because it was done in order for the nominator to try and negate my point that he couldn't describe the end product as "shit" in his hooks without qualification, when at least three critics have clearly stated that it isn't shit. So that not only are the nominator's edits misstatements of the source, they also serve to obfuscate the question of whether or not the end product can be considered actual shit. That obfuscation does a disservice to readers because it substitutes a question that nobody actually asked with the very pertinent question of how the machine's end product should be considered. Gatoclass (talk) 11:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I've promoted ALT5 which is not disputed in this discussion.[16] Hopefully, this resolves any concerns about making the article less informative to pass a certain hook. Even if the article's current wording is not ideal, it does seem to be a plausible reading of the source. The point about summarizing a question of relationship as a question equivalence is valid; feel free to tweak the article to better reflect the source material, Rjjiii (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Nom that could be changed for a special occasion

Back in December I nominated "We Work the Black Seam" with several hooks. As I noted at the time, I didn't think it likely that the article would have to wait that long to be on the page, but if it did ALT3, appropriately amended to note this, would be good for the Main Page on March 6 as that would be the 40th anniversary of the beginning of the British miners' strike that inspired the song, an occasion which is unlikely (to say the least) to pass without notice in the UK media, and having at least this acknowledgement of that anniversary on our Main Page would be nice, I think.

Well, we're much closer now, the nom has otherwise been approved, and thus I am willing to amend the hook and set it aside for that day, as has been discussed in the nomination, if anyone's interested. Pinging @RoySmith and Oltrepier: Daniel Case (talk) 19:07, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I would be fine with this. I prefer hooks that run on special occasions. Z1720 (talk) 19:20, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
The nomination has not been promoted because it is at WP:SOHA. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I have appropriately amended ALT3, it is not over the character limit. Should we delete the other proposed hooks? Daniel Case (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Process for post-promotion hook changes

We used to have a rule that said when a hook is changed after promoting, you're supposed to ping the nom. I don't see that rule in the current instructions. Did it get dropped? I'm asking because I never got notified of Special:Diff/1205068421 by @AirshipJungleman29. The nom template says Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Flaco (owl) but that never happened either. RoySmith (talk) 01:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron shouldn't have User:GalliumBot/darn/darn.py picked up the change? RoySmith (talk) 01:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
gahhhh. For some reason, the log doesn't pick up everything. I bet it's a timer problem, but I've never figured out what... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Just checked the previous supplementary guidelines; nothing in there either. If I missed something let me know. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I don't remember where it was. I do remember that it went into detail about how you had to link User:Xxx on the edit summary because {{ping}} would not work. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 12:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I found it. It was dropped in Special:Diff/1129357890. I've restored the lost verbiage to WP:DYKTRIM. RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
PS, for the record, had I known about this change, I would have objected. Between the running of the image and this change, all of the intrigue of the hook was eliminated. RoySmith (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Maruxa and Coralia Fandiño Ricart

@Grnrchst, Bogger, and AirshipJungleman29:

There are two unsourced sentences in the article. I have marked them with "citation needed" tags. I also recommend that the first block quote at the end of the article be incorporated into the text instead of separated out, and the second block quote be summarised instead of in block quotes. Z1720 (talk) 03:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

added refs for those sentences. Bogger (talk) 11:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
merged block quotes into text. Bogger (talk) 11:43, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Cheers Bogger! --Grnrchst (talk) 12:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 18:00, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

History of Christianity

@Jenhawk777, BuySomeApples, and NightWolf1223:

The article has the quote as ""fourth age of Christian expansion" while the hook says "fourth great age of Christian expansion". The source is an offline book, so which quotation is correct? Z1720 (talk) 03:05, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't have access to that book, however I think that we should keep it to what is in the article. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 03:26, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I found the quote on archive.org. It's "fourth great age". I have changed the article to reflect this. Z1720 (talk) 03:31, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Green tickY Sounds good to me. NW1223<Howl at me•My hunts> 03:34, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! Jenhawk777 (talk) 17:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Augustus Belknap

@Aquabluetesla, TCMemoire, and AirshipJungleman29:

I could not find where in the article it says that the mule-drawn car that Belknap led became the first streetcar line. Can you quote where in the article it says this, or add it to the article? Z1720 (talk) 03:12, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed @Z1720. Aquabluetesla (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
My concerns have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 03:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

D-Date

@Lullabying, Paul 012, and AirshipJungleman29:

In the "Members" section of the article, only one member is cited as being part of the band. Can citations be added for the other members? Also, the Concert DVDs section is uncited. Z1720 (talk) 03:16, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

The citation, I understand, is for supporting the attribution of his position as "leader". Their memberships are already covered in more detail and cited under the Career section. Requiring further citations would probably just be redundant. --Paul_012 (talk) 05:09, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
@Paul 012: It is more difficult for the reader to verify information if they have to look for the member's name in a paragraph of prose than if it is cited in the Membership section. Also, WP:DYKCITE does not exempt citations for information that is cited further up in the article: it must be cited every time the information is given. Z1720 (talk) 15:49, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Looking right now, WP:DYKCITE says, "All content that could reasonably be challenged, except for plot summaries and that which summarizes cited content elsewhere in the article, must be cited no later than the end of the paragraph..." (emphasis added). Also, I'm well aware that the old supplementary guidelines used to suggest a one-inline-citation-per-paragraph rule of thumb (though it also contained the exception) and that many DYK regulars came to regard it as a requirement, but it is not, and should not be. --Paul_012 (talk) 16:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Citations for the concert DVDs have been added. lullabying (talk) 09:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Big Foot (Nicki Minaj song)

@MaranoFan, Sammi Brie, and Lightburst:

The article says "However, Minaj then claimed the song is not a diss track." The article also doesn't explicitly say that it is a diss track, only that Minaj disses Stallion in the song (which is not the same thing). With these combined together, I don't think the hook can run as-is. Z1720 (talk) 03:22, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

It feels like Blue Sky: "a diss track directed towards Megan, rapping "Bad bitch, she like 6 foot, I call her Bigfoot/The bitch fell off, I said 'Get up on your good foot'", referencing the 2020 shooting of Megan by Tory Lanez" She is being coy when denying it is a "diss" track. Also, 9 two of the references refer to it as a diss track. Lightburst (talk) 03:29, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Even if the artist denies it, enough reliable sources are calling it a diss track that we can probably say it is in wikivoice. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:33, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors cannot make a determination that a song is a diss track. However, if multiple sources say that this is a diss track, this should be explicitly stated in the article and cited, especially when the artist who wrote the song is claiming that it is not. Information about Minaj being coy can also be included in the article if the sources verify this.
Also, WP:BLUESKY is an essay, which "have no official status and do not speak for the Wikipedia community" (WP:ESSAY.) It does not supersede our verifiability policy, which states "Even if you are sure something is true, it must have been previously published in a reliable source before you can add it." If this is a diss track, it needs a citation to a reliable source. Z1720 (talk)
Understood - I am sure that MaranoFan will be able to explain or correct. ps. I added your sig. Lightburst (talk) 04:14, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The whole incident is covered in some detail in the "Background and release" section. It is true that Minaj denies it, but the song is considered a diss track by the music industry and community. The hook could be modified to say "that Nicki Minaj's song "Big Foot" is considered a diss track about Megan Thee Stallion?" and I think that would nicely solve the problem. Keep in mind, when this all went down it was extensively documented in real time, so it's not exactly clear why Minaj is denying it. Viriditas (talk) 04:28, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, it is definitely covered by secondary sources as a diss track towards MTS. It's actually Time magazine's headline in their article about its release. Minaj included MTS's picture in the announcement tweet and actually namedrops her in the song: "For a free beat, you could hit Megan raw." Viriditas's wording tweak looks like a good suggestion for some plausible deniability.--NØ 12:17, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
The "Background and release" section hints that the song is a diss track when it talks about Minaj previewing a diss track song. However, I cannot find where the article explicitly says that several reviews/sources consider it a diss track. This can be added to the "Composition" section, perhaps similar to how we source the genre of a song. Since Minaj denies this, the article can explain why sources do not agree with Minaj's assertion. Z1720 (talk) 15:45, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
Alright, this bit is now well-sourced in the Composition section. I am still open to the hook being amended to Viriditas's suggestion if necessary.--NØ 16:20, 18 February 2024 (UTC)
I hope you don't need it. You did a great job on this article. It's a pleasure to read. Viriditas (talk) 19:46, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I’ve created a new list of the first 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 26. We have a total of 266 nominations, of which 111 have been approved, a gap of 155 nominations that has decreased by 13 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than two months old

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) 17:13, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

MOS:MONEY in hook? Queue 1 Nomination

Wondering if the hook "... that it cost the city of Kent, Washington, $7.2 million to complete a trail around Clark Lake Park?" should use US$7.2 million. I think the article should also use US$ at the first occurrence per MOS:MONEY so I added that to the article. Bruxton (talk) 19:42, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Nobody answered so I will go to errors with the question. Bruxton (talk) 00:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Prep 5

I got some flack the last time I promoted a prep with two sports hooks in it, so I'm thinking maybe I shouldn't promote a prep with two pregnancy hooks in it? RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I think you are ok, one is about a song. Lightburst (talk) 18:20, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
Even though it could be argued that they're about different sphere, it might be better to move one of the two pregnancy hooks later on in case someone notices it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:19, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
 Done I will move one right now. Lightburst (talk) 00:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

A/B testing

In any kind of marketing system, there's support for experiments. For example, if I'm buying ads on Facebook or Google, I'll write multiple versions of the ad and launch a campaign which automatically tries them all out, figures out which are performing the best, and then switches to showing those exclusively. If you've never done anything like this, it's a real eye opener. You sit around with your marketing group and fill whiteboards full of post-it notes of ad copy. Then you run them all and find out which ones actually work best. As often as not, it's a total surprise which ones fly and which ones sink. Only an idiot would commit their entire marketing budget to a single version of an ad without some kind of comparison testing.

It would be cool if we could do something like this with DYK. Instead of picking a hook, we pick several hooks. For the first hour (or whateber), we run them all, randomly displaying one or another to each user (let's assume for the moment there's technology to support that). Then the system switches to showing everybody whichever one tested the best in the first hour. Where "tested the best" means "generated the most clicks". RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I've also always thought that this would be worth trying :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:45, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

To clarify, are unit conversions mandatory in hooks?

For example, if a hook includes a figure in imperial units, is a conversion in metric units, and vice-versa, mandatory, or it should be on a case-by-case thing? MOS:CONVERT seems to suggest including conversions in articles, but WP:DYKG is silent if this applies to hooks as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

I think it is helpful because of the worldwide audience of the English Wikipedia. But I found that it is hit or miss. For instance when I looked back in our archived hooks to see if we always use e.g. A$88 or US$88 for money - it was sporadic. Bruxton (talk) 00:44, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
For context, Template:Did you know nominations/Imtiaz Qureshi has a hook proposed (based on a direct quote) and I was asking if it was necessary: 1. to specify that the figure is in Fahrenheit, and 2. if a conversion to Celsius is needed. For context, apparently India (where the subject is from) primarily uses Celsius, except for fevers where Fahrenheit is used instead. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:02, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
I would advocate pragmatism. When someone says 104-degree fever, I will venture a guess that everyone (irrespective of where they are from) will get that it is a very high fever. That level of understanding is sufficient for a hook. I will also venture a guess that no one is going to think it is 104-degree celsius regardless of where they are from. That said, there are places where we should add a conversion. e.g. see this hook Template:Did you know nominations/Arthur Lewis Hall. Here one needs to understand kms and miles. Hence, the conversion makes sense. Tl;dr: No need to codify pragmatism. Ktin (talk) 04:45, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Far be it from me to cry WP:CREEP at the drop of a hat, but i don't think this needs a formal answer. The MOS is presumed to apply to hooks in places where we don't routinely ignore it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:40, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
In this case, I guess it means the conversion is indeed needed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:30, 20 February 2024 (UTC)
No, it doesn’t mean that. Ktin (talk) 14:55, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Personally, I would suggest not. For a start (and to some extent, per CREEP) if rulez on it were needed, we'd have em by now. Secondly—and more practically—presumably, the template text would come out of the character limit (if it didn't, then it could materially alter the DYK MP layout). That would reduce the amount of interesting material the hook could contain in favour of an extraneous detail that, if the WP:READER is that interested (desirous!) to know, will go to the article to read. Hooks, after all, are meant to draw people to their articles rather than stand-alone. Cheers, ——Serial 15:17, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5

Music of Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance

@AirshipJungleman29, Kafoxe, Launchballer, and Gatoclass: I don't understand the hook. What does "geared" mean in this context? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 01:04, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29, Kafoxe, and Gatoclass: I understood the hook to mean "changes in response to what the player does".--Launchballer 01:26, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
RoySmith, I would have thought it was self-evident, but as that appears not to be the case, feel free to substitute ALT0. I trimmed it of problematic content after proposing ALT2 and was going to note that but decided it wasn't worth the bother, but since they both say exactly the same thing albeit in different words, ALT0 should do the job just as well. Gatoclass (talk) 08:39, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Done. RoySmith (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

Question about criteria

At WP:QPQ, it says "The consensus is that hook-for-hook reviewing is not acceptable in case of multiple nominations." What does this mean? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:00, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I've always understood that to mean that if you make five noms, and i make five noms, we can't just review all of each others' five for QPQs. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:02, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
So I assume that's also applicable for two-for-two, but not one-for-one theleekycauldron? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
No, what this means is that you can't do only a single QPQ review for a multi-article nomination; you need to review one article for each article bold link in your nomination. Once upon a time, the requirement was for a single QPQ per nomination, no matter how many bold-linked articles in the nomination. Fortunately, a thing of the past. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:24, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
So if it refers to archaic procedures, should it be removed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:30, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Since the clause only appears to be causing confusion, and the rule is probably clear enough without it, it might make sense to remove it now. Gatoclass (talk) 08:59, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
Removed. I agree that the rule is clear enough without it, and it's been a long time since we changed to article for article QPQs. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:50, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Format change

The current format isn't great and can be a little confusing to read. I propose instead of

Did you know ...

  • ... that Maruxa and Coralia Fandiño Ricart (statues pictured) became famous in Galicia because their bright, colourful outfits contrasted with the social repression of Francoist Spain?

we should do

Did you know?

  • Maruxa and Coralia Fandiño Ricart (statues pictured) became famous in Galicia because their bright, colourful outfits contrasted with the social repression of Francoist Spain.

The current format is a little confusing because as you read down the list, you aren't reading the "did you know" part over and over, but each entry ends with a question mark, so you're reading what feels like a statement but at the end has a question mark. Just something that has bugged me for a while.
eduardog3000 (talk) 22:08, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Strong oppose. The current format works, is catchy, and is the whole point of Did you know. The proposal just directly gives a fact but doesn't encourage readers to read more, nor does it catch attention. It can work for other parts of the encyclopedia, but not Did you know itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:31, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK move request question

I've been holding off on doing a DYK nomination because Cupressus guadalupensis is still part of a (still not closed) move request. My own fault. I started the move request and then got really interested in improving the page. Will it screw things up if I nominate it? I've got four more days where the page is eligible since I started the expansion on 17th of February. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 00:36, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Looks like there’s consensus for the move and it’s time for someone to close the discussion so you can move forward. Maybe request a close? Viriditas (talk) 00:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@Viriditas Thanks. I had not thought that I could goose the closing process for a requested move and that I just needed to wait. Posted a question and it was rapidly closed and moved. So now I've got my DYK in. Onwards to more reviews and edits! 🌿MtBotany (talk) 04:06, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
An article having an open move request is not disqualified from DYK. The important thing is that the nomination page is not moved, but the article itself can be moved even with an open discussion, and any links can just be fixed during the discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:18, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
While it's true that moving an article isn't fatal, it is kind of annoying. My suggestion is that we give a bit of extra leeway on the 7-day window until the move request is sorted out. RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Missing entries from best of all time

Is it intentional that Hitler_teapot was excluded from Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/All-time DYK pageview leaders. I was looking at the stats and it looks like Hitler_teapot beat most of the items on the page when it was on DYK see stats. It got over 270k views? Was it intentionally excluded? is this a common occurrence? BrokenSegue 05:53, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

That page isn't automatically updated, and is woefully out of date. First step is to standardize the templating, second step is to have GalliumBot take over updating. Wouldn't hold your breath, though :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:59, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

All queues are empty

I've done the admin reviews for the first couple of hooks in Prep 6 but don't have time to do the whole lot. New update is due in 21 hours. Schwede66 02:55, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I believe at one point there was a suggestion of letting non-admins do prep-to-queue?--Launchballer 08:54, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

DYK tools

Is there a list of tools useful for DYK somewhere on the DYK pages? Should there be? I have downloaded several, such as User:SD0001/DYK-helper, but there are probably more. TSventon (talk) 12:35, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7: Hsinchu Kuang-Fu Senior High School (nom)

@Yue: The list of principals is unsourced, both here and on zhwiki (where Cheng Hsiao-ming=程曉銘 has apparently been replaced by a caretaker principal). Suggest removal of the list unless it can be sourced before the article hits the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 21:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

@Kusma: Let's remove it until I add a source. Yue🌙 21:03, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Renominate Waluigi for DYK

I would like to renominate Waluigi for DYK now that it has passed GA. The previous nomination failed due to a poor GA review. I was told that once it was reassessed and passed to GA, the article could be renominated, but I'm not sure how to renominate it. Previous nom here Template:Did you know nominations/Waluigi. Fieryninja (talk) 09:28, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Manually, is the short answer. I'd find an unreviewed previous revision of the nom, copy that over to (for example) Template:Did you know nominations/Waluigi (2nd nomination), and add it to T:TDYK.--Launchballer 09:44, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Queue 6

James Townsend (abolitionist) (nom)

@Chetsford, Paul 012, and AirshipJungleman29: As a matter of process, I've bumped this because I was involved in a discussion about it at the lower level. As a matter of principle, I'd note that the hook should be pulled entirely because there was no consensus to approve it based on the WT:DYK thread. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:33, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

As far as I remember, the WT:DYK thread found issues with the content of the article, which has since been significantly altered and refocused. I do not recall any issues with approving the hook, just whether the article was suitable. I might be misremembering, though. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I usually use "approving the hook" and "approving the nomination" synonymously; i think NLH5 and my concern about the article being full of holes remains, although I'm not wanting to fight particularly hard for it. I will say that the hook should attribute inline if the article does. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:02, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I interpreted NLH5's comment as saying that they thought these issues were resolved. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:07, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Eh, I guess I skated over it as being more of a deference, but I'll grant that I don't think there'd be procedural grounds to strike the approval in light of that comment. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:09, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify, yes my concerns about the article not being primarily about Townsend had already been resolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:19, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Steven A. Shaw (nom)

@Thriley and BuySomeApples: article has bare URLs (on some level, I kinda don't care, but guideline is guideline) and could use a stiff copyedit to make it less of a hagiographical list. The bit of flowery prose ("truly enjoy"/"loved") is sourced to an article that similarly looks to be written by a friend, although a journalist as well. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:12, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

In this case, I think “loved” is truly sincere. I can probably back it with a bunch of other sourcing that describes his work as rooted in a love of food/restaurants. Seems to be a few just from a quick search. Thriley (talk) 12:38, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

I Want You (SB19 song) (nom)

@Relayed, Gatoclass, and Queen of Hearts: Well, QoH, I'm sorry to ding you on one of your first promotions for this, but, like... aren't a lot of music videos very "out there" by nature? I'm not sure I'd classify as this as a DYKINT pass. (This is also partially me grumbling about how godawful music journalism is for highlighting anything interesting or encyclopedic about music qua music, but that's not your problem). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:21, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Well I rarely watch music videos anymore, so I don't know how "out there" they have become, but certainly I've never seen one shot underwater so I thought it was unusual enough to be interesting. Apart from that, finding an interesting fact from an article about adenoidal kids moaning about their lust would probably be a challenge, so I figured "music video shot underwater" was about as close to interesting as one was likely to get. Gatoclass (talk) 12:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
+1, unless music videos have gone crazy the last few years, I've never seen a underwater music video, and it seems interesting enough to me. Open to alts, of course. (please Reply to icon mention me on reply) Queen of Hearts (talk • stalk • she/they) 15:50, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
+1 Lightburst (talk) 18:34, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. As with others in this thread, this is my first seeing one shot underwater. But after searching, I realized there had been multiple music videos with similar themes, one notably being "Runnin' (Lose It All)", that featured Beyonce.
I'm open to switching the hook with something else if necessary; here are the alternative hooks I propose:
Note that ALT2's information was just added in the latest revision of the article (so I'm not sure if we can use that, knowing that there is a 7-day policy). There are not a lot of other interesting things from the article in my POV, so hopefully, the alternatives would suffice, but if not, then I would be fine if the article would not run in DYK altogether. – Relayed(né Abacusada) (t • c) 19:52, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I'm the approver but both of these look fine to me, although I'd prefer ALT1. Queen of Hearts (talk • stalk • she/they) 00:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
Having never heard of Rigo before or knowing how well-known he is, I am skeptical about ALT1, while ALT2 seems pedestrian as it without context. I'd like to hear more views about ALT1 though. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:45, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: cards on the table, my frame of reference is that it must be a common enough trope that Tom Scott's parody/deconstruction of music videos starts and ends with him underwater in a nice suit. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:00, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
The ALTs look okay-ish to me, but somebody will need to verify them. But it's as I said, you are unlikely to get a great hook out of a boy band single article, so it's probably just as well to stick with the original hook. Gatoclass (talk) 18:56, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Wendell Steavenson (nom)

@Thriley, Toobigtokale, and Rjjiii: I mean, I don't love that I'm suddenly starting to care quite a bit about the most subjective criteria, but this looks to me like a DYKINT fail and a DYKCOMPLETE fail. The article is basically a hagiographical timeline, and the hook seems to be just a literal description of the contents of one of the books she's written? Again, I don't love being a hardass for things that easy to complain about, hard to fix, and harder to define, but any kind of meaningful quality control would have to yellow-flag this one. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:26, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for giving it a look over, feedback is appreciated. I agree the article edges close to or is a WP:DYKCOMPLETE issue. Based on a few quick searches on Steavenson the article doesn't seem to be missing skeptical information about her, but it certainly is missing some easily-accessible biographical information. The hook I can see your point that it could use some improvement, although I personally initially thought an intellectual draw was that both those events happened around Tahrir Square. Maybe if the article is expanded I could brainstorm another with the nominators.
I think you're right that some work would be needed on the article before it should go to DYK. I'm not an expert on the process for what to do; should we fail it or should we offer time for improvement? toobigtokale (talk) 11:04, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I should have some time today to flesh it out more. Definitely should have more on each one of her books. Thriley (talk) 12:27, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
I've seen the changes, but they seem a bit minor. But being fair to Thriley, I've now skimmed like 10-15 news articles about Steavenson, and the Wikipedia article seems to have most of the important information. Furthermore, the articles themselves are often overtly complimentary. Just seems like this is what's out there. Maybe some info from here can be included, but it's all minor details and still complimentary.
I'm willing to move towards approval of the article. For the hook, @Thriley and @Rjjiii do you have any ideas for alternates? toobigtokale (talk) 00:54, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
@Toobigtokale: Perhaps a tweak to the original hook that replaces "which were centered around Cairo's Tahrir Square" with something to note that the author lived through these events herself. My personal opinion of the original hook as passing may be based on my background growing up in the Deep South. Egypt is very well-known from scripture, but I've met many people with relatively little knowledge about the modern country. I will also take a look to see if I can find any additional biographical information later today. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 15:15, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
The other issue is that the reviewer approved their own hook, although it doesn’t seem like a big deal as it just improved the original wording of the nom’s hook. But it does raise a question that I’ve been grappling with as a reviewer: at what point do we cross the line from reviewer to hook writer needing a new reviewer? Viriditas (talk) 18:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Hooks get reviewed at least one more time afterwards by at least one more person: people who actually prepare the hook for queues for the front page. Case in point, this talk page post is functionally an additional review of the hook. This is my opinion, but I feel like the admin overhead of requesting yet another reviewer each time the first reviewer proposes a modified hook may prolong most review processes. toobigtokale (talk) 19:39, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
No need to explain, I'm all for it. My question is at what point does the modified hook require a new reviewer? Is it when it deviates from the original format and topic of the nominator's hook and presents a novel formulation? I'm asking so that I can expedite more reviews without crossing the line. Viriditas (talk) 19:42, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
@Viriditas: as a general rule of thumb, if a new proposed hook has any parts that require reverification, then that'll need a new reviewer. but if all the facts have already been approved, that's fine. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:56, 23 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Apologies for taking this discussion off topic. Viriditas (talk) 19:58, 23 February 2024 (UTC)

Requesting third opinion

I've nominated the article Milkrun for DYK and have provided two hooks that the reviewer doesn't believe is interesting, which I don't agree with. Granted that the first hook fails WP:DYKHFC, I would appreciate if another editor can decide if these hooks are interesting or not. —Panamitsu (talk) 04:57, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Don’t sweat it my friend. That reviewer is like that with everyone. It’s an initiation of sorts. Just keep coming up with new hooks instead of holding the line. It will force you to come up with even better ones and the reviewer will have to accept it at a reasonable point in time. Viriditas (talk) 05:42, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
For what it's worth the original hook was okay but could be improved: P-Makoto's proposed ALTs are better, but I'm not sure about ALT3's "ran out of business" wording. Is that an Australian phrase? I've never heard "ran out" used in that sense, I've only ever seen "went out of business. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I've never heard it either. Viriditas (talk) 23:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
The phrase is often in the passive voice, as in "we got run out of business".
  • I kept encountering women-run businesses that were acquired by a bigger company owned by a man, or run out of business Time magazine
  • Galveston shrimpers being run out of business KHOU-11
  • With colleges staying shut, hostels, PGs across Kolkata run out of business Times of India
P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 01:45, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
There is an implication that some other entity was the cause of the closure with "run out of business" that is not there when you use a more neutral phrase like "went out of business". Based on the article, the problems leading to the closure seemed to be self-inflicted (not a sufficiently robust business plan combined with not enough revenue from people using the service in a market where there was plenty of competition), so "ran out of business" is not truly appropriate here, P-Makoto. Please change it. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:05, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Let's take it easy, please. As is visible on the nomination page, the recommendation to not use "ran out of business" was well taken, and the only hooks on the table for approval, ALT2 and ALT4, don't use any variation on the phrase "run out of business". P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 02:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Vami IV

I don't know if people here are aware, but Vami IV died a few days ago (see User talk:Vami IV for further details). He has at least one nomination going through DYK at the moment. It would be appreciated by many if this and any other of his noms are moved through the process smoothly. - SchroCat (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Vami IV was a good editor. I was sorry to hear about this. I noticed that I had a hold on a nomination for the hook. I just went back and learned that @Gerda Arendt: had submitted a new hook that I thought met the interesting component so I removed the stop. Bruxton (talk) 13:33, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
It's on the Main page now. A FAC is open. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Thank you @Gerda Arendt:. Someday I would like to get involved with FAC. For now I am working in GAN and I very much enjoy the processes and the results. Bruxton (talk) 23:28, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
For me it's the opposite. I don't do GA reviewing because one reviewer has to do the complete review, and as not a native speaker, I'm not sure enough of the prose. In a Fac, however, anybody can supply comments, short or lengthy. This is an extremely short article. Everybody: read it, and if you find something towards improvement, bring it to the FAC. It helps in FAC circles if you get known as a reviewer, on top of improving the article. WP:QAI person talking. Vami was a great member, much missed. - Different question: he didn't get DYK credit, - I did it manually. I don't understand why. He got FA credit after he died. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

Frankee Connolly

@Launchballer, Mach61, and AirshipJungleman29: There is a cite error for ref 8. This is the ref that is used to support the hook's claim, so this will need to be resolved. Z1720 (talk) 22:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Fixed.--Launchballer 22:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

I don't get the hook:

As I don't know what Xenomania is, I have no idea why I should care. —Kusma (talk) 22:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

This seems like an easy fix:
  • ... that singer Frankee Connolly (pictured) signed to songwriting team Xenomania and took her first singing lessons – in that order?
How unexpected that this singer took her first singing lessons after joining a team that made songs! (rather than having taken many singing lessons in the past.) Was there a natural talent at play? But then why did she need lessons? Did Xenomania think she was a subpar singer in need of improvement but still have her sign on for other reasons? I want to find out. Consider me intrigued and clicking to learn more about this Connolly. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
I'd change 'singer' to either 'the singer' or leave 'singer' out altogether - context should make it clear what she is.--Launchballer 12:14, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Original hook looks fine to me - it should be clear from the context that Xenomania is a music production company. Gatoclass (talk) 18:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

It really isn't. You have to either know that Connolly is a singer or use the meta-knowledge that this is supposed to be surprising, from which you can then infer that either Connolly or Xenomania might have something to do with music. —Kusma (talk) 10:29, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
"Signed to" is a phrase most commonly used for musicians signing to record labels, and the allusion is confirmed by the mention of her taking singing lessons, so it seems to me that all the necessary information is there, and in an admirably brief form. Certainly, I think it's going to be a struggle coming up with a different wording that isn't repetitive and ponderous, as the proposed alt indicates. So I would still prefer to see the original hook run as is. Gatoclass (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

A lighter look at "the oldest ..." hooks

I've ranted from time to time about hooks that say "the first" or "the oldest", or whatever. I found this video amusing: https://youtube.com/shorts/aAiWTo2wUgk?si=UK_OVf-B42okn10a. If I'm lucky, that URL won't be blacklisted... RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

I cam across dendrochronology when working on Maison de Jeanne. Bruxton (talk) 15:20, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

The Red Moon (Johnson and Cole) can we run ASAP?

Hi all, I was hoping this would get picked in time to run during Black History Month which is now almost over. Any way we could swap an upcoming hook with this one so it can be featured during February? 4meter4 (talk) 19:52, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

GAN backlog drive starting in March

In March, GAN is running a backlog drive. This can cause an influx of DYK nominations of recently promoted GAs and activate DYK's two-sets-a-day mode. @DYK admins: please monitor DYK and promote queues when you can. Editors, if you can review some noms now, this will help reduce the backlog at WP:DYKN Thanks everyone! Z1720 (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I also encourage everybody to review GAs just as carefully as they would review any other submission. GA occasionally lets some sub-standard articles slip through, and that's especially true during backlog drives when there's lots of new reviewers. RoySmith (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

It’s been over a week since Lowercase sigmabot III archived this DYK talk page, and since the previous list of older nominations is mostly used up, I’ve created a new list of the first 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 8. We have a total of 286 nominations, of which 105 have been approved, a gap of 181 nominations that has increased by 26 over the past 10 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Cecelia Hall (mezzo-soprano) (nom) In prep 2

@AirshipJungleman29 I don’t think this should have passed a DYK review. The artist is not the primary subject of a single independent reference, and the article is mostly built from sources which are directly connected to the subject such as artist bios at places where she was employed or at schools she attended. The referencing as demonstrated in the article would not pass WP:GNG; although it’s certainly possible there are independent refs that are in existence that have not been cited. Further, I am not sure about the quality of seenandheard-international.com as a source. The Bachtrack review is really the only quality independent ref used, and it isn’t majorly about Ms. Hall. Regardless we shouldn’t be promoting articles built largely from non-independent sources. @Gerda Arendt as a seasoned DYK contributor and WP:WikiProject Opera member you should know better. This is the kind of mistake I would expect from someone new to Wikipedia. We don’t build articles from artist bios written by PR people for opera companies or talent agents. They lack independence, lack attributed authors, and may even be written by the subjects themselves if they have not been written by a paid PR rep. 4meter4 (talk) 01:10, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

4meter4, a DYK review does not check for notability. Feel free to nominate the article for AfD; that is the easiest way to resolve the question. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:39, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29 That’s a poor understanding of what I said. How is having WP:VERIFIABILITY issues not a DYK compliance issue? You can’t seriously be telling me that an article not built from independent sources meets the policy compliance requirement of a DYK review at WP:DYKCITE. This article should be pulled from prep immediately.4meter4 (talk) 01:44, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
Feel free to do so yourself 4meter4; I am now away from my computer and manipulating hooks is tricky. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I don’t know how. I don’t get involved with moving items in preps and queues.4meter4 (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 Thank you. It wouldn't be my preference to take this to AFD, as I think it is highly likely that there will be reviews from the various orchestra and opera concerts in newspapers and magazines that could be used to verify the content. These are major orchestras and opera houses that regularly have their performances reviewed in the press. This is really more of a need to replace the non-independent bio references (written by the subject or their talent management agency) from the orchestra and opera company websites with independent secondary references, and the need to replace the one questionable ezine with a review from a better publication. It shouldn't be that hard to find independent critical reviews in high quality sources such as The New York Times, Opera News, and Süddeutsche Zeitung, etc. to verify the same content. We just need to give Gerda time to do it.4meter4 (talk) 02:52, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
For example, it took me less than a minute to find a review of the opera production mentioned in the hook in Frankfurter Rundschau; which is far preferable over the current source which is basically a glorified blog. I could change out all the sources myself but I am in the middle of several of my own projects.4meter4 (talk) 03:12, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
I would say that an article in which the subject "is not the primary subject of a single independent reference" would deserve {{notability}}, which would disqualify it here.--Launchballer 23:50, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer You certainly could raise that issue at Talk:Cecelia Hall (mezzo-soprano) and place a notability tag on the article. I was hoping that by addressing the problem of over reliance on primary sources, which I have done in conversation with Gerda at Talk:Cecelia Hall (mezzo-soprano)#Sourcing issues, that the notability issue would resolve too. Gerda has agreed to add secondary sources, so it is possible that the potential notability problem will resolve as secondary sources are added.4meter4 (talk) 01:02, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 I also didn't care for the hook. The content of the hook was more about the opera and Mozart than it was about the singer who is the subject of the article. It was awkwardly worded and essentially boiled down to opera singer sings lead part in Mozart opera with a bunch of asides on Mozart and the opera which isn't all that interesting and not at all focused on Hall. Most professional opera singers perform roles in Mozart operas because he is a standard part of the opera repertory. One reason the hook is bad is because the sourcing isn't great and there isn't much content to pull from to create a good hook. I'm hopeful that as sources are added, the article will improve and a better hook can be crafted (preferably something about Hall directly). Best.4meter4 (talk) 00:48, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
... that American mezzo-soprano Cecelia Hall portrayed the lead male role in Mozart's Ascanio in Alba?
I'm not sure if this is the best wording, but the idea is to emphasize that Hall played a male role in the opera, which is probably the actual interesting part here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:09, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
  • I see this thread only now. I have 5 or so better references in my sandbox, but have a life. Does anybody think Ascanio could be understood as the name of a woman??? Do you think that the information that Mozart wrote this at age 15 is not interesting? 4meter4 kindly added references, and I will now add mine. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:14, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
    I think 4meter4's main issue with the age 15 thing is that it's more about Ascanio in Alba rather than Hall herself. Ideally hooks should focus primarily on the bolded article and should avoid irrelevant information whenever possible. See WP:DYKG: avoid hooks that are primarily about an incident the subject is only tangentially related to. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:27, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
    I understand that, but still think that the word "male" in your proposal is redundant. If someone appeared as Madama Butterfly, you wouldn't add "female", or would you? She has played trouser roles a lot, also Cherubino, - that was actually the first role in which I saw her. - First ref added, FAZ, leading German daily. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
    4meter4 removed the ref tags. I'll keep adding things in German. There's this for anybody who is questioning her notability, which could also be added. I suggest to discuss hook alternatives in the nomination. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:42, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
    Honestly Gerda as someone who isn't familiar with opera, I wouldn't assume that Ascanio was even a person's name, let alone knowing it's the name of the male lead, so I think it's fair to call out explicitly in the hook. We could reword to mention it's a trouser/breeches role rather than saying "male". So:
    ♠PMC♠ (talk) 13:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    That's a bit better, but will be another word the general reader doesn't know. Why not give them instead that this was an early work by Mozart? Anyway, I suggested to discuss hooks in the nomination. It would have been nice that when opening that again it would also have been put back into the noms needing a review. She performed many such roles, I just found Ascanio the most unusual, compared to Cherubino, Serse and the other. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:14, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    ps: she'll be Carmen in May, for a change, for those questioning notability. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:15, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    What does the opera being an early work by Mozart have to do with Ms. Hall though? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:34, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    Can we please discuss hook matters in the nom? - 200 chars are too short to say that she can credible portray a male character (with a little beard) who is an adolescent going to get married because his mother (Venus) wants it so, with the music of an adolescent composer, all commissioned by the Empress for the actual wedding of one of her many sons. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:56, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    That's what the article is for, it doesn't have to be in the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:50, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Update. I took it upon myself to resource the article to secondary sources, and I expanded the article significantly. I also proposed a new hook. It's now in much better shape.4meter4 (talk) 13:41, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_197&oldid=1212770043"