Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 202

< Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Latest comment: 11 days ago by Crisco 1492 mobile in topic Template:Did you know/Preparation area 7
Archive 195←Archive 200Archive 201Archive 202Archive 203

Page types for DYK

Latest comment: 1 month ago17 comments8 people in discussion

Something I noticed, having just joined up to DYK is the weird disorganisation of the page structures. It's not particularly important given it works, but it's just something I've seen. The page structures seem to be made out of earwax glue and redirects. What I mean by this is the odd structures of pages in that it's a total guessing game whether a page is going to be a Wikipedia:, a Wikipedia talk:, or a Template:, or a Template talk:, or a sub-page of any of those. I get that the system has evolved over time with bits being added on as required but it doesn't seem to be a totally efficient method.

To illustrate my point, I'll give an example: Approved nominations are held on Template talk:Did you know/Approved – this isn't a template (the template page redirects back to the template talk page) and why is it a sub-page of the un-approved nominations in Template talk:Did you know? Why not Wikipedia talk:Did you know approved or even just Wikipedia:Approved DYK hooks. And Template talk:Did you know itself doesn't make sense because it's just the talk page of the main-page template. You click on the hook and this is a template. Fair enough, this is a template, but it makes it harder to edit because DiscussionTools doesn't work on template pages and so source mode has to be used, even though the reply buttons appear on the Template talk page.

Or for another example, take the queues. Template:Did you know/Queue is a template (despite not being used as a template) and a sub-page of the template displayed on the main page for whatever reason - Why not just Wikipedia:Did you know queue since nobody actually needs to edit the page, as it's basically all templates?

Not sure if this even needs fixing as it all works, but still it's just something I've noticed. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 10:30, 25 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this is something people have complained above for years and years. The difficulty is that there are so many templates and bots and links that rely on the current page structure that it's not really worth the time and effort to fix. It's the same reason the Main Page is technically in article space despite not being an article—too much effort to fix, and not enough reward. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:35, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I think it would not be too hard, but nobody really understands the entire interdependence of all of the bots so some people are afraid to break something. I vote for any change that allows use of the "reply" function in DYK nominations. —Kusma (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, please. Reply FTW! RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Shifting nominations to the Wikipedia space should allow that, and the relevant individuals future-proofed their bots/scripts for such a move a couple of years ago if I recall correctly. It may also be a change that can be made as an isolated step, without figuring out the Approved/Queue template spaces. CMD (talk) 15:22, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps. But how would this be actioned? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 17:16, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
We'd need a very small group of people with the relevant tech knowledge to assume full responsibility for implementation, then we'd need a community process to agree specifically to the implementation and to the moment of implementation, and then we'd likely need a minor period of chaos anyway. CMD (talk) 01:08, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I (very much) don't want to own the process, but I'd be happy to be part of a smallish group that re-engineered all the DYK duct-tape. Having multiple people who knew how all the moving parts worked would be a good thing. RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
CMD, this was attempted a few years ago, see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 179#Namespace transition master plan. Generally, lots of people talk, but there's a lack of action, and a lack of followthrough. Shubinator (talk) 01:53, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking of! The lack of followthrough is why there needs to be a small group in control. It's not the sort of thing that works on a diffuse community level. CMD (talk) 02:06, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
While I see that its odd that DYK noms are using the template namespace, I can live with that. There are so many articles placed in userspace rather than articlespace, and same can be said for a draft representing an article. JuniperChill (talk) 15:43, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
The namespace chaos is a barrier to entry for new recruits. The huge collection of rules makes DYK complicated enough. The namespace issue is just another layer of confusion on top of that. RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Count your blessings and be careful what you wish for. WP:ITN puts all its nominations onto the same page with an unusual top-posting convention. This then has to be archived and the archives are humongous. You can use the reply function but people then tend to use this to add !votes and this disrupts their indentation.
ITN, DYK and other noticeboards and projects all have their own idiosyncrasies. In a few decades, perhaps the WMF will have standardised on a common forum format. Or perhaps everything will be done by AI bots...
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
  The robots are coming! But votes aren't used for DYK, as there's only a single reviewer. DYK already has archives (I think) so this could stay as-is. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 10:41, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
If you make it easier to reply then guess what you're going to get -- more replies! This will tend to generate more hubbub and you may then find that this gets in the way of getting things done. This is ITN's big problem and so they only post a single new blurb every two days or so. DYK currently posts 9+ every day and so we should measure the effect of this change on DYK's productivity. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
That's speculation. There's nothing stopping people from doing that now, other than a slightly different UI. Plus, I think that making something more accessible couldn't possibly be worse for the project.
It would be incredibly difficult to make any measurements about productivity changes as a result and I'm not sure it would be warranted. Perhaps it's because ITN posts less often the posts generate more activity, which wouldn't be the case for DYK DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 18:35, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
In a few decades, perhaps the WMF will have standardised on a common forum format. They already have. See WP:FLOW. It was not well received on enwiki. RoySmith (talk) 12:44, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Prep 5

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Pesto (penguin)

Pesto (penguin) now has an image, would it be possible to change his hook into an image hook? I know that Prep 5 already has an image hook, so if necessary, it's ok to move Pesto to later. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Reopened. Will explain myself at Template:Did you know nominations/Pesto (penguin).--Launchballer 15:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Dezik and Tsygan

@Di (they-them): Hi, I just promoted this but made a bold edit of changing "earth" to the uppercase in this edit. I had to inform you here because I forgot I was supposed to ping nominators in the edit summary informing them of changes, however small, on their hooks. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks :) Di (they-them) (talk) 16:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, thank you for notifying the nominator! It's really a helpful thing to do and prevents a ton of drama here on this talk. Valereee (talk) 16:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Prep 4

Latest comment: 1 month ago7 comments4 people in discussion

@AirshipJungleman29, you've replaced an existing credit, again, while promoting. BorgQueen (talk) 03:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron This keeps happening. Why is that? BorgQueen (talk) 03:20, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Interestingly enough, there are three different reasons this happened three different times! I've fixed the one that came up here – that one was actually my fault. The bit of code that detects hooks in prep had a bug that prevented detection of hooks with an apostrophe in the piped text. The previous two were the result of the nomination being formatted badly; in one, the hook didn't have a boldlink (how did that get past a reviewer and promoter?) and in the other, the article was moved and the credit wasn't updated to match. Both of these interfere with the script's ability to match hooks to credits, and it currently removes unmatched credits in order to keep the prep tidy (should probably figure out something better to do with them). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:45, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I can assure you it wasn't on purpose. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Of course it wasn't. WP:AGF. BorgQueen (talk) 10:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
because it was my purpose. hehehehe... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:07, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
thesneakycauldron Valereee (talk) 16:55, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Re: Manhood

Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Per nominator: Noting that with Missouri's polls opening October 23 and in accordance with WP:DYKELECT: if approved, this will have to appear no later than September 23 or be held until after the 2024 United States Senate election in Missouri, to November 6.

Should this be left in the current queue, rejected, or put somewhere else? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 23:34, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

Viriditas, we usually put hooks that fall under DYKELECT into the special occasion section in an "after X date" header so they won't be promoted while the election is ongoing. In this case, an "After November 7" header makes the most sense, since polls will still be open on November 6 for the first few hours UTC. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
There's already an approved hook at Approved for Allison Reese which mentions Kamala. It should probably go in with that.--Launchballer 01:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
These later election hooks will probably need a lot of scrutiny due to political polarization. This one has a clause that frames Josh Hawley as treasonous. The NYT source there says his publisher dropped him for support of attempts to overturn the 2020 United States presidential election, and specifically hedges on the January 6 United States Capitol attack. Criticism of the book is frequently very negative, mocking Hawley for initially supporting the mob before "running for his life" like a "bitch", so any hook will have a hard time balancing WP:NPOV and WP:DYKBLP. Rjjiii (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
To clarify: nominations do not move to the special occasion section until they have been approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. That's what I was asking. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 9. We have a total of 274 nominations, of which 130 have been approved, a gap of 144 nominations that has increased by 4 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Why is it deemed OK to be misleading in DYK hooks?

Latest comment: 1 month ago16 comments13 people in discussion

On the Giorgina Reid DYK nomination, it was approved with "The hook is intended to be misleading/provoking, but I think it's appropriate given that she wrote a book titled How To Hold Up a Bank."

DYK is not buzzfeed or some form of internet tabloid, it's supposed to have interesting hooks that are accurate. 2A0E:CB01:72:B200:189:FFA8:B07A:BB0D (talk) 13:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The last slot in each set is traditionally given greater latitude. See WP:QUIRKY. RoySmith (talk) 13:40, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
You can have a humorous or wacky hook that isn't a lie. 2A0E:CB01:72:B200:189:FFA8:B07A:BB0D (talk) 13:59, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
  Moved from WP:ERRORS
  • ... that Giorgina Reid patented a technique for holding up banks?

Not according to the article she didn't. Reid originally developed the reed-trench terracing technique to fortify her ocean cottage in Rocky Point following a 1962 nor'easter storm. The system protected her house the following year and then her neighbors' afterwards. Reid patented the system in 1965, and wrote a book titled How To Hold Up a Bank Or are we using "holding up" here in the sense of "fortifying", because if so that's really misleading, even for a quirky. Black Kite (talk) 14:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

The article wasn't clear enough - the name of the book is a play on words, as it's about shoreline protection, ie, "banks" meaning, for example, a sandbank.
I have edited the article to clarify the issue. The hook is actually quite clever IMO as it's both accurate and amusing. Gatoclass (talk) 16:04, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I also find the hook fine, it's perhaps misleading in the sense that it plays with expectations, but it doesn't do that in a way that's inaccurate. CMD (talk) 16:18, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree the hook is fine, but the article is a bit misleading because the section ends with "Twenty-six years ago she said it could be done. It's done" in 1996, but according to Montauk Point Light further work was needed in 2006 and $44 million was spent on renewing protection from 2021 to 2023. TSventon (talk) 16:21, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I like the hook, too. Valereee (talk) 16:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

Thats a really funny hook, I wish more were like that. If its misleading its in a harmless way. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:29, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It's misleading in the right way - because it's both 100% accurate, and misleading in the kind of way that will make people laugh when they realize how they've been fooled. And yes, hooks that good are always in short supply :) Gatoclass (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I would say more playfully ambiguous than misleading, but yeah this is the sort of thing that brings people joy Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

It's a play on words. It's a joke. It got me to click on the article earlier, and I had a great laugh and a more pleasant morning. DYK is a trivia-about-recently-created-or-updated-articles section that exists for the fun of readers and editors. A reader who checks DYK on the regular has an expectation that it'll be silly every now and then, not that it'll be constantly dour and humorless. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:57, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@Hydrangeans: right on. Every time this comes up, I feel like I'm in a conversation that goes like this:
      "Hey, it says 'gullible' on the ceiling."
                          looks up: "No, it says 'gullible on the ceiling' on the ceiling."
      "Aha, gotcha! Hahahaha! See, because it says 'gullible' on the ceiling... get it?"
                          "It doesn't say 'gullible' on the ceiling."
      "Right, it's a play on words! And also on you being gullible."
                          "But it's not funny. It doesn't just say 'gullible', it says something entirely different. Why did you lie to me?"
      "That's the joke."
                          "The joke is that you're lying?"
      "It's not lying, I'm just trying to have fun! Besides, it really does say 'gullible'."
                          "I trust you to tell the truth. I don't see why you're lying. You can be funny without lying."
      "Okay, jeez, guess you're not into jokes."
Tabloids and clickbait have a bad reputation because they promise a good read with lies and then give you boringness or slop or more lies. That's not what's happening here. We're promising a good read and then the conclusion – despite it not being what you expected, which is not the same as it being untrue – is still satisfying! Because wordplay is fun! And if you think it isn't fun, well, you don't have to have fun if you don't want to. But I'm going to keep being fun. Great hook, Legoktm, keep 'em coming :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
It's a great hook, and it's something I can only strive for in the future. Viriditas (talk) 21:54, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Thirded. Clever hook, really fun. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Thanks all, I appreciate the support and am glad y'all also enjoyed the play on words. Will do my best on future quirky hooks :) Legoktm (talk) 00:05, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Monthly wrap

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've released a (pretty barebones) monthly wrap for DYK September 2024. Feel free to check it out and give me any feedback - thanks! DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:27, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Moving namespace to Wikipedia: (v3)

Latest comment: 1 month ago40 comments11 people in discussion

In response to my previous discussion regarding this, I will be carrying out a plan to move namespaces from the disorganised state of the page structures to a more structured approach. The rationale for the plan can be found here but to be brief, the current structure can be very confusing to newcomers. Planned moving of namespaces has taken place before twice, the other two having been in 2021. Second discussion, first discussion, previous plan.

Pages to be moved + destination (feedback welcome!)

  • All active nomination templates moved to Wikipedia from Template
  • All new nomination templates created in Wikipedia, instead of Template

Criteria for success

  • Pages should be moved instead of created new to preserve edit histories
  • Disruption should be minimal, if any at all. DYK should continue to function throughout the namespace moves
  • New pages should follow a logical structure
Detailed changes for bots, etc. Copied from 2021 plan
Most of these bots will have to be updated by a volunteer (possible myself, depending) to make pull requests, or asking the maintainer to do it on-wiki.

ω Awaiting -> Message sent to bot maintainer, awaiting response
Critical

*Template:DYK conditions - simple - add case for wikipedia namespace as well. *Template:DYK tools

Non-critical

Really minor

Please do let me know if you have any feedback. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 10:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

maybe a more consistent approach?
Outside the box, I would argue that Template talk:Did you know and Template talk:Did you know/Approved should both be retired in favor of a single page with no transclusions that simply lists all the nominations and their statuses. Much, much easier to keep track of, much fewer moving parts, much more easily organized. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I think that Wikipedia:Did you know/Pending nominations and Wikipedia:Did you know/Approved nominations would work, should it be decided that separate pages are required. Perhaps a single page would be easier to maintain, but it might make promotions take just a little longer if promoters have to check whether a nomination has been passed, and then doing all the other promotion checks DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Outside the box
::I was debating whether or not to change the queue, given that it probably would make sense for it to be a sub-page, perhaps requires further thought. Prep areas would probably work as just Prep/x or Prep x given that nobody actually calls them "Preparation areas". DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:18, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I was thinking the single page would just be a table with "Nomination page", "Date of expansion", "Nominator", "Status" (one of the Symbols), "Last nominator comment" (timestamp), "Last non-nominator comment" (timestamp), and "Notes" (for date requests and the like) as the headings. Might mockup an example... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:27, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
So long as I can still Ctrl+F my username and still be able to toggle between nominations that specifically require my attention.--Launchballer 11:36, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer: well, no, but you can always search incategory:"Pending DYK nominations" "Launchballer", if that's any help? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:43, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps this can be added as a custom search-bar at the top DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
or we can still maintain a transclusion of all the nominations and have a separate list page for at-a-glance stuff. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:44, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Search results aren't then in order. The transclusion pages should be kept.--Launchballer 11:50, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it would be a good idea to have all nominations in one page. There's a reason they were split in the first place: there were just too many nominations that it was causing loading problems. Similar to the current issues the pages have when there are too many transclusions, though I imagine now it would be on a greater scale. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
But on this page nominations wouldn't be transcluded, they'd just be linked DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:47, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Sounds like a clicking-hellscape for promoters: most of those parameters don't really seem useful at all. At the very least I'd like bio/non-bio, US/non-US, image/non-image marked. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:57, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Could we not have this "outside the box" discussion at this point? It seems completely independent of the namespace question. Let us concentrate on one task and not get sidetracked. —Kusma (talk) 13:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I've now begun making inquires with the bot maintainers about possible ways to implement a namespace changeover DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm gonna be honest. I get that there's demand for this change, and it would be for the best, but I really don't know if we're ready for it yet. I get that you're new to DYK and want to make a difference already, and that's admirable, but there's a reason why this change has been attempted multiple times before and it stalled each time. The actual work to be done is non-trivial and given everything that's involved there's a really good chance that something will break. If we are going to do this migration it should not be rushed and should take time. It should only happen when we're really sure nothing is going to break. Sometimes status quos suck, but they still exist for a reason. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: What do you mean "should take time"? Ideally, we should be spending time preparing, agreeing on a plan, and then rolling over the entire system with as few button presses as possible. Only moving one or two parts at a time is a recipe for disaster. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:06, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I mean we shouldn't rush things when it comes to the technical aspects. What you said about having a plan in place is actually a good idea, but we have to make sure it will work properly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:28, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Yep. I'm considering whether to do it in phases and have seperate plans for each, or to do it all at once in a larger plan. Both ideas have positives and negatives DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 13:26, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I think the prep/queue system and the nomination/approval system are fairly independent and from each other. Moving the nomination/approved system to Wikipedia space is probably the harder part. —Kusma (talk) 13:56, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
If that's the case then obviously the prep/queue should be the first to move.
Template:Did you know/Queue is basically just a template page and is not monitored by any bot, so that should be the easiest to move, and the only bot action is DYKUpdateBot, which purges the hooks when an update is made. So really, you'd just need to move the page, update DYKUpdateBot and PSHAW, and presto DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:13, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately moving the prep/queue part to the Wikipedia namespace also has fairly negligible benefits. —Kusma (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, but it does allow further changes to be made despite not having innate benefits DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:22, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I think the main reason the change hasn't gone through isn't the complexity, it is that people are too afraid of breaking things and do not know how all of the bots work. There is no need to be so afraid: we regularly have bots that stop or break and everything can be done manually. We just need people to be aware and watch out for issues. —Kusma (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

DimensionalFusion If I may be bold, I'm concerned that you're moving too fast. You are fairly new to DYK. While it's awesome that we've got a new enthusiastic recruit, what you're proposing is a major change, and one which has been discussed many times in the past without managing to go anywhere. That should be a signal that it's a thornier problem than it appears. So when I read your statement that I will be carrying out a plan, that worried me. I encourage you to slow down. There's tons of things that need to get done here. There's piles of unreviewed nominations that need attending to. A particularly valuable service would be looking at the noms which have become contentious and help either shepherd them to a successful outcome or reject them as unsalvagable. Another great help would be to look over the preps and queues to see if you can spot any problems that should be fixed before they reach WP:ERRORS. RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

The reason it's never been carried through before is because a large number of people in the community have been responsible for enacting it, so there's no clear person as to whom is doing what. If a single person is carrying it out then responsibility is clearly placed with one person. That should be a signal that it's a thornier problem than it appears. At the end of the day, it's just moving a couple of pages and chaning a couple of lines of code. There's piles of unreviewed nominations that need attending to
This is true, but there are also more than enough approved nominations. I'm concerned that you're moving too fast. In my opinion, nothing wrong with getting things moving quickly. Obviously the actual moving would need to be fairly well-thought out, but why wait for getting started? If I came back to this in a month, nothing would have changed in regards to this DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 13:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Additionally, I wouldn't be enacting the technical page moves myself as I am unable to move many of them, so it would have to be me and whoever would like to help out in moving. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:21, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I've talked with Shub and he has said:

* I would prefer the namespace change is coordinated at least a week ahead of time so I can get the code changes ready → take DYKUpdateBot & DYKHousekeepingBot offline → namespace change implemented on-wiki → DYKUpdateBot & DYKHousekeepingBot back online with updated code.

  • Will historical nominations (was already on the Main Page) & in-flight nominations (closed but not yet on the Main Page) also be updated? Changing historical nominations can get pretty messy, as DYK credits link to the nomination page.
  • Zooming out, I would recommend making another pass on updating the "Bots at DYK" list, just in case new bots have cropped up since the last time this was discussed.
So the namespace change should be coordinated at least a week ahead of time. Historical nominations shouldn't be updated (in my view) to preserve nominations and avoid breaking anything. And if anyone can see any new bots in the list please do let me know, because I can't think of anything new other than PSHAW DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
it's just moving a couple of pages and chaning a couple of lines of code.
I'll be blunt. This is a frighteningly naive statement from somebody who is wearing a software project manager hat. In theory, yes. In practice, we're working with a complex system of software written by many different people. There's no single person who understands it all, and certainly no single person who understands all the interactions. We may get lucky and it may all work the first time. Or something critical may break and we'll all be in a panic because we neither know how to fix it nor have a coherent plan for how to back out the change.
DYKToolsBot will certainly break. I just looked at the code. It's not a huge job to parameterize things to accommodate the change but to have somebody barge into the room, declare that they're in charge, and start shouting orders is just too close to what I've experienced in real life as a software engineer for me to want to be anywhere near this. RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Agreed about the shockingly naive statement. DimensionalFusion, have you ever done software project management or written or updated software of any complexity? This is something that needs to be approached with care and knowledge, and I'm not seeing that here. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:24, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset Yes. I started as a software developer about 7 years ago and it's been my job since a year ago DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith I don't know what you want me to say here. All I'd like is for a team of people from across the community to create a detailled plan for the rollout of namespace changes and bot code changes simultaneously. This would be impossible to do without a detailled plan involving logistics, estimated downtime (which should be minimised, if any), and fallbacks. What's the problem here? I'm not declaring myself in charge, I'd much rather it be done with a small team with technical expertise DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:51, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
If you are going to have a career in software development, you will undoubtedly be involved in some flavor of task planning. You start with a pile of things you want to do and assign them some kind of score for how much value you will get out of completing each task, how much effort you think each one will take, and how much risk each one introduces. All of these are typically difficult to know, so you take your best guess. My take on this is it's got a medium amount of risk, will probably take a small amount of effort, and yield a small amount of benefit. So when it comes to assigning valuable and limited resources to working on it, it's unlikely to find itself on the top of the pile.
You will also discover that inevitably there will be management changes. Some new person will show up and announce that they're now managing the team you're on. This is an all-volunteer group, so the term "management" doesn't really apply, but since you're apparently trying to act as a manager, I'll go with that analogy. I've seen two kinds of people fill this "new manager" role. One kind gets everybody together, introduces themselves and says, "I may be in charge, but I'm new here. You guys have been doing this for a long time so you're the experts. I'm going to work hard to learn as much from you as I can about what you do before I start doing any managing". The other kind storms into the situation and starts shouting orders. Guess which ones are successful and which ones aren't? RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I know that your analogies are accurate based on my (somewhat limited) experience of it, which is why I'm trying to make it more community-built.
I understand that my proposed changes involve complex systems, and could lead to breakages, especially with bots that help manage DYK nominations. Careful planning is important, so therefore understanding the underlying technical aspects is also important. DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 18:16, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
{{DYK conditions}} from the list above has been replaced with {{DYK tools}} which doesn't have the same issue. It has some links that will still function with redirects. Some of the other things can likely be done well in advance like the suggestion for {{DYK top}}.[1] I don't see a clear sets of steps yet. You'll need some admins to help. If you get consensus for this and need a template editor to push changes live, feel free to ping me. I don't plan on doing much/any of the work tbh, Rjjiii (talk) 19:26, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
Oh, thanks for pointing that out! I'll switch it over. We don't have any sets of steps yet because there's no point in it going ahead until we're 100% certain that it will, and there's still opposition from some – so maybe it will be a moot point DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:23, 28 September 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that directionality will work. Change will happen if the clear sets of steps are created first, to be presented to gain community consensus. CMD (talk) 13:27, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
In that case, I've created a phase 1 proposal to gain community consensus DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Wug has responded to my query, so I'll post it here: The hard part is that the job runner changed a few months ago, and I don't feel comfortable enough with the system to push changes right now. If there were a clear consensus and an outline of a migration plan, I could commit to researching that further and making the change when needed. Another option is to have someone take over that task from me, which might be better long term if you or someone else is interested in taking that on.
Would anybody be interested in this? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:10, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm on board with this if there is anything I can do to help. BD2412 T 03:25, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Prep area 4

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The hook for Psycho Mantis is a bit vague and could be read as the character playing the video games or the person playing MGS as the person who has played those games. The latter interpretation is the accurate one. ~ Pbritti (talk) 02:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Have changed to "... that the character Psycho Mantis in the video game Metal Gear Solid breaks the fourth wall by identifying the player's other games?", which I think is less ambiguous. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Missing credits

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Dear promoters, please double check on any missing credits. Currently Q4 has an empty credit slot (Doesn't it cause problems for the bot, @Theleekycauldron?) and Q5 has a few missing apparently, for the number of the credits and that of the bolded articles do not match. PSHAW removes an existing credit under certain conditions as it has been explained. BorgQueen (talk) 06:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

The reasons for the PSHAW's credit removals. BorgQueen (talk) 06:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
This is noted, BorgQueen. For the record, I do make sure the proper credits are filled out whether I prep automatically or manually; those noms with the missing credits did not come from me, nor did I prep any hook raked to Q4. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:26, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Phase 1 of DYK namespace change

Latest comment: 1 month ago7 comments4 people in discussion

My proposal to change the DYK namespace in phases. If consensus is found here, 10 days after consensus is gained then my proposal will enter into action and the following will occur:

Please do let me know if you think I've missed anything so it can be added DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

This is really well thought out; I wonder if it wouldn't be more efficient to move past this phase and address the nominations instead. If the goal of the namespace change is to make this more accessible to newcomers, I think the preps and queues being in template space is probably the most understandable part of the entire enterprise (and the one usually only touched by people acquainted with the backrooms anyway). I'm not opposed, but it seems like a lot of hassle for not a huge reward, and it might be easier to just skip to trying to reorganize the DYK nominations. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:09, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I also just don't see the reason for this big of a lift -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 09:22, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I know that this stage has the least reward, however it is also the easiest to carry out compared to the many moves and changes required for the nominations: at the very least, all active nominations would need to be moved in addition to the holder pages, not to mention the bot dependencies and non-bot dependencies. That's not to say it can't be done, it would just take longer. In my view, this phase would therefore be the easiest and would allow for some momentum DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:28, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Given that everyone seems to be pretty meh about it, and the arguments given about hassle versus reward, I think I'll shelve this for now and move on to nominations. This could be revived later down the line to standardise things DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

How will this interact with the plan described below in #Giving queues template instead of full protection? RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I don’t think it should – based on my understanding, page protection is preserved through page moves DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 06:56, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

What's Changed?

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi all,

I got my bit back, and was thinking of helping out with DYK again (similar motivation to #Giving queues template instead of full protection? above). Since I haven't been a DYK admin since 2018, I was wondering if there was anything in the promotion/backend of things to know before starting? I see that we are being more diligent about posting potential issues on WT:DYK, with pings, and that PSHAW has been rolled out.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to help out again! We recently tightened up the rules on QPQ. It used to be OK to submit your hook without a QPQ and then back-fill that later. Now we require that the QPQ be submitted at the same time as the nomination. Not everybody is aware of the rule change yet, so people are mostly just getting gentle reminders, as long as they're not trying to game the system. RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
You might want to read this section as well, I suppose. BorgQueen (talk) 16:57, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Approaching 12-hour backlog mode?

Latest comment: 1 month ago56 comments14 people in discussion

DYK is currently at 143 approved nominations (manually counted) and 6/7 full prep areas. WP:DYKROTATE says that If we are at one set per day and immediately after the midnight (UTC) update finishes there are more than 120 approved nominations while at least ten prep/queue sets are filled, we rotate to two sets per day..

We're currently at the point that if 2 prep areas were promoted to queues (AND THEN filled with approved nominations) we'd have 10 full queues/prep areas and still have 126 approved nominations. Are we approaching 12 hour backlog mode? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:50, 23 September 2024 (UTC)

I did wonder that, but the problem is the prep to queue bottleneck.--Launchballer 22:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Yeah definitely. Based on what I've seen from the template, ideally there are 4 or more queues at any one time DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 12:00, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
The problem is that it's a lot of work and not enough admins to do it. It takes me a minimum of 20 minutes to process a set. That's for the rare set where I don't find any problems. Every issue I find adds to that, so 30 minutes is probably a better average. And when I write up a problem, I'm signing up to some additional commitment of time over the next few days to track the resolution. What we need is more admins working at DYK, and there just aren't enough admins to go around. I'd love to see some of our more experienced DYK regulars show up at WP:RfA. RoySmith (talk) 12:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, exactly. Nobody can fault the admins for volunteering their time by processing sets, and at the same time there's a record low number of admins. And I can't say that there's any kind of quick fix for this other than getting more admins lol DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 13:16, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Or reduce the number of hooks per queue. Levivich (talk) 15:14, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Interesting DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:55, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
@Levivich per your request to be pinged. RoySmith (talk) 22:01, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
The automated DYK counter updated to show 121 approved nominations, and I just brought it down to 120 by promoting another one. This could be solved by admins promoting more preps to queues, rather than going to backlog mode. SL93 (talk) 22:57, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
It appears to not be counting the most recent days. I still vote on updating queues more often and closing older nominations that aren't going anywhere. SL93 (talk) 23:06, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, exactly. If admins only ever update 1 queue per day then we're permanently stuck on 2 queues and 6 prep areas, and if that's the case then we never meet the threshold for 12-hour mode DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 06:17, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Maybe this seems crass, but perhaps I could note here that I've not yet understood that both "there is an overabundance of approved DYK nominations" and "we cannot raise the editorial standards for DYK because we wouldn't have enough engagement" are held to be true simultaneously. Remsense ‥ 论 06:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I've not seen the second argument be based on engagement, it's more a matter of debate over subjective standards of quality and nominators feeling hard done by. CMD (talk) 07:21, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
There's also the case of nominators getting very upset when their nominations are challenged, making reviewers more reluctant to reject nominations outright. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:29, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
+1. And some of the worst offenders are our biggest contributors who really should know better. RoySmith (talk) 13:39, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Really, we should be willing to reject nominations more forcefully. The issue is that, sometimes, nominators have far more energy than reviewers, leading to reviewers yielding rather than holding their ground. The asking for a second reviewer, while usually done in good faith, sometimes just makes things worse and prolongs the agony. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:42, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
Maybe we should formalise a role for experienced and trusted DYK reviewers/promoters who are allowed to reject nominations at their editorial discretion? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:48, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
I am skeptical that such a thing would work. Even when editorial discretion is already baked into the rules, it's not uncommon for nominators to oppose reviews or decisions. I don't think making certain editors "trusted" would solve the problem when the elephant in the room is simply that some nominators are stubborn regarding their nominations and/or hooks. The way I see it, the solution to the problem would be a cultural change, for example being willing to accept rejections, or discouraging things like forum shopping or asking for second opinions over disagreements regarding hook interest (unless of course absolutely necessary or warranted). Of course, that is much easier said than done. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:57, 24 September 2024 (UTC)
It would be nice if we could avoid breaching the template transclusion limits. I am not currently able to offer much help with p2q promotions, so I can't in good conscience suggest to go to 12-hour rotations. The other way to reduce the backlog would be to tighten the timeout rules. —Kusma (talk) 14:48, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
Does someone techy know if PEIS is affected by the use of Template:DYK checklist. If it is, would there be harm in a bot substituting it for direct code on approved nominations? CMD (talk) 15:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
We now have 125 approved nominations and 9 full queues, plus the last queue which we have to leave 4 hooks empty for. Is it time DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:17, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
My opinion on this is what it always is: 12 hour turnover is a disaster. It burns people out and increases our error rate. It's never a good idea. I certainly have no plans to participate. RoySmith (talk) 19:36, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
If that's your opinion then maybe we should think about modifying the policy. Perhaps there are ways of decreasing the backlog without sacrificing quality DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 19:41, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I would love to see us drop it entirely. And, yes, the way to decrease the backlog is to not be afraid of declining substandard submissions. RoySmith (talk) 19:45, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I think the switchover should take place when there would be 120 approved hooks if all of the preps and queues were full. DYK has not reached that threshold yet. Z1720 (talk) 20:25, 25 September 2024 (UTC)
I think it's a useful safety valve. One of the reasons there's a minimum requirement to switch to twice-a-day of ten completely filled queues and preps after the midnight promotion along with 120 or more approved noms awaiting promotion is that it's such a high bar, and that by definition you have a backlog that allows running at twice a day for a little while. It's a quick way to reduce the effective backlog by dozens of hooks. We can certainly modify the point at which we switch back if continuing would cause too much stress, though what we have now—reverting back to one a day at any point when after midnight there are fewer than six full queues and preps—would seem to keep us from kneecapping ourselves if prep sets aren't being built with enough frequency. There's a GAN backlog drive starting up next Tuesday, so even though as I write this we're finally not in PEIS-land any more. (Note to CMD: DYK checklist is causing a lot of our PEIS problems; it's a lot of text being expanded, and more and more people have been using it. However, unless the text generated at subst time is less than that generated by the template itself, doing the subst shouldn't help reduce the total character count. Writing out a review in one's own words, making sure to cover what you've looked at, is more efficient when it comes to page size.) BlueMoonset (talk) 00:40, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
My admittedly not full understanding of PEIS is that any nested template multiplies its impact (somehow), so even with the same characters it would make a difference. CMD (talk) 01:05, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
I will say that when we went from 8 to 9 hooks, we effectively slowed the rate at which the backlog grew by between half and two thirds. I propose that the gap between 60 and 120 also shrinks accordingly, to maybe 75 and 100. 12-hour sets is a quick and very dirty way of running lots of noms and I suggest that one way to make it less painful would be to do them for shorter periods.--Launchballer 01:10, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
If the aim is a short period and the requirement is "ten completely filled queues and preps", why not have it activate for literally just five days? That would make it a safety valve, would rely on the review quality achieved during normal backlog rates, and provide a simple and clear end date without needing to recalculate the minimum. CMD (talk) 02:03, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Even better, require seven filled queues (and no specific prep quota) before you start, and go for a fixed three days. That at least guarantees that no matter what happens in the way of promotions (or lack thereof), you know you've got enough material to make it through the sprint. If that turns out not to be enough, you can run another sprint after you've refilled the queues. The important thing is putting the material in the bank ahead of time instead of a frantic scramble to keep up while the clock is running. RoySmith (talk) 02:33, 26 September 2024 (UTC)
Makes sense to me. CMD (talk) 02:38, 26 September 2024 (UTC)

We could start at any midnight if the seventh queue has just been promoted and there are six filled queues left, and go for three days. Having the post-midnight changeover is best; it will typically give us more time to move special occasion hooks around as needed within the queues or into the queues, though only admins will be able to take care of that particular task; fortunately, anyone can move things around within the already waiting preps. Question: if at the next midnight, the queues were filled again leaving six after promotion, do we automatically extend by a day (restart the three-day countdown), or is it a set three-day thing that must run down (and switch back for at least day?) before starting up again. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:46, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

I think it's best to have the sprint be a fixed 3 days, if for no other reason than it will lend stability to SOHA scheduling. RoySmith (talk) 00:52, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
In any case, it may not be necessary just yet as there are still preps that haven't been moved to Queue. I really don't like these two-sets-a-day thing as it's grossly unfair to most nominators, but if it has to be done it really should be a last resort and not a first one. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:48, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
The idea that 12 hours on the main page is "grossly unfair" seems bizarre to me; of course, I came up in the day when 12 hours was a long time, and 8 hours was more common. Sometimes, sacrifices are needed for the greater good, and half a day isn't unreasonable in my view, just like an extra QPQ isn't unreasonable from old DYK hands when we get a problematic surplus of unreviewed nominations. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I remember coming back to DYK and wondering when it moved from six hours to 24. Anyway, any change shouldn't be seen as changing the use case for the 12-hour backlog mode, it will remain a last resort. However, this change may be a way to make that last resort more predictable and palatable. Whenever the option of a 12 hour backlog run has been raised since the last one ended in April, it has received a lot of (quite valid) pushback due to the current implementation. CMD (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
It sounds like we're pretty close to consensus to change WP:DYKROTATE to read:
DYK runs a certain number of sets per day, depending on the backlog size. Currently, we update DYK once every ((some template magic goes here)). If we are at one set per day and immediately after the midnight (UTC) update finishes there are more than 120 approved nominations with six filled queues sets, we rotate to two sets per day, and rotate back to one set per day immediately after the midnight (UTC) update three days later. The approved nominations page has a maximum size limit, so it will sometimes not display or count the latest nominations.
Regarding @BlueMoonset's question ("if at the next midnight, the queues were filled again leaving six after promotion, do we automatically extend by a day"), the algorithm described above does have some strange behavior if at the end of three days we've still got six filled queues and 120 approved hooks. As written, we'd go back to one per day and then immediately go back to two per day, but I think that situation is incredibly unlikely to happen so I'd say we keep the rule simple and rely on intelligent human beings to figure out how to handle exceptional situations when they occur. RoySmith (talk) 12:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I would support a change of WP:DYKROTATE to read as above DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 13:10, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify the mechanics, the wording seems to suggest the default seems to shift to two sets a day once the criteria are met. I am not opposed given the criteria being met should be definition make that painless, but we should ensure that is an intentional outcome, and perhaps figure out some note about special holding area hooks that need shifting. CMD (talk) 13:30, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
I agree that we want to keep humans in the loop when deciding to switch. But, the current wording also suggests an automatic cutover and yet we still end up haggling over it each time, so I'm not too worried that the humans will get disenfranchised. Somebody still has to make a manual edit to (um, I forget exactly where) so I imagine the way this would work is some admin would post here, "Hey guys, we've met the WP:DYKROTATE requirements, so if there's no objection, I'm going to switch over right after midnight".
But, that does remind me that we don't seem to have the actual procedure documented anywhere. We should add that to Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions and DYKROTATE should link to that. RoySmith (talk) 13:53, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Given you were the last person to make a change, if you've forgotten we do need the documentation! If you are happy the wording keeps humans in the loop, I am happy. CMD (talk) 14:02, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for the reminder :-) I've updated the instructions. How about for the policy statement:
DYK runs a certain number of sets per day, depending on the backlog size. Currently, we update DYK once every ((some template magic goes here)). If we are at one set per day and immediately after the midnight (UTC) update finishes there are more than 120 approved nominations with six filled queues, we rotate to two sets per day, and rotate back to one set per day immediately after the midnight (UTC) update three days later. The approved nominations page has a maximum size limit, so it will sometimes not display or count the latest nominations.
Instructions for effecting the switch are at WP:DYKAI#Switching update interval. Admins planning to make a switch should alert the DYK community by posting their intentions to WT:DYK in advance. RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Please don't get creative indeed. I think this policy change keeps the spirit of the idea while making it easier to implement, I haven't thought of a strong point of caution yet. If there are no objections, let's go ahead. CMD (talk) 14:31, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
Yes, let's try this. I hope the automatic "revert to 1/day" will make us admins a bit less averse to filling the queues out of fear of the 2/day stress. —Kusma (talk) 15:04, 27 September 2024 (UTC)

Adopted

I haven't seen any opposition so I've gone ahead and updated the WP:DYKROTATE policy statement. We're currently at 263 approved hooks, so it'll probably take us 2 or 3 sprints to get back below the 200 hook threshold. Hopefully this new process will be easier on everybody since we'll be attacking it in manageable chunks. RoySmith (talk) 13:25, 29 September 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: pinging to alert admins who haven't been following this long thread. RoySmith (talk) 15:41, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Worth giving a chance, I guess. It'll be interesting to see how fast we get right back to the same place, though. I can remember when we were in two-a-days with too little admin help for months at a time. I'm not going to risk burning out again, it was too unpleasant. Valereee (talk) 16:23, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
We're still around 130 approved hooks, not twice that; 263 would have been the total number of hooks (unapproved and approved combined) when you posted, RoySmith, omitting the seven approved hooks that aren't currently transcluding, so 270 (and now 275). It'll be interesting to see whether we get overloaded once the GAN backlog drive kicks in on Tuesday. Right now, under the just-superseded rules, we'd need to load up eleven of fourteen preps and queues prior to midnight to meet that minimum to switch over to twice a day, and that would take us down to around 100 approved hooks, too few to do the switch. Interestingly, if the six fliled preps were all promoted to queue in the next 23 hours, we'd be heading into twice a day. (I somehow doubt there's going to be a mass promotion, though one or two sets would be nice to allow for more prep building.)BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
We're still around 130 approved hooks. Interesting. Thanks for the correction. I went to Template talk:Did you know/Approved and looked at the bottom line of "Count of DYK Hooks" table. I assumed since I was on the "approved hooks" page, the column labeled "# of Hooks" meant "# of Approved Hooks". I guess what it really means is the sum of the approved and unapproved hooks? And I guess "# Verified" means "# Approved"?
I've always found that table confusing because its not clear what it means. I remember I once asked why one part of the table is highlighted in red and somebody explained it to me, but I've since forgotten because it's not written down anywhere. It would be useful if somebody could add some documentation to that table explaining it all. RoySmith (talk) 00:32, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I'm confused about this discussion. So basically, based on the new rules, around when will we expect the switch to happen? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:51, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
If I'm not still mistaken, the only thing holding us back now is that we don't have seven filled queues (looking furtively in @BlueMoonset's direction for confirmation). RoySmith (talk) 02:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I see. Maybe this is just me being a little selfish, but the reason I was asking is because I have a hook that's going to go up in a few days and I was wondering if it will be caught in the two-sets-a-day thing. Due to timing reasons my hooks often end up being caught in such sprints, so I was hoping to avoid it being the case this time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:24, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, yes, we don't have all seven queues filled at the same time, and that it what's holding us back. There doesn't seem to be any immediate urgency or desire by admins to fill queues; we have only one filled at the moment, although there continue to be enough preps available for promotion. And to confirm: "Verified" = "Approved" in that table. The same table is printed on both the Nominations and Approved pages. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:48, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I've added an explanatory footnote to WP:DYKROTATE stating how the count is specified. RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Question, I glanced though the discussion so my apologies if I missed it, with this backlog "sprint" structure, would last years "emergency backlog mode double review" policy come into effect, or are we trying to avoid that?--Kevmin § 16:20, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
They seem to target different issues. The 3-day backlog sprint manages a glut in approved noms, a double review manages a glut in unapproved noms. CMD (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7

Latest comment: 1 month ago13 comments4 people in discussion

Europapa

@DimensionalFusion, Sekundenlang, Nascar9919, and Onceinawhile: The source says a "contestant" was disqualified. The hook says "song". Are those the same thing? RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 28 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes. --Sekundenlang (talk) 07:31, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
What makes them such @Sekundenlang:, given that October Rain had been de facto banned earlier in the year?--Launchballer 08:05, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
For October Rain, only the song was banned/disqualified, for Europapa, both the song and the artist were. --Sekundenlang (talk) 12:35, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I think you've just proved that "artist" and "song" are different things.--Launchballer 22:08, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
I've swapped this out to prep 6 to give us a bit more time to sort things out. RoySmith (talk) 22:30, 29 September 2024 (UTC)
Possible alternate hook: "that Joost Klein released an official nightcore version of his song "Europapa"?" https://www.ad.nl/songfestival/joost-brengt-greatest-hits-ep-van-europapa-uit~a04f5557/ - Sekundenlang (talk) 05:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: ^ - Sekundenlang (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Only interesting if you know what nightcore is and don't know that this isn't unusual.--Launchballer 12:55, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
With one eye on WP:DYKHOOKBLP, "that Europapa was removed from the Eurovision Song Contest following the disqualification of its performer?"--Launchballer 13:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I support that, but reword to "the song Europapa was removed..." - Sekundenlang (talk) 14:57, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I think context makes it clear what Europapa is, but I'll leave it to either @RoySmith: or @Crisco 1492:, who queued it.--Launchballer 15:07, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Discussion at Template talk:AfC accept § Pointer to DYK?

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:AfC accept § Pointer to DYK?. Sdkb talk 20:36, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2: 3 October

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion

There was an item posted at Errors about Template:Did you know nominations/Xiphophorus signum shortly before this was to go to the main page. Nobody responded to it during the period before promotion to the main page, so I pulled it and put it back into the unreviewed list. I've replaced it with Template:Did you know nominations/Anders Årfelt from Prep1 after checking that the hook fact was fine and manually protected the image that went with it. I haven't had a chance to deal with the other admin checks.

Note that my initial intention was to use the lead hook from Prep4 (Template:Did you know nominations/Actinote zikani) but could not verify that hook (maybe because I had to work at speed and didn't have time to read the sources properly, or maybe because it simply doesn't check out). And If I'm needed for a follow up (not sure why; just in case it comes up), please ping me. Schwede66 00:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

I was the one who nominated Actinote zikani, so I may be impartial, but I can confirm that it is in the text. SirMemeGod  14:11, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
@Sir MemeGod: Could you quote from the cited sources? Rjjiii (talk) 00:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
@Rjjiii: @Schwede66: Sure. A. zikani was searched for intensively by RBF and AVLF in the type-locality in April-May and November-December, and also in other sites with the same environmental characteristics (Francini 1992), but none were seen. The only new information was from KB who saw a possible male of this species on the wing in April 1981 on the edge of the road from Tapiraí to Sorocaba, in southern São Paulo state, about 1000 m altitude in a very wet forest. Because of the difficulty in finding extant colonies of this species, KB proposed the inclusion of A. zikani on the list of Brazilian species possibly threatened with extinction (Bernardes et al. 1990; Brown 1991), and since then, A. zikani has been classified as critically endangered (SP-SMA 1998, MMA 2003). With intensive searching, finally on 16 March 1991 (1100 h), on a routine trip, RBF and AVLF found a male flying at the summit of the Serra do Mar, 20 km northeast of the city of Santos, São Paulo. for the "Rediscovery of Actinote zikani (D'Almeida) (Nymphalidae, Heliconiinae, Acraeini): natural history, population biology and conservation of an endangered butterfly in SE Brazil" article. The other article doesn't discuss it's rediscovery, so that was an error on my part. REPAD's "The Recently Extinct Plants and Animals Database" lists it as extinct until 1991, matching up with the "last seen 1981". That can be found at [2]. SirMemeGod  00:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5

Latest comment: 1 month ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Blue Mountain Pottery

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, Mr Serjeant Buzfuz, and Sammi Brie: There's an entire paragraph that's almost word-for-word from the source[3]. I'm also a little concerned about the sourcing in general; it looks like most of this is sourced to BMP's own blog and/or a BMP collector's club. RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

RoySmith My apologies, but I will not be able to address these concerns; if neither can the nominator, then I suggest that you just pull it. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:18, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Mr Serjeant Buzfuz can you address this? RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Working at moment. Will get to it this evening. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 16:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Please don't let it go too long; this is going to be on the main page in 3 days and we really want things nailed down with at least a day to spare. RoySmith (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, and your patience. Started working on it tonight but a family obligation intervened. Will get up early in the morning to attend to it. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 06:15, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I've gone through the article and have made some changes, and have the following comments:
  • I've reworked that paragraph in my own words, and changed the cites for it. Not sure how I let that slip by in my re-do of the article; apologies.
  • I agree with the concerns about relying too heavily on the pottery club articles, but in my opinion, the article is based primarily on the bulletin from the Royal Ontario Museum, which is a very well-respected institution in Canada, and the two articles from Mountain Life, which as best as I can tell is a regional newspaper, specialising in the events and history of the area, and also one article from Readers Digest; perhaps not the most scholarly cites, but I think they meet the standard for reliable cites, and do establish the notability of the subject matter.
  • The fact that two different museums in the Toronto area (the ROM and the George R. Gardiner Museum of Ceramic Art) each feature collections of the pottery, plus the fact that Canada Post issued a commemorative stamp, all go to to the notability of the topic, and those facts are sourced by the ROM bulletin and one of the Mountain Life articles.
  • I understand the concern about the Pottery Club cites, but in each case, they are not used alone, but in combination with the other cites to the ROM or Mountain Life articles. I think that usage is acceptable for an article of this sort, discussing a local manufacturing enterprise.
  • The concluding four cites are all to local news and community sources, outlining the retrospective showing in 2022, which I think qualify as reliable sources. They show the ongoing interest in the Blue Mountain Pottery, which again goes to notability.
  • I've deleted one cite to the Pottery Club itself; not sure what it was doing there; again, apologies for not catching that earlier.
Hope this responds to your concerns; thank you for your eagle-eye and comments. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks, this is good to go. If you ever want to turn this into a WP:GA, I suspect the reviewers there will push you more on the sourcing, but it's good enough for DYK. RoySmith (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your help. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 02:14, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Prep 5 II

Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Umehara ga kimeta

The article is orange-tagged. @DimensionalFusion BorgQueen (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Even without the tags, isn't it obvious the article has serious issues? I'm kinda surprised it got promoted to a prep. BorgQueen (talk) 23:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I checked the article, and instantly noticed that the name of the game being commentated over isn't mentioned in the lede. For a commentary video, that strikes me as very odd and not DYK quality quite yet. For comparison, that would be akin to a sports commentary that didn't mention the name of the teams involved. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 23:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, yes, and that's only the beginning. I think the whole article will have to be rewritten. BorgQueen (talk) 23:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
The hook has been pulled; discussion can continue at Template:Did you know nominations/Umehara ga kimeta. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:03, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, looking at the article again it clearly fails WP:DYKTAG.
Funnily enough, Prep builder instructions doesn't actually require promoters to check that an article is good, just that it has passed the review and that issues in the review have been resolved. I thought it did require promoters to look over whether it meets the guidelines but apparently I'm misremembering DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 10:07, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

Credit help

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi folks, my credit for Juno (song) from my double article hook on the main page currently has not been processed to my talk page. Would be great if someone could help with that. I had added it to my nomination within the seven-day eligibility period following its creation.--NØ 00:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging AirshipJungleman29, who promoted it to Prep.--NØ 00:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Its credit was never added to the nom page when it was converted to a double. I've added it to Juno's talk page and your talk page; I think I've done everything.--Launchballer 00:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Eced my explanation. (I added the nom to the second article talk page as well, although at this point it's not necessary.) CMD (talk) 01:00, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Nomination tool

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The DYK guidelines says that "There should not be a space before the question mark, but if the text directly preceding it is italicized, the {{-?}} tag can offset it." However, if this template is used in the nomination tool, it says something along the lines of "the nomination must contain a question mark." This message should not appear if that template is used. ―Panamitsu (talk) 03:35, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

PSHAW bug (minor)

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

When promoting Template:Did you know nominations/Deep Cut Gardens, PSHAW displayed a false warning that no green or grey check was on the page, Rjjiii (talk) 14:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like it was 'cause the check mark was given as [[File:Symbol_confirmed.svg|16px]], with the underscore. Added support for that :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:13, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! Rjjiii (talk) 15:08, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2 broken?

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could somebody look at Queue 2. It looks like it's missing the {{DYKbotdo}} line. RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth pinging. BorgQueen (talk) 18:12, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Uh-oh, bad one got thru

Latest comment: 1 month ago6 comments3 people in discussion

Here's one that got thru that shouldn't have. Hey I know this is a fast-moving operation, we are all volunteers, nobody's perfect and some non-optimal stuff is going to thru on occasion (and the DYK vetting is actually quite vigorous and effective). Still, I feel compelled to point this one out as perhaps the sort of thing to watch for in future.

I'm talking about Masada myth, which appeared as a DYK on 20 September 2024. The lede paragraph at that time (with bolding added for emphasis) said:

The Masada myth is the early Zionist retelling of the Siege of Masada, and an Israeli national myth. The Masada myth is a selectively constructed narrative based on Josephus's account, supplemented with fabrications and omissions. This narrative was socially constructed and promoted by Jews in Mandatory Palestine and later Israel. Despite the modern academic consensus, popular accounts by figures like Yigal Yadin and Moshe Pearlman have perpetuated the myth, influencing public perception.

and to excerpt the rest of the lede (of which some parts are OK, granted):

This narrative selectively emphasized... the defenders' courage and resistance while omitting the details of their murderous campaign against innocent Jews. The Masada myth's central role in Israeli collective memory has puzzled scholars due to its structural differences from other national myths [as it] is not heroic in nature."

POV much? Come on. King Arthur wasn't real, Roland's sword could not cleave stone, and the first emperor of Japan was not a god. We don't describe all the other foundational myths as having "fabrications and omissions" or complain that they "selectively" emphasized the good parts of the mythic founders while leaving out the bad parts ("murderous" etc.) and so forth because of course they do, what would you expect. We just describe the myth. Why make an exception for these particular people in the lede. Not a good look to be honest. Herostratus (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2024 (UTC)

The whole point about the "Masada myth" referenced here is that it's a modern myth invented for political reasons that still has relevance to a current political situation. Legends like King Arthur or those pertaining to the Emperor of Japan simply do not have the same political dimension, which is why they are not subject to the same kind of analysis. Gatoclass (talk) 16:23, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Note that this was pulled after this discussion at WP:ERRORS. —Kusma (talk) 16:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Okay, but that looks more like a case of a seriously underdone hook rather than an issue with the content of the article per se. Gatoclass (talk) 16:39, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
No you're mostly wrong about the political dimension I think, national myths tell stories that bond the nation together and make people proud of it. That is political in a broad sense. And some national myths are not so very old or arisen from folk tales -- the Finnish Kavala was written in 1935 for instance. I could say a lot more, and I have at that article's talk page.
But I mean I'm not here to argue about content points. Let's get real here. We all know how the demographic heavily represented here is uh turning and turning hard if you get my drift. But, I don't care what anybody chants at the demonstration, we don't bring that here. But some editors don't get that, so keep a lookout for more of this stuff. And for anybody who doesn't see a problem with that lede, I would ask them to recuse themselves from articles dealing with Israel and the people who live there, and let others do the looking out, thanks.
Again, thanks for your service, carry on and dread nought. Herostratus (talk) 02:40, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh, it was pulled per a discussion at the main page errors page. This is pointed out on the article talk page, did not see that earlier. Excellent work then! Thank you all.
Ah, I realize how the hook was not good. It says the story was "judged a myth". But that's not true. A myth is certain kind of story. Myths can be true or false or some of each. The Masada Myth was always understood to be a myth. But -- there is another use of the word "myth" in common use, that means falsehood. It's always pejorative and, in context, this was how it was slipped in. As I said be vigilant. Herostratus (talk) 00:18, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived several hours ago, so I've created a new list of 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 12. We have a total of 243 nominations, of which 106 have been approved, a gap of 137 nominations that has decreased 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

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) 00:34, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Reverting a timeout on an old nomination

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I reverted the timeout on this nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Laurence Patrick Lee. Issues were raised a month ago with the article's only proposed hook, but it seems like the nominator didn't understand the expectation to offer an alternative hook of some type. (The nominator is an experienced editor but new to DYK.) If I'm screwing up here, others are welcome to revert me and time it out. I thought I should explain in case it seems odd to see such an old hook at WP:DYKN. Rjjiii (talk) 23:33, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Happens. The timeout on Template:Did you know nominations/Liberalism in the Philippines doesn't make sense to me either. Why the core writings underpinning (at that time) liberalism in the Philippines being adopted by opposing groups is not a about liberalism in the Philippines is not something I understand. CMD (talk) 03:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:DYKTIMEOUT states: Unpromoted nominations over two months old may be rejected at the discretion of reviewers and promoters. That's "may be", not "must be". It doesn't have to be automatic, and if significant progress is being made, why not allow an extra few days? (Still, once a nomination has been closed with a timeout, it probably shouldn't be reopened unless a reviewer specifically gave extra time.) BlueMoonset (talk) 04:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I would be less confused about the closure if the argument "the boldlinked article should generally be the main or at least a major factor in the hook" was not being applied to a hook that is possibly as core as you can get to understanding the article topic. CMD (talk) 05:41, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 7 October 2024

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could an admin please uncapitalize Head of State (East German Head of State → East German head of state) for the Uwe Holmer hook in Queue 3? I don't think that head of state should be capitalized. ❤HistoryTheorist❤ 04:04, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@HistoryTheorist:   Done, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Making the Bed (nom)

@MaranoFan, Prince of Erebor, and Cwmhiraeth: Raising WP:DYKINT objections always makes me feel terrible, but given that our pop music hooks have been struggling this year, I hope I'm erring on the constructive side by bringing this up. But, like... is this all that unusual? I guess most artists don't tease tours in music videos because it'd be cliche if everyone did it, but it seems like an entirely reasonable and even orthodox PR move for a superstar to do that. I also get a little fidgety given that it is PR – quick-hit music journalism tends to regurgitate that stuff and its social media reactions, but it's not, like, the stuff academia is made of. (I'm also not sure ALTs 1 and 2 are viable replacements, both in the spirit of WP:DYKFICTION, but one thing at a time.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:33, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

  • I wouldn't classify teasing a tour in a lyric video as something that happens extremely commonly. The interesting fact here is that the tour was basically announced through an easter egg that predated the actual announcement. The last Rodrigo DYK did 12k views which is quite decent. Since the article is indisputably DYK-eligible, I would be fine if you could come up with an alternate hook but uncomfortable if the nomination is completely thrown out.--NØ 11:13, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • No, clearly teasing it in a lyric video isn't routine, but it's not a surprising piece of information that is being teased - I'm sure everyone expected Rodrigo to tour in support of the album (especially as she'd already mentioned touring it in an interview). I wouldn't throw the nom out but a more interesting hook wouldn't go amiss. Black Kite (talk) 11:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)


Prep 2 hook on Jools Lebron

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments4 people in discussion

The current hook ends with only for someone else to trademark it? This is problematic for two reasons. The first is that while there were several trademark applications made for "very demure, very mindful" back in late August—it looks like Jools is fourth in line chronologically—no trademark on the phrase has yet been granted, and it's likely to take many months to process the applications. The second is that the antecedent for "trademark it" is unclear: indeed, I couldn't figure out whether it was her gender transition that had been trademarked (which seemed highly unlikely), or the term "demure" from "demure" videos earlier in the hook, which doesn't seem to be what was actually applied for.

Note that the approved ALT1 hook, which was not selected, does not involve this unsupported claim, and it could replace the incorrect ALT0 hook that was promoted.

Pinging nominator Launchballer, article creator Willthacheerleader18, reviewer Lajmmoore, and promoter Rjjiii. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:05, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

this issue hadnt crossed my mind, thanks for catching it @BlueMoonset - happy with alt1 Lajmmoore (talk) 07:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: sorry, i found this issue independently and decided to pull! ALT1 works, it's a little less flashy but it checks out. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:59, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
alt1 works for me!! -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3/2021 Naperville-Woodridge tornado

Latest comment: 1 month ago31 comments10 people in discussion

I found out my DYK submission had been accepted via the watchlist as the ping didn't go through. Anyway, the DYK article pipe was changed from a 2021 tornado in the Chicago suburbs to a tornado in Chicago. This is factually inaccurate as Chicago itself was not impacted by the tornado directly (although it almost was). I understand the text length concern, so the use of a tornado in Chicagoland or a tornado near Chicago in its place could be used as a compromise. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:15, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

A good idea, I'll adjust it. Thanks, ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:28, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
How about something like "... in 2021, the windy city got really, really, windy?" RoySmith (talk) 15:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
This blurb would be perfect for Severe weather sequence of July 13–16, 2024, where six tornadoes hit the city itself in 24 hours. I'm thinking I might expand the article within the month and nominate it again. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:34, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
And if and when it does, the entry will be "...that the Windy City was struck by two windstorms and six whirlwinds in only 24 hours?" This is in no way a nomination. I won't start seriously expanding the article until around October 18 or so, when the NCEI storm database releases their report for July 2024 events. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
As someone from outside the US, what's the distinction? Why does it need to be made more obscure DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:30, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Chicago is a big city, so saying the tornado hit Chicago makes it sound as if it ran straight into the Loop, which isn't accurate. SirMemeGod  15:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
A city (such as Chicago) has specific geographic boundaries. The term "suburbs" is short for "suburban area" and generally refers to the built-up areas around a city but not technically inside the city boundaries. RoySmith (talk) 15:33, 2 October 2024 (UTC) Preceding comment removed in an edit conflict, restored by GeorgeMemulous (talk) 15:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
The boundaries set by government don't necessarily reflect the actual geographic size of a city – e.g. Malta's capital city, Valletta, technically has a population of 5,000 set by the government but an Urban population of 480,000 DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, the tornado happened in the Chicago metropolitan area, hence why saying Chicago doesn't really make sense. SirMemeGod  16:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
For most people, Chicago metropolitan area == Chicago unless you really care about that sort of thing. For the same reason London == London metropolitan area and Capital of Malta == Valletta metropolitan area DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:23, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
See [4]. Naperville isn't even considered part of Chicago. SirMemeGod  16:44, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
That link goes to a Page not found – if Naperville isn't part of Chicago, why not just say Naperville? DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Because "Chicago suburbs" makes the location of Naperville easier to identify. If someone asked me to point out Naperville on a map, I'd be confused, but if someone told me to point out "Chicago suburbs" on a map, it's a lot easier to understand. That's also a contributing factor to how interesting the hook is, it happened in the Chicago area. SirMemeGod  16:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
So... It's Chicago then DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 16:59, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
No, it's not Chicago. It's 28 miles west of there. Saying it's Chicago without qualification is blatantly inaccurate, and running inaccurate hooks gets them pulled from the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
 
An example of a clear non-US distinction between "[City]" and "[City] metropolitan area"
Don't say that to people from the West Midlands if they can hear you... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:16, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Since the argument is going on, I'll present a bit more context: The initial tornado warning (which I got as the image for the page on tornado warning) did include areas of the city of Chicago, specifically Chicago Lawn and Midway International Airport. The tornado itself reached Chicago's county, Cook County, Illinois, but dissipated after affecting the cities of Willow Springs and Burr Ridge, both of which are in both Cook and DuPage county. The storm did produce wind gusts, rainfall, and (potentially) hail in the aforementioned areas, but as far as I can tell nothing notable came of it (i.e. no injuries, fatalities, or significant damage). Nothing of note happened in The Loop itself, either. No tornado hit Chicago in 2021. The DYK page saying as much is inaccurate. WP:VNT is a non-argument as there are numerous official, primary, secondary, and tertiary sources that clearly state that Burr Ridge, Willow Springs, Darien, Woodridge, and Naperville are not Chicago, and instead suburbs of Chicago. Besides, it's one word changing from "in" to "near", and the DYK was based on the helicity, not the location. The only source stating the tornado hit Chicago is a Geospacial Insurance Consortium article that has the claim that the tornado hit "Southside [sic] of Chicago" in its title and nowhere else. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 16:54, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Nice try but the West Midlands isn't real. It's just bigger Birmingham DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 17:24, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I'll speak up for the poster who does not immediately get the difference. They are far from the only one, and from 9000 miles away, it seems kind of so . . ., but there is a precise way to look at it, and not. (If you are from England or know it perhaps think City of London and not.) Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:31, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Things can also get weird in the US. I live in the Bronx which by all legal definitions is part of New York City. But informally if I have to go to Manhattan, I'll say, "I need to go into the city". And don't even try to figure out why New York City (which is part of New York State) consists of five counties, one of which is New York County. RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
And if you have to go the Marble Hill . . .:) Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:03, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
It's "the Bronx", but just plain "Marble Hill", not "the Marble Hill". Because history. RoySmith (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
And here, we thought it was The Bronx. Alanscottwalker (talk) 18:35, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Whether it's "the Bronx" or "The Bronx" seems to be a matter of style. I've seen it both ways. Also "Da Bronx" :-) RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Here's a personal one, since RoySmith already went. I live in Gahanna, Ohio, 10-or-so minutes from Columbus, Ohio, a city with almost a million residents. Gahanna is technically part of Columbus, but it is overwhelmingly referred to as either Gahanna or the "Columbus Suburbs". "Columbus" is reserved for downtown Columbus. :) SirMemeGod  17:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Im with the US editors here, and for a local one to me, while Bellevue, Washington and Redmond, Washington are in the greater Seattle metropolitan area; Microsoft, Nintendo, T-Mobile US, and Costco would all raise a fit if you said they were in the Seattle city limits.--Kevmin § 18:22, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Not all Wikipedia editors are American though DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 18:46, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
The tornado took place in Chicago, located in the US. With that, we should probably use United States terms, and US editors have overwhelmingly agreed that Chicago and Chicago suburbs are separate places, from what I've gouged from this discussion. SirMemeGod  19:07, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
If US editors (speaking with a crudely broad brush) think the suburbs of Chicago are not part of Chicago, let's just keep to that fudge, as I'm sure most other editors would think they are part of Chicago and thus get the basic geographical area. CMD (talk) 00:14, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
I anticipate many people outside the US also distinguish between metro areas and cities proper. The 800,000 people in Nova Iguaçu would likely object to being called "Rio", for example, despite being <20 miles away. JoelleJay (talk) 22:23, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

Invitation

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The Wikipedia:WikiProject Council is a group that talks about how to organize and support groups of editors who are trying to work together. If you are interested, please put that page on your watchlist and join the discussions there. Thanks, WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

PSHAW failing to promote prep

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments2 people in discussion

@Theleekycauldron I'm trying to promote Prep 4 to the queue, but it fails with: 

index.php?title=User:Theleekycauldron/Scripts/PSHAW/dependencies/Hook.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:21
Uncaught (in promise) TypeError: m[1].capitalize is not a function
   at new Hook (index.php?title=User:Theleekycauldron/Scripts/PSHAW/dependencies/Hook.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:21:28)
   at Prep.loadHooks (index.php?title=User:Theleekycauldron/Scripts/PSHAW/dependencies/Prep.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:39:15)
   at Prep.create (index.php?title=User:Theleekycauldron/Scripts/PSHAW/dependencies/Prep.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:26:9)
   at async HTMLLIElement.moveToQueue (index.php?title=User:Theleekycauldron/Scripts/PSHAW/protocols/queuer.js&action=raw&ctype=text/javascript:25:16)

in the javascript console. Any idea what's going on? Is it possible my page protection change broke something? RoySmith (talk) 21:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

nope, that's on me! one moment... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:44, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
should work now :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:46, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
And indeed it does, thanks for the quick fix! RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Missing credit for rechao

Latest comment: 1 month ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Similar to this section, I noticed that Template:Did you know nominations/Rechao is listed Wikipedia:Recent additions#7 October 2024, but I did not get a talk page message and the article's talk page does not list the DYK nomination. Can someone help with this, and does anyone know why this happened? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 10:43, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Cunard: Please see this discussion. BorgQueen (talk) 10:56, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for sharing the reasons for this not working. One of the reasons is "The bit of code that detects hooks in prep had a bug that prevented detection of hooks with an apostrophe in the piped text." The hook uses italics for rechao, so maybe that's why it didn't work. Cunard (talk) 11:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I believe that one was because the link in the hook wasn't capitalized. It should recognize those now :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for fixing this! Cunard (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron:, another example here, not sure if it's related to an already solved fix. CMD (talk) 02:08, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
yeah, same thing :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:38, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Would someone be able to help with sending the talk page message and updating the article's talk page? Pinging Launchballer (talk · contribs), would you be able to help since you helped in this section? Thank you. Cunard (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you so much for helping with this, Launchballer (talk · contribs)! Cunard (talk) 08:40, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Actinote zikani

@AirshipJungleman29, Sir MemeGod, and Kevmin: The hook fact is only mentioned in the lead (sans citation). Under Protection it says it's on the IUCN list, but doesn't say anything about being "one of two" species. RoySmith (talk) 21:55, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. :) SirMemeGod  22:02, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Also adding a note that the source makes it sound like there are 3 butterflies because the grammar is wrong. The third species in that list is a bird, Fatu Hiva monarch. Also, it's a "blog" source, but it's coming from a subject matter expert. Rjjiii (talk) 22:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
As I understand WP:DYKMOS, the italics should be outside the parentheses – i.e., (''specimen pictured'') should be changed to ''(specimen pictured)''. jlwoodwa (talk) 05:17, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Italics fixed, Rjjiii (talk) 05:32, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3

Latest comment: 1 month ago21 comments5 people in discussion

Abdul Ahad Azad

  • "First" claims have had a lot of kickback, and something subjective like "the first poet to introduce revolutionary themes" is definitely not going to fly. The article mitigates it with "considered", which is a bit better, but still not quite main-page worthy. Tagging creator, reviewer, and promoter: Ratekreel, User:Onceinawhile, AirshipJungleman29 — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    I disagree with this comment. We are allowed superlatives (largest, fastest, most) so long as they are objective / verifiable / falsifiable. In fact we are encouraged to used them, as they go to the heart of what makes a topic interesting. Being the "the first poet to introduce revolutionary themes" is 100% objective, particularly because Kashmiri literature is a modern phenomenon so the evidence is easy to confirm.
    The statements in the hook rely on the published words of Braj Kachru and Ghulam Nabi Gowhar. I cannot think of more appropriate sourcing.
    Onceinawhile (talk) 13:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Two of the three sources are offline, but the one that is online describes him as "the first revolutionary socialist poet" which is much more specific (and credible). So I would have to agree with Chris that the original hook won't fly, and that the article itself probably needs a little further clarification. Gatoclass (talk) 13:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Hi Onceinawhile. I'm not saying it's necessarily wrong; I'm saying that we shouldn't present this information in Wikipedia's voice. A "first" claim, especially with a) something as subjective as themes, and b) something as multi-interpretable as "revolutionary" (in what, style? politics?) needs to be attributed. As Gatoclass notes above, the descriptor "socialist" certainly helps, as it makes it clear that this is politically revolutionary, and that it is a specific subclass of politics. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:03, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    Hi Cris Woodrich, the "first" claim is well referenced in scholarships on Azad. The second "revolutionary" claim is explained in poetic themes section. Azad was revolutionary in the sense that he was wary of exploitation, socioeconomic inequality, injustice, and the likes etc and that he advocated for bringing about a change in social, political and linguistic landscape which would be essentially characterized by humanist, classless and inclusive society. And it's these topics, that became the new "themes" in Kashmiri literature.
    I don't think adding "socialist" would help, it would rather reduce the cause that Azad stood for and translate him as a socialist (in political sense) like any other. Azad's philosophy was broader than the politics of socialists and it's necessary to acknowledge the Kashmiri blend in it. That why I would prefer keeping the present hook. --Ratekreel (talk) 18:54, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    Hi Ratekreel. The issue is the use of Wikipedia's voice, rather than attributing it to the scholars. We have historically had issues with "first" hooks. Just looking at Archive 201, we have Capital Bicycle Club, Caanaanite shipwreck, Tina and Milo, Zhong Jingwen, and Ajah Pritchard-Lolo. This is compounded by the fact that, as a thematic analysis, there is necessarily a judgment call; what scholars have found in his works may be disputed by other scholars, or what scholars have dismissed by earlier poets may be deemed revolutionary by other scholars. As such, there needs to be attribution, or a non-"first" hook. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:27, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    Chris Woodrich, got it. How about we use ALT1 which states "... that Abdul Ahad Azad laid the foundations of literary criticism in Kashmiri literature?" ---Ratekreel (talk) 19:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    Ratekreel, the article uses "credited with". I think, if the ALT uses that similar phrasing, we should be golden.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:55, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    Would the ALT, "... that Abdul Ahad Azad is recognised for laying the foundations of literary criticism in Kashmiri literature?", be fine? We could use "credited with" too. --Ratekreel (talk) 20:07, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    I think that should work. I'm copying the alt over to Prep 1. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    Great! Thank you! --Ratekreel (talk) 06:55, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi Gatoclass, see Special:Diff/1249592654 on why adding "socialist" won't help. Moreover, I don't think the online reference is more credible than two of the offline books. Kachru's book is a landmark work and so is Gauhar's biography of Azad. --Ratekreel (talk) 19:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

The Book of Longings

  • The plot summary is +1000 words in a 1600-word article. Per WP:NOVELPLOT, this should be reduced by about a third. Technically not against DYK rules to run it with a yellow tag, but tagging Orchastrattor and Slgrandson in case this can be dealt with before the prep is promoted.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:31, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    Subject easily falls under the "complex and dense" category highlighted by the guideline given both the textual scope of retelling the entire New Testament and the timeframe of covering some 20-30 years of the protagonist's life. I might shave off a hundred words or so but there really wouldn't be that much else to cut from the actual plot, its already missing plenty of details from the book. Orchastrattor (talk) 20:57, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
    I can't say I agree. There are multiple places where extraneous detail is provided, such as the name of the stillborn child. Other sentences could be rewritten: "On her way to meet Nathaniel, with whom she has been forced into a betrothal, Ana meets Jesus." There are also phrases such as "rumors begin to spread of her having been deflowered out of wedlock" that could be simplified by removing euphemisms ("rumors spread that she is no longer a virgin"). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:38, 6 October 2024 (UTC)
    Well that's the hundred or so words I'm talking about, the point is that the 700 word mark is unrealistic for the article. like you're describing I can streamline the way some of the existing sentences are written, but I can't actually cut anything from the plot without losing encyclopedically valid information about the subject. Orchastrattor (talk) 22:22, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    The unfortunate thing is that, in most instances, information we would like to keep ends up on the cutting room floor. As for the complexity of the novel, it does not appear to be at the same level as The Great Gatsby (726 words), The Red Badge of Courage (638 words), or To Kill a Mockingbird (629 words). I'd be willing to remove the template if the plot were cut down to 800 words or so, longer than the MOS recommends, but not so hefty.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

There are also a couple of sentences in the "themes and analysis" section that are unsourced that need a citation. Gatoclass (talk) 13:59, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4

Latest comment: 1 month ago16 comments9 people in discussion

Actinote zikani

  • Hook fact failed verification. The source provided, Recently Extinct Species, does not indicate any declaration of extinction in 1981. I am also not certain as to the reliability of the source. Pinging Sir MemeGod, Kevmin, and AirshipJungleman29.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:24, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
    Since the Actinote zikani hook has been such a hassle, use the other one if possible that does have solid verification. At this point I'm not even sure where I got the "1981" from. SirMemeGod  21:27, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
    1981 comes from francini, Freitas, &Brown Jr, and the 10 year gap is from the sentance The only new information was from KB who saw a possible male of this species on the wing in April 1981 on the edge of the road from Tapiraí to Sorocaba, in southern São Paulo state, about 1000 m altitude in a very wet forest. This is indeed different from the Alt0 statement, I would also suggest that the Alt1 hook is the better one to use for the nomination as its more interesting and is verified.--Kevmin § 00:53, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    I agree. Replaced with ALT1.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:16, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Typhoon Nat (1991)

  • The phrase "most unusual" is not in the article (though I have to agree; my reaction was "WTF?"). I see that this was nominated by TheNuggeteer, so it may be affected by other sanctions. Also pinging reviewer Ergo Sum and promoter AirshipJungleman29. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:25, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
    I've added the explicit phrase to the article; I promoted the nomination without being aware of the sanctions, and have no opinion on whether it should remain in prep. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks Airship. Looks good now.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:26, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
    I'll be honest: there's so little detail in the article proper: the only date given there is September 17. The storm's beginning and end dates are only in the infobox. At an absolute minimum, I would expect the date of the storm's naming, the date it first became it typhoon, the date it was downgraded, when it became a typhoon again, made landfall, and dissipated. My opinion is that this fails WP:DYKCOMPLETE, and should not be run without further expansion to better cover what was a storm that lasted 19 days, supposedly September 14 through October 3. There is also a disagreement between the infobox, which lists this as a category 3 typhoon with peak winds of 150km/h, and the body of the article, which lists this as a category 2 typhoon with peak winds of 155km/h. Further, the article is inaccurate in its details; the phrase recorded rainfall of 950.8 hPa seems to be confusing air pressure (hPa) and rainfall amounts (earlier measured in millimetres). Since this is in Prep 4, which is the next prep up for promotion, I'm pulling it. I don't see how we can run this article as it currently exists. Pinging Ergo Sum, AirshipJungleman29, and Chris Woodrich. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
    Alrighty. Sounds good to me.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Non-hook

I just realized after starting to examine this prep that I had reviewed two of the hooks. As such, I do not think it wise for me to move them from prep to queue (I know the instructions refer to prep creation only, but I'd rather err on the side of caution). — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:26, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Why don't you tick off the seven you haven't reviewed and leave the other two per WP:DYKPARTIAL? For the record, I see WP:CLOP in Arekia Bennett (pinging @CaptainAngus, Buidhe, BlueMoonset, and AirshipJungleman29:) and not all of Daniela Larreal's Major results section is cited - pinging @Kingsif, Narutolovehinata5, RoySmith, and Nineteen Ninety-Four guy:.--Launchballer 12:14, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
If the major results aren't cited in the list, they're cited in prose - AFAIK this is pretty standard. That like it's really "only add a cite to the list if there isn't one in prose". Kingsif (talk) 21:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Responding to @Launchballer:... I did a review of Arekia Bennett and I'm not really seeing the close paraphrasing you're referring to. But... I wrote the original article so maybe it's just going over my head. I even ran Earwig's Copyvio Detector to double check myself and not much jumped out. Can you point me in the right direction? Thanks! CaptainAngus (talk) 01:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    I agree about the paraphrasing:

    Bennett is the executive director of Mississippi Votes, a nonprofit organization focused on promoting voter registration, voter registration drives, and energizing young people in the state.

    vs

    Bennett, the 27-year-old Jackson native and executive director of Mississippi Votes, a nonprofit focused on voter registration and engaging young voters in the state

    RoySmith (talk) 02:03, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

Latest comment: 1 month ago22 comments9 people in discussion

Have I Got News for You (American game show) (nom)

@Launchballer, Onceinawhile, AirshipJungleman29, and Crisco 1492: Seems to me like this hook is inching closer to the BuzzFeed thing of aggressively teasing "this thing you won't believe!", and while I'm sure we could net more clicks this way, I don't love that direction for DYK – we are still an encyclopedia's project. Could the hook be rephrased or reworked? Chris, I'm quite sorry to be grilling you on your first week at DYK. The rest of you, not so much ;)[FBDB] theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not going to object to this, but it was my understanding that hooks were supposed to leave something out to entice people to read the article. "Dispensed with" does not state the cause so should not fall foul of DYKHOOKBLP.--Launchballer 09:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

2021 Naperville–Woodridge tornado (nom)

@GeorgeMemulous, Piotrus, and AirshipJungleman29: The article looks good, but I gotta raise WP:DYKINT questions on this one. First of all, there's the thing that "helicity" is not something that is easily understood by people with no special knowledge or interest. Second, doesn't that just mean that this was... a reasonably strong tornado? Like, if helicity correlates to strength (among other factors), isn't it worth noting that its helicity wasn't particularly unusual? I'm no expert by any means, but this just seems like an odd thing to highlight. As always, the question is: when I read this hook, what about it makes me want to know more? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron I kind of agree, see my comment in the nomination. I suggest this is to be explained. And I guess it was just a "reasonably strong tornado", but since helicity is an encyclopedic thing (Hydrodynamical_helicity#Meteorology), I think the hook is ok-ish, as it is educational (teaching folks that we refer to tornado stregnth using this word), and through the use of jargon, it made a boring bland hook acceptable. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Well, sure – I mean, a large textbook on particle physics is educational, but I think the average reader would probably find it confusing, get bored, and go watch YouTube instead. That is to say, I'm not sure jargon gives hooks a better educational impact, in my experience :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:51, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
  • The hook as promoted was "... that a tornado near Chicago had more than four times the helicity that it reasonably needed?" I nixed the "reasonably" when promoting, as the word isn't in the article and it feels like editorializing, but that may help with INT. There's also the possibility of adding that the debris was brought four miles (six km) up into the air. "... that a tornado near Chicago, having more than four times the helicity it needed, lifted debris approximately 4 miles (6 km) in the air?"" The source indicates that 10,000 feet is normal for EF2+ tornadoes, but I know I for one didn't know that.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:15, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I have mixed feelings about the hook. On the one hand, it's an introduction hook that may teach a new term to readers (personally I wasn't aware of the term helicity before seeing this). On the other hand, it may seem too technical for the average reader to get, and the reliance on a relatively specialist term is not ideal. Are there any other possible options that could be used here, ideally those that are more layperson-friendly? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Can't lie, I really liked how the hook tries to educate readers about a concept which doesn't typically receive Main Page exposure, instead of being another cookie-cutter hook. When I first read that hook, I certainly wanted to know much more, and went down a 30-minute rabbit hole at tornadogenesis and related articles. I can't imagine that anybody would read "that a tornado lifted debris into the sky" and find a rabbit hole out of that. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Here's an alternative for the less-informed:
"...that a tornado near Chicago had more than four times the helicity reasonably needed for tornadogenesis?"
I suppose this isn't the easiest article for a DYK, even though it has a fact like this. Next time, when I make an article on 1976 Lemont tornado, I'll give it an easier DYK blurb of "...that a violent tornado reversed direction, missing Chicago but hitting a nuclear facility?" GeorgeMemulous (talk) 11:45, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
One more comment. Helicity isn't always documented with tornadoes like this, but I know that soundings taken during the 2013 Washington, Illinois tornado returned helicity in the range of 270 m2/s2, and soundings taken during the 2011 and 1974 Super Outbreaks, the most intense tornado outbreaks in history, returned helicity around 450 m2/s2, all at the storm-relative 0-1km range. Naperville had around 600 at the 0-1km layer. Not that it belongs in the hook, but just as a bit of context. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 12:29, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
@GeorgeMemulous, Crisco 1492 mobile, and Theleekycauldron: I've changed it to "... that a tornado near Chicago had more than four times the helicity needed for tornadogenesis?" This is the alt hook above minus "reasonably". Rjjiii (talk) 22:19, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that really solves the WP:DYKINT problem, but if people disagree, I'm happy to let it run and we can review after. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:09, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
One more and final objection: tornadogenesis doesn't have a helicity threshold as much as a gradient. Change "needed" to "reasonable" and there will be no issues on length.
"...that a tornado near Chicago had more than four times the helicity reasonable for tornadogenesis?" works fine, but I'd prefer if we did not imply tornadogenesis has a floor of helicity set at 150m/s^2. GeorgeMemulous (talk) 14:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Pinging Crisco 1492 for input, Rjjiii (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6

Latest comment: 1 month ago19 comments7 people in discussion

1961 Pittsburg State Gorillas football team

@Cbl62, Crisco 1492, and DimensionalFusion: Could you walk me through where 'undefeated' has an end-of-sentence citation? I'm sure it's there, but I'm not seeing it.--Launchballer 10:49, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Okay, and I see sourcing for the last match. I'd feel a lot happier if that WP:CLUMP was resolved, but that isn't a DYK issue, so this should be good to go.--Launchballer 11:11, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
@Cbl62: The hook states that the team featured four All-Americans, but the article states Three of the team's linemen received first-team honors on the 1961 NAIA All-America team and only includes images for the three of them (I also checked the source for the table, which names exactly the same three players). The hook also states that the team won three championships but four titles are presented in the infobox. Am I misreading the article or were the numbers perhaps swapped in the hook? Complex/Rational 15:52, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • As set forth in the "Awards and honors" section, four players received All-America honros: Snadon on the 1961 Little All-America team (the AP's All-America team for small college players), and three (Archer, Beal, and Hess) on the NAIA All-America team. Also, there were three national championships: NAIA, AP, and UPI. Cbl62 (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (ec) As I read it (being a non-football person), Snadon was also all-American; he's not included with the linemen because he was a fullback. I do not know why the all-American was excluded from his image caption.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:08, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I too would suggest, though, that Snadon be mentioned as all-American in his caption. Complex/Rational 16:28, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Cathy Merrick

  • Neutrality seems questionable. "Made history", "heartfelt responses", "much-needed healthcare to Northern First Nations" (also uncited), etc. Pinging Ornithoptera, Cielquiparle, and AirshipJungleman29. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    @Crisco 1492 Good flags. Changed "made history" to "became"; changed "heartfelt responses" to "responses"; changed "passing" to "death"...but left "much-needed healthcare" alone because maybe there's no other way to say it. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    It still needs to be cited; in the lede we've got " As Chief, Merrick successfully lobbied for and secured $40 million to construct the Cross Lake Health Complex, the first of its kind in Northern Manitoba, bringing much-needed healthcare to Northern First Nations." All the article provides is "... negotiated with the federal government to advocate for the construction of a $55-million healthcare centre." (I note that the cost of the centre is also different). I don't think many would dispute that the healthcare available to Northern First Nations has been lacking; however, per WP:V and WP:LEDE, we should have it referenced and in the body of the article.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 16:37, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    I do believe that was added in after the nomination by another editor. When I had nominated it, the line was "Among her activities as chief, Merrick was able to support the development of a healthcare centre within the community," which was cited within the article per Sinclair and Ward: "and negotiated with the federal government to advocate for the construction of a $55 million healthcare centre." I can restore the original wording if that is fine by you. Ornithoptera (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    Hi Ornithoptera. It sounds like the original wording is better supported by the sources. I'll reread for neutrality after posting this. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    Sounds good. After nomination, especially with the attention an article receives, well meaning editors can swoop in and change some stuff up. Happens but thank you for doing your diligence and noticing them before it was too late. Ornithoptera (talk) 03:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks. The article looks good; this resolves my concerns.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:05, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Sainsbury's, Greenwich

  • Hook fact is cited (in the article at least) to a press release by Sainsbury's; given the advertising value of claiming a head of state requested a visit to one's supermarkets, a secondary source would be needed if we are to keep the "requested" phrasing. The nomination used this source, though I am paywalled from seeing if Zola requested the tour. Tagging Gazamp, Dumelow, and DimensionalFusion (who promoted the hook to Prep 1)  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I verified it from the Times article (which is cited at the end of the sentence). The first three sentences of the article are "Jacob Zuma visits a branch of Sainsbury’s in southeast London, yesterday, where not even his entourage could distract everyone. The President of South Africa was shown around the store in Greenwich by Justin King, the Sainbury’s chief executive, and Hilary Benn, the Environment Secretary. He had requested the tour on his three-day state visit because of the amount of trade the company does with South Africa." - Dumelow (talk) 14:05, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Prep 7

Latest comment: 1 month ago53 comments15 people in discussion

Chesmac (nom)

@JIP, BeanieFan11, and AirshipJungleman29: Hook needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

  • @Launchballer: It was easy to find citations that the Telmac 1800 could not show a chessboard, but a bit more difficult to find a citation that a physical chessboard was needed. In the end I found one that was already used in the article, it mentions that in practice, players had to use a physical chessboard to keep track of the game. It has been added to the end of the sentence shown in the hook. JIP | Talk 09:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I can't read Finnish, so I'll take your word for it.--Launchballer 09:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Piano Sonata (Barber) (nom)

@Zingarese, Jaguarnik, and AirshipJungleman29: Article has many {{cn}} tags. I also don't see where "conservatory-trained" appears in the article, so I took it out (it came under WP:DYKTRIM anyway). Also noting that https://christopheraxworthymusiccommentary.com/2024/09/19/jeremy-chan-at-st-olaves-tower-hill-with-playing-of-commanding-authority-and-towering-musicianship/ almost certainly copied us.--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hey @Launchballer, the one citation needed tag you added to the article was not accurate since the Heyman inline in the second paragraph was referring to all of that text before it. So I just added a duplicate. About the trim, that's fine, one of the sources (Heyman as well, I think) mentioned it, though. And the full citation needed tags were from recordings I removed from the article when I nom'ed the article, but someone added them back and changed the section back to a bulleted list, which I disliked. And I'm flattered about Christopher Axworthy copying us :) Zingarese talk · contribs (please   mention me on reply; thanks!) 11:54, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
My concern has been resolved.--Launchballer 09:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Abramo Colorni (nom)

@Andrevan, Buidhe, and AirshipJungleman29: Got anything more definite than 'might'?--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

That one should probably be attributed inline. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
This is not the type of "indefinite fact that is likely to change" the guidelines are designed to prohibit—those are stuff like "...that Hurrican Milton has killed [X] people in Florida" (you can check the original discussion). If the word "might" is now prohibited, no amount of attribution will change anything. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I can try to come up with another hook. The text is not definitive. The attribution would be to historian Daniel Jutte[5] but he doesn't have an article. Andre🚐 18:03, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm not happy with the hook for Abramo Colorni. It quotes an unknown individual, whose expertise is unknown because we have no article on him. More importantly, it states that Colorni's work might have inspired Joyce's Ulysses, but neither this theory nor his name is mentioned in the article Ulysses (novel). Colorni had a fascinating life and I think we could easily find a better hook. I suggest that the nomination is reopened and an alternative found. @Andrevan: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

OK, let me try to come up with another one, although Daniel Jutte is a real historian[6] Andre🚐 18:02, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

How about, ALT: Abramo Colorni was a Renaissance-era weapons designer who also performed magical illusions and card tricks for his patrons? Or something like that. Andre🚐 09:23, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

If you're happy with "that the Renaissance-era weapons designer Abramo Colorni performed magical illusions and card tricks for his patrons?, I can tick it, but it should probably get at least one further review, so I've swapped it with a hook in prep 4.--Launchballer 18:28, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm happy with that, so I'll swap it in. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Great Andre🚐 22:34, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Rose Betts (nom)

@Chaiten1, MaranoFan, and AirshipJungleman29: As written, this would deserve {{unreliable sources}}; using Gov.uk for anything is a WP:BLPPRIMARY violation, WP:BROADWAYWORLD is red on WP:UPSD, and there are numerous user-generated databases on here. I'm tempted to pull this.--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I can never tell with these types of sources. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
@Chaiten1: What about the user-generated databases, i.e. MusicBrainz, Discogs, AllMusic (their reviews are useful for attributed opinion, but everything else is user-generated)?--Launchballer 09:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks - is there a listing somewhere of authoritative sources for music releases? Chaiten1 (talk) 11:24, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and the more general WP:RSP and WP:UPSD all have their uses, though you should probably check each source as you add it.--Launchballer 15:06, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you! user-generated sources removed Chaiten1 (talk) 15:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Beata Olsson (nom)

@Hameltion, Narutolovehinata5, and SL93: Article has a citation needed tag and the "Style of play" section would surely deserve {{expand section}}.--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Not sure all of the sources in this one are reliable, either... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Which ones did you have in mind? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
whoopsie! wrong section, I was looking at Rose Betts. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
If it's for relatively uncontroversial or uncontentious information, as long as the article isn't solely or primarily reliant on them I don't see that as an issue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Are there sources out there which describe her style of play in more detail? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Added citation. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 13:27, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
My concern has been resolved. I'm still not happy about that section being that short, but that's arguably backing away from the DYK criteria.--Launchballer 09:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Pell v The Queen (nom)

@MaxnaCarta, Cunard, and AirshipJungleman29: Sorry, but I don't agree with the explanation given on the nomination page; WP:BLP states that "the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death, [...] particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends" and I would argue that child sex abuse clearly qualifies. I'm looking for a very good reason why I shouldn't pull this.--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I have pulled this, it's just such a blatant violation.--Launchballer 09:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
This quote from WP:BLP leaves out the part of the policy that was pivotal to why I approved the nomination. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Recently dead or probably dead (WP:BDP) says:

Generally, this policy does not apply to material concerning people who are confirmed dead by reliable sources. The only exception would be for people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the subject that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or particularly gruesome crime.

The policy says "two years at the outside". Two years is 24 months. It has been over 21 months since the subject's death (three months short of the 24 months specified in the policy). I consider over 21 months to be close enough to "two years at the outside" for BDP to no longer apply. We could wait another three months so it reaches exactly two years after his death, but I consider that unnecessary and don't think it would make a meaningful difference. Cunard (talk) 09:21, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
And I consider child sex abuse allegations to be as contentious as it gets, meaning two years applies in my book. Especially given that there are many other hooks in the article...--Launchballer 09:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
21 months is close enough to 24 months that I do not see a meaningful difference on "implications for their living relatives and friends". I am fine with other hooks though. What non-contentious hooks does this article about a child sex abuse court case have? Cunard (talk) 09:44, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I was thinking in terms of "that the verdict of Pell v The Queen could not be reported on properly for two months". You'll need an end-of-sentence citation for it though.--Launchballer 10:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  thank you for the suggestion. I've added italics to the court case name in the proposed hook. I've added two sources to the end of that sentence. I'll defer to the other editors on which hook to use. Cunard (talk) 10:35, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
@Cunard, thank you so much. @Launchballer, I appreciate the proposed new hook about the reporting timeline of Pell’s verdict. I still believe the original hook is perfectly fine. I interpret Leeky as agreeing the original doesn’t place undue weight on negative aspects, and also consider Kusma's comment to mean they think it wouldn’t violate BLP standards. If my interpretations are correct, their positions supports my view. Ultimately, my preferred outcome would be the original hook is found to be appropriate and published as planned.
That said, if the alternative hook is acceptable, I’m willing to go along with it. I feel if I were to argue about the original hook when you’ve proposed a valid alternative, that would be wasting time on my part. I concede to the alternative hook not because I believe the original is in violation, but rather to progress the discussion with a valid alternative in the spirit of cooperation and preventing a stalemate at DYK, an area which struggles already with a high workload.
While this discussion was unforeseen, and in the event my original hook is not published then the outcome of my DYK is not the one which I would prefer, I nonetheless thank you Launchballer for the work you do in this area. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 04:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer would we be ready to go again now and move back to confirmed for prep? — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 00:50, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
It's currently in prep 7. There's a slim chance it might move if I decide to queue that set, but I will ping you if that happens.--Launchballer 00:57, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
No worries @Launchballer, as long as we are done from my end. Thanks heaps. — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 03:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
The policy on emphasises the importance of neutrality in hooks and discourages undue focus on negative aspects of living persons. My proposed hook adheres to this policy for several reasons.
First, the hook highlights a significant judicial decision made by the High Court of Australia, which is an important fact in the context of the legal proceedings against Pell. It does not dwell on the negative aspects of his life or past allegations but instead focuses on the outcome of a major legal case. I see slight merit in an assertion that mentioning his conviction on the main page of Wikipedia unduly focuses on a negative aspect, however the emphasis is on the court's decision rather than the allegations.
Second, the hook presents an objective fact: the court’s unanimous decision to overturn the conviction. This fact is crucial to understanding the legal narrative surrounding Pell and the decision and the fact mentioned in the hook was reported internationally, which further emphasises its relevance.
Lastly, the hook does not misrepresent or sensationalise the situation; it simply states a pivotal moment in the legal process. It provides necessary context without unduly emphasising negative elements of Pell's life, thus maintaining a neutral perspective in line with the WP:DYKBLP.
Therefore, I humbly contend that the hook reflects a balanced and factual presentation of a significant legal judgment, making it neutral and guideline compliant.
P.S
I foresaw no controversy at all in submitting this. Sorry if I stepped on anyone's toes! — MaxnaCarta  ( 💬 • 📝 ) 09:49, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
This is a bit of an out-there position, but I tend to feel that if the hook is DUE relative to the article (which it is), and the article is DUE relative to splitting policy (no one's nommed the article for merge), then the hook is unlikely to be UNDUE? Like, it seems rather awkward to be okay with an entire article devoted to a negative aspect of a living person, but not the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:55, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Without comment on this specific situation, an article existing is not the same as promoting the article on the main page, and articles can be edited while hooks are preserved and presented prominently on a talkpage forever. CMD (talk) 10:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it is a BLP violation at all to tell us that Pell (most famous for being a convicted sex offender) was no longer a convicted sex offender at the time of his death. —Kusma (talk) 09:59, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I thought he was most famous for being a cardinal, given that that's what most of his article is dedicated to.--Launchballer 10:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
"I'm looking for a very good reason why I shouldn't pull this. Perhaps that you manipulated the quote to deliberately exclude the possible ending dates of the "indeterminate period" and replace if with your own analysis. I'm looking for a very good reason on how this could be done in good faith, Launchballer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:13, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I kept rewording my comment and had moved that part of it to outside the quotes.--Launchballer 10:29, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Hymenophyllum axsmithii (nom)

@Kevmin, PrimalMustelid, and AirshipJungleman29: Not seeing where this is in the article.--Launchballer 08:56, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

I believe the final sentence of "Paleoecology". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:07, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Correct, the last sentence of "Paleoecology" the possibility Hymenophyllum axsmithii was an epiphyte or not will depend on more fossils being found and described; in particular the rhizome and root structure will be key to determining where in the Republic paleoforest it lived keeping in mind that epiphyte is tree and ledge dwelling plants.--Kevmin § 17:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
My concern has been resolved.--Launchballer 09:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

MyRadar and fair-use

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Could somebody who understands image licensing and fair use please take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/MyRadar? RoySmith (talk) 18:59, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

I dropped by with a quick review. Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 20:53, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 5

Latest comment: 1 month ago15 comments6 people in discussion

Political text messaging

  • (ec) I know that, when I was living in Indonesia, I didn't receive a single spam text message about politics. But I do see that Australia mentions rules and exemptions (and an example from a referendum), and Canada had issues in 2019. I'm also seeing seeing non-electoral coverage in Egypt. So it does have some prevalence outside the US.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:00, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
    One thought. The Campaign finance reform in the United States exists as a full article, while Campaign finance reform exists as a disambiguation page that links to campaign finance.
    It would make sense that there is far more material to make a notable article about the US, as this is a very US dominated problem. Would a similar approach be appropriate for Political text messaging? Bluethricecreamman (talk) 16:17, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    Agree with others above that the topic will be very context specific (although not as specific as campaign finance reform). Mobile phone markets developed very differently in different countries, in addition to considerations regarding different legal contexts mentioned above. I would not assume, without seeing sources, that a global article on political text messaging would say very much. CMD (talk) 16:42, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    Referring to the guideline Wikipedia:CONCEPTDAB, we should not have a DAB for campaign finance reform as a concept. As I mentioned above, there are some examples of international political text messages. Looking at Google Scholar, there are some articles that take a broader view (1, 2), as well as Spain (1), Finland, and Uganda). To be fair, the type of political communication does seem to vary, but there is plenty for a "global" view. If we had this handled, even summary style, in a base article, or if we restored political text messaging to its previous location and added a couple paragraphs providing international context, I think it would be okay to continue. Right now, though, I'm worried that we may need to unpromote the hook.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Rail transport in Northamptonshire

I don't believe I had anything to do with this one. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  • ... that a judge is threatening to order the government of India to shut down Wikipedia in the country over a defamation lawsuit?

It would be great if this could be slotted in before October 25th to prevent it becoming outdated. Also wanted to get feedback on the meta-ness. Valereee (talk) 19:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Could that be shortened to:
ALT1: ... that a judge is threatening to shut down Wikipedia in India over a defamation lawsuit?
which says essentially the same thing in fewer words. RoySmith (talk) 21:09, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Fine by me! Valereee (talk) 21:24, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

TheNuggeteer

Latest comment: 1 month ago10 comments5 people in discussion

TheNuggeteer was given a six-month long topic ban from content assessment processes (including DYK) a couple of days ago per this discussion. They still have a few open and unpromoted nominations at both WP:DYKN and WP:DYKNA, so either the nominations will have to be closed, or another editor adopt them. Courtesy ping to Premeditated Chaos who has mentioned this in some of TheNuggeteer's unapproved noms. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:12, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

If the WP:DYKNA nominations are still approved, then no adoption is needed and the nominations can be promoted as usual since no further action by TheNuggeteer is needed. It's the noms not yet approved yet needing work that will end up being closed if no one adopts them in the next few days. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:58, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm looking to adopt. Where do I find them? Viriditas (talk) 01:26, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
@Viriditas: I think it's just those two, Rjjiii (talk) 04:39, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Both noms need new hooks stat. Are there any other issues I should be aware of? Viriditas (talk) 05:04, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately, both articles need copyediting and probably some vetting. It took me awhile to figure out what I think "The song and music video centers around Tyler's alter ego, with some hints of feminism, hence the name "A Boy Is a Gun"" is trying to say. CMD (talk) 05:36, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Understood, thanks. Viriditas (talk) 08:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
On the one hand, I'm having difficulty understanding why AmBisyon Natin 2040 isn't one or two paragraphs within National Economic and Development Authority. I don't really see it as needing to be a standalone article. On the other hand, I'm not seeing any potential hooks that stand out. Viriditas (talk) 08:37, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Update: It's really unfortunate, but having reviewed both of these articles, I think AmBisyon Natin 2040 and A Boy Is a Gun should both be rejected. I think AmBisyon Natin 2040 should be merged into National Economic and Development Authority and A Boy Is a Gun needs a complete rewrite. Viriditas (talk) 20:20, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I had to largely rewrite another nomination, so this makes sense, appreciate that you spent your time looking more deeply into these though. Perhaps worth applying any appropriate yellow tags. CMD (talk) 03:01, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/1

Latest comment: 1 month ago11 comments5 people in discussion

Its not clear why this was removed after being accepted by Chaiten1, promoted to prep area 6 by AirshipJungleman29 and seemingly rejected by Crisco 1492 on the basis of unresolved discussion. The only unresolved discussion was whether or not the hook should contain some more wikilinks. Surely that's not a good reason to reject? Please can it be restored. It's a recent GA with over 2 million views in the last year. Polyamorph (talk) 16:54, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Have you all considered changing the WL to "One"? Something like this -- One. Ktin (talk) 16:56, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I honestly don't mind, One would be fine by me, as would adding the other links suggested. Polyamorph (talk) 17:02, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I see that it hasn't actually been rejected, just moved to a different prep area. phew. @Launchballer and Dedhert.Jr: what do you think about changing the WL to One and adding links to square (algebra), square root, and factorial? Polyamorph (talk) 17:15, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Square and square root are common terms but factorial isn't, so I've linked that, and MOS:NUM says single-digit numbers should be spelled out but I think leaving it as a number helps spell out that it is a number.--Launchballer 17:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
"the number 1" is another option. I am also fine with linking factorial, Rjjiii (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1

Latest comment: 1 month ago21 comments6 people in discussion

Uzun-Hajji

Episode 7921

You Liked This (Okay, Computer!)

  • What makes Clout a reliable source? I'm seeing that the author/interviewer is also the president of the media, which makes me question its reliability. Also, looking into Standing's background, I see that she sued TikTok but the company changed the voice without acknowledging that the original was her. Unless there has been acknowledgement, we only have that she claimed to be the voice of TikTok. Tagging Koopastar, Viriditas, and AirshipJungleman29.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    • I don't see anything that would make me think Clout is unreliable—smaller media outlets presumably have limited staff. The Verge reported that Tiktok agreed to settle with Standing and that they changed the voice mid-lawsuit... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
      • I'm seeing, per the Verge article you linked above, that "TikTok never confirmed that it used Standing’s voice." A settlement certainly implies culpability, but that would be OR on our part. As for Clout, their About Us page is a list of two names, and a reference to "Born Communication" at the bottom. Every article I've opened is credited to Kieran Rogers, and they are described as a blog at their Submithub page (which is linked through "Submit your Music"). Per WP:BLOG, Rogers would need to be a recognized expert in the field for his blog to be accepted as an RS. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:12, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
        The voice on TikTok and the voice on the recording are the same voice. Am I missing something here? The claim is not in doubt here. Viriditas (talk) 12:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
        Her being the "voice of TikTok" is still not supported by the available references, no matter what our ears may hear.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 15:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
        That sounds pretty Orwellian (almost a direct quote from 1984: "The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command"). The sources support it based on my reading. Are you making a legal distinction based on a TikTok settlement? That’s not in the sources that I can see. Bev Standing was the voice of TikTok. No reasonable industry source says otherwise. This claim appears in every mainstream media source and there isn’t a single one that says otherwise. Viriditas (talk) 18:46, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
  • According to Standing's attorney, "TikTok admitted that Bev's voice was indeed the voice of their text-to-speech feature",[7] (presumably in Standing v. Bytedance, 7:2021cv04033), so I fail to see any issues here. (Although the details of this admission aren't explicit, a newer source called Artificial Intelligence Law (2024) indicates that the settlement included the provision that TikTok would license Bev Standing's voice. As Hamburg 2022 cited below indicates, this lack of licensing was one of the core complaints of the original case. If TikTok agreed to this in the settlement as Swan 2024 says, then this supports the admission alleged by Standing's attorney.) The available references in the article all support this. Chris appears to be making an argument that doesn't exist. Viriditas (talk) 19:06, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    In addition to TikTok admitting the voice belonged to Standing and all of the popular sources for this claim, all of the industry sources support it as well. Johanna Gibson, Herchel Smith Professor of Intellectual Property Law, Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary, University of London, writes: "Without a recognition of the voice as creative, the performer is at risk of being marginalised by the encroachment of artificial intelligence into the performance space, where their voice is simply a part of a sound recording and alienated, both technically and legally, from its source. A now rather famous example of this is the dispute between Bev Standing, a Canadian voice actor, and TikTok's parent company, ByteDance. Standing had recorded audio for the Chinese Institute of Acoustics several years previously, but the actor's voice then emerged as TikTok's text-to-speech feature." (Reforming Intellectual Property, p. 119) Viriditas (talk) 19:23, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
    Jeanne Hamburg: "Someone's voice (and aspects of their persona such as their photo, image, or other likeness) can be protected by what’s called the 'right of publicity.' That right prevents others from appropriation of one's persona – but only when appropriation is for commercial purposes. In the TikTok case, there was commercial use, as TikTok was benefiting from use of Standing's voice to 'narrate' its users' videos (with some user videos apparently involving 'foul and offensive language'). In her Complaint, Standing alleged TikTok had violated her right of publicity in using her voice to create the AI voice used by TikTok, and relied upon two other claims: false designation of origin under the Lanham Act and copyright infringement, as well as related state law claims. The false designation of origin claim turned on whether Standing's voice was so recognizable that another party's misappropriation of it could confuse consumers as to whether Standing authorized the Tik Tok use. The copyright infringement claim was possible because Standing created the original voice files for a company that hired her to record Chinese language translations. TikTok subsequently acquired the files but failed to get a license from Standing to use them, as TikTok was legally obligated to do because Standing was the original creator (and therefore copyright owner) of the voice files. As with other historical technological innovations (one of the earliest being the printing press), the law often plays catch-up, but has proven surprisingly adaptable to new technology. Here, Standing was able to plead three legal theories (six if you count the state statutory and common law unfair competition claims), so it seems artists are well-protected by existing law, at least if they are alleging AI was used to copy their work or persona." ("Protection for Voice Actors is Artificial in Today’s Artificial Intelligence World", The National Law Review, June 2022)
    Hi Viriditas. WP:V explicitly states "In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means readers can check that information comes from a reliable source. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than editors' beliefs, experiences, or previously unpublished ideas or information." (emphasis mine). If you feel that our policy is Orwellian, feel free to bring it up at the policy talk page.
    That being said, with explicit references that the settlement is being understood by experts as an admission that the voice was Standing's, the requirements set at WP:V are met. I am still concerned about the reliability of the source, however, and will be moving this hook to another prep to allow time for further discussion. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:29, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
    Actually, nix that. Standing's involvement in the song does not reach the level where I think a secondary source would be required. The interview should be okay, at a bare minimum, as a primary source.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:31, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Charlotte Motor Speedway

The sentence beginning "In 2021, the race" needs a citation.--Launchballer 10:52, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
@Crisco 1492: Fine by me. You can queue this now.--Launchballer 12:55, 12 October 2024 (UTC)

Queue 7

Latest comment: 1 month ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I'm not happy with the hook for Abramo Colorni. It quotes an unknown individual, whose expertise is unknown because we have no article on him. More importantly, it states that Colorni's work might have inspired Joyce's Ulysses, but neither this theory nor his name is mentioned in the article Ulysses (novel). Colorni had a fascinating life and I think we could easily find a better hook. I suggest that the nomination is reopened and an alternative found. @Andrevan: Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Didn't I already respond to this message somewhere else? (Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know#Abramo_Colorni_(nom)) Sorry, I don't fully understand the preps and queues system. I will come up with another hook. As I said in the other message, the individual is not unknown, but a reputable historian and faculty at NYU. I did some work on the article today to try to find a better hook. Let me know if you have any suggestions. Andre🚐 09:14, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I moved it above as I'd already brought up the nom as part of prep-to-queue checks.--Launchballer 17:43, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah no problem. Sorry for the confusion! I proposed a different hook idea in that thread. Andre🚐 17:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 19. We have a total of 267 nominations, of which 107 have been approved, a gap of 160 nominations that has increased by 23(!) over the past 7 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) 19:40, 13 October 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Tauba Tauba (song)

The phrase Billboard Canadian Hot 100 has two adjacent non-bolded links, which is discouraged by WP:DYKMOS. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

And I was going to comment "Yeeted "Billboard" and given it a good trim. (I pinged the nominator, approver, and promoter in the edit summary.)", but you edit conflicted me. I cut the date as I considered it extraneous.--Launchballer 00:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
But I do like your "top 25 song" shortening, so I've implemented it.--Launchballer 00:56, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2

Latest comment: 1 month ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Palace Theater Light

@Panamitsu and MaxnaCarta: One sentence is a little too close to https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/still-shining-brightly-second-oldest-light-bulb-in-the-world-turns-110/287-596344054 and I think it should be reworded. Also, the lead was quite long given the rest of the article, so I gave it a trim.--Launchballer 18:21, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer: I've reworded the sentence. ―Panamitsu (talk) 22:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
My concern has been resolved. @Crisco 1492:, if the others are fine, then this is fit to rake. (@Theleekycauldron:, I just tried to move this myself using PSHAW, but it gave me the error message "Might I suggest Wikipedia:Requests for adminship first?"?)--Launchballer 23:20, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I notice you built most of prep 3 and that there's only eight in that set, is there a reason for this?--Launchballer 00:09, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
No worries. I just swapped two hooks within the set so to avoid adjacent countries.--Launchballer 00:32, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer: hmmmm. If template protection is here to stay, then I might update the code, but I don't have time in the next few days. Probably stick to manual for now? Or you can fork User:Theleekycauldron/Scripts/PSHAW/protocols/queuer.js and delete lines 40–43 inclusive :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:17, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nominations/JerAx

Latest comment: 1 month ago22 comments7 people in discussion

I believe all the issues in the article/DYK nom have been addressed. I may be naive when it comes to DYK, but the closing reason, "No progress regarding the nomination has occurred in the weeks since it was marked for closure", and the final reason for rejection, "close paraphrasing and other problems that have been found by multiple reviewers" doesn't seem fair. AFAICS, the only issue was the sourcing and that was resolved promptly. Can this nom be considered for a re-open? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 17:42, 10 October 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Narutolovehinata5:.--Launchballer 07:18, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
To be fair, the nomination hadn't had a single response in weeks. It was also multiple editors that had an issue with the article, namely TechnoSquirrel69 and RoySmith. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:31, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
@Jeraxmoira my take on this is that you kept pushing back on issues found by reviewers. In general, if you listen to the reviewers' comments and work to resolve them, you'll find people are mostly willing to work with you. If you keep saying, "No, that's not a problem", people are going to walk away. For example, regarding the WP:CLOP issue I pointed out, if you had said, "I'm sorry, I'm not seeing that, could you help me to understand the problem better?", I would have been happy to spend a bunch of time teaching you about what close paraphrasing means and work with you to find some better wording. Instead you asserted that it wasn't a problem. We've got more submissions than we can handle, so I'm not inclined to invest any more time on this.
BTW, I notice the similarity between your username and the subject of the article, which leads me to wonder if there's a WP:COI issue here as well. RoySmith (talk) 14:41, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
There is no COI here. I used to be a gamer and my username is inspired by the Dota 2 player and an Overwatch 2 hero, Moira. I made a number of improvements from the feedback provided by the reviewers. Which of my replies gives the impression that "No, that's not a problem" when I also tried to fix the CLOP issue that you raised?
The CLOP issue was mentioned when you rejected the DYK, it looks like you had already made up your mind before giving me a chance to fix it. Another editor also felt that the paragraph didn’t have any issues. FWIW, would you mind helping with the CLOP issue now? Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:00, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
Pinging @RoySmith. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:25, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I've said all I have to say on this. RoySmith (talk) 18:49, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
I’ve reworked the paragraph again to address the CLOP issue. Narutolovehinata5, I’d appreciate it if you could consider reopening the nom for another review, if RoySmith has no further concerns about the paragraph or any other issues. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 19:44, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Given that the nomination was closed due to the issues not being addressed in time (I closed it several weeks after the last comment), it does not seem fair to reopen the nomination now for improvements done after the nomination was closed. However, if the article is brought to GA status, then it could potentially be renominated. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:51, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, can you help me understand this better? All the issues raised during the DYK review were addressed within 24 hours and you can verify this in the article and DYK nom page history. Both Mrfoogles and I replied to RoySmith's concerns which he never responded back too.
The CLOP issue was also addressed twice, yesterday and on the day it was raised, even though it was raised in his rejection comment rather than separately. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems the nom was closed because there was no follow-up to my final response, not because the issues were unresolved for a long time. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 08:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
If a nomination has no response in weeks, it's up to the nominators and reviewers to make sure issues are addressed promptly. Any nomination that is marked for closure and where issues remain open (regardless if they are open or not) remain liable for closure. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:59, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
This will probably be the last time I make my point regarding this nom. I believe you’re aware that I’m still fairly new to DYK and haven’t even crossed my fifth nom yet. We had almost a month before this DYK would have timed out and the issues raised were clearly fixable and were addressed promptly too. Even if I were to undo my latest edit today, the CLOP issue would still have been resolved from the edit I made on the same day it was first raised.
I hope you can cut me some slack here, as this isn’t a situation where the issues were unfixable or where I failed to make improvements based on the reviewers' feedback. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I was also surprised when it was closed, I assumed the issues had been addressed. I think that probably the closer should have just left a comment tagging some people that it would either have to be finished or closed, especially given there's (apparently) a timeout that had not yet been reached. I think if that had happened it would likely have been finished.
I don't think that this should be required, but practically speaking I guess you could ping people if it goes a week or two unreplied, to see if anyone's still there. I think it needs to be formalized in policy if DYKs are closed when being left uncommented for a week or two with issues (I can't find it if it is).
I think procedurally DYKs are just not re-opened after being closed, especially given they're supposed to be recent, so you're unlikely to get other people to agree with doing that, though. Mrfoogles (talk) 16:54, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
Can you link to the procedure that states DYKs are not re-opened after being closed? FWIW, the nomination has not timed out, so it should still be considered recent. Either way, if wikipedia has no firm rules cannot be applied in this situation, I really doubt its value as one of the five principles of Wikipedia. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
It's not a hard rule, but it's very rare for nominations to be re-opened once they're closed, especially if they were closed for understandable reasons. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Uninvolved comment I would tend to agree with RoySmith that the review comments were not adequately addressed. It was rejected three times and the nominator didn't go out of their way to address the concerns raised. As has been mentioned, improve to GA quality and try again. Polyamorph (talk) 13:14, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    Do you mean to say that the nomination was rejected three times and each time the reviewer didn’t ask the nominator to provide alternative sources, but instead outright rejected it?
    • Here is the first rejection, where the reviewer didn’t mind asking the nominator for alternative sources. - Per the reviewers' feedback, AFK gaming sources were removed.
    • Rejected again - Was a chance given to address the issues? I don’t think so. - Techtimes was removed and multiple new sources were added.
    • The third rejection happened within a 45 minute interval - The CLOP issue was raised with the rejection message, though another editor noted that it wasn’t exactly close paraphrasing. It was also fixed on the same day and if the fix wasn’t adequate, it should have been communicated to the nominator.
    I’ve made my peace with the DYK being rejected, but please don’t question the efforts put into improving the article. The majority of the sources were swapped twice, and all issues were addressed within 24 hours or on the same day. Reviewers should have clearly stated that the concerns were not adequately addressed, rather than outright rejecting the nomination or going AWOL on it. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 13:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    This is not how you win over reviewers. Polyamorph (talk) 16:34, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    This isn't how other DYK nominations were reviewed and closed, right? But I guess there's nothing we can do about it now. I was under the impression that DYK evaluations were based on content, not the editor. I have two approved DYKs and one rejected, and none of them were evaluated the way this one was.
    My intention was to get clarity and fairness in the process. I believe the efforts to improve the article were genuine, with multiple changes made after each round of feedback. But in the end, it felt like there was a lack of communication on whether those changes were sufficient before the nomination was rejected. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 16:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    I don't see any difference to how this was reviewed compared to any other DYK. It was totally about content, and that content was/is not up to DYK standard. Of course, as this is a collaborative project, you also need to be able to work well with the reviewers, criticising their work isn't going to help. Polyamorph (talk) 17:25, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    I can't really help if you fail to see the difference in how they were reviewed, even though it is very evident from the conversations that took place on the other three DYKs. One of them was close to rejection, and I was completely okay with it since the concerns raised were reasonable. Jeraxmoira🐉 (talk) 18:18, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    Hey Jeraxmoira, I didn't realize you had started this discussion so I'm just getting around to it. I'd appreciate a ping or a talk page message if you have any issues with my comments in the future. Anyway, the issues I brought up about the seemingly unreliable sources have yet to be addressed. They were not removed from the article, and you did not provide a reasoned response showing why those sources were reliable, instead asserting that "This is how esports coverage looks". If I'd felt that the rejection was no longer warranted, I would have struck it and continued the review. Obviously, I didn't do that, and I didn't feel any need to continue discussing with you when I'd already said what I needed to say. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 17:20, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Prep 6 (11 October)

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Statue of John Stockton

(Nominated at Template:Did you know nominations/Statue of John Stockton)

The hook "that the sculptor re-positioned the statue of John Stockton about 20 times by using a wrench to adjust ball-and-socket joints on steel rods?" is potentially misleading as the source does not say that this statue contains ball-and-socket joints or that it can move. @DimensionalFusion, Dr vulpes, and Left guide: tagging involved editors, Rjjiii (talk) 14:22, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Source says The statues are supported by steel rods with custom-made ball-and-sockets in the joints that allow Challis to insert a wrench through a temporary hole to make adjustments to the positioning of the body. – to me, that sounds like what the hook says DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
@DimensionalFusion: but are any of those "statues" (plural) the one outside of the Delta Center, which is the subject of the article? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 18:47, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
@DimensionalFusion, Dr vulpes, and Left guide: Check out this gallery of his work https://web.archive.org/web/20060718190722/http://www.challis.com/stockton.php The overall article does at least say "Challis went to work on the original clay model that started taking shape by June 2004." which can imply that the joints are in this smaller clay model, but the hook sounds like the 13-foot tall bronze statue (the subject of the article) can move. Rjjiii (talk) 01:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I guess the hook could be slightly tweaked to say something like "that the sculptor re-positioned a clay statue of John Stockton about 20 times by using a wrench to adjust ball-and-socket joints on steel rods before making the casts for the bronze version?" Dr vulpes (Talk) 02:57, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Need to make a change to {{DYKsubpage}} to implement a PSHAW feature request

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I've gotten a couple asks to have the PSHAW prep builder add a note to the bottom of the nompage when closed, just to signal where the nomination. I can't really do that under the current architecture, because people keep screwing up the {{DYKsubpage}} template, leaving comments outside the template wrapper. Because it's such a recurring issue with new users, I think it'd be a lot more user-friendly if the DYKsubpage template didn't wrap the entire page. Instead, the content should sit outside the DYKsubpage template, and when closing the nomination, the closer (or PSHAW) can add {{subst:DYK bottom}} cleanly and easily at the bottom of the page, no futzing required. Plus, I think this would enable the use of DiscussionTools on the page? So, I see this as an absolute win. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:58, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

This seems reasonable to me. I forget which thing makes it possible to just hit a "reply" button, but if that's Discussion Tools, I'm all for it.
One thing that's always bothered me is that we scatter our discussions of a particular hook across multiple pages. Before approval, it's on the nom page. After approval, it's here. I think it would be nice to centralize it all onto one page. So maybe while you're mucking with the nom page structure, add a "Post-approval discussion" section, and that could get transcluded here if there's something to talk about. It would certainly make it a lot easier to follow the history later on.
I think we chatted about this idea briefly at WCNA, but I could envision a button on the nom page which looks here to find if there's already a section talking about the nomination, creates it if it's missing, adds the transclusion, and also looks up all the involved parties (nominator, reviewer, promoter) and pings them. That's basically what I do manually right now when I find a problem in a queue promotion. Reducing all that to one button click would be awesome. RoySmith (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

PSHAW and blank space

Latest comment: 1 month ago2 comments1 person in discussion

I've seen two error reports at WP:ERRORS regarding extraneous blank space in the DYK section on Main Page/Next, one on 11 October and one on 16 October. Based on the feedback I'm seeing, this is caused by the blank space between {{DYKbotdo}} and {{Did you know/Clear/header}} while the items are in queue (example). This blank space is not carried over by DYK Bot when it updates the template, and thus it does not affect the main page proper. However, it is affecting at least one skin's ability to accurately gauge the length of the various main-page sections. Is this blank space necessary, or would it be possible for PSHAW to be coded to not include it? Tagging Theleekycauldron as she knows the code, but welcoming all feedback. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Latest comment: 1 month ago29 comments10 people in discussion

Svayamvara (nom)

@Seyamar, Mrfoogles, and Crisco 1492: the hook talks about "ancient Indian literature", so I was initially thinking that WP:DYKFICTION may be relevant, but the article indicates that the practice was a feature of "ancient Indian society". Is there any reason we can't say that in the hook?

More worryingly, I did a quick check for sourcing: the lengthy paragraph beginning "The significance of Draupadī’s Svayaṃvara..." seems almost totally non-verified by the source. The terminology is somewhat difficult, so I would appreciate if someone could double-check, but it seems like there might be significant WP:OR in that paragraph and possibly the rest of the article. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:54, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Hmm... I'm seeing elements that certainly seem to support the paragraph identified, albeit with some rather far-reaching paraphrasing. The paragraph in the source that starts "Damayanti's first svayamvara (3.51-62)" supports "agency" ("her second ... is explicitly said to be her own idea") and that her actions were undertaken because Nala was missing. That being said, skimming the article I don't see anything that refers to divine intervention, and other elements of the paragraph are not fully supported. It doesn't help that the entire swath is cited to six pages in the article; specific statements should ideally be related to specific pages. I'd pull this.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:10, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

User:AirshipJungleman29, [[User:Crisco 1492 Ok I will clarify each query:

  • Why the word “literature” instead of society: Intentionally did that as the majority of the article deals with the literary aspect of the practice. Though it is stated that the practice did exist, I couldn't find a detailed specific source to write on its historical aspect. Eg. The Evolution of Ideals of Womenhood in Indian Society states that “Even so, the antiquity of this system is unquestioned. There are examples of this practice not only in the pre-historic times, but in the historic period as well. The apparent meaning of swayamvara is the practice in which the bride selects the groom herself. But there is hardly any example of such a selection. The practice, however, was that the bride could freely choose her husband within the conditions and limitations prescribed by the father.”
  • Significance of Draupadī's Svayamvara: Majority of information taken from “Reading the Fifth Veda: Studies on the Mahābhārata - Essays by Alf Hiltebeitel”, it was by mistake that I cited Epic Svayaṃvaras instead, will fix it.
  • Citations in origin and development: The Evolution of Ideals of Womenhood in Indian Society can be added to support the statements, though Epic Svayaṃvaras also cites various scholars itself.
  • For Damayanti, I had read the following book, but missed to add the citation (for rest of the characters' examples I can assure you that it has been properly cited): Feminine Journeys in the Mahabharata which deals with the role of divine intervention: "Gods and miracles are antagonists rather than supporters, who were ultimately won over by the true veracity of the couple Damayanti and Nala. Placing human life and human values including their struggles above all even to the point of rejecting Gods is central to the story of Damayanti. The playful Gods join Nala and Damayanti in celebrating their life and aspirations of love, while the one jealous God decides to test them."
  • If there's confusion about the gods blessing Damayanti in the earlier part of the story instead of showing jealousy (as mentioned in the quoted part), it's because the gods present at her Svayamvara blessed her union. The jealousy mentioned later in the story involves different gods and isn't connected to the Svayamvara, which is why it's not included in the story part of the article para.

Seyamar(245CMR)💬📜 19:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

    • Seyamar please get into the habit of providing page numbers for your sources using templates such as {{rp}}. I have been looking only at the Brockington source, as it is comparatively short at only eight pages. Notwithstanding your assurances, I believe that large amounts of material from other paragraphs is not verified by it. Take the first paragraph of the "Sītā’s Svayaṃvara" section—only a couple of phrases are verified in Brockington. I'm pulling this hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:47, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
      @AirshipJungleman29, I usually use sfn format for citations, but didn't do this time due to time constraint. As for verification, citation is provided for Sita Svayamvara para 1, please see Citation no 13: Sītā and Draupadī: Aggressive Behavior and Female Role-Models in the Sanskrit Epics, Sally J. Sutherland. I will reformat it whenever I can find time, sorry for the inconviences. Seyamar(245CMR)💬📜 16:35, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
      Inline citations are actively misleading if you put them next to the wrong material. Please take care in the future. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
      For more information on this, see text–source integrity. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
      @AirshipJungleman29, definitely, so is this nomination still savable or has it been completely discarded? Like after changing the citation formatting, which I can do by next week, can this nom be promoted again? Seyamar(245CMR)💬📜 18:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
      It can be saved, but it will need to pass a re-review focusing on text-source integrity. If you ping me at the nomination when you are certain the issues are resolved, I will mark it for re-review. Only when you are certain, though—it'll be rejected if the issues are not adequately fixed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:04, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Karađorđeva šnicla (nom)

I think the phrase Karađorđeva šnicla should be wrapped in a {{lang}} template, per WP:DYKMOS § C10. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:42, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I added a {{lang|sr}}, but turned off italics. Thanks for reporting! —Kusma (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Joan McIntyre (activist)

I think it would be good to link Friends of the Earth to Friends of the Earth, and her own organization to Project Jonah:

Does anyone object to this (e.g. think it's overlinking)? jlwoodwa (talk) 17:10, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Linking these terms would probably decrease page views for the bolded article, so there is a crowd of people who prefer not to link. Others disagree though, as always on Wikipedia :) —Kusma (talk) 17:47, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
I purposefully didn't link them because of that reason. SilverserenC 17:51, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I know I'm personally in favour of keeping pertinent links (avoids negative comments on ERRORS, also allows readers to get more context without an extra click), but as for hooks in prep/queue I do feel like it's better to defer to nominators unless issues are raised. In this case, I feel like FOTE should be linked (as it is a specific named organization), but "her own organization" and "whaling" could easily slide by without links.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:55, 14 October 2024 (UTC)
    That sounds reasonable. FOTE being unlinked was what stood out to me, and Project Jonah was just "while we're at it, might as well". jlwoodwa (talk) 23:58, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Abramo Colorni (nom)

I technically prepped this, so another set of eyes would be appreciated. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:03, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

@Andrevan: This needs more work. The source says that the word "scotographia" occurs in a notebook for Finnegan's Wake and the ties to Ulysses are less direct; I think this is overstated in the article and in the hook. Perhaps something can be made out of "Jewish Baron von Munchhausen"? —Kusma (talk) 14:18, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Oops, sorry. I didn't notice that the hook in the queue has nothing to do with the one in the nom. My point about the article remains. Will check the hook in queue now. —Kusma (talk) 14:20, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
From the snippets I can see the hook checks out, although I find the reference to Garzoni's 1605 book (without page number) a bit questionable. What content is verified by the multiple citations at the end of the lead section? —Kusma (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
We changed the hook. The Garzoni reference is corroborated by the Jutte book. The references in the lead corroborate everything in that sentence. Andre🚐 14:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I added the page numbers for Garzoni, and in doing so I realized there are actually 3 Garzoni books[1], so the cite is updated now and should be easier to verify. I believe the other two books are actually more important to this citation. The cites in Jutte's bibliography are on p.315 Andre🚐 01:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Garzoni, Tomaso (1613). Il serraglio de gli stupori del mondo: di Tomaso Garzoni ... (in Italian). Appresso A., et B. Dei, fratelli. p. 226.

Kitsap (Suquamish leader) (nom)

@PersusjCP, SeaTraff, Flibirigit, and Feminist: I can see that the article states that Kitsap envisioned "an alliance of tribes stretching from the Columbia River to Puget Sound", but it would be good if it was explicitly confirmed in text that the "Stkamish, Sammamish, Puyallup, Nisqually, Squaxin, Chehalis, and Cowlitz" was such a coalition. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I assumed good faith that members of the coalition are cited to this text, which is the first citation after their mention. Flibirigit (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Off the top of my head, I think it is from Buerge 2017, and it should be on page 43 or 44. But I'm busy right now so I will double check when I get a second. PersusjCP (talk) 18:07, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
(And will add that to the end of the sentence) PersusjCP (talk) 18:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

Currently at AfD, but it’ll be kept. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation Schwede66 17:23, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Just snow kept by Launchballer. jlwoodwa (talk) 17:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Giving queues template instead of full protection?

Latest comment: 1 month ago92 comments16 people in discussion

We have a chronic problem of not enough admins doing promotions to queues. We also have a number of highly skilled DYK regulars who I would trust to edit queues but they can't because they're not admins and don't want to be. What if we changed the queues to Template protection instead of full protection. Then we could give WP:Template editor to a few people.

I know, there will be pushback at the project level to the change, but let's for the moment assume we can overcome that. From a DYK perspective, is that something that would work? Are there people who would be willing to take on the Template editor role and start doing queue promotions? RoySmith (talk) 13:37, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'd grab that with both hands. (I wouldn't mind being an admin either, but you can probably think of your own reasons why I might not go down very well at WP:RFA, and I'd want to get some featured content under my belt first.)--Launchballer 13:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I support the idea in theory (more trusted people with buttons is good), but in practise there are currently 191 template editors versus 851 administrators. Would such a small number be able to impact queues in the long-term? And you suggest that people could be given template editor to make the necessary changes, but such people would need to be go through normal template request to be trusted with all template tools, just as with admins (e.g. Admins joining solely for DYK) needing to be trusted with all their tools. I support the idea of doing something like this because as of late all the prep areas have been entirely full (even though most queues have been empty), meaning I've been unable to make any promotions :(DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 13:45, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
There are 15 users at Template:DYK admins, of which I reckon four (RoySmith, Kusma, BorgQueen, Theleekycauldron) have raked sets this month. All extra hands on deck would help.--Launchballer 13:57, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Well, if that ratio of 15/851 (1.7%) admins is also true for template editors then that suggests only about 3 template editors would put their name to the project, and if the activity ratio is also true for 4/851 (0.47%) then that suggests we have about 8/10ths of a template editor. Which isn't the point of the original post but interesting to note DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 14:03, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
The number of current template editors is irrelevant. We have a lot of capable people here who will not become administrators because our process to make administrators is broken (and has been broken for well over a decade). If we give these people the "template editor" right and lower protection of the queues, we will gain all of the people we add to the system as prep to queue promoters. —Kusma (talk) 15:54, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I'd support this. We do desperately need DYK admins, and since RfA is currently a pit of hell, I don't see it getting any better (I believe I read somewhere that we are losing more admins then gaining them because of how absolutely botched the system is). Until the process is revamped, we probably need a way to keep things efficient, and I'd 100% support giving template editors the right to promote. SirMemeGod  14:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

But how to decide who gets promotion rights and who doesn't? That could get a bit awkward. Gatoclass (talk) 15:44, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

The default system is "admin discretion". —Kusma (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
How does that work? Gatoclass (talk) 16:10, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
In practice, go to Special:UserRights/AirshipJungleman29, click "template editor", add the reason "does good work, should do even more work", click "Save user groups". I have for example given theleekycauldron the template editor right (before she became an admin) when she needed it for something (I think it was about DYK related edit notices). —Kusma (talk) 16:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Not entirely sure the wider community likes the idea of giving me more hats, but if you're willing I guess I'm down? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
I was under the impression the opposite was true. IOW, that the community was in favor of debundling the toolset. Viriditas (talk) 22:20, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
We have a guideline for granting TPE so it's not completely up to admin discretion. Users being granted the right should meet the criteria listed at Wikipedia:Template editor#Guidelines for granting — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:14, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
That section does explicitly say "The above items are merely guidelines. An administrator may choose to substitute other proofs of an editor's competence in handling high-risk template responsibilities", though. —Kusma (talk) 22:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

I used to be opposed to this like I am opposed to all sorts of unbundling of admin tasks. But I have given up on Wikipedia ever promoting enough good folks to administrators, so now I think we should go for it. We should lower the protection of the queues to template editor and hand out 5-20 new template editor rights to the most trusted preppers and prep copyeditors (and perhaps take it away from people who screw up too much). Just out of paranoia, we should not change anything about the cascading full protection that keeps the top queue admin only. —Kusma (talk) 15:59, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

20 is far too many. 5 or 6 max if that. But we could just ask a few former DYK admins for more assistance. I know that I personally have been intending to get back to some DYK promotion for quite some time, but never quite seem to manage it. Gatoclass (talk) 16:08, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
The state of the queue shows that we do not have enough people willing to do p2q promotions. I do not think there is a sustainable way to change that with former DYK admins, even if you may be able to rope some of them in for firefighting every now and then. —Kusma (talk) 16:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
But then if you allow people with the template editor permission to edit the queue, how do you stop just anybody who happens to have the permission from editing it? Gatoclass (talk) 17:07, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Why would I want to stop them? If we have to, we can just take away their template editor rights. —Kusma (talk) 17:31, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
Most behavior on enwiki is self-policed. We explain to people how they're expected to behave and trust them to do so. That's especially true as you get to advanced permission holders (which I consider template editors to be). RoySmith (talk) 18:02, 30 September 2024 (UTC)
It sounds like a great idea. I remember you asking me to be go through the RFA process, but it doesn't seem to have changed when I was nominated over 10 years ago. Even if I don't do queue promotions, I would like to at least fix errors that others bring up. There have been many times when I would have jumped in to fix hook errors, but of course I don't have the ability to do that. I wouldn't mind doing queue promotions either. SL93 (talk) 19:35, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

I'm gratified at the positive reception this has received, and thus started a related discussion at WP:VPP#Template protection for DYK queues?. RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

BTW, those of you who might want to be an admin but have been unwilling to run because they don't want to deal with WP:RFA, might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrator elections. RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Administrator elections sound just as stressful as RfA to my ears DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 21:55, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Plan of action

I see broad consensus above to implement this. I also haven't seen anything yet on WP:VPP#Template protection for DYK queues? which convinces me I'd get in trouble if I proceeded, but I'll let that run for a bit longer to make sure no show-stoppers emerge. I'm going to be at WCNA October 3-6; it makes sense to hold off doing this until I can come back. My plan is to change the protection of:

to template protection. Shubinator I took a look at User:DYKUpdateBot/Code. As far as I can tell, it ensures images are fully protected, but doesn't care about the queues themselves, so this change shouldn't be noticed by the bot. Can you confirm this?

If I understand how the main page protections work, Main Page is fully protected with the "Cascading protection" flag set. Main Page transcludes Wikipedia:Main Page/Tomorrow which in turn transcludes {{Did you know/Queue/{{Did you know/Queue/Next}}}}, so the top queue will still end up being fully protected. Which means non-admin template editors will be able to edit the other six queues, but it will still take an admin to edit the top queue. I don't quite understand why the protection doesn't continue to cascade down to everything the queue transcludes, but I assume there's some template magic which limits the cascade level. Perhaps that's the purpose of the various <noinclude> tags?

As far as anointing new template editors goes, technically I (or any other admin) has the ability to flip the bit, but I think as a matter of transparency, it makes sense to apply at WP:PERM and also post a note here saying that you've applied. I imagine we'd want to start with 1 or 2 people and see how things go. Given that this will give people rights to edit sensitive things outside of DYK, it won't be handed out like candy. RoySmith (talk) 15:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Ping me when you do that and I'll apply for the permissions. Launchballer 19:53, 1 October 2024 (UTC)
Given that full protection still applies to today's and tomorrow's queues, you might be better just reducing the protection to extended confirmed. This would eliminate the need for editors to get extra rights. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:19, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
If there's consensus to do that, I would have no objection. Let's see how people react to the idea. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 19:45, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
That seems a bit too relaxed; I wouldn't want editors with 513 edits queueing sets. If PSHAW could check whether an editor is an admin, had over 10,000 edits, or had promoted over ~150 hooks, then that might be fine. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:51, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
How would that work though? PSHAW is a user script and can only do what the user can do DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:21, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
You might think so. But WP:OTD only fully protects today's and tomorrow's pages. All the others are just semi-protected I believe, and that seems to work fine for them — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:49, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree. This should be given by an assigned right so that there is at least some vetting.--Launchballer 20:06, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this for a while, and the more I think about it, the more I like it.
Perhaps we could appoint people as "DYK Clerks", similar to SPI clerks or ArbCom clerks. The software won't enforce anything, but the rule would be "Queues are for clerks only". If you violate the rule, you get trouted (exactly what happens at SPI if you violate the "archives are for clerks only" rule). Clerkships would be handed out by rough consensus at WT:DYK.
Right now, there's really no vetting at all. Anybody with a mop, whether they know anything about how DYK works or not, can muck with the queues. Having mopless but clueful clerks seems preferable to that. RoySmith (talk) 22:05, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, that might very well work. Let's try it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:32, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
If we do that, we should just get rid of the preps altogether and just let people directly edit the (non-top) queues. The responsibility for fact checking would then be with people we currently call prep builders. —Kusma (talk) 22:36, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
(And of course we could get rid of the prep/queue system completely by just transcluding [[Wikipedia:Did you know/{{TODAY}}]] onto the Main Page similar to what we do with OTD, but that's probably a separate discussion). —Kusma (talk) 22:40, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
Now there's a good idea — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:40, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
No, sorry, but responsibility for quality control cannot be left to prep builders alone. The prep/queue system works not only because it has up until now relied solely upon admins for the final step, but because in making that final step, sets by necessity get an additional check from a fresh reviewer. That additional check is a vital component of the DYK process in my view. Gatoclass (talk) 16:34, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I think our current process is poor design. The person deciding what to put on the Main Page (the prep builder) should be the same as the person taking responsibility for what is on the Main Page (currently the queuer). We currently have three levels of "quality control" but allow the first two levels to be sloppy, relying on a scarce resource (queuers willing to sign off other people's work) in a very un-wiki process. —Kusma (talk) 16:48, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
To be blunt, I don't think we should be adopting OTD's system because, until fairly recently, OTD was absolutely full of show-crashing holes in every set. The only reason it's not (usually) like that anymore is careful attention from a group of admins willing to wipe each set clean. Trusted users should have to sign off on every set, otherwise we just have too many problems. Under the system that's being proposed here, the final check on a set going on the Main Page could be from someone with just 500 edits and no community-granted permissions – I absolutely cannot get behind that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:58, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Well put. Gatoclass (talk) 17:11, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) With respect Kusma, although I have been pretty inactive of late, I have done a ton of both prep building and queue promoting in the past, and I do not believe for a moment that prep builders should have final responsibility for quality control, because they already have too many other considerations to juggle in putting together sets. For that final step, one needs somebody who is focused solely on quality control, not on that plus all the other considerations that must go into building a balanced set, to say nothing of the time and effort required. If you expect prep builders to do all the quality control as well, you are going to end up with either nobody ever building a set, or an unacceptable number of errors going through to the main page. Gatoclass (talk) 17:08, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Everybody has "final" responsibility for quality control of each of their edits; this is a wiki after all. Separating edits from taking responsibility for them is what I do not like. By all means have an extra review process, but why should the reviewer have more responsibility for the edit than the person who made it?
As to "prep builders are so busy already": preps are built by a much more collaborative and wiki process than queues, often with people promoting individual hooks and moving them around and with several people working on copyedits. Compared to that, our process to fix anything once in the queues is both understaffed and bureaucratic. —Kusma (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Technically speaking, yes, prep builders are supposed to thoroughly check noms before promoting them. But practically, it's just too much for one person to do. As RoySmith has pointed out, just to properly check a single queue generally takes 20 minutes to half an hour - and that's if one doesn't find any errors that need work. Expecting people to do that and search for a bunch of varied hooks and decide how to sort them and go through the transfer process just gets overwhelming. So yes, builders must check for errors but a second reviewer is needed to verify their work.
Other than that - anybody can build a prep set as things stand, and prep builders have a wide range of competence, so their work always needs to be checked. This entire proposal, after all, is about finding a method to add a few more queue promoters who don't have the admin bit but who can be trusted with quality control. What you seem to be proposing is to just let any Tom, Dick or Harry promote to queue because there are enough people checking each other's work for it all to somehow work out. History shows that is a great way to have a complete breakdown in quality control. Gatoclass (talk) 22:57, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
On the other hand, the argument could be made that allowing more people to work on cues would actually help solve the checking stuff. By not having to rely on sysops, quality control could be made faster and more flexible, since people could just pull or revise hooks instead of needing to bother admins about it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Either we expect prep builders to check the noms or we don't. I think a typical way for a major blunder to make it to the Main Page is a sloppy qpq review (only checking newness, length and Earwig) followed by a prep builder only interested in typical prep builder stuff like bio/US balance and an admin promoting a set in two minutes to alleviate the backlog. Each of them can pretend that somebody else did the checking. I think fewer rounds of box ticking could be helpful in making people take more responsibility. Or perhaps we should have clearer responsibilities and say that prep builders do not need to make certain checks so they will be left only to admins who then won't be able to pretend somebody else did them. Full disclosure: as an admin promoting preps to queues, I do not check everything either. I generally check for accuracy, NPOV, BLP and copyvio and do not care at all about general eligibility things like newness, as getting those wrong does little harm. —Kusma (talk) 10:38, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
My prep-to-queue checks are that I can find the hook fact stated in the article and that there's a citation to what looks like a RS, and that Earwig doesn't point out anything horrible. If something raises a red flag (a "first" claim, for example), I'll run that down. I'll give the sources a cursory glance just to see if they're total BS. When I was building preps, most of my effort went into complying with our style rules for balancing topics and maintaining variety.
It's really the initial review that digs the deepest into the guts of the article, but I'd be naïve to believe most of those do as good a job as they should. Many initial reviews are done by our newest DYK participants so they haven't yet built the skills we need. Some are done by more experienced DYK denizens but as a rush job so they can tick off the QPQ box. It's not a good situation, but it is what it is. RoySmith (talk) 11:53, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Responsibility is shared, yes - and really has to be, because one person alone is unlikely to pick up every potential issue. Under the current system, hooks get reviewed as they make it to the main page by a minimum of three people, and that is a system that has proven to be reasonably robust. Having said that, the principle onus of responsibility must always be on the administrator promoting the hook to the queue. because they are the last link in the chain and as an admin they are held to a higher level of accountability than others. But at the same time, imagining you are somehow going to get better results by dispensing with two levels of error checking is, I'm afraid to say, just plain delusional. Gatoclass (talk) 11:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Good that I never suggested going below two levels of checking, then. Anyway, we are getting quite off topic, as the original point of this conversation was to expand the pool of queuers by going to template protection instead of full. I still think we should go for that ASAP. I do not currently expect consensus to implement any more radical ideas and apologise for the distraction. —Kusma (talk) 12:47, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
I've been in listen-mostly mode on this for the past few days as I'm on the road, but I see a couple of possible ways forward:
1) My original proposal of using template protection.
2) User:MSGJ's modification of that to use ECP instead.
3) Using ECP coupled with appointing DYK clerks who are socially authorized (but not software enforced) to manage the queues.
At this point, I'm kind of leaning towards #3, and I suspect #2 would be a non-starter. What do other people think? RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Personally I hate it when I can't edit something, and I'd hate it even more if someone tells me they reverted my good edit because I wasn't authorised to make it. Also, 3 smells like bureaucracy. So I prefer 1 or 2. —Kusma (talk) 13:52, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Opposed to ECP protection, either alone or with "clerks", because almost anybody can edit an ECP-protected page so it's tantamount to practically no protection at all. One major reason why we went to template protection in the first place was the problem of random editors suddenly altering hooks in problematic ways shortly before they went to the main page, and that certainly isn't something I would want to see reintroduced. Template protection would be the bare minimum in my view and even that I have serious concerns about. Gatoclass (talk) 14:14, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Whatever protection level we choose, the next queue is always automatically fully protected via cascading protection, so we always have at least 12 hours of full protection before a set hits the Main Page. —Kusma (talk) 18:29, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
When I tried to view source on Queue 2 earlier after seeing #Queue 2 broken?, it said that the queue was cascade-protected as it was transcluded in Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content. Is this an error? Launchballer 00:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
That would need to be removed before any lowering of protection can take effect — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 07:47, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
That is independent of the Main Page's protection (the next queue is actually cascade protected multiple times). But indeed we need to edit that page to un-cascade protect the rest of the queue. Thank you for pointing it out! —Kusma (talk) 08:20, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
Heh, I see @MSGJ added those in 2012! And the list was expanded to include queue 7 in 2020. I guess until then we only had 6 queues? RoySmith (talk) 12:57, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
@Gatoclass and Kusma: Prep builders actually aren't required to recheck the nomination in full. They usually check more than they have to by virtue of being experienced, but they're technically only responsible for reverifying the hook and some other minor checks. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 14:01, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Indeed, sorry if I implied otherwise. Hook verification is the main thing, added to that, when promoting to the queue, I usually do a quick check that everything is sourced and that the sources look reliable, along with a quick scan to ensure that there are no obvious problems with prose quality (prep builders should do the same IMO). But yes, hook accuracy is the prime concern. Gatoclass (talk) 14:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Fact checking the hook is the most important of the checks at each stage, as the hook will be shown to millions of readers, not just tens of thousands like the article (if you are lucky), but I am not always convinced that preppers have done this.
Looking at the admin instructions (I rarely use them other than as a checklist for manual updates) I think we should update the admin instructions a bit to remove some of the stuff nobody does or only does at other times. For example, the check that the image is protected needs to happen only for manual updates because it is otherwise done by the bot; it is not something we actually do for prep to queue. —Kusma (talk) 14:51, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
Just to clarify: the protection of the image is usually done by KrinkleBot on Commons and the check that the image is protected is done by DYKUpdateBot. —Kusma (talk) 08:21, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I haven't been too active on DYK lately, but I've always wanted to give Queue building a shot so I might consider applying. Either that or I'd like to at least try out the permission so I can help out in stuff like pulling or rewording hooks from Queue. I did read the requirements for Template editor and they do seem rather stringent even for most DYK regulars, especially with the stuff related to template editing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:11, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Plan of action v2

OK, I'm back from WCNA, so it's time to pick this up again. As I mentioned upthread, I was leaning towards one of the ECP variations instead of WP:TPROT, but I see some pushback to that so I'm back to the original plan. My main concern is that when people apply to WP:PERM for their bit, the folks there will not be willing to grant it because this isn't really what TPROT was envisioned for. But if that happens, we won't be any worse off than we are now, and can consider the next step at that time. So, the current plan is to change the protection on:

to template protection and also to remove these entries from Wikipedia:Cascade-protected items/content. I'll let this sit for one more day to give people a last chance to raise any objections. Absent any show-stoppers that might arise, I'll go ahead and do all that tomorrow morning. RoySmith (talk) 13:10, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

This is done. I trust people will let me know if I screwed anything up. At this point, non-admins who want to do queue maintenance should post a request at WP:PERM. RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. If we use WP:PERM we'll probably need to explain to other admins handling that area that we'd like to give Template editor to people who can be trusted to leave modules and esoteric templates alone when they don't know what they are doing. Anyway, I would like to encourage @AirshipJungleman29, @SL93, @BlueMoonset and @Ravenpuff to apply so they can help with p2q promotions and with copyediting the queues. —Kusma (talk) 15:59, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Alternatively I would encourage them to apply for adminship, perhaps by using the new election process instead — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:01, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Applying for a mop is certainly something to consider. I see we've already got 7 candidates listed at Wikipedia:Administrator elections/October 2024/Call for candidates, which gives me quite a bit of optimism that it might be a process that's going to work.
BTW, I just did some testing. If you are a template editor and try to edit the next queue (Queue 1 at the moment), you will get an "edit" link, making it look like you can edit the page, but when you click that link, the cascading protection will kick in and prevent you from actually making any changes. RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Would it be helpful if {{DYK queue/navigation}} was adjusted so that the fully protected queues were displayed in a different color (e.g. red)? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:13, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
I have no objection, but it needs to be done by somebody who knows arcane template syntax better than I do :-) RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Not sure this is helpful, as the protected queue is the same as the next queue. —Kusma (talk) 18:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm really not keen on this change, and it isn't clear to me where consensus was reached for it. However, at minimum, anybody who wants this permission to edit the queues should be posting their intention here first, preferably well before, because regulars here shouldn't have to monitor PERM to see who might be applying. Gatoclass (talk) 22:45, 8 October 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that I made a request at PERM but withdrew it at Gatoclass's suggestion, and that I did indicate twice that I would grab this with both hands (see [8], [9]).--Launchballer 23:05, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
Okay, but again, before going any further, I think the issue of consensus needs to be clarified, and once that is resolved, there would still have to be a discussion about the exact process to be followed and indeed what exactly we are giving users permission to do with their new right. Gatoclass (talk) 23:23, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
@Gatoclass, I just read back through the entire thread. I see seven people in favor (@Launchballer, @Kusma, @Sir MemeGod, @AirshipJungleman29, @SL93, @Narutolovehinata5 and myself), three more (@DimensionalFusion, @MSGJ, @Theleekycauldron) who participated in the discussion but I can't tell for certain which way they felt, and one (you) who are clearly opposed. That sounds like consensus to me. I'll be blunt: based on your edit history, you used to be an active queue promoter but you've done two queue promotions in the past two years. If you don't want to do promotions any more, that's perfectly fine, but don't get in the way of people who want to do the work. RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Roy, the problem is that few if any of the users in this thread are disinterested parties, since it's comprised solely either of overworked DYK admins or people who would like the extra permission. And of course all these people deserve a say, but should it be left up to them alone to decide? Your thread at village pump, on the other hand, seemed to attract very little support. My concern here is that the wider community may want input into a change of this nature, and if they don't get it and things start to go wrong, it could lead to a lot of unhelpful wikidrama. And DYK has surely had more than enough of that over the years.
Now with regard to my own position - I haven't actually outright opposed this idea yet. I would have opposed if I was in a position to get back to regular queue reviewing, but the truth is, I'm not, and I still don't know at this point when or if I will be able to return to contributing on a regular basis here, so am very reluctant to stand in the way of those who can.
Regardless, if this is going to be done, I want to see it done the right way, not rushed into with insufficient consideration. So consensus is the first thing that must be decided. Are we all really comfortable with just deciding this in our own little corner of the project, or should it first go to, say, WP:CD, so that the wider community can have input?
And assuming for the sake of argument that the proposal gets approved one way or another, there are, I think, still a number of questions that need to be resolved before it is implemented. For example, will this change mean that any editor with the template permission will be permitted to edit the queues, regardless of their DYK experience or lack of it? Or will they need to get a separate endorsement for editing these particular templates (which are very different in function from others)? And when someone gets this permission, what does it mean exactly? Will they be permitted only to promote preps to the queue, or will they be permitted to copyedit or make changes to hooks in the queue?
And finally, again, what should the process look like for applying for this particular permission? Because, as I've said above, I don't think it's going to be sufficient for users to just make a request at WP:PERM. Rather, users should be obliged to formally give notice of their intention to request the permission here first, so that DYK regulars, who will be familiar with the quality of their DYK contributions, are alerted. And we might want to outline a formal process for doing that. So they are some of the concerns I have right now. Gatoclass (talk) 05:41, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I guess I'm a disinterested party (not exactly sure how I found this thread). I also see consensus for non-admins to be able to help in this work, and I commend Roy for taking the initiative. There is no requirement to ask here for permission first - anyone can post at WP:PERM to ask for advanced permissions, and if they meet the criteria then they will be given out. This post was inappropriate, in my opinion, and I intend to review the request regardless of it being withdrawn — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
We could set up an expected number of promotions to prep (I can't remember the tool that counts these) before someone can help in the queues. If it's a high enough number, it is likely major issues would have been detected by that point. CMD (talk) 13:30, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I think promotions to prep and general edits to the prep sets should both be counted, perhaps separately. We have some people who have been copyediting and fixing formatting issues on the prep sets for years. I would like to allow them to edit the queues even if they haven't been doing a lot of promoting. —Kusma (talk) 13:51, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

I'm reminded of a couple of other potential issues here. PERM permissions can be granted unilaterally by any admin without debate. This sets the bar very low by comparison with the DYK process to date, which has required somebody to stand for adminship if they want to edit the queues. That's a pretty remarkable change from the previously required standard, and strikes me as insufficiently robust. In terms of the PERM guidelines, there is nothing to prevent it of course, but this is, after all, a novel rationale for the permission (and one which, as already noted, is evidently about to be decided without wider community input). So I still think it would be appropriate for a user who wants this permission to test consensus at this page first.

Other than that, should there be a limit on the number of users who are granted this permission at any one time? Because this does strike me as a process that could quickly get out of hand, with permissions being handed out not only without discussion, but to too many users whose record for fact-checking/copyediting may not actually withstand closer scrutiny. Gatoclass (talk) 15:58, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

However, people can become admins without any experience with DYK. Our experienced non-admin prep builders are going to do a better job at p2q than the random clueless admin who might do an emergency promotion. —Kusma (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Right, for those that haven't seen it at WP:PERM, I've been given the right.--Launchballer 07:34, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I saw. Congratulations! Now get to work promoting queues :-) RoySmith (talk) 14:50, 11 October 2024 (UTC)
I have also given AirshipJungleman29 the TE permission. —Kusma (talk) 14:38, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
And I have a technical question: if an image is on enwiki (not on Commons), is my hunch correct that the Main Page/Tomorrow cascading protection will be sufficient so we don't actually need to protect it manually? (Protecting images is the only thing our new template editor p2q'ers won't be able to do). —Kusma (talk) 14:42, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I (and at least one other prep builder) have TE permission from the normal route. I've done a couple minor changes to queues after seeing issues discussed here.[10][11] I'm not planning to promote anything to a queue right now, but I have two questions about it. [1] Am I allowed to do that? And [2] if I am allowed to, should I post any kind of advance notice here? Rjjiii (talk) 14:45, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
As to [1], if you know what you are doing, go for it. For [2]: A lot of people (including admins) aren't sure they know what they are doing when they do their first prep to queue promotion, so posting here to invite a double check is always encouraged. I would suggest to first do the promotion (including all the checks) and then post about it though. —Kusma (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
DYK has always operated under the "no explicit permission required" concept. Upthread I floated the idea that we might want to do some kind of "DYK Clerk" role, authorizing people to muck with queues, but that didn't gain any traction. So yeah, no need to get prior permission; if go slowly, ask for help, and accept input, you should be fine. RoySmith (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2024 (UTC)
I've promoted a queue now, so I think we're good to be bold. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:26, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the wiki hasn't collapsed into a pile of rubble yet, so good job! RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

Template editors, including Launchballer and AirshipJungleman29: please consider adding yourself to Template:DYK admins (which, despite the name, isn't just for admins). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 16:27, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

I've added myself, and also us both to Wikipedia:Did you know/Admins. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:40, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Stadionverbot Decision

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I would appreciate some extra eyes on this. The nominator has been offline due to work/school since October 9, but I would like to move forward. Am I wrong in thinking we need new hooks? Does anyone else find the current hooks interesting? If so, I am happy to move towards passing, but I need some outside input. Otherwise, if someone could offer new hooks, that would be great. Viriditas (talk) 18:59, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 1 month ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived about an hour ago, so I've created a new list of 35 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 22. We have a total of 261 nominations, of which 91 have been approved, a gap of 170 nominations that has increased by 10 over the past 6 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) 15:35, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Hijacking prep 2 for Halloween

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

If I've done the math right, Prep 2 will hit the main page on October 31, so that will need to get hijacked for the Halloween hooks (see #Halloween set way up above here). RoySmith (talk) 00:16, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Yup. Halloween sets should be moved into Prep 2 once the current content has been promoted to queue. —Kusma (talk) 10:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Prep 2 is now open for Halloween business. —Kusma (talk) 16:05, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dog

Latest comment: 1 month ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Yesterday, the dog page was promoted to GA-status, so I was hoping to create an interesting DYK hook to appear on the main page, but I was unable to accomplish that because a DYK page had already been created for the article. I am not sure if archives work for DYK noms, so I came here for some assistance. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 09:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Just create a nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Dog (2nd nomination). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:12, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Wolverine XI (talk to me) 09:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Two issues raised by a recent hook of mine

Latest comment: 1 month ago5 comments3 people in discussion

A couple of weeks ago, on September 30, we ran on the Main Page the hook for Lake Erie Walleye Trail cheating scandal. I had created and nominated that article with the intent of having it run on the Main Page on the two-year anniversary of the date the scandal was rather dramatically discovered.

I made the nomination more than a month before the requested run date. Since it had gone unreviewed for half that time, I then came here and requested someone review it.

This opened a larger can of worms when several people came in and suggested hooks or changes, a discussion later moved to the nomination, as can be seen via the link above. One of those issues concerned my original hook:

"... that the two anglers caught cheating in a Cleveland fishing tournament two years ago today might have been able to win without putting weights in their fish, assuming the fish were caught that day?

The issue about the hook fact being largely the speculation of prosecutors was a valid concern, I agree. But then DYKBLP was invoked as well, which led to a long runaround that ultimately led back to the hook we used, which seems to have satisfied those concerns by (I presume) focusing on the tournament director rather than the two cheating fishermen, not named in the hook but (as the article makes clear) now admitted felons (and in one case for more than the cheating).

I had thought about writing this article when the story first broke. I was inspired to actually do this when I looked for any updates to the story and read about the cheating fishermen's boat being sold at auction by the state following forfeiture last summer. I had been reminded of the case when I was making an update to a somewhat similar article, 2018 Master Sommelier exam cheating scandal, which, three years ago, I had developed and also nominated for DYK.

My hook for that article was very similar to my original hook for the Lake Erie Walleye Trail article:

... that the Court of Master Sommeliers expelled a board member and suspended the titles of 23 new members over a 2018 cheating scandal on the blind-tasting portion of its examination?

This raised no eyebrows as unduly focused on the negative aspects of living people, not when it was nominated, nor to my recollection when it was on the Main Page. Yet I can't see what the difference is. If anything, the focus on the negative aspects of a BLP would seem to be more egregious here, as the alleged cheaters in the Master Som exam faced no criminal charges and were offered the chance to retake the exam ... yet here they were, equally unnamed but just as clearly referenced, on the front of one of the world's most popular websites for a day. I can only assume that DYKBLP was as much in force then as it is now.

It would seem to me that the only difference is that I asked here for expedited review of the later hook in order to make my hoped-for anniversary date. If this were to have happened to a newer editor, I can't say I would blame them if their response was to seriously reconsider making DYK nominations in the future, and they might even reconsider contributing to Wikipedia at all. At the very least a nominator would learn to, in the future, fly under the radar and avoid any scrutiny that asking for help here might invite.

All the same I'm not interested any more than this in looking back. The more productive response is to look ahead and ask what we might do to prevent that hypothetical newer editor from feeling that put out. I suggest that we consider adding some clarity to DYKBLP about just what, exactly, constitutes an undue focus on the negative aspects of a living person in a hook (Presumably, for an article about a crime or criminal (as in, living person notable primarily for criminal activity) for which there are convictions or guilty pleas, that it is acceptable for the hook to focus on their bad acts in some way).

The other issue is more minor, but more significant as it involves a (for now) apparent contradiction with other policies.

Late in the review of the fishing nom, I was told that, despite a citation at the end of the paragraph for the hook fact, I would need a citation at the end of that particular sentence as well per WP:DYKHFC. This was a new one on me, but ... a rule's a rule, so I did it.

Since DYKHFC was a new one on me, I went and looked it up to see why it had been decided we need to do this. I was not disappointed: "Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient, and this rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article. This rule reduces the burden on volunteers by allowing the hook facts to be easily and quickly checked." OK ... there. I understand now.

But at the same time this conflicts with WP:REPCITE and WP:CONSECUTIVECITE (both of which also cite WP:PAIC, but the MOS subsection that leads to appears to have been edited at some point so that it no longer supports the other two links). REPCITE says "citations should be placed at the end of the passage that they support. If one source alone supports consecutive sentences in the same paragraph, one citation of it at the end of the final sentence is sufficient." (Emphasis mine). This is sort of implied by CONSECUTIVECITE, which is more focused on the same fact not needing continuous citation refresh, but as they both use more or less the same example it is effectively reinforcing REPCITE.

For this reason I announced that I would be complying with DYKHFC only for the duration of the review process (nearly concluded by that point in any event) and the article's tenure linked from the Main Page. That drew no objection, and once the latter condition had been met I removed the extra cite, again without complaint.

But again I think this is something that, as it currently stands, could and would needlessly alienate newer editors who are only likely to learn of it the way I did. I propose that 1) DYKHFC be amended to note that as this is meant to facilitate speedier reviews of nominated articles, the extra citation can be removed after the article runs on the Main Page, as I did, and 2) that REPCITE and CONSECUTIVECITE (or at least the former due to its being more explicit about this) be similarly amended, following discussion on the appropriate talk pages, to note this minimal and justified exception to the broad policy otherwise stated, much like we explain how plot summaries are one of our very few exemptions from sourcing requirements.

Because otherwise, the CITEKILL created by our DYK-specific citation requirements is, while not a major contributor to that problem, a not insignificant part of it. Long before this, many editors, having added extra cites that would otherwise not be necessary to an article intro to support a fact used as the basis for a hook, either prior to a nomination or at a reviewer's behest, never get around to removing them, making it look like no one bothers to read LEADCITE.

I'm not immune ... in a couple of GA nominations I've been asked why those apparently unexceptional facts are cited in the intro, and after explaining that the cites were asked for at DYK to support multiple hooks have been told to remove them as that's now long done. That task is a good bit more complicated than removing an extra cite required under DYKHFC, as in many cases cites in the intro will be the first but hardly only instance where the source is used, so an editor must not only remove them but, to avoid cluttering the references section with large red type indicating errors resulting from the original citation no longer appearing in the WML source, move those full cites to the new first place they appear in the text. I can't blame people if this is not something they would look forward to doing until and unless they absolutely had to, and again this is something that might conceivably make a new editor rethink taking their DYK article to GAN if, say, they only found out about this take on LEADCITE there.

Thank you and good night. Daniel Case (talk) 05:58, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

I really don't understand the issue here. Why is DYKHFC such an issue and why are there editors who are so opposed to adding a new footnote just to meet it? It's just as simple as copypasting a <ref name="name"/> into an article and adding it doesn't really hurt much. The opposition to add one, to the point that there is a desire to remove it once the article has run on DYK. It seems pointless. I get that CITEKILL was cited here, but that refers primarily to extreme cases where a reference is repeatedly cited even when it doesn't need to be (something like, for example five, six, or greater) footnotes per paragraph. But if it's just an extra one, I don't see it as harmful. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:16, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I think WP:DYKHFC is a silly rule. The point of the rule is that it should be easy to verify the hook fact. Having a citation at the end of the sentence is neither a necessary nor sufficient requirement to accomplish that so I rarely enforce it. If there's an obvious citation further along which checks out, I'm fine with that. It's busywork for me to demand another citation be added, and it's busywork for somebody to add it. On the other hand, if I can't figure out how to verify the hook fact, I'll ask for a better citation.
By the same token, it's busywork for somebody to remove the citation after DYK is over, but if that's what floats your boat, go for it. RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I very much agree with your point in general, and I thank you for this perfectly valid application of IAR. But if it otherwise complies with REPCITE, it's not busywork. Daniel Case (talk) 17:36, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
It's that people usually don't remove it afterwards, which looks stupid to me. And if it weren't, why does REPCITE have the language I quoted? Daniel Case (talk) 17:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6

Latest comment: 1 month ago10 comments3 people in discussion

Adèle de Dombasle

  • Source does not specifically describe de Dombasle as a helping pioneer exploration for women; it has "Katherine Routledge remains the uncontested topical pioneer woman archaeologist", and mentions "... the work undertaken in the Pacific by pioneer women in disciplines cognate to archaeology is not to be underestimated"—before introducing Dombasle. I'm also not seeing any indication in the source, on skimming it, that de Dombasle's works were read by other explorers; indeed, the source mentions that her travelogue was published in a very atypical place for such writings. Pinging Lajmmoore, TSventon, and JuniperChill. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 23:20, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
I reviewed the nomination and think the wording is reasonable. Pioneer is referenced to the first paragraph of the source, which says the project is about the first women who participated in the development of archaeology in the Pacific, from the 19th to the mid-20th century and mentions de Dombasle as a case study. Google tells me that pioneer (verb) means develop or be the first to use or apply (a new method, area of knowledge, or activity) As the study is about the first women archaeologists and de Domasle is an early example, I think "helped pioneer" is reasonable. TSventon (talk) 16:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Merriam Webster lists "a person or group that originates or helps open up a new line of thought or activity or a new method or technical development" as one of pioneer's primary definitions. Being first isn't necessarily pioneering; the word also connotes some following, which is not demonstrated in the source. Why not describe her as "the early woman explorer", which is readily supported by the source?  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:53, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that. Lajmmoore edits regularly but hasn't edited for a couple of days. I have left a note on her talk page. TSventon (talk) 20:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Crisco 1492 @TSventon, thanks for your patience (I've had a super busy few days) - I tinkered with the lead so it says that she's been compared to other early explorers and archaeologists. For the DYK, I looked again at the hook, and to be honest, I think pioneer is fine, but I'm happy to change the ALT, how about:
ALT2 ... Adèle de Dombasle was an early women explorer, who travelled to Polynesia in 1847 working as an illustrator, drawing people such as Queen Pōmare IV? https://archaeologybulletin.org/articles/10.5334/bha-656
Lajmmoore (talk) 11:07, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

IMAX Melbourne

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3

Latest comment: 30 days ago13 comments3 people in discussion

MyRadar

I reviewed this one, and thus will need an extra pair of eyes.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

@Johnson524, RoySmith, and Crisco 1492: The date in the infobox needs a citation and probably isn't accurate. I'm having a hard time seeing the hook in the article, but that could very well be because it's nearly one in the morning where I am and so I'll look again in the morning.--Launchballer 23:53, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I believe it's the second paragraph of "History". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Sorry to keep you waiting. This should be fine.--Launchballer 17:30, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Abdur Rahman Mahmudi

Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation

Latest comment: 30 days ago15 comments6 people in discussion

This article ran a day or two ago; see Template:Did you know nominations/Asian News International vs. Wikimedia Foundation. It has now been blanked by the WMF as an office action, and is full-protected. I thought this should be reported here. Pinging Valereee as creator and nominator (according to a template on her talk page, she's away). Someone may also wish to inform others, such as whoever closed the AfD; there don't appear to be any talk page notifications about this. And perhaps the archives of DYKs that have appeared should have a note; the article that ran is no longer accessible. Yngvadottir (talk) 06:42, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

I don't think there's much for DYK to do here. As the item has already finished its run, there is nothing live to manage. We don't edit archived nominations if articles are deleted/merged, this seems a similar case. CMD (talk) 06:54, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, it'll get unlocked when the case is over. In the meantime it's just an interesting glitch. Valereee (talk) 09:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

The DYK was discussed at WP:ERRORS when it ran. It seemed obvious that it blatantly violated numerous policies and guidelines including WP:DYKNOT, WP:DYKHOOK, WP:DYKBLP, WP:NLT and more. It's not surprising that the WMF has taken it down as it seems that editors are using it to inflame the situation while the matter is before the courts. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

You may wish to remind yourself of the use-mention distinction. Just as mentioning that "the WMF has taken it down" is not in itself taking the page down, mentioning that a threat is being made is not in itself making a threat. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:36, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
@Andrew Davidson, please retract your baseless and evidence-free accusation that I created that article in order to inflame the situation. I created it out of sincere interest in the subject after thinking, "Oh, that's likely notable, we should create an article." Valereee (talk) 10:55, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
  • (EC) Looking at the specific policies referenced:
  • WP:DYKNOT: The article was not presented as "A smaller-scale version of either featured content or good articles" or a piece of general trivia. You may argue that it was "a means of ... promoting ... political causes," but simply covering a topic that has been discussed in reliable sources is not promoting a cause so long as coverage reflects the sources.
  • WP:DYKHOOK: At ERRORS, you specifically mentioned "a definite fact that is unlikely to change". Just this month, we have had "... that Actinote zikani (specimen pictured) is one of only two butterflies on the IUCN's list of the 100 most threatened species?" (true as of posting, not true at some specific point in the past, could become not true if a species becomes extinct or if one is repudiated), "... that a baby penguin from Australia is "an absolute unit"?" (baby fat gets lost), and "... that Hurry Up Tomorrow is planned to be the Weeknd's final album under his stage name?" (plans change). Although the policy is ambiguous, practice has been to focus on things that are not fluctuating regularly, even if there is the potential for change. The hook posted to the mainpage complied with that practice.
  • WP:DYKBLP: this was discussed at ERRORS already. The possibility of shutting down Wikipedia is not something that is automatically negative, and indeed Wikipedia has had numerous websites that have critiqued it and its editors (heck, Wikipediocracy was even on DYK). Likewise, the potential of Wikipedia being banned as an outcome of a case is not undue in discussion of said case.
  • WP:NLT: This was discussed at ERRORS already. As per the first paragraph, that policy defines a legal threat as "a threat to engage in an off-wiki ("real life") legal or other governmental process that would target other editors or Wikipedia itself." It refers to user behaviour, not legal processes happening outside Wikipedia as a result of actions undertaken by non-editors.
You may disagree with the posting of the article to DYK, as is your prerogative, but to call it "obvious" that the hook violated a policy that is entirely unrelated to the issue at hand is not supporting your case.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:07, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Starting the article was perhaps a reasonable spinoff. It was posting it on Wikipedia's main page while the case was still in progress that seemed inflammatory. Judges are traditionally upset by such action - see sub judice. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:11, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm in the US, Andrew. We don't have sub judice. When a court places a gag order it's news. Valereee (talk) 11:15, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
The case is being held in India , where sub judice does apply. This makes the matter complex and confusing, I suppose. My general understanding is that such legal matters are left to the WMF's legal representatives for such reasons. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:23, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Yep, and if you've been paying attention to this discussion at the village pump -- or my original comments in this post -- you'll see that I have made zero pushback to the article being blanked as an office action. Or at the AfD, where I didn't even vote. Or at the article talk, where we'd been closely discussing how to neutrally discuss the situation. Your accusations are still sitting up there, loudly and clearly impugning my motives. Valereee (talk) 11:31, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Oh, and btw...under your own interpretation of NOLEGALTHREATS, you seem to be threatening me with contempt of court under subjudice. Valereee (talk) 11:40, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
My focus throughout this has been on the content and its posting rather than the particular editors who have been involved in this. I've only now become aware that it was Valereee who created the article. I'm happy to accept and agree that they did this in good faith. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:43, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
Just for the record, it shouldn't really matter who created it. Valereee (talk) 01:47, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:WAWARDS are back

Latest comment: 29 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Letting any watcher or regulars of DYK that the W Awards are back up and running since it's long sleep of 10 years. It'd be helpful if you'd like to become a reviewer or nominate people who you think fit the criteria in any of the awards (Bronze, Silver, Golden, Platinum) and give any suggestions on awards or changes that you think should happen in the talk page! Thanks,   W Award Coordinator Cowboygilbert - (talk) ♥ 01:43, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Phase 2 of DYK namespace change

Latest comment: 28 days ago44 comments11 people in discussion

Given the arguments pointed out for phase 1 about how newbies never really touch the queues and promotions, I present Phase 2 of the DYK namespace change (it's technically phase 1 since the original phase 1 got postponed but phase 2 to prevent confusion). If accepted by the community, the proposals will be implemented ten days from that date.

Smaller things

If you think I've left anything out, let me know!!! If you have any feedback, also reply below. Thanks! DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 15:10, 2 October 2024 (UTC)

Looks like a great idea. I would suggest a subpage structure, e.g. Wikipedia:Did you know/nominations to keep everything under the parent page — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:09, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
So nominations would be Wikipedia:Did you know/nominations/xyz instead of Template:Did you know nominations/xyz? Sounds interesting DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 08:26, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Absolutely. Maybe with a capital "N" to match other subpages like Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines, Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics, Wikipedia:Did you know/Monthly wrap, etc. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:01, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Perhaps Approved doesn't need to be a subpage of nominations. Could use Wikipedia:Did you know/Approved for this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:04, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
I would suggest to keep nominations separate from the rest of DYK so you can more easily find all DYK related pages other than the nominations. I can see no advantage of putting everything under one subpage tree. —Kusma (talk) 08:52, 8 October 2024 (UTC)
On that aspect, yes. That would create one of those links at the top of the page that tells you to go back to the main DYK page, which wouldn't be needed DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:40, 12 October 2024 (UTC)
Let's ensure Wikipedia talk:Did you know nominations and Wikipedia talk:Did you know nominations/Approved redirect here, to prevent new pages springing up where fewer people will be watching. This seems doable if timed to occur shortly after a new set goes live. We will need to check for new nominations appearing in the template space for a bit, perhaps someone knows if the way we catch current malformed nominations will work for this. CMD (talk) 09:09, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Yeah, remote talk pages don't tend to get attention so it's better to redirect to somewhere it will be read DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:45, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Given people don't seem to be opposed to it, Wikipedia:Silence and consensus says to assume that there is consensus for this:
On 15 November 2024, the following will happen:
A regular user will:
An administrator will:
Nominations in Wikipedia:Did you know nominations and Wikipedia:Did you know nominations/Approved will have WP: added to the start of the template
An interface administrator or interface editor will:
User:SD0001 will:
User:Wugapodes will:
User:Shubinator will:
  • Update User:DYKHousekeepingBot to locate the new pages correctly
  • Update User:DYKUpdateBot to locate the new pages correctly
User:RoySmith will:
  • Update User:DYKToolsBot to locate the new pages correctly when classifying pages
But again, if anyone wants to add anything onto this please let me know. Thanks! DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Given that this is a major change, I would disagree here that "silence means consensus". On the contrary, one could argue that there simply isn't much interest in doing this. There have been some who have agreed, but with not all DYK regulars giving their say and all the technical stuff involved, it is arguably debatable if there is truly consensus in favor of doing so, at least right now. The fact that the driving force behind this is an editor who started participating in DYK less than a month ago and indeed started working on this almost from the start of their DYK career is not necessarily an issue, but it can give pause given the speed in how this has happened.
I have to note that I am not personally opposed to this change but rather ambivalent, I just frankly find things to have gone too fast for a change that has been proposed multiple times over the years but never happened over technical issues. If it can be done properly and without issues, cool. But I'm worried that the speed in how this is done, combined with a seeming lack of checks to make sure that everything works properly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I also disagree with "silence means consensus" here. I had previously stated an objection to this and don't like being repetitive so I stayed out of this latest round. But if you're going to interpret that as my liking this idea, I do feel the need to speak up again.
I don't think this is a terrible idea, but it seems like the effort and risk outweigh the benefits. I'd also be more amenable to this if it had come from somebody who had been around DYK a long time and understood the fine points of all the processes and scripts. RoySmith (talk) 13:22, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I honestly have to agree. I respect that DF is trying to help out DYK, but the fact that she was proposing this so soon after joining DYK never really sat well with me. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:52, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I think that's an incredibly discouraging thing to say, Narutolovehinata5. I don't know what your experience was, but when people talked to me that way when I was new at DYK, I was really hurt. Oppose the idea if you think it's bad, sure, but there's no sign on this talk page that says "you must have this many promotions to ride". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:31, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
+1 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I was just being honest with my thoughts. I'm not totally opposed to the idea myself, it's just that it felt weird, almost pushy, that someone who was very new to the project was trying to implement such a large and effortful change. I can't remember who brought it up before (if it was Roy or another editor), but there was an editor who made an analogy regarding management that probably applied here. If people were hurt by my comment, I did not mean to hurt any feelings, I just wanted to speak out my mind and be honest. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I get what you're saying, but I can't really do too much about the fact that I'm new to DYK. Given the timespan that the status quo has been in place, obviously nobody else has stepped up. If someone who has been around DYK a long time and understood the fine points of all the processes and scripts wanted to take over I'd back that, 110% (btw do let me know if this is you)!
Someone with the technical experience would be able to do it much better than I would, but as of right now it doesn't seem like that seems to be happening, so I'm trying to be BOLD.
Again, if anyone else wants to pick this up please please let me know DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 18:34, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Roy, I think sometimes it is easier for someone outside the process to see what needs to be done. It is all too easy just to carry on as normal, without giving too much thought to alternative ways of working. Personally I commend DimensionalFusion for taking this on - it is long overdue. Simply put, these are not templates and should never have been in the template namespace. The only concern is that the transition is done without causing disruption, and the plan above looks like everything has been well considered — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
What are the possible downsides of the shift? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:08, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
The same as rolling out any software change, i.e. that there's some dependency or complication that wasn't foreseen, you end up breaking a lot of stuff, and it turns out to not be easy to fix, and worse, difficult to back out. Risk is hard to quantify, but it's real.
I also notice that I was volunteered for "Update User:DYKToolsBot to locate the new pages correctly when classifying pages". That's not work I want to do, and certainly not something I signed up for. RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Will there be any changes that can't be fixed by pressing a few undo buttons? I think it's worth a try if there aren't. Given that the pushback, an RfC is probably needed at this point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:29, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
It's not the things I know about that scare me. It's the things I don't know about. Google for "unk-unk". RoySmith (talk) 02:44, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm reminded of this classic. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
You're the only one that can update DYKToolsBot though. Literally nobody else can update it DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 09:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
It does indeed bother me that there's a bus number of 1. If there was somebody with the right skills (i.e. Python and running a bot in Toolforge), who wanted to help, I'd be more than happy to add them as a maintainer. RoySmith (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I feel abit odd that DYK uses the template namespace, but I am living with it. I would love to see which nominations i contributed to easily using the 'what links here' feature and that sort of stuff. Therefore, i am fine keeping it as it is (status quo). I'm quite new with DYK (joined DYK March this year) JuniperChill (talk) 11:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
To add: silence means consensus only really means if it has never talked about any opposition. For example, a page that has a PROD tag on it will be deleted if no one objects. With very few exceptions, once the tag is removed, it cannot be PRODDED again. That process cannot also be used if its been talked about before at AfD or has been deleted before. Making a bold edit, only for someone to revert is another example of this. As others said, I would support the idea, but the complications to this makes me oppose this idea and isn't worth it to say the least. JuniperChill (talk) 11:41, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
My main hangup on this is target page of the nominations themselves. Maybe it should be Wikipedia:Did you know/Pending nominations and Wikipedia:Did you know/Approved nominations, with nominations as subpages as Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations (which itself would redirect either to pending or SIA-point to both?). Or Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations and Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations/Approved or something else. Either way, I've always thought Template:Did you know nominations is a pretty silly workaround. And I think we should move all of the old nomination pages. (We would, of course, leave redirects behind.)
Also, we should prepare all necessary text updates before any buttons are pushed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:02, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree completely. Exactly what I suggested above! — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:17, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
That's interesting. I did think it was a bit weird we had "approved" nominations and then just... nominations. Wikipedia:Did you know/Pending nominations and Wikipedia:Did you know/Approved nominations sound like good alternatives, but at the same time - DYK got to be so complex because of the redirects everywhere. Template:Did you know nominations is a redirect.
There may also be some technical complexity to having list pages in the same place where we keep the actual nomination templates - if Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations/Approved is a list page, and nominations are kept at Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations/xyz, what happens if a bot detects /Approved as a nomination? Or if for whatever reason, the disambig page Approved is nominated for DYK? Just things to think about DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 11:20, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
We should take care to make sure the commonly used shortcuts, such as WP:DYKN and WP:DYKNA still make sense. I prefer Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations and Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations/Approved, with Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations/XYZ being the format for the actual nominations themselves. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:23, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I would like us to separate the individual nominations from the rest of the subpages. Rationale: Slightly easier to find all non-nomination subpages of DYK via Special:Allpages if they are not mixed with the nominations themselves. So I suggest Wikipedia:Did you know noniations/XYZ with everything else under Wikipedia:Did you know/. I can't see any practical advantages of putting everything into one single subpage hierarchy. —Kusma (talk) 14:56, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Another good point. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:53, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
Having the pages at Wikipedia:Did you know/nominations/ can still work with the special page. See this Signpost search. Gonnym (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Kusma thinks it would help when trying to find DYK pages which are not nominations. Is there a search of Wikipedia:Did you know/ which will exclude Wikipedia:Did you know/Nominations? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 16:55, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
You can use logical negation to exclude a portion of a subpage tree. Compare these two searches:
RoySmith (talk) 17:43, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Brilliant, we can make a link like this for Kusma — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 18:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
@Xaosflux however tells me it may be better to rephrase this using Special:PrefixIndex. I'll admit to being on the ragged edge of my search-fu here. RoySmith (talk) 19:05, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
If all goes well the double redirects should fix themselves. CMD (talk) 17:25, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
As maintainer of DYK-wizard and DYK-helper, I am happy to make the changes required for the namespace migration. In fact, during the earlier planning 3 years ago – which I'll note is more comprehensive than the one above which skips templates altogether – I implemented most of the changes so that only a single line needs to be changed now for the scripts to start creating DYK nominations in project namespace. – SD0001 (talk) 17:14, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I support this change. DYK pages should have been moved long ago to the project page as those pages aren't templates. This change is a net improvement (and it also removes the need to hack other parts of the project to ignore these pages). Any disruption it might cause, will be long forgotten after a week, as history has shown from other mass-scale changes. Gonnym (talk) 13:15, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Assuming the text updates are made, we should also ensure that the update begins shortly after a queue update, and that say a week before a notification of the upcoming change is added to WP:AN. CMD (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that the changes ultimately will take place unless I can find someone willing to make the changes, so ykyk DimensionalFusion (talk · she/her) 20:05, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm happy to help. Just tell me the date and time — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 06:10, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Large number of insufficient QPQ reviews

Latest comment: 28 days ago32 comments12 people in discussion

I'm coming here rather than posting to the person's talk page because this involves so many other people missing things – myself included, as noted below. I've been reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Hammond's Hard Lines, nominated by Slgrandson. There was some back and forth, but I was ready to approve, until I checked the QPQ. They originally submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Takara's Treasure, at which they merely commented to concur with another reviewer who wasn't even seeking a second opinion. Launchballer asked them to submit a full QPQ, and they submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Teniky, where they left a bare-bones comment about source access. Again, I asked them for a full DYK review, linking them to WP:QPQ. They submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Lesser sign of the cross. Their comment there indicates they checked Earwig, which is great, but addresses no other aspects required at a DYK review, and in fact they did not notice that the hook there doesn't quite match up with the article text.

I decided to check their other DYKs and found similar issues with bare-bones comments being used as QPQs. Problematically, many of these were accepted as reviews, and the articles they commented at were promoted. On the other hand, the QPQs were clearly not checked by people reviewing their articles, as their own articles were reviewed and promoted with zero pushback on the poor QPQs. This issue goes back as far as Template:Did you know nominations/Two Hundred Rabbits, submitted last year; frankly someone should have caught it there by actually checking the work, since it was clear from their comments there that they weren't certain what a QPQ was.

Here are some examples. Their article first, then the "QPQ". This doesn't constitute all of their DYKs, just the first bunch I grabbed from the toolforge list.

Closed nominations
Open nominations

Sorry to do this here, but we really need to be checking that QPQ reviews were actually done properly, both when we do reviews and when we promote a reviewed article. It's not good that this many bad QPQs have been missed by this many people. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:42, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This appears to be a competence issue as well given what happened in the Hammond's Hard Lines nomination. Despite instructions on how to do full reviews, none were done. I hate to say it, but given the circumstances as well as precedent from TheNuggeteer's case, a topic ban from DYK may not be out of the question. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:05, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
The second comment in a discussion, before the editor in question has had a chance to respond, is too soon to jump to a ban discussion. CMD (talk) 05:17, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I did not suggest that a topic ban happen now, merely that it is a possibility in the future if this continues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:41, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
It's not clear to me if this is a matter of a reviewing style that eschews the checklist template but is otherwise satisfactory, or reviews that consistently miss errors. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:27, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
From what I understand, it's reviewing without checking all the criteria, only some of them. Granted, it's not uncommon for reviewers to condense review stuff into one sentence (for example, sometimes I'd say "Meets all the DYK article criteria"), but in such cases it's implied that all the criteria were checked. In this case there are no such suggestions. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:29, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Much of the time, no criteria appear to be checked. Commenting about the Guinness World Records for example is not an attempt at checking anything. Much of the time they say something anodyne like "I'll leave it up to another reviewer" - here, and here for example. My best guess is that they think a DYK review involves verifying the hook, which they sometimes attempt to do, but even that isn't consistent. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:14, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree that these are insufficient QPQ reviews as they do not make it clear whether Slgrandson has performed any of the required checks. But I think this is just an example for an overall quality problem with QPQ reviews. In other words, we need to improve review culture in general more than focus on one user. —Kusma (talk) 13:28, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I've seen errors made at all stages of DYK, we're only human. However, normally when someone points out that someone else has done an inadequate review, the person fixes it and provides a full review. I have never seen a single reviewer with this much of a problem doing proper QPQs despite multiple comments directing them to do a full review. It's a general quality problem in the sense that so many people (again, myself included) have let it slip, but as far as I can tell, doing it this much is an issue specific to this one user. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:19, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Sure, and it is excellent that you noticed this user and properly researched the issue and called them out here. I just don't want people to think all is fine once we get rid of one bad apple. —Kusma (talk) 21:08, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
I am not sure if this is because there is a requirement to provide a QPQ at the time of nomination, especially since some people are doing a quick review. If I see an inappropriate/inadequate QPQ, then I would normally give at least 5 days to address that. I may ask them to expand their review if that nom is still open or if closed, provide a new review/QPQ. JuniperChill (talk) 14:06, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Maybe it would help if Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination automatically included a checklist template. RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith and Viriditas: We already have Template:DYK checklist. Perhaps we should consider an RfC to complete all of its fields for a valid QPQ? Flibirigit (talk) 00:28, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I'd be opposed to making the checklist mandatory. For one, it can be bulky and time-consuming to fill in all the parameters, when you can leave a text comment that can give the same information. The checklist is useful and I can get behind the idea of recommending it, but I don't think it should be required. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:16, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

If the main concern is ensuring editors do thorough reviews, perhaps this is best addressed while promoting and before the QPQ check. I come across loads of approved hooks with unresolved issues and drop questions/comments, regardless of whether I plan to promote them.[12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32] This seems to be the case for other promoters as well. Even when promoting, I often add a note or pose a question first. In the linked example that I promoted up there,[33] in the edit before promotion it's clear that I did double-check the article/hook.

Going forward, I can look for approvals that do not mention DYK criteria. In those cases, I could either [a] ping reviewers with some standard message about doing a more thorough review or [b] put the article back up for review.

If the concern is ensuring that the QPQ review is adequate, what is the standard? These reviews stick out for looking spare or odd, and I'm cautious about imposing an aesthetic requirement. What if a review is formatted well but not adequate in some other way? I'll give an example with courtesy pings for those involved, but it's not about any of these people. One of the first times I brought up major issues in a DYK was at Talk:Fire basket. Unfamiliar with WT:DYK or WP:ERRORS, I made extensive notes on the talk page, referenced these notes on the DYK template, and discussed them in the transcluded DYK nomination with the nominator (Evrik). All of the article's citations translated from de-wiki (most of them) are bogus, and they do not in any way verify the article's content. The hook fact (which did run on the main page) is plagiarized. Two editors (Lightburst & Launchballer) offered reviews that were later counted for QPQ. Is either review acceptable for QPQ? I would have accepted either one. Template:Did you know nominations/The Book of Longings looks unusual, but "NYT verification conducted through WP:Library ProQuest" does imply that they verified the cited hook fact from the NYT. I'm hesitant to impose norms that will make it harder for new contributors, but wouldn't affect experienced editors who slipped up. WP:DYKRR says a "full review" is required but doesn't define a full review. How much is a reviewer expected to write in a nomination that passes?

Regarding loading a default template as mentioned by RoySmith: I suggested something similar for GA reviews at Wikipedia:Good Article proposal drive 2023/Feedback as newer editor. I helped draft and implement this, and I think GA tried it out for about 6 months (the first six months of 2023). There were three main complaints. Many experienced editors complained that they already had a preferred system for reviewing that worked for them, and they did not want to either use a template or have to delete a template for every review. Also, many new reviewers were reported to WT:GAN for filling out all the checkboxes and passing an article without offering much additional commentary. Finally, several new reviewers commented that template was complicated and created another barrier to contributing. I'm not saying don't try it here, but hopefully if it is implemented seeing things that were issues there before will help.

Finally, regarding "sorry to do this here": if there is any concern about this bothering pinged editors, I will say that I don't feel bothered. Thanks for bringing it up, Premeditated Chaos. Conversations like this are important to keep standards high, Rjjiii (talk) 01:32, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

How much is a reviewer expected to write in a nomination that passes? I would expect a full review to actively confirm that the article meets the DYK criteria. I don't generally write vast paragraphs, but at the very least I make it clear that I've checked the article for newness, length, other issues, and checked the hook for truth and interestingness, and I would expect any definition of a "full review" to expect at least that, whether written or in template checkbox format. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
@Premeditated Chaos Would either of these fall short to you? [34][35] Rjjiii (talk) 01:19, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
The template is filled out fully, which to me hits the standard of "actively confirms that the article meets the DYK criteria". ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:20, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Rejecting a duplicate nomination

I don't want to open up a new thread, and since this is already under discussion, can another user take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Talli Osborne, and let me know if the nominator's procedural rejection of a duplicate hook qualifies as a QPQ based on the full review guidelines? Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 22:25, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
@Viriditas I see your point, but I've always considered the QPQ requirement to be "Completely processed a nomination". This isn't dykcoin; QPQ is a measure of how much value you've added, not how much work you've done. If the complete processing consists of quick-failing a nomination because it is clearly deficient in some fundamental criteria, I think that counts. RoySmith (talk) 22:45, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you. The reason I was concerned was because the same hook was already reviewed by another reviewer, so it didn't meet the full review criterion, IMO. I will accept your input and make note of it. Viriditas (talk) 22:48, 15 October 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Viriditas and RoySmith: I don't think this question belongs in this section. Using quickfails as QPQs was discussed last year at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 191#Minimal QPQ and I thought that the conclusion then was that it was discouraged. TSventon (talk) 01:38, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
That's not completely accurate. The discussion more-or-less said that quickfails should generally not be used as QPQs (i.e. nominations that are immediately failed without checking for all criteria), but reviews that failed the nomination but still checked everything count. It's the checking of the criteria that counts, not making the review itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:43, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5:, this question is about Template:Did you know nominations/Dilaw (song), which was rejected as a duplicate of Template:Did you know nominations/Dilaw (Maki song). I don't see any signs of all criteria being checked for the duplicate. TSventon (talk) 02:10, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
My response was meant as a general comment and wasn't talking about a specific nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:15, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
And, to clarify, doing a full review on an article before quickfailing it for being 3 months old at time of nomination doesn't count either. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:22, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm a little concerned about not giving people their credit for a failure. If I review a nom and decide to fail it, knowing that doing so will forfeit my QPQ is an incentive to approve it anyway. RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 16 October 2024 (UTC)
It's also probably unfair since it penalizes reviewers. Failings should still count as valid QPQs since the failure wasn't the reviewer's fault but the nominator's. While an argument could be made against straight quickfails, if the reviewer still checked everything regardless, why should it matter that the result was still a rejection? There's a difference between a review that goes "sorry, this nomination is ineligible for being late or not being long enough", and one that goes "the article is long, properly sourced, free from close paraphrasing, and does not require a QPQ, but was nominated way beyond the seven-day requirement." Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:14, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Typically the first thing I do when reviewing a submission is to click the "DYK Check" link. If that says the article is too short, there's no added value to investing additional time to check other things. So why should wasting my time doing pointless work earn me a QPQ? RoySmith (talk) 02:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Sure, but that's not what I was talking about. I was talking about turning what could be a quickfail into a full review to game the QPQ system. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:32, 17 October 2024 (UTC)
Better to allow quickfails as QPQs without question then. A valid quickfail is more helpful for DYK than lazily accepting a nom without proper checking. —Kusma (talk) 08:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I am also unconcerned about the theoretical risks of accepting fails, including quickfails, as QPQs, especially compared to the alternative of incentivising poor passes. CMD (talk) 08:11, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Prep 5

Latest comment: 26 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Just a note, as we're down to one queue: I'm not able to touch Prep 5 as I was the one who prepared it. If someone is willing to do it, I can take a look at Prep 6 minus Filomena Fortes and Prep 7 minus Stuntman and Gao Qifeng.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 09:11, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Filomena Fortes and Gao Qifeng both seem fine. (You may be interested to know that "Zhang Kunyi was so distraught by Gao Qifeng's death that she mixed her tears with powder to paint plum blossoms, using her own blood for the sepals" leaps out as a potential hook, either here or if you decide to bring Kunyi to GA.) My problem with Stuntman is that it strikes me as requiring knowledge of Bruce Lee, which I don't have, although that may be because I really don't like films at the best of times.--Launchballer 11:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Yeah, that note leapt out to Gao's GA reviewer as well. I'd have to see what I can find on her... she doesn't seem to have been very well covered, just based on my cursory review, and our article is mostly uncited. For Stuntman, I know I personally considered it alright because Lee is such a well-known martial artist... if it were Tony Jaa or someone else who only briefly had mainstream popularity, I would think otherwise.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 26 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived about an hour ago, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 24. We have a total of 301 nominations, of which 121 have been approved, a gap of 180 nominations that has increased by 10 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than one month old

Note that this list is shorter than in the past: with this talk page archiving posts after five days rather than after seven, these lists are lasting for six days rather than eight, so fewer entries are being reviewed in the shortened time period.

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:TPL

Latest comment: 26 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Per the talk page layout (WP:TPL), the DYK template is supposed to go above the banner shell. As we do it now, the DYK template is put below and must be manually corrected. Can someone fix this? PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

That just looks wrong to me. A DYK template should not be more prominent than WikiProjects, which might be useful in the future as opposed to one fixed date in the past. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:57, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
It's part of the article history set which all get grouped together in one template. Like GA or FA. Looks more right to me in any case, but at that point we're getting subjective, so oh well PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
In the news notices are correctly placed by their bot, DYK should not be an exception. Flibirigit (talk) 22:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi hi! See User talk:Shubinator#Talk page order for the latest discussion on this. Shubinator (talk) 00:00, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

Latest comment: 25 days ago51 comments17 people in discussion

Neutron stars in fiction

@Polyamorph, TompaDompa, and Silver seren: I see two problems here. First, this probably violates WP:DYKFICTION. Second, it's sourced to a blog. A blog by a professor at a major university, but I'm still not sure it counts as a WP:RS. RoySmith (talk) 23:44, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

The article is explicitly about depictions in fiction and the hook explicitly notes that the subject is something in fiction. Does that really fall under what WP:DYKFICTION was meant to be covering when it comes to hooks? Like, the subject matter of the article is about how something is shown in fiction. Everything in the article is going to be about the subject matter in fiction. As for the source, it's very clearly an EXPERTSPS, and not even self-published, since it's done as a part of the university and by someone who has actual academic journal publications on the subject matter of not only neutron stars, but also such bodies in fiction. SilverserenC 00:46, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I'd agree with @Silver seren Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:DYKFICTION states that the hook needs to be based on a real-world fact. The hook is a real-world fact about works of fiction, so DYKFICTION doesn't apply. The source is OK, but in any case the hook is supported by Bloom (2016) cited in the Neutron_stars_in_fiction#Life section. Polyamorph (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I think it's fine. There can be real world facts about fiction. And EXPERTSPS in a context where it is fine to use it. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:38, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
In addition to the points made above, which I agree with, I would note that the hook is (to my eye) qualitatively quite similar to previous ones deemed acceptable, such as:
TompaDompa (talk) 22:28, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
If true, then there's a double standard and a major disconnect. As a reviewer, I've had major issues pointed out by the community about art hooks, particularly art hooks that feature fictional aspects of the work, which have been informally rejected as violating DYKFICTION. I will provide Template:Did you know nominations/Gulshan-i 'Ishq as an example of whose original hook was rejected. In other words, if this was about a work of art instead of a fictional work, those hooks would not have been accepted. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that's an apt comparison, but an apples-to-oranges one. The article under discussion, and the ones I brought up, are about subjects/topics in fiction rather than works of fiction. The one you brought up is about a work, rather than a subject. It's the difference between describing the characteristics/contents of a single work and overarching trends in multiple (more-or-less). TompaDompa (talk) 23:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I think I see your point conceptually in that one hook is a work about a painting and another is a subject in fiction, but it still relies on fictional works, and that's a distinction without a difference when it comes to the hook content. I don't see a qualitative difference between a hook about an art work that describes a fictional king and hooks about fictional mist creatures and crystals living on Pluto or exotic lifeforms around neutron stars. But, that's just me. Viriditas (talk) 23:43, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't see how Gulshan-i 'Ishq is an artwork—it seems to just be a poem? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Apologies for my loose wording. It's a poem which famously includes watercolor illustrations depicting the content. Viriditas (talk) 23:58, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) A better comparison might be something like ... that cycles of the Life of Christ in medieval art usually show relatively few of his miracles? (Life of Christ in art) or ... that medieval depictions of the Assumption of the Virgin Mary often show her dropping her belt to Thomas the Apostle as she rises? (Assumption of Mary in art). Both of those are articles where the subject of the article is a particular subject in art, as opposed to a work of art, and the hooks are about trends in those depictions. TompaDompa (talk) 23:59, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not worried about the sourcing, but I'm not seeing how this passes DYKFICTION either. The real-world connection offered mostly seems to be an acknowledgement that this happens in fiction? If we had a hook saying "...that in X book, neutron stars harbour exotic life on their surface?", it would fail the fictional requirement. I'm not sure how saying "....that in fiction, neutron stars harbour exotic life on their surface?" would be substantially different. If the hook made it clear that it was referring to a trend, or some technique, or was contrasting it with the fact that such a depiction would be impossible- then yes, that would be a real world connection. But simply acknowledging that these depictions occur in fiction? I think it would be better to find a new hook/rework this one a bit.
And as for the counterexample hooks, I think the one about Jupiter manages to (tenuously) connect the fictional elements to a literary technique, and the Uranus one connects the fictional elements to a real-life trend. I'm not sure the other two should have been approved- but there is clearly some wiggle room when it comes to interpreting the DYK fiction rule. GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 00:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
For convenience, here's the hook under discussion: ... that in fiction, neutron stars harbour exotic lifeforms in their vicinity, on their surface, and even in their interior?. I personally think "exotic" and "even" make the point that this is rather unlikely clear enough. I also think the hook providing three different locations as examples is enough to make it clear that this is referring to a trend, though I suppose we could add "variously" or something like that to make it even clearer—but I also think the Pluto in fiction and Supernovae in fiction hooks are clear enough in that regard, and I don't think those hooks would have been better if they had said e.g. ... that life on fictional life on Pluto, a common motif, has included mist creatures and crystals? or ... that inducing supernovae in fiction is a recurring motif, and these variously serve as weapons, power sources for time travel, and advertisements?. TompaDompa (talk) 00:52, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Agree with GreenLipstickLesbian that the Uranus hook is a good one, the others are more tenuous. I disagree with the topic vs individual subject argument raised above, there can be statements made about a single aspect of an individual work that could teach something. DYKFICTION may be too broad in some respects, but a hook saying fiction authors have imagined life in neutron stars seems like exactly the type of hook it is trying to prevent. Where haven't they imagined life? CMD (talk) 03:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I rather thought the point was to prevent ... that in [work of fiction], [plot description]?. There's some recent-ish (very brief) discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Guidelines#DYKFICTION_2, where the suggestion was made that "Did you know that aliens in fiction are often depicted with green skin?" would be acceptable but "Did you know that Orions have green skin?" would not be, for basically the same reasons I've been pointing to. There's also less recent discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Guidelines#Recent hook and DYKFICTION involving a previous hook of mine for comets in fiction (which I would have liked to have been pinged about instead of discovering it now), where basically the same points were raised as well. TompaDompa (talk) 04:13, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
If so, that doesn't exactly come through. "Works of fiction are bounded only by human creativity, making possible all manner of hooks that would be interesting if they were real – but if everything is special, nothing is." This reads as trying to create a brightline around WP:DYKINT, by preventing things "that would be interesting if they were real". This would as written apply to both "Anonymous Sciecefictionwriter imagined exotic lifeforms in and around neutron stars" and "Many science fiction writers have imagined exotic lifeforms in and around neutron stars" in the same way. CMD (talk) 04:55, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I read DYKFICT the same way that Tompa does (in fact I'm the one who wrote the post with the "aliens with green skin" example). I think that there's a clear difference between a DYK that simply says "this happened in a story" and a DYK that says "X happening in various stories is a trend". One is simply repeating the fiction. The other is a real-world analysis of the fiction, and I think acceptable. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
There's a clear difference in theory, but "... that in fiction, neutron stars harbour exotic lifeforms in their vicinity, on their surface, and even in their interior?" does not provide analysis, it simply says X has happened in at least one story. CMD (talk) 12:31, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree. There is no analysis in that hook. Who knows if the "in fiction" refers to one work, five, or a thousand? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:03, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not seeing an issue here. Is there a problem if there's no analysis? There is a connection to a real-world fact here even if may seem implicit at first. I get the point of DYKFICTION, but in this case people here seem to be interpreting it far more broadly than intended. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:38, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I can't agree that it does not provide analysis—it identifies a pattern/trend. Do we really need to spell it out in the hook that this is a recurring thing? Methinks that would mostly just make it clunkier—as noted above, we could say something along the lines of "... that in fiction, neutron stars variously harbour exotic lifeforms in their vicinity, on their surface, and even in their interior?" to make it more explicit, but is that an improvement? TompaDompa (talk) 13:11, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
That more than one science fiction writer has explored the possibility of life in a certain place does not seem much of a trend. Is there somewhere in space that hasn't had the possibility of life existing explored? I do find the exploration of life on the surface of the neutron star interesting, although unfortunately there is only one example. (This is an example of where I find DYKFICTION a bit difficult.) The Flux example of life inside the neutron star seems a bit more speculative from the source. (The source does not for one case of life around a neutron star that "the neutron star itself isn’t key to the story", which seems applicable to the other vicinity cases too, so I find those less specifically compelling.) There does seem a trend in exploring the gravitational effects of neutron stars, although I am not sure to what extent it might be differentiated from other bodies with gravitational fields. CMD (talk) 15:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I mean, the cited source treats these works collectively as a set based on the presence of life. TompaDompa (talk) 15:19, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think that's accurate. The works grouped together in the article are drawn from two separate sets (of the total seven) in the source, one for life in/on the neutron star, and one about the neighbourhood. CMD (talk) 15:34, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I suppose you could look at it like that, but then the source does also draw a connection between the two. TompaDompa (talk) 15:48, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
It's all part of neutron stars I suppose. I've had a thought. The source covers how both Starquake and Flux engage with life needing to deal with Neutron star#Glitches and starquakes, which includes also trying to explain what said glitches are. A short addition each to the article Background and Life sections, and I think we could have a hook which passes the technical DYKFICTION requirement of at least two instances, while also directly linking with the real world exploration of an unknown phenomenon? CMD (talk) 16:01, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
That's one possible option, though I think it's a clearly inferior one as I find it way less interesting. I have at any rate added a brief mention.
On the original hook: even if we consider life on/in neutron stars and life around neutron stars to be two separate sets (or whatever term is most apt), that basically just means that the hook covers two facts rather than one: (1) depictions of life in/on neutron stars is a recurring feature in fiction writing, and (2) depictions of life around neutron stars is a recurring feature in fiction writing. Either way, it shouldn't be a problem. TompaDompa (talk) 20:25, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Why do you find it less interesting that science fiction writers have looked at specific aspects of life living on neutron stars than the general fact that science fiction writers have looked at life on neutron stars? CMD (talk) 05:13, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
In this specific case, it's because I reckon that for most people, starquakes and glitches in the the context of neutron stars does not mean anything to them. Too far removed from things they are familiar with, so to speak. TompaDompa (talk) 05:22, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I mean... does the hook say that it's a/ reoccurring theme? There's clearly some room for debate on that matter, but it appears that one "side" are all reading this hook as merely a list of things that can happen when neutron stars are discussed in science fiction. Conversely, the other "side" sees it as describing a trend. We're not disagreeing as to the merits of DYKFICTION- we just aren't agreeing if it applies in this particular style of hook.
@Premeditated Chaos I hope you don't mind if I ask you something, seeing as you wrote the alien examples. In those hooks I see two major differences. Firstly, that one focuses on a specific piece of media/literature. That's something we all agree does not pass DYKFICTION in its present form. However, the second difference between the two hooks is that the second one says "often". "aliens in fiction are often depicted with green skin". That "often" to me is what implies a trend/analysis is present in the hook/article. A hook merely stating "did you know that aliens in fiction can be depicted with green, brown, or metallic skin" could mean anything - am I about to click on an article, only to learn that somebody managed source an indiscriminate list of all the different skin colours authors have imagined aliens to have? Or am I going to learn the reason why green and grey aliens were so common during the 1960s? "Often" implies the second, just stating a list of possibilities implies the former. But, of course, that's just my reading. You made the examples, and you chose the wording for specifically and I'm in a unique position where I get to ask you why. What were you trying to illustrate? GreenLipstickLesbian (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
@GreenLipstickLesbian, I was trying to illustrate the difference between a hook that has a real-world connection and one that doesn't, with the first examples that came to mind. I was hoping that others might come in and make suggestions or changes, but it didn't really go anywhere - my bad for putting it at a low-traffic talk page rather than this one. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 00:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Barry Green (hunter)

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, Di (they-them), and Yue: The article and the source say "killed more than 1450 feral cats" but doesn't say anything about trapping them, so the hook shouldn't either. RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Chocolate Room

@Hilst, Rollinginhisgrave, and Mariamnei: The hook says "army of ants" in quotes, but that phrase doesn't appear anywhere in the article. RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Added to article. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 01:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Veto (card game)

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, Piotrus, Oliwiasocz, and Chipmunkdavis: This is a "first" hook which requires exceptional sourcing. In this case, it's a vague "is considered" (by whom?), and it's sourced to something not in English, which I can't get to anyway because Internet Archive is still down. So, not strictly disallowed, but let's not tempt fate on this one. Is there a better hook that could be used? RoySmith (talk) 00:01, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, Internet Archive has been back up for a couple of days now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Wayback Machine, at least, is, which is all we need for this.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
    Hmmm, when I tried the IA link earlier, it timed out, but I've got it now. The next problem is that I can't read Polish. I copy-pasted all the text into Google Translate, but I can't find anything that looks like it verifies the hook fact. Perhaps somebody who can read Polish could assist? RoySmith (talk) 02:03, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
    Perhaps Piotrus could help out here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:11, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
    @RoySmith @RoySmith Sure (it is my article, after all). The claim of first is sourced to two sources. One does not require IA ([36]), and, side note, instead of copypaste into GT, Chrome has a right-click translate page option (perhaps it needs enabling in setting?) Anyway, from that source:

    Poles are not geese and they have their own card games. Only, there aren't many of them [...] Only about "Veta", published since 2004, can I say with full conviction that it is an indigenous production

    . The second source, pdf, states

    There has always been a lack of a domestic game that would be interesting, solidly made, and above all playable. Fortunately, Veto filled this gap.

    . Here is a source from 2009 that calls it the only Polish CGG (although that is not correct, as 2005, a year after veto, saw [37]). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:42, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
    PS. That said, if we want to be fully correct (I've expanded the article a bit with some sources), we may want to consider a revised hook:
    or
    This is because it is not the first Polish-language CCG, nor the first CCG developed by a Polish company (that would be [38]; I did not know about it until today, it is very obscure...). Veto is one of the first Polish CGGs (second developed by Polish designers, although the year 2004 also saw non-commercial, fandom-based production FanDooM [39]), but the first one that is Polish-themed. Sorry for the confusion, this stuff is pretty obscure, and some sources cited, despite being reliable-ish, make mistakes too because, well, obscure stuff. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:25, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
    Noting here that as a reviewer, my interest in the hook was related to the theming of a CCG on Commonwealth history, rather than it being the first or later to do so. CMD (talk) 08:52, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Fred the Head

@Dumelow, Hilst, and BeanieFan11: this probably fails WP:DYKDEFINITE ("a definite fact that is unlikely to change"). It'll be false the moment the case gets solved. RoySmith (talk) 00:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Maybe it can rewritten to add the age of the case? Something like "... a man's body [...] has been unidentified since 1971?" If not, maybe we can use a different fact (only one I thought was interesting was the E-FIT one, but maybe the article's writer can come up with something better). – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 01:31, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure I see the issue here? The case has been open for 53 years, it's not going to be solved before this appears on the main page tomorrow - Dumelow (talk) 06:29, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I thought the interpretation of WP:DYKDEFINITE is that the hook's truthfulness or accuracy is unlikely to change in the future, rather than just simply at the time of its appearance on the main page. At least, that's how it seemed to have been interpreted from experience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't see why that would be important. DYK hooks appear on the main page for less than 24 hours and then are essentially invisible except to a vanishingly small percentage of readers who know where to look and who won't be surprised that the fact stated in the archives reflected the position at a stated moment in time and not a statement for the ages. The wording of WP:DYKDEFINITE was added last year by User:Theleekycauldron, I had a quick look at the archives to try to find a discussion that laid out the reasons for it but had no luck, perhaps they could assist? If consensus is there that it should be an immutable fact then fair enough it just seems to work against interesting hooks and promote unnatural wording. Would we really go with "... the Battle of Towton is the bloodiest battle fought in England as of 2024" over "... the Battle of Towton is the bloodiest battle ever fought in England"?
It's already not definite that the Battle of Towton was the bloodiest as there have been other bloody battles and the numbers for any of them aren't certain. See the Battle of Hastings, for example. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
If this fails WP:DYKDEFINITE, then we should change WP:DYKDEFINITE. It would be trivial to make it definite by adding "as of 2024", but it would not be an improvement. —Kusma (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
+1 – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 01:40, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
  • ... that a man's body, found wearing only a woman's wedding ring and a pair of socks in 1971, is the oldest unsolved missing persons case in Staffordshire, England?
  1. This is not a missing person; it's an unidentified body
  2. Other, older remains have been found in Staffordshire – see Search for ancient skeleton for some examples. At some point, this stops being a police matter and becomes archaeology but that's not definite.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:30, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Preps 4 and 5

Latest comment: 25 days ago35 comments13 people in discussion

Just a quick note, since we're down to two queues: I prepared preps four and five, and thus will not be able to promote them.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 11:35, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Doing.--Launchballer 12:05, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm a bit tired from prep 4, so I probably won't do prep 5 now. Anyone else is free to chip in before I do.--Launchballer 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Right, I'm going to start on prep 5.--Launchballer 15:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Eddie Canales

@Mrfoogles, Lajmmoore, and Crisco 1492: The article does not spell out that the stations were set up for that exact purpose, only that he set it up and that that migrants' deaths are a problem, and there seems to be some close paraphrasing in the article.--Launchballer 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Oof, "he attended schools in South Texas, including Sam Houston Elementary School in Corpus Christi. Canales was bilingual and learned to read" is definitely reworkable. Good catch. I did spell out the hook fact, which is readily supported by the sources.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
The hook fact is that they were installed specifically to save lives, and technically "undocumented immigrants" isn't quite the same as "immigrants taking routes that avoided a checkpoint along U.S. Route 281".--Launchballer 13:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I think the connection there is reasonably clear — all sources I can find, apparently deliberately, refer to them as “migrants” instead of “illegal immigrants”, though. The Wash post article includes a quote from him saying “It just goes to the language, to the words, and words mean a lot: ‘All these were illegals.’ Even in death, they wound up not getting the proper respect.” if that helps. It seems unlikely that they’d be making the dangerous journey and avoiding the checkpoint if they had legal permission to enter the country. Worst case, I guess it could say migrants instead of undocumented immigrants, but I don’t think that’s necessary. Mrfoogles (talk) 15:09, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Just to say, thank you for tagging me, but I just commented on the nomination, and don't have anything further to add on its review. Lajmmoore (talk) 08:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Ansorge Hotel

@Kevmin and Reconrabbit: Aside from needing a copyedit, the article says "a red light would be placed in an upstairs bay window to signal the US rum-runners should not retrieve the liquor in town" and the hook says "told rumrunners of revenue men in town". These are not the same thing. Also, what makes Randrianasolo's sportive lemur a full QPQ?--Launchballer 13:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Article says, "On occasions when revenue agents were staying in the Ansorge, a red light would be placed in an upstairs bay window to signal the US rum-runners should not retrieve the liquor in town." I thought that that was sufficiently clear, as the Ansorge was "in town". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Don't know how I missed that.--Launchballer 13:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Chris is correct, the Ansorge is in the Center of Curlew, and the back room windows directly overlook the bend of the Kettle River where liquor barrels would normally get pulled out. So when the revenue men stayed in the hotel, the owner placed a red light in the corner widow to signal rumrunners.--Kevmin § 15:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
It probably ought to be more than just length, but if you're happy with it then I'll take it.--Launchballer 13:28, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
This has been discussed a couple of times in the past month on this page. A full review is considered any review action that closes out a nomination, either as passing or as failing. Thats how it always has been, and the recent trend to only treat a passing review as a "full" is rules creep far away from the actual rule.--Kevmin § 15:39, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes—if you start saying you have to provide the full checklist review for even ten-second quickfails, you a) go against WP:NOTBURO and b) incentivise quick-passes over providing actual reviews. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:00, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Magic (play)

@ThaesOfereode, Andrew Davidson, and Crisco 1492: Do we have a source that specifically says that Shaw was referring to Hilaire Belloc, given that the quote just says Belloc? Seems somewhat WP:SYNTHy otherwise.--Launchballer 18:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

  • Both sources make explicit that Hillaire was one of Chesterton's close friends, and that Shaw invoked him in his efforts to pester Chesterton to write (both discuss the "Chesterbelloc" essay in depth). Given their extensive discussion of the relationship, neither invokes a different Belloc when discussing the letter. It's not explicit, but the implication is strong to the point where one would have difficulty assuming it was a different Belloc. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:19, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    Indeed. The association is well established – see Chesterbelloc. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:18, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
    Yes. To add, Chesterton is referring to Hilaire beyond any reasonable doubt; Shaw described Chesterton and Belloc, not as simply joined at the waist but as one eight-legged being. ThaesOfereode (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I guess. Just waiting on the last one now.--Launchballer 19:47, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Dusko Doder

@Thriley, ForsythiaJo, and Chipmunkdavis: I see WP:CLOP with nytimes.com.--Launchballer 18:04, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Earwig is giving 16.0%. Looks to be mostly proper nouns that are matching. Thriley (talk) 18:26, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree with Launchballer, mostly the "Early life and education" section. Don't fixate on the Earwig percentage. RoySmith (talk) 18:34, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I can see similarities but I didn't consider it CLOP during the review. Maybe repeating "in Sarajevo" in the high school sentence is not needed. More details would be helpful. CMD (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
As time is of the essence, I've copyedited this myself. @RoySmith:, has your concern been resolved?--Launchballer 10:19, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
It's an improvement, yes. RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
There are a few others I couldn't think of alternative wordings for this morning. This should be fine now (though admittedly I thought that earlier...).--Launchballer 14:32, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
It occurs to me that LLMs are a good analogy for what most people do to "fix" paraphrasing problems. They both operate at the level of words (as does Earwig). As WP:CLOP says, Close paraphrasing, or patchwriting, is the superficial modification of material from another source. Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words. If you start with the text from the source and make a series of incremental changes, moving words around, substituting synonyms, etc, you're paraphrasing. What you really want to do (and what LLMs fail to do) is read the source material, understand what it is saying, and then formulate entirely novel text to express the same information. The bottom line is that what we've got now is OK, but only because we've moved from "close paraphrasing" to "more distant paraphrasing". I think that meets our requirement, so I'm not going to object to using it. But if you're still reading this far, it should be obvious that I'm not enthusiastic about it. RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
Point taken. I've promoted the set by hand, although I notice that Queue 5 has one less line of whitespace than Queue 4 - have I made a mistake?--Launchballer 16:34, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
A problem with extra whitespace in queues was reported here recently, I don't remember the exact thread, but it was in the past few days. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 17:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
It was Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 202#PSHAW and blank space by @Crisco 1492:, which went unanswered.--Launchballer 17:37, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Prep 3

Latest comment: 24 days ago6 comments5 people in discussion

Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season

@AirshipJungleman29, Dan Leonard, Belbury, Cowlan, BootsED, and Tavantius: The hook reads ... that several major U.S. politicians have spread conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season?. Considering that some of these politicians are running for election, perhaps this is another one we should invoke WP:DYKELECT on? RoySmith (talk) 19:56, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

The two alternate hooks in the nomination make no mention of the election and may be more appropriate. Dan Leonard (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
ALT1 especially. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:12, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Maybe ALT1 then. Tavantius (talk) 01:24, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I've pulled this. It's not just the hook that's a problem. The article itself devotes significant space and more than half the lead to talking about specific people running for office. It can wait until after the election is over. RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Template editor

Latest comment: 24 days ago7 comments3 people in discussion

During the recent RfA election, Pppery (talk) said that DYK recently reduced protection of queues to template editor but I cannot find the discussion of this. Can anyone point me to it? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 08:16, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 202#Giving queues template instead of full protection?.--Launchballer 10:27, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for that! Being able to help with the DYK queues was one of my reasons for nominating at the RfA election. I have been a template editor since 2015, for my work with templates, so it appears that as of a couple of weeks ago, I can promote the queues. There remains the question of whether it is ethical to do so if the RfA fails. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: recently withdrew an RfA and has since done prep-to-queue, having been given the right by @Kusma: shortly after I got mine through WP:PERM. I can tell you I warmed myself up by hoovering up some of Crisco's recusals (e.g. #MyRadar) and there's a couple more below, one of which (#Progradungula barringtonensis) I can't do as I promoted it. Why not do those before attempting a set?--Launchballer 02:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Hahaha. I tried promoting Prep 1 to the Queue, but User:Theleekycauldron/DYK promoter (PSHAW) pops up an alert that says: "Might I suggest [[Wikipedia:Requests for adminship]] first?" I guess the template editor bit is still insufficient. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:33, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
It is for PSHAW purposes, for now :) gonna have to do it manually! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:39, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I tried to promote a single item to Prep 3 with PSHAW. It popped up a dialog with the current contents of the prep and a set of radio buttons. The new one was classed as u0, whatever that means. I selected it and pressed submit. Nothing happened. I then promoted the nomination manually. Can you send me some documentation on how to promote an item with PSHAW? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Can DYKcheck be modified so that an article appearing on RD, or as a non-blurb link on OTD, won't show red?

Latest comment: 24 days ago3 comments3 people in discussion

@Shubinator Right now, if an article has appeared on RD, or as nob-blurb link on OTD (i.e. either a birth or a death), it will give a red "Article has appeared on In The News before" or "Article has appeared on On This Day before" message, even though only bolded links in blurbs make an article ineligible. Can the DYKcheck tool be fixed so that the red message won't appear if, for example, the article was merely an RD entry rather than a full blurb?

While we're already here, given the change in DYK eligibility to allow re-runs after re-runs, perhaps the tool could also be changed to indicate if an article has appeared on DYK within the last five years, or has appeared on DYK over five years prior? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestions!
  • In The News non-bolded links: it looks like this should already work as described above? Just checked Turkish Aerospace Industries and Ankara, which are currently non-bolded links, and these aren't tagged with the ITN template.
  • On This Day births / deaths: it looks like On This Day is tagging the birth / death articles with the same talk page template (for example, see Talk:Johann Karl August Musäus which has a template saying "A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section"), so it's best to first ask those folks to adjust their tagging.
  • DYK last 5 years: I'll look into this.
Shubinator (talk) 02:11, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
@Shubinator: RDs are exempt from ITN disqualification, but they are usually tagged. It'd be nice if we could tag the ITN templates with |RD=y, but hey. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:43, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2 (Halloween)

Latest comment: 23 days ago17 comments5 people in discussion

Progradungula barringtonensis

@Crisco 1492: Would you be alright with me adding Get the Hell Out to that queue, as per #c-Nineteen Ninety-Four guy-20241028165100-Hallowe'en hooks it's clearly had two further reviews?--Launchballer 18:29, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Adding tag as I forgot: Launchballer — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
One step ahead of you. (If you forget to ping, just add the template and ping in the edit summary. No-one's any the wiser.)--Launchballer 18:49, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Trunk-or-treating

I approved Barringtonensis above, but I'm not seeing any problems with this one.--Launchballer 12:34, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Brian David Gilbert

Needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 12:19, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
Done.— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 14:00, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
My concern has been resolved.--Launchballer 14:16, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4

Latest comment: 22 days ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Come In (Weatherday album)

Not seeing any issues with this, although arguably the hook should include at least "the album", probably "the Weatherday album" for context. (Is there scope for a 5x expansion of that article?)--Launchballer 13:32, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Mitch Torres

@Ornithoptera and Kimikel: Checks out to the source, though the article was unclear whether it was Mitch or Ali so I reworded it slightly. Also, WP:CLOP needs resolving.--Launchballer 13:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Oasis trio

I'll assess the others later, though this one is mine. I note that both user:Kimikel and user:Ravenpuff removed "for 2025" from it, which I would argue adds interest.--Launchballer 11:48, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer: I agree, but adding "for 2025" makes the phrasing quite awkward, and the extra context isn't totally essential to the content of the hook, which is already quite long anyway. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 12:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Second Adrian Hasler cabinet

Queue 2

Latest comment: 22 days ago45 comments16 people in discussion

Wuhan trolleybus route 1 (nom)

I find this a bit bland. The source has “当年1路电车也算是武汉的一个特产，外地来的人，必须得来坐一趟，才能领会到这座城市独有的味道。”, which I read as something like "at the time, trolleybus number one was one of Wuhan's specialities (literally: special products), and people coming from elsewhere had to come and take a ride and only then could grasp this city's unique feeling/flavour"; the nom uses a longer quote but perhaps there is some compromise to be found? —Kusma (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Ping nom @S5A-0043, reviewer @Epicgenius, promoter @Polyamorph. —Kusma (talk) 16:22, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I thought the originally proposed ALT1 sounded most interesting, but it wasn't an approved hook. Maybe a variation of that would work? Polyamorph (talk) 17:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
@Polyamorph and @Kusma, I can also approve ALT1. Almost everything checked out to me, except that the hook gave the impression that the trolleybus literally circled nonstop around a statue of Sun Yat-sen for nearly 65 years. However, if @S5A-0043 revised ALT1 slightly, it can work. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:08, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Something like
could probably work based on the sources we have. We even have a picture of the trolleybus with statue, e.g. File:2022-电1路经过三民路铜人像.jpg. —Kusma (talk) 19:14, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
@Kusma,   That ALT could work. – Epicgenius (talk) 19:56, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Swapped in. —Kusma (talk) 21:47, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
Works for me. S5A-0043Talk 00:24, 20 October 2024 (UTC)

Baguia Fort (nom)

I can't see the source mentioning that it was turned into a hotel, only into some form of tourist accommodation? —Kusma (talk) 16:21, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

Ping nom @Chipmunkdavis, reviewer @Lajmmoore, promoter @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy. —Kusma (talk) 16:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
What is the distinction being made here? I have no issue with replacing "hotel" with "tourist accommodation" if that solves the issue. CMD (talk) 17:02, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
From what I can see online elsewhere (and on ptwiki/dewiki) it seems to be more a sort of hostel than a hotel. "Tourist accommodation" would provide better source to text integrity (and should also be changed in the article). We could also go for ALT2. —Kusma (talk) 18:39, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
I am doubtful this is a pertinent distinction in the (non-Dili) East Timorese tourism industry, but I have no issue with a shift to hostel or other wording, or a hook switch. CMD (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Hello @Kusma - what about ALT1? I think its quite fun? Otherwise it seems the switch in wording to tourist accommodation has been made in the article by @Chipmunkdavis and the same could happen in the hook. I too didn't see a huge distinction, but I take your point on integrity. Lajmmoore (talk) 05:51, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
(Apologies, I was unexpectedly busy IRL). I went for the simpler "tourist accommodation" but ALT1 isn't too bad either. —Kusma (talk) 20:36, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Pabhāvatī (nom)

  • ... that the beauty of Princess Pabhāvatī was said to light up seven chambers, making lamps unnecessary?

I read this as violating WP:DYKFICTION (I think the source is a quote from an original text inside a scholarly article. The article is in Burmese, so all I can do is point Google Lens at it and hope for the best). Ping nom Hteiktinhein, reviewer Chipmunkdavis, promoter Nineteen Ninety-Four guy to see if this can be salvaged. —Kusma (talk) 16:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

proposing ALT1: ... that a Burmese transliteration of the Sanskrit name Pabhāvatī is a common designation or metaphor for a beautiful woman in Myanmar? Source: "Kutha Zatdaw" (PDF). Myanmar Alin (in Burmese). 16 June 2005. p. 10. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:56, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
ALT0 (rewrite): ... that according to legend, the beauty of Princess Pabhāvatī was said to light up seven chambers, making lamps unnecessary?
ALT0-a: ... that according to the Buddhist epic Kusa Jātaka, the beauty of Princess Pabhāvatī was said to light up seven chambers, making lamps unnecessary? Source: Lhuiṅʻ, Ūʺ Sanʻʺ (1975). စစ်ကြိုခေတ် အနုပညာရှင်များ (in Burmese). Sūrassatī Cā pe tiukʻ. သာဂလခေါ် တိုင်းပြည်ကြီးက ပပဝတီရယ် ချောလှတဲ့ ဘုံကြိုးပြတ်တဲ့ မိုးနတ်နွယ် ပုံနှယ် ခုနစ်ဆောင် တိုက်ခန်းလယ် မီးမထွန်းဘဲ လင်းရပြန်ပေတယ်", translation: "In the great kingdom known as Madda, The beautiful maiden, Pabawaddy, Like a celestial who fell from the heavens, In the seven chambers, she shines without light. Hteiktinhein (talk) 07:54, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Actually, she is not a fictional character; she originates from Buddhist legends and is considered a mythological figure. If she were a fictional character, then the Buddha would also be considered fictional. I am re-proposing the hook with a reference to a historical book that highlights this claim in the source. Thank you. Hteiktinhein (talk) 08:05, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
@Kusma and Hteiktinhein: I've tagged the Legend section for tone issues, as its content reads like a story. Should this nom be pulled for the time being? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 08:29, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I can't understand why there is a tone issue. This article is about a mythical or folklore figure, not a historical one, so I wrote it in an in-universe style. This article is already summarized as a stub in a formal tone. The original story is 17 pages long and can be expanded fivefold if I choose to (you can read full story in English here [40]). If the tone is problematic for you, why wasn't it addressed or raised during the review process? As the only Burmese mythology editor, I've had no issues with any articles I've created. This article has already passed the DYK review process, and I'm welcome to ask questions about errors in the hook, but the current tone is fine with me. Hteiktinhein (talk) 13:02, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
This is part of the DYK review process Hteiktinhein; just because one editor has placed a tick does not mean the article must be completely fine. In this case, I agree that the tone is excessively narrative-like (the dramatic quotes don't help). The structuring is also a bit odd—why not discuss the first life ... first? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:15, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
This is not a Good Article nomination. This is about a legend, so I wrote like a story. Are you referring to 'past lives'? I can clarify this: the Jataka legends were retold by the Buddha in a sermon style during his lifetime. At the end of each legend, the Buddha revealed the past lives of the main figures without explicitly mentioning their names. Therefore, I don’t think it’s appropriate to feature their past lives first in the Wikipedia article. If the 'past life' is discussed first, it may confuse readers by stating something like, 'Pabawaddy is the reincarnation of the young man's sister-in-law,' as it doesn't make sense. Hteiktinhein (talk) 13:30, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I have rewritten the article in a formal tone. Hteiktinhein (talk) 14:49, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm really not happy with the changes. @Kusma: This nom is just 12 hours away from hitting the Main Page, so I would like to ask whether you're happy with the changes put forth by Hteiktinhein? What about you, AirshipJungleman29? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 12:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I have copyedited the story further, I think it's improved Nineteen Ninety-Four guy, but not sure how much. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:14, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I think either a {{tone}} or a {{Religious text primary}} is still appropriate. I will push this back into prep 4 to buy some time. Apologies this took so long. Ping @Hteiktinhein, @AirshipJungleman29, @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy for awareness. —Kusma (talk) 20:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Thank you so much for copyediting this, @AirshipJungleman29:. I believe {{Religious text primary}} is not appropriate. I have already informed the reviewer during the nomination that the English version reference is only a backup. The article is supported by a scholarly article and significant coverage from the Myanma Alin newspaper, which features an explanation of the epic and highlights this was a popular opera from the National Performing Arts Competition. However, since it is in print, you can use Google Lens for translation. I know it’s not easy to find in the PDF file, so I’ve separated this coverage from the newspaper for you to see here. Hteiktinhein (talk) 00:05, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure how ALT0 or ALT0a fix the WP:DYKFICTION issues, neither of those are focused on a "real life fact". ALT1 is better but I agree there are also MOS:WAF issues with how the story is currently presented; I'm also still unclear after reading the article how much of this is a real person vs how much of it is from a legend. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:43, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
The article text itself aside (which should do more than just summarize the legend, such as mention, for example, what purpose academics say the legend serves in the community it circulates in, or what meaning it conveys within that religious tradition), the legend exists in real life and is apparently a big part of why the topic is a subject of interest. The existence of folklore, legends, and tall tales about topics can be part of why a topic gets real-world attention and is of note or interest, regardless of the reality of such stories. This is a case where I think either WP:DYKFICTION, whether by application or actuality, is overzealous and results in favoring rather boring hooks that are about ancillary elements of a topic. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:18, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
I think you make a good point -- DYKFIC is written specifically as a guideline WP:DYKINT, but in some cases actually ends up working against finding interesting hooks. In this case I'm not sure I agree that the more interesting hooks are the ones possibly in violation of DYKFIC; they basically amount to a description of a character (though to your point I think there are interesting parts of this story that could potentially make good hooks). 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 01:50, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
If the Buddhist and Hindu epics are often regarded as fictional in the Western world, I have no intention of disputing that perspective. However, the stories in Buddhist epics are believed to have actually taken place in ancient India, with the Ramayana being an example. If some choose to view the Buddha as a fictional figure, so be it. But why isn't the same skepticism applied to figures like Jesus? However, ALT1 also looks fine. Hteiktinhein (talk) 00:24, 21 October 2024 (UTC)
proposing ALT2: ...that the renowned Mahāgīta songwriter Yan Naing Sein composed a tribute to the incomparable beauty of Pabhāvatī in his legacy song "A-long-daw Kutha"? Source: Muiʺ (Candayāʺ.), Lha (1967). မြန်မာဂီတစစ်တမ်း ဗဟုသုတရတနာ [Research of Myanmar old music: Knowledge treasure] (in Burmese). Ūʺ Thvanʻʺ Rī , Mruiʹ toʻ Cā pe.
I don't know who proposed ALT2 or when, but I've replaced this with another hook from Approved, so that needs a review before the prep can be queued.--Launchballer 16:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

The New York Times Simulator

The chosen hook (ALT0) fails WP:DYKFICTION and was also not preferred by the reviewer. Swapped to ALT1. Ping nom wasianpower, reviewer JuniperChill, promoter Nineteen Ninety-Four guy for awareness. —Kusma (talk) 10:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

I thought that I also mentioned about WP:DYKFICTION but at least i pointed out another reason (not interesting) why ALT0 is non-compliant. Link to nom for convenience JuniperChill (talk) 10:33, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
No objection here, ALT1 was provided precisely for DYKFIC reasons. Appreciate the ping! 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 17:23, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
The thing is, one could argue that ALT0 does not in fact fail DYKFICTION, at least from what other editors have argued here. Arguably, ALT0 is not talking about plot but rather game mechanics, and while personally I think the lines between plot and game mechanics can sometimes be blurry, other editors have said that game mechanics still pass DYKFICTION. I started a discussion about this a while back but it didn't gain much traction, so I wonder if there's interest on an RfC clarifying if game mechanics fall under DYKFICTION or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:18, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 That ambiguity is something I ran into when nominating -- I'd definitely be interested in participating in an RFC if one was opened! 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:44, 20 October 2024 (UTC)
Personally, with the spate of apparently noncompliant hooks, I can't help but think our WP:DYKFICTION guideline is either overzealously applied or itself written in an unhelpful way. We can agree that we want to avoid a hook like 'Vulcan culture emphasizes stoicism', but the ALT0 in this case is describing how a real-life player would experience the game. I remember another hook that was something like 'this eighteenth-century English novel written has XYZ overt sexual themes' and it got pulled on WP:DYKFICTION grounds and replaced with a very bland quote about the novel when, frankly, what was so interesting about the novel was that during a time when Anglophone culture was publicly very sexually restrained its content was so sexually overt. Sometimes fictional elements aren't interesting as hooks because they lack intrigue beyond being fictional, but there are cases when fictional elements, because of their real-world context, are interesting as hooks. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 00:12, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

Admittedly, this is literally the first time I've had to defy a reviewer's expectations. I disagree that the hook fails WP:DYKFICTION, as it's simply describing a fact about the game in real-world context. We can't reject this one while not batting an eye on, say, another videogame hook currently in the Halloween prep set: ... that you can prepare monkey brain dishes in a Lego Indiana Jones: The Original Adventures minigame? Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 13:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

That's a good point. @Vacant0, Panamitsu, and NightWolf1223:, what makes that hook compliant?--Launchballer 13:48, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
My apologies, I did not consider DYKFICTION. I agree that it may not be compliant wrt that guideline. However, I think it might still work because it is describing events in a game from the fram of the real world.
NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 13:51, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
And if not, I'll propose some alt blurbs here. If allowed of course. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 19:30, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I've reopened the nom.--Launchballer 09:41, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 20:55, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Latest comment: 27 days ago9 comments5 people in discussion

Eddie Canales

@Crisco 1492, Mrfoogles, and DimensionalFusion: There's substantial WP:CLOP of both caller.com and nytimes.com. I see this was mentioned here in the thread just above, but the changes made in response to that didn't fix the probem. Please read WP:CLOP. You can't fix CLOP by just changing a few words here or there. You need to write the text in your own words. RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

Ansorge Hotel

@Crisco 1492, Kevmin, and Reconrabbit: I have doubts that the Ferry County Historical Society is a WP:RS for what really sounds like an urban legend. I can't find anything else that talks about this, and was somewhat amused when Google Search Lab cited our DYK nomination template as the best source! RoySmith (talk) 14:10, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I would think that for a town that's never exceeded a three-digit population it's impressive that any historical record or society exists at all. What would disqualify the website from being considered a reliable source? I imagine additional information exists in this book on prohibition in Northeastern Washington but of course I don't own the title. This essay supports the claim that Kettle River was used as a route for rumrunning. Reconrabbit 14:19, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:SOURCE talks about sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. In what way has the FCHS established this reputation? In any case, I have written to the society to ask about the provenance of this statement. In the meantime, perhaps there's a different hook which could be used? RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
ALT0 doesn't seem particularly interesting, ALT2 is more likely usable as it is corroborated by multiple sources but most don't specifically state "July 31". The year would also have to be changed to 1917 from 1911. Reconrabbit 15:06, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
If we are dismissing sources due to the rural nature they come from (by default most of rural western North America will not have a source level above a historical society), then Al2 can be adjusted to: "...that the Ansorge Hotel (pictured) may have hosted Henry Ford one night in July 1917?"--Kevmin § 15:54, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm also of the opinion that a community's historical society would likely be reliable for non-exceptional statements about said community. The rum-running claim, while interesting, reflects something that was found in many communities; heck, even my hometown claims that some runners drove across the Detroit River when it was frozen over (amazed we specifically have Rum-running in Windsor, Ontario). As such, I wouldn't consider this claim exceptional: high vantage point, small community, and a general disdain for Prohibition. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:01, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
    Agreed. Bootlegging alcohol during Prohibition happened throughout the United States. The history ALT1 describes boils down to 'people put a signal light in a window to warn bootleggers about the alcohol cops' which is an interesting fact about the building but not an exceptional, unbelievable, crazy happening that can only be conceived of as mere urban legend. ALT1 is fine. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 01:01, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1

Latest comment: 21 days ago21 comments11 people in discussion

Ready Set Learn!

I'd question the QPQ given #Large number of insufficient QPQ reviews.--Launchballer 09:10, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
  • I'm personally thinking that it makes sense to flag something you think prohibits continuation, then continue if that issue has been addressed. There's not much point continuing just to discard the work afterwards.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 17:06, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
I guess. Alright, let's roll.--Launchballer 17:29, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Mobtown Ballroom

  • First instance of volunteers is flagged potentially unreliable, and cited a blog. Also, "army" isn't supported by the article; volunteers could just be three people sharing a case of beer. The source also says they did the second floor "themselves". Tagging Sdkb, Juxlos, and AirshipJungleman29.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
    Thanks for following up about this, @Crisco 1492. It's slightly confusing because the DYK fact refers to the two different times they built the floor, whereas in the article each instance is mentioned separately. Per the DYK nomination, the best overall source is this article from Baltimore Magazine, which includes this passage: 'We built the floor there [meaning the new location] ourselves, with volunteers,' Sullivan says, 'and a bunch of them were there dancing on the floor on that last night.' Now, some of the same volunteers who were there in the beginning have returned to help lay the sprung wood floor at Mobtown’s new home at North Avenue Market.
    There are several other sources that mention each of the floor constructions, and together those (combined with my off-wiki familiarity with the Baltimore Lindy Hop community) make me confident that the "self" being referred to in the BmoreArt interview you quote is the community, not the owners as individuals. The phrasing comes off oddly outside the context of the business's particular relationship with its patrons, but we're not making an error here.
    Regarding the Almonte source tagged in the article, that is not an underpinning source of the DYK hook, but rather one that supports some details in the article (e.g. 10,000 nails) that I found pertinent but could not find sourced elsewhere. It is admittedly clearly a blog, but I'd argue that the author could be considered a subject-matter expert within the (niche) realm of Lindy Hop, having been quoted as an expert in coverage like this. Additionally, there is nothing controversial or BLP-related about the material, so on balance, until a better source comes along, I made the judgement call that including it to would be a net positive. But since the source underpinning the DYK material is Baltimore Magazine, I added an instance of that to the mention of the first floor construction.
    Hope that helps clarify and resolve any concerns! Cheers, Sdkb talk 21:22, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
    Hi Sdkb, that helps ameliorate my concerns about the referencing (the first occasion was only supported by the blog at the time I checked, which was my concern). The only other concern is "army", which isn't supported by the article. "A bunch" (to quote the BM source) is generally a smaller qualifier than "an army".  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:31, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
    It looks like Almonte also used the qualifier "army", so it was certainly way more than three people. Ultimately, both "bunch" and "army" are uncountable nouns, and therefore somewhat subjective. Sdkb talk 20:25, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Hathumoda

  • I'm not seeing that any attempts were ever made to venerate her, let alone progress along the process of canonization. The article has that the historian wrote a hagiography, but that doesn't necessarily contemplate sainthood; likewise, it specifically says that he knew he was writing for people who knew her, and thus would not contemplate her for sainthood. (As an aside, the article says she was "occasionally petulant", rather than "could be quite petulant"). Tagging Surtsicna, Silver seren, and AirshipJungleman29. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:38, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
The hook does not say or imply that she was ever venerated or in the process of canonization. "Occasionally petulant" or "could be quite petulant" makes 0 difference. Put whatever you like. Surtsicna (talk) 21:57, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Hook: "that an attempt to portray Abbess Hathumoda as a Christian saint after her death failed because everyone knew that she could be quite petulant?"
Article: "Despite Agius's hagiographical portrayal, Hathumoda was never venerated, not even by her family. Because he wrote for an audience that knew Hathumoda in life, Agius could not afford to gloss over the flaws that made Hathumoda an unlikely candidate for sainthood: his characterization of the abbess reveals anxiety and even occasional petulance." (I note that veneration links to "the act of honoring a saint, a person who has been identified as having a high degree of sanctity or holiness." As Hathumoda is identified as Catholic, one must recall the religion's very strict processes for sainthood)
Quite bluntly, the hook does not reflect the article. The article says he wrote a very favourable biography, but that she was not the sort of person that people who knew her would consider for sainthood. It doesn't say "he wanted to portray her as though she were a saint, but everyone and their mother knew she was too bratty." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
That is not correct. The article says that a monk wrote a "hagiographical portrayal" of Hathumoda. To write a hagiography means to portray someone as a saint. The hook says an attempt was made to portray Hathumod as a saint. There is no contradiction. Surtsicna (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: I think that the article and hook need more work. The article is referenced to a single source, Paxton 2009, so it fails WP:DYKCITE and there is a risk that it does not give a WP:NPOV. The hook oversimplifies a quote from Paxton p. 46 and on the preceding p. 45 Paxton says that politics was more important than Agius's description of her: But just as in Liutbirga's case, Hathumoda's afterlife, and the afterlife of her community, were determined more by the politics of her family's tenth-century descendants than by the claims made by Agius in the VH and the Dialogue. TSventon (talk) 01:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:DYKCITE does not say that single-source articles are not acceptable for DYK; quite the opposite, in fact, for such obscure topics. The cited source is the comprehensive study of the subject. If you know of another source that discusses the subject and disagrees with Paxton, we can discuss NPOV. The hook is not simplified to the point of being inaccurate, but neither is it or the article perfect. It is good enough to be on DYK, but if you can improve it further, please do. Surtsicna (talk) 08:41, 27 October 2024 (UTC)
A number of sources discuss Hathumoda, possibly because she is a fairly rare example of a female biography from the period. When I search for Hathumoda petulance in Google books I only find Paxton's books. There are different emphases Julia M.H. Smith and Suzanne Wemple read the Vita as a demonstration of the close bonds between Hathumod and her Liudolfing kin,38 while Monika Rener and Carolyn Edwards accentuate the ways this biography separates Hathumod from her biological kin and resituates her among her monastic sisters.39 A more nuanced version of this latter reading is provided by the most recent interpreter of the Vita Hathumodae, Frederick Paxton (Negotiating Community and Difference in Medieval Europe, ed Katherine Allen Smith, Scott Wells, 2009). TSventon (talk) 02:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
WP:DYKCITE does not say that single-source articles are not acceptable for DYK; quite the opposite, in fact, for such obscure topics. The cited source is the comprehensive study of the subject.: For clarity, while female biographies from medieval Europe are often obscure subjects, finding other academic sources about Hathumoda specifically was a relatively straightforward exercise using Wikipedia Library and Google Scholar. I went ahead and added sources to the article, plus some content cited to them. My additions were minimal for want of familiarity and time, but suffice it to say that Julia M. H. Smith's 1995 Past & Present article names Hathumoda ~20 times in the body text and analyzes Hathumoda in what can be known in history and in her depiction in Agius's Hathumodae; and Sarah Greer's 2021 Commemorating Power in Early Medieval Saxony: Writing and Rewriting the Past at Gandersheim and Quedlinburg has hundreds of control-F hits for Hathumoda (considerable even granting that some of these are for Vita Hathumodae).
In any case, the ship has sailed, and the bridge is crossed. I'm in no way saying the hook needs to be pulled or anything, and now there are multiple sources cited to warrant the topic's verifiability and notability. But I would encourage article creators and hook nominators to avail ourselves of our resources. Academics, including historians, have been researching and writing about a lot of things for a long time, and yes, there are still and always will be lots of obscure topics, but some topics that are obscure to the general public are less so in the scholarship. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 09:56, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

For the record, the hook was posted on the main page which then triggered further discussion at WP:ERRORS. The hook was then changed by Crisco 1492 to

  • ... that a hagiography of Abbess Hathumoda was tempered by its audience's knowledge of her flaws?

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:33, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Michael Sugrue

@Thriley: When I gave Prep 1 a final check, I found that the quote in the hook is in the source, but not the article. I considered pulling the hook and replacing it with one from Prep 3, but since I could not promote it anyway, I added the quote to the article. Hope this is okay. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:40, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! Thriley (talk) 06:45, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3

Latest comment: 22 days ago15 comments7 people in discussion

Yang Pao'an

I think the hook is helped by knowing who Chiang Kai-shek is, although arguably his loyalty alone is enough for WP:DYKINT. ("Generalissimo" was originally in the hook, but I don't see the word in the article.) I think this is all fine.--Launchballer 13:06, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Teleke Lauti

This article was approved by Chipmunkdavis and promoted by AirshipJungleman29. I don't think a driveby comment precludes you from queuing this.--Launchballer 13:11, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Stadium ban decision

Hook checks out AGF and is short enough and interesting. I've copyedited the applicable sentence but it ideally should be split in two and I can't see the references, so I'm not sure which should be duplicated to satisfy WP:DYKHFC. Technically, this isn't a DYK problem but pinging @FortunateSons and Viriditas: just in case. Note that I have checked no other elements of the article.--Launchballer 12:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Hi, I restored the previous version. I think your copyedits might have changed the meaning of what FortunateSon wrote in a subtle way. Footnote 5 (Gafus 2023) is only available online in the old version, which doesn't help since this is new information that appears only in the new edition. Footnote 7 is also behind a paywall. However, the hook is additionally supported by footnote 3, which I copied to the review talk page. I will post it here below. Viriditas (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Kühling (2024): "According to the Berlin sports and media lawyer Robert Golz, the decision can also be applied to other situations in which a private individual - similar to a football club - uses its decision-making power resulting from a monopoly or structural superiority to exclude certain people without objective reason. According to the lawyer, this could be the case, for example, if clubs exclude certain media representatives from their press conferences because they have, for example, expressed criticism of the club in the past. In this case, the press representatives' professional freedom and freedom of the press would be at stake. The lawyer sees further consequences of the ruling: 'The Federal Constitutional Court's decision could also be applied to participation in social networks such as Facebook, which have excluded a user. However, if the exclusion is due to an objective reason and was not arbitrary or irrelevant, nothing can be done to counteract the exclusion,' Golz told LTO."[41]

Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip

Diplodus argenteus

Prep 6

Latest comment: 21 days ago4 comments3 people in discussion
  • ... that self-help author Beth Kempton was a cultural coordinator for the 2002 FIFA World Cup in Tokyo and the 2012 Summer Olympics in London?

@Silver seren, JuniperChill, and Kimikel: Neither of the sources for this hook say what her job actually was. Is there an additional source that states what her roles were, or should we reword the hook? – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 21:10, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

@Hilst How about
... that self-help author Beth Kempton held positions at the 2002 FIFA World Cup in Tokyo and the 2012 Summer Olympics in London?
I also edited the article to more accurately reflect its sources. Kimikel (talk) 22:39, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
That's fine by me. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 23:45, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Also fine by me JuniperChill (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Prep 3

Latest comment: 21 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Western Air Lines Flight 636 (nom)

This hook was a little hard for me to parse. Maybe adding commas would help? jlwoodwa (talk) 20:13, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Remembrance Sunday (10 November) and Armistice Day (11 November)

Latest comment: 21 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion

I normally like to offer up some appropriate content for the above dates. This year I have nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Lichfield War Memorial and Template:Did you know nominations/Carlton Colville Scouts Memorial for your consideration. Thanks in advance - Dumelow (talk) 07:35, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

We probably shouldn't run both in the picture slot on consecutive days, so is there any image hook-day combination you would prefer Dumelow? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:44, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I am not precious about the picture slot, if one can run the Lichfield one is probably better - Dumelow (talk) 11:12, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
@Dumelow:, will review both of these tonight after work if nobody else does them first. Flibirigit (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Both nominations are now approved an in the special occastion holding area. Flibirigit (talk) 11:41, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Thanks guys, much appreciated - Dumelow (talk) 11:49, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Novice editors mistakenly replying on talk pages

Latest comment: 21 days ago11 comments5 people in discussion

I just noticed this edit, where a novice editor mistakenly replied to a DYK nomination on the talk page rather than the nomination page. I'd guess that this happens fairly often, since an article's talk page is a more natural place for someone to look, and clicking on "reply" to the discussion there generates the error message The "reply" link cannot be used to reply to this comment. To reply, please use the full page editor by clicking "Edit source".

We often forget just how many barriers there are to newcomers using DYK, and this is a good example of that. Is there anything we can do to prevent other editors encountering this obstacle? Sdkb talk 20:31, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Here's another instance. jlwoodwa (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Instead of transcluding the template on the talk page, we could do the same as ITN and simply place a notice of discussion. Flibirigit (talk) 21:08, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Interesting. I had somebody recently reply to a DYK review I did on my user talk page. Never seen that before. Maybe it's all just a side-effect of the weird Aurorae we've been having recently. But no big deal, we worked it out on my talk page and then things picked up as normal. Whatever works. RoySmith (talk) 21:18, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
I'll also ping @PPelberg (WMF), as one solution to this would be to have the reply tool be able to properly handle instances on transcluded discussions. Sdkb talk 21:12, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, this is quite common. I think one problem is that the section header has an edit link that edits the talk page section instead of leading to the DYK nomination template. But on the whole I like transcluding the DYK nomination discussion: on the vast majority of talk pages for DYK articles, it is the only part where people discuss the article instead of just storing metadata like WikiProject ratings that have no business appearing on a discussion page at all. —Kusma (talk) 22:42, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Maybe the section that transcludes the DYK subpage should also have an HTML comment that briefly explains how this works and where to reply? jlwoodwa (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Looks like MediaWiki:DYK-nomination-wizard.js § L-700 is the code that sets up the section and transclusion. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
That might help (unless people go for extra challenge and use Visual Editor). —Kusma (talk) 23:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm pretty sure VE does display HTML comments, in boxes labelled "invisible comment" or similar. jlwoodwa (talk) 23:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Yes, I tried that and it shows some part of the comment, but not the whole thing. Also the transclusion of the nomination (which is treated as a "template") makes VE do strange things when you try to edit it. —Kusma (talk) 12:00, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

Latest comment: 21 days ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Come In (Weatherday album)

@Kimikel, LeMeilleurMeil, Launchballer, and Crisco 1492: the hook fact is sourced to jellybones.net and bandcamp.com. The former looks like a blog and the later is repeatedly mentioned in WP:RSN as being WP:UGC and thus not a WP:RS. RoySmith (talk) 02:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

@LeMeilleurMiel: RoySmith (talk) 02:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Bandcamp is usable per WP:ABOUTSELF and Jellybones is an interview on a site that claims to have basic editorial standards (per its about page, it has an editor-in-chief who is different from the interviewer). For this unexceptional claim, I'm fine with it.--Launchballer 02:31, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
@RoySmith what about switching to ALT1: ... that after the original run sold out, vinyl copies of Come In were put up for sale on Discogs for as much as $100?; sourced to the Chicago Reader? Kimikel (talk) 02:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Promoting a hook multiple images problem

Latest comment: 21 days ago12 comments5 people in discussion

If a hook has multiple images, then PSHAW (a tool used to automate promoting DYK hooks) for some reason, messes it up, like in this example. Then it happened again and again. Could theleekycauldron (who made the PSHAW script) or anyone else fix this? JuniperChill (talk) 11:55, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

I put in a request for the images to be merged at Wikipedia:Graphics Lab/Photography workshop#The Cock Destroyers.--Launchballer 11:58, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
What happened here is somebody tried to cram a second image into the caption slot of {{main page image/DYK}}. I'm surprised things didn't blow up worse than they did. It is unreasonable to expect stuff like this to work right, and building a composite image is indeed the right way to go. RoySmith (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
PS, my guess is that if somehow PSHAW had managed to deal with that, the bot which protects main page images would have not noticed the second image and we would have ended up with an unprotected image on the main page. Launchballer I see this was one of yours. Now that you've got the template editor bit, you really need to be getting into the habit of thinking about unexpected and undesired consequences of your actions, especially when doing anything unusual. RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the bot does not care about how we put an image on the Main Page; it just adds all files it finds on the Main Page (or tomorrow's Main Page) to the cascade-protected page c:Commons:Auto-protected files/wikipedia/en. So a double image (or a new Main Page section with five more images) is not an issue. —Kusma (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
OK, that's good to know, thanks. But folks with advanced permissions should still try to get into a paranoid mindset :-) RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
My mistake entirely. (If I remember correctly, I coded them that way as a stopgap and then never got around to requesting the composite image.) I believe the bot copies everything between the Hooks/HooksEnd comments, so the substituted {{main page image/DYK}} that's in the prep set now should be fine?--Launchballer 15:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
Indeed paranoia is good here :) But there is even another level of safety: DYKUpdateBot will not copy a queue to the Main Page if it contains an unprotected image (it throws up a warning a few hours before; this sometimes happens when KrinkleBot, the bot that handles the Commons protection, is down). —Kusma (talk) 15:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
It looks like it may have been resolved now? JuniperChill (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff Special:Diff/1254341617 seems like a bad idea. I don't know everything that depends on finding the {{main page image/DYK}} template there, but replacing it with explicit CSS seems as much of a hack as what was there before. There's already a request in to create the composite image, let's just wait for that to happen and do this the right way. RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I agree; I have blanked the image and caption while the composite is created. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:43, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
I ended up creating it myself (see the link in my first comment in this thread) and have added it myself.--Launchballer 17:54, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

Nominations need adoption

Latest comment: 21 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Cannonball (MILW train) appears to be abandoned. Problems are not insurmountable if anyone has the time! Flibirigit (talk) 23:05, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

I've marked the Alfredo article for closure as the article was not a 5x expansion to begin with and the nominator hasn't edited since the day of the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:54, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6

Latest comment: 20 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Zhuhai hooks

I can't see any problems with either article. For posterity, in a pre-review comment at the nom, I suggested adding Zhuhai Fisher Girl as it had been split and was a roughly 4.5x expansion; it is now above 5x anyway, so this should be fine.--Launchballer 00:42, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 7

Latest comment: 20 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Tore Skeie

Looks good to me. I made a few small cuts to the article, but otherwise this is fine.--Launchballer 11:19, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 20 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 1. We have a total of 280 nominations, of which 110 have been approved, a gap of 170 nominations that has decreased by 10 over the past 6 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) 21:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Halloween set

Latest comment: 20 days ago58 comments17 people in discussion

I think it could be nice to have a Halloween-themed DYK set this year, like last year. Would anyone else be interested in working on this? User:Premeditated Chaos said that she has a page ready, so that's already one. Di (they-them) (talk) 13:09, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

A few years ago, I did Feetloaf. Not sure I've got anything better than that in the wings. The scariest I've got in my dusty drafts collection is User:RoySmith/drafts/Token Sucking. That's been incubating for six years and I still haven't managed to get it done. Maybe it's worth putting some effort into for this year. RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 2 October 2024 (UTC)
I've put the nomination up for mine now: Template:Did you know nominations/What A Merry-Go-Round. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2024 (UTC)
There is another approved nomination at Template:Did you know nominations/Margaret C. Waites. TSventon (talk) 17:40, 5 October 2024 (UTC)
The reviewer of my hook Template:Did you know nominations/Brian David Gilbert suggested that I post it here. The hook mentions Stranger Things (scary), Halloween monsters (spooky), and the American health insurance system (AAAHHHHH!!!).
— Vigilant Cosmic Penguin 🐧 (talk | contribs) 05:12, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Just saw a review in the Guardian for a programme called "Killer Cakes" if that's of any use.--Launchballer 08:20, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Haunted (Laura Les song) is nominated for GAN. This might be a potential option for this set. Z1720 (talk) 13:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I can work up articles/expansions for a deathcamas and a "ghost of Gondwana" spider species--Kevmin § 18:04, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
I have nominated Slime (fantasy creature) to go with this set. Di (they-them) (talk) 02:31, 10 October 2024 (UTC)
I have also asked that Template:Did you know nominations/Scary Monsters and Nice Sprites (song) be included in the set. Di (they-them) (talk) 18:32, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Ethnocentricity?

I know we've done Halloween sets before, but I wonder if this is excessively ethnocentric? This is historically a Christian event (although it's been co-opted by people outside the Christian faith) and Geography of Halloween says The celebrations and observances of this day occur primarily in regions of the Western world. RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't explicitly endorsing Halloween, it's just a fun project to get spooky/thematically appropriate hooks on October 31st. I really don't think this is an issue. Di (they-them) (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
Halloween is celebrated everywhere where there is a strong American influence, which is quite a large part of the world, especially the English speaking one. We should try to celebrate some Indian holidays too, but there isn't anything wrong with a Halloween theme. —Kusma (talk) 18:14, 9 October 2024 (UTC)
If someone is willing to build a set for a non-Christian, non-Western special occasion, I would be fully supportive and find articles to help. Z1720 (talk) 23:24, 9 October 2024 (UTC)

Hallowe'en hooks

Listing the proposed Hallowe'en hooks below, their topic, and their progress. These are not listed in any particular order:

If other hooks are proposed, please add them to the list above. Z1720 (talk) 18:22, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

 
I think we're targeting Prep 2 the next time it rolls over.

I would definitely go with Slime (monster) for the lead hook because it's got a great image. RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, it's wonderfully goopy and a nice Halloweeny green color. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:07, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

Since some of the hooks are shorter, would editors be OK with 10 hooks? OTD can add hooks if it gets too long for Main Page balance. Z1720 (talk) 16:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

The original plan, as I remember it, was if we had 9 short hooks, we'd go with 9. If we had longer ones, we'd go back to 8. That plan seems to have lasted about 5 minutes :-) RoySmith (talk) 20:59, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I love the caption for the prep set, but we might get yelled at in ERRORS. @AirshipJungleman29: who selected this caption: are we OK with the caption as it currently stands, or should we look for something more encyclopedic? If we keep the caption, I suggest that someone monitor ERRORS or pre-emptively put a note there saying that consensus was to have this caption and it shouldn't be changed. Z1720 (talk) 19:19, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

omg I love the caption haha Di (they-them) (talk) 22:04, 19 October 2024 (UTC)
  • Launchballer, thanks for the ping about the edit to these hooks. As for the Waites hook, I would trim Cabot House—that was added in by a second reviewer but I think the name of an undergraduate dorm doesn’t mean much for most people. If that leaves room to put the books back in, I think that’s more interesting than the name of the dorm, but I’m also fine if you want to leave both out to make it punchier, so just, she’s said to haunt an undergraduate suite at Harvard College? Innisfree987 (talk) 10:39, 22 October 2024 (UTC)
It's actually a moot point because @AirshipJungleman29: reverted the edit.--Launchballer 16:34, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Just noting here that Haunted (Laura Les song) was nominated. If someone reviews it, I will promote it.--Launchballer 16:44, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer Reviewed and passed. CMD (talk) 12:21, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Promoted. I did suggest Killer Cakes above.--Launchballer 13:47, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I was wondering if Template:Did you know nominations/Get the Hell Out could make the cut? Was about to promote it for another set until I realized it's a zombie movie hook. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 16:51, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

@Nineteen Ninety-Four guy: Good idea. Assuming it checks out, ALT0/2 would work best if we're doing that. That set is currently being held up by #Progradungula barringtonensis - if you could give that a third review, I can assess this.--Launchballer 17:05, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Please consider ALT1, which I just copy edited and trumps the other hooks IMO Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 17:18, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
I guess. My objection was that it didn't mention 'zombie', but I see no reason why it can't be mooched from another approved hook. I just checked the article and while a GA reviewer might whinge about the length of some of its sentences, DYK is very much not that, so you may put it in the prep set.--Launchballer 17:41, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Eleven hooks?

I notice Prep 2 has eleven hooks in it. Is this a good thing? RoySmith (talk) 01:22, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

I did trim some of them, but @AirshipJungleman29: reverted me. Also, I just pulled one.--Launchballer 09:40, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
That was when we had ten hooks. That Brian Gilbert hook stands out as being quite long and not that Halloween-y. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:01, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
I take that back now it has an excellent image. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:17, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

We did it!

Good job everyone! This was fun, let's do it again next year. :) Di (they-them) (talk) 23:56, 31 October 2024 (UTC)
woooooOOOOOooooo.... ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:47, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Open question: How much should a DYK reviewer edit a page they review?

Latest comment: 20 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Hi all, I've reviewed some DYKs in the past, but I've been bothered by the thought that editing an article before reviewing it gives the impression of a conflict of interest. I've found that some articles (especially written by novice or ESL editors) are interesting and worthy of a DYK, but have issues (e.g., copyediting, flow of prose, citation formatting) which are fixable. However, in my experience, fixing these issues can take you into adding new sources or new information. What's best practice here? How much is too much? Does this ever give the impression of a COI? Tenpop421 (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

  • I know I regularly fix punctuation and similar grammatical errors, or add convert templates. But that's one or two small edits, generally. Its not close to the 30, 40 edits I make polishing the articles I write. Crisco 1492 mobile (talk) 01:53, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
    Ultimately, the goal is to add the best content we can to the encyclopedia. If editing somebody else's submission helps do that, it's a win. As far as COI, as long as it's just minor edits like punctuation, spelling, or sentence structure, I don't see any problems with also reviewing the submission. Once you get into major edits and adding sources, probably better to leave it for somebody else to review. RoySmith (talk) 02:09, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
    Agree with that. Johnbod (talk) 03:10, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Incredibly boring "Did You Know" selections

Latest comment: 19 days ago7 comments6 people in discussion

I've seen far too many "Did You Know" selections recently that pander purely to geeky American interest. Who needs interesting historical facts when you can find out which video game character wasn't on some random video game website's Christmas list? Who needs neat facts about physics when you can learn about some Japanese animated girl with pronounced bosoms?

I think there needs to be more actual interesting facts that most English speaking people can enjoy that aren't just pop culture or things that just don't matter in the grand scheme of things in either a historical or metaphysical way. 2A0E:CB01:72:B200:7847:EEBF:15EE:9E83 (talk) 13:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Then go write those articles yourself. Be the change you want to see in the world. Lead the charge! But that requires effort, doesn't it? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
You don't even have to write the articles. Just keep an eye on Special:NewPagesFeed and when you see something of interest, write a hook and nominate it. Scrolling the feed right now, I see 1931 Barcelona rent strike which might interest history buffs. Physics is a bit harder, but the other way to become eligible for DYK is to become a Good Article, so watching WP:GAN#PHYS would keep you abreast of upcoming physics GAs. RoySmith (talk) 13:32, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
I shouldn't have to devote large amounts of effort just because I want to point out a problem. If I said "I think animal kill shelters are unethical" you wouldn't expect me to adopt all the animals from them and devote all my time to them. 2A0E:CB01:72:B200:8C4E:625A:EA34:D3EF (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Sure, you can point out millions of things you see as problems. Doesn't mean anyone else needs to jump to fixing them. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
Precisely. And writing an article that meets the DYK criteria isn't much of a timesink; if you have sources available, a couple hours is more than enough. The bar is a low for a reason: to make it accessible.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:01, 1 November 2024 (UTC)
We've actually been trying to have a wider variety of hooks, as well as weeding out specialist hooks by implementing WP:DYKINT. However, it's easier said than done, and it's not uncommon for there to be resistance towards it being enforced. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:15, 1 November 2024 (UTC)

Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip

Latest comment: 18 days ago27 comments6 people in discussion

@Crisco 1492, Richard Nevell, and Piotrus: I have concerns about whether this meets our WP:NPOV requirement. Also @Personisinsterest: who did the GA review. Frankly, when a reviewer writes The destruction of cultural heritage in Gaza is a really important part of what’s happening right now, and it’s kind of overlooked. I’m glad people are doing this it leads me to wonder if they are applying NPOV as rigorously as they should be. RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 23 October 2024 (UTC)

I was just looking for stuff to say honestly. Personisinsterest (talk) 17:03, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
I don't think there's something inherently wrong with being happy about the existence of an article that one considers informative and educational, and I can't help but find it a little absurd to impugn the quality of a review on the grounds that a reviewer complimented the creator. I like libraries and 19th-century American history and want both to appear more on Wikipedia, and I don't think that renders me incapable of doing decent reviews of 19th-century librarian biographers (I use this personal example because I have done such a GA review). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:08, 25 October 2024 (UTC)
I'm happy to discuss any concerns, but I should say that I've got a long train journey this evening and another tomorrow, and am busy between 9am and 5pm (UK time) so I can't guarantee a rapid reply.
We do of course need to uphold NPOV and I appreciate that ARBPIA articles are contentious. Is the concern about the hook, the article, or the topic area and its generally contentious nature (or a combination)? Richard Nevell (talk) 18:15, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
Some detailed comments
Richard Nevell, some thoughts after looking through the article. There are parts that seem extraneous to the core topic, and a few other changes that could be made which might help address concerns. The "destruction of intangible cultural heritage" mentioned in the lead is not covered or explained in the body, which seems to cover only tangible heritage. The "cultural genocide" is also not covered in the body, and the mention of looting in a paragraph about the airstrike campaign seems misplaced (looting seems a minor consideration compared to everything else, and the source gives it only a couple of mentions). The displacement of people and destruction of residential areas seems oddly placed so prominently in the lead, as neither is directly cultural heritage. The "Cultural heritage is part of civilian infrastructure" sentence as used in the lead and background does not make sense as written and placed both times; it is not a statement about history or meaning, but about whether it should be a target during a war (the original quote is already covered in the International response section). The third paragraph in Background seems to not be about the topic but Cultural heritage in general, and could be removed. The mention of "Nazi persecution of the Jews" feels pointy and I can't verify it in the source. There are two quotes given prominence, and neither seems to add significant understanding. The inline UN experts quote similarly mostly restates already known information. The Events section seems to be organised by topic, and this could be strengthened, for example the fourth paragraph seems to be summarising damage to religious sites, but religious sites are also included in the seventh and tenth paragraphs. The Quran burning is covered twice in two consecutive paragraphs. The List of sites might be better as its own separate section, and the "Date Constructed" column does not appear to be in the source. The Israeli razing of cemeteries and necroviolence against Palestinians See also should be shifted to the body, piping "identified sixteen cemeteries" as is done in the hook and lead would make it more relevantly accessible to readers. On the DYK, I would have taken ALT1 over ALT0, as ALT0 seems a disconnected list whereas ALT1 has a more specific focus. CMD (talk) 01:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: Thank you for those comments. I don't have time to address them properly now, but will do so this evening. Richard Nevell (talk) 07:13, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: I've broken your points down below to make it easier to reply inline. I've tried to explain the reasoning behind some of the choices. It's a bit long, so might need to be collapsed.
The "destruction of intangible cultural heritage" mentioned in the lead is not covered or explained in the body, which seems to cover only tangible heritage.
That’s a good point. Intangible heritage is mentioned in the body as a component of cultural heritage, but is not fully addressed. In part this is because the loss of intangible heritage is harder to quantify than tangible heritage such as buildings, but I have added some text explicitly addressing ICH. If that’s insufficient I’m happy to remove ICH from the lead.
The "cultural genocide" is also not covered in the body, and the mention of looting in a paragraph about the airstrike campaign seems misplaced (looting seems a minor consideration compared to everything else, and the source gives it only a couple of mentions).
Though the term isn’t mentioned, my thinking was that in the 'International response' section the mention of South Africa’s case in the International Court of Justice and the destruction of cultural heritage being part of that was enough. On reflection, I can see that there is some disconnect so I have now covered that in the 'International response' section.
The displacement of people and destruction of residential areas seems oddly placed so prominently in the lead, as neither is directly cultural heritage.
I believe that the fact that half of the buildings in Gaza have been damaged or destroyed as a result of the conflict is important context. If that isn’t included, the article would be presenting the destruction of cultural heritage in a vacuum, and the silence could imply that no other buildings or structures were damaged. With that information included, it is logical to me to note the consequence that people have been displaced, especially as this is related to the inability to access the region and carry out on the ground assessments. The destruction of cultural heritage is part of the wider destruction, not isolated from it, so in my opinion it belongs in the lead.
Half the buildings being damaged is contextual, "leaving residential areas devastated" is an emotively worded repetition of that, and that is not a strong relevant point regarding displacement. It is also a very dubious proposition that a reader will read the lead and come away with the impression that this war was a selective targeting of various cultural sites.
I have removed that phrase from the lead while retaining the bit about the extent of damage and displacement. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
The "Cultural heritage is part of civilian infrastructure" sentence as used in the lead and background does not make sense as written and placed both times; it is not a statement about history or meaning, but about whether it should be a target during a war (the original quote is already covered in the International response section).
It is perhaps not needed in the lead so I have removed it. My thinking has been that the statement that cultural heritage is part of civilian infrastructure in the same way that hospitals, transport networks, and energy infrastructure would show that it has value to society. It seems that may not have been successful, and as the quote is used a third time in the 'International response' section, I have removed it from 'Cultural heritage in Gaza'.
The third paragraph in Background seems to not be about the topic but Cultural heritage in general, and could be removed.
With the background section, I was likely to err on the side of including more information than needed. I think it is important to explain what cultural heritage is and why it is important. The first is addressed in the opening sentence of the section, and the third paragraph addresses the second angle. That cultural heritage is linked to identity – shaping it and being shaped by it – is an important part of understanding it. I think that the reader would be worse off not having the fuller explanation of paragraph 3.
Perhaps that might apply to the first sentence, but the second sentence is about heirlooms, which is not covered in the article, and the most applicable interpretation of the third sentence is that this war is creating more cultural identity, which is possibly true but does not feel like an encyclopaedic point to make.
@Chipmunkdavis: It is not solely about heirlooms, but material culture broadly - though objects are of course part of that and indeed cultural heritage. I have reworked the second sentence to hopefully make this clearer. As for the third sentence of the same paragraph, I included an example to make it less abstract and think that removing the example would not be an improvement. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
That change is not in the source, which is about "residues of a universe that is no longer", and is based on research in Jordan. This veers close to WP:coatrack, and background not about the subject in question (cultural heritage in Gaza) is better covered through the main article link. CMD (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
The ethnographic research conducted in Jordan was with Palestinians living in exile. The point is that heritage and material relates to memory and identity, points which help the reader understand the importance of heritage. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:58, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
The mention of "Nazi persecution of the Jews" feels pointy and I can't verify it in the source.
At some point I had access to the 2018 edition of Malpas, but can't find where that was. Once I find it I will check against what the source says so that I can answer fully. I really should have made a note.
If it is a different version the link will need to be changed, the current gbooks page 199 is part of a list of chapter references.
@CMD I have updated the ISBN to the version of the book I have been able to access. The Google Books preview clipped the page leaving out quite a lot, and oddly the preview didn't even include the keywords which had me second guessing. The relevant section reads (in part anyway since the relevant part is longer) "It is notable that the obliteration or destruction of places has commonly been used as a tool of genocide and as a weapon of war. Indeed, it was so used by the Romans ... It was used by the Nazis against Jewish communities and against communities in occupied territories that offered resistance to such occupation". Richard Nevell (talk) 00:08, 3 November 2024 (UTC)
There are two quotes given prominence, and neither seems to add significant understanding.
Jean-Baptiste Humbert quote: this is included because it adds perspective. ie: cultural heritage is important, but not as important as essentials, therefore Gaza is not able to invest in its cultural heritage. That is important for understanding the region' cultural heritage.
Mariam Shah quote: this quote addresses the intangible cultural heritage of these sites, without using those terms. It talks about tradition and symbolism, which are important to understanding heritage. These places are part of life and history in Gaza. It could perhaps be reworded, but I think it's a good quote and any summary of that sentiment that I could come up with would be much poorer.
I don't see those interpretations at all, both are statements that are pretty universally applicable. The priority issues raised by Jean-Baptiste Humbert apply to every government, even rich and unoccupied countries will choose food and education over investing in heritage. The Mariam Shah quote is a statement that would apply to any reasonably dates churches and mosques.
These quotes are explicitly about Gaza and while the dynamic about, for example, investing in food and education over heritage might not be unique to Gaza it remains helpful to understand cultural heritage in the region. And religious buildings being symbolic is not unique, but that's also useful context to understand why their destruction is significant; it speaks directly to the consequences of the conflict. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
There are many quotes that could be about Gaza, but both of these are universally applicable statements (not just regional). Pulling them out reads as odd, especially when there is already a background section. CMD (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
As these quotes are about Gaza I don't think there is a problem with the content. Yes, there are other places that make decisions about investing in things such as healthcare or energy infrastructure over heritage sites but not many places do that in the context of "the crushing that has been inflicted by the occupying forces over the past fifty years". That difference is worth highlighting. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
The inline UN experts quote similarly mostly restates already known information.
Do you mean the bit which reads "The foundations of Palestinian society are being reduced to rubble, and their history is being erased"?
Yes, it's essentially an emotively worded repetition of the article topic.
The UN quote is worth having because it is the UN and they are a major NGO. UNESCO is mentioned earlier but that is in a different context and a branch of the overall organisation. The quote has a similar gist to that from Middle East Studies Association, so I have summarised the MESA quote to make it less repetitive. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
Easily stated more concisely with a "has condemned the destruction" or similar formulation. CMD (talk) 00:16, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
If that's the level of detail to aim for, it's possible to merge the sentence with the previous one about Icon, which I've now done. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:52, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
The Events section seems to be organised by topic, and this could be strengthened, for example the fourth paragraph seems to be summarising damage to religious sites, but religious sites are also included in the seventh and tenth paragraphs.
This section doesn't have a rigid structure, which perhaps isn’t helpful. It is a bit chronological, and a bit thematic, so some similar sites are groups (eg: libraries) but I still tried to follow a chronological narrative. It's not straightforward since reports sometimes don't specify the date on which an event occurred. My plan was to have a rough chronology but some events did group naturally. With the library example, a list of dates on which the libraries were destroyed would have been repetitive so I opted for a summary. I am open to restructuring this section so that it has a more clearly defined thematic or chronological approach if the current one is felt not to be effective.
One structure or the other is perhaps more helpful. If there is a mix, it may be best to start with topics and then add chronology; there may be enough detail for subsections on religious buildings, libraries, etc.
I'll experiment and see how it turns out. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
The Quran burning is covered twice in two consecutive paragraphs.
These are two separate instances of Quran burning – one in Rafah in May and the other at the Bani Saleh Mosque reported in August. The problem with a chronological rather than thematic approach is that this may appear like duplication.
Perhaps add the Bani Saleh Mosque is in the north, to help clear this up further.
Done - along with noting that Rafah is in the south. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)
The List of sites might be better as its own separate section, and the "Date Constructed" column does not appear to be in the source.
I've changed the heading from level 3 to 2, since having it as its own section rather than a subsection sounds like a good idea. I'll work on adding sources for the construction dates.
And the dates are now sourced. Richard Nevell (talk) 23:54, 2 November 2024 (UTC)
The Israeli razing of cemeteries and necroviolence against Palestinians See also should be shifted to the body, piping "identified sixteen cemeteries" as is done in the hook and lead would make it more relevantly accessible to readers.
Good suggestion, and done. Richard Nevell (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Richard Nevell Sorry for the delay, some replies above. CMD (talk) 14:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)
I understand how that could look bias. And it’s because I am. I am pro-Palestinian, as I have said before. And it was an overlooked part of the war. But I checked it. I checked to see if it was reliable and neutral. And when it explicitly stated the destruction was genocide, I toned it down. Personisinsterest (talk) 18:57, 23 October 2024 (UTC)
This topic is inherently subjective, since it talks about problematic behavior of a particular group (to keep it general). As such, there are always going to be some NPOV concerns lingering around. However, the article is stable, not NPOV tagged, and I did not notice any red flags in my reading. Unless we rule out any controversial topic as DYK-ineligible, I don't see what else we can do here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:51, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
The use of a holocaust analogy should be a significant red flag, there is a lot that can be done here. CMD (talk) 05:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
It's clear there is controversy here. I've swapped this out to Prep 3 so we've got time to work on it. RoySmith (talk) 14:20, 24 October 2024 (UTC)
Sounds sensible to me as this probably isn't a discussion that would be helped by time pressure. Richard Nevell (talk) 18:08, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1

Latest comment: 17 days ago5 comments2 people in discussion

George Frederick Cumming Smillie

I gave it a proper lead, but in terms of DYK criteria, this is fine. (Apologies for the delay in me doing these, I hit a wall a couple of days ago.)--Launchballer 11:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Beijing Hanhai

I see no problems with this. I note that part of the hook is in a footnote, which I personally have no problem with but noting here anyway.--Launchballer 12:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/It's OK I'm OK

Latest comment: 17 days ago3 comments2 people in discussion
  Resolved

I would like to move towards resolution here, but I need someone to take a look at ALT1 and my proposed rewrite of that hook in my review, and if possible, present it in a proposed new hook form or offer up other ones. Nominator is currently inactive. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 21:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2

Latest comment: 16 days ago19 comments5 people in discussion

The True Record

How interesting is the hook without knowing what May Fourth Movement is?--Launchballer 09:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
That hook checks out.--Launchballer 10:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I can't see anything wrong with the article.--Launchballer 10:34, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Destruction of cultural heritage during the Israeli invasion of the Gaza Strip (3)

2022 Bahrain Grand Prix

Conspiracy theories about the 2024 Atlantic hurricane season

  • Given that the hook would hit the main page at 16:00 EST on US election day, I feel like it should be delayed another day at least due to the involvement of several current candidates. Thoughts? — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:46, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Manhood: The Masculine Virtues America Needs

I thought the election date was the fifth. These are scheduled to hit the main page at 16:00 on the sixth.--Launchballer 19:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

My DYKs

Latest comment: 16 days ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Hi, can someone please take a look at Template:Did you know nominations/Dog (2nd nomination) and Template:Did you know nominations/Fishing cat, and either promote or fail them? It's been weeks now. Wolverine X-eye (talk to me) 07:45, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

There are currently a few dozen approved hooks nominated before yours, so it'll probably be a while yet. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:30, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Precisely. We're at one set a day, which means eight hooks per day. Since these are not biographies, nor are they American, they will likely not be bypassed for balance purposes; they'll probably end up being promoted more quickly than more common classes of article nominated at the same time.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
It often takes about four weeks on average between nomination and promotion (my guess) and about a week in a prep/queue. Both articles were nominated two weeks ago and DYKs usually don't get promoted within that period (unless it has to run on a special day). For comparison, my noms get reviewed either within a week, or after a month. JuniperChill (talk) 13:31, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot is down; midnight update delayed

Latest comment: 16 days ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Regrettably, DYKUpdateBot didn't run at midnight; normally, the update of the main page and all the other moves and credits would have been completed by now.

I have notified Shubinator on his talk page (I initially noticed that DYKHousekeepingBot was down, and discovered that DYKUpdateBot also seemed to be down), in the hopes that he can start the bot soon. In the meantime, we will need an admin to do a manual update: pinging @DYK admins: in the hopes that one of you can step in. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:10, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I'll do the adminny stuff, if someone else can handle the credits and tags :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:17, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot came back online a few minutes after BlueMoonset's message, and had already updated when your update began. Probably best to undo your update? Otherwise one set was on DYK for just 5 minutes. Shubinator (talk) 00:20, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Yep, just undid. My bad! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:22, 5 November 2024 (UTC)
Great, looks good now! Shubinator (talk) 00:24, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Rei Nakashima

Latest comment: 14 days ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I created and nominated this article a couple of days ago, and I would like to request for an expediated review as I'd like the hook to run on the 27th, which is Nakashima's 20th birthday. Thank you and I hope someone can review the article soon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:06, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6

Latest comment: 13 days ago8 comments4 people in discussion

Ye Yanlan

Looks good to me.--Launchballer 12:27, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Disputes on Wikipedia

  • The cited article is from 2020, and knowing the community... is this still current enough, or should we mark the year? Pinging ProfGray, Viriditas, and Kimikel — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:29, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    Hi. @Crisco 1492, please be more specific. Which hook are you planning to go with? In what way would you mark the year of the article? Just asking for clarification, I'm not objecting to it. ProfGray (talk) 21:41, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    Hi ProfGray. The hook "... that the longest "edit war" sequence among disputes on Wikipedia involved 20 editors making 108 reverts on the article about Turkey's first president, Mustafa Kemal Atatürk?" is currently in Prep 6 (linked above). Given that this data is four years old, and Wikipedians tend to be... passionate, I'm wondering if this source is sufficiently current to meet WP:DYKDEFINITE. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:44, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    The prepper chose the hook, however, it's on me for not noticing the date. I would swap it out with ALT2 as that's the newest source of the bunch (2023). Viriditas (talk) 21:48, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    I'm fine with ALT2, of course.
    For the concern about ALT1, note that the longest revert sequence happened in 2008 within 48 hours. I believe this fact (or record) is highly unlikely to change (re: WP:DYKDEFINITE) because of how 3RR has been handled for the past decade or more. Thanks. ProfGray (talk) 22:01, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
    That is fair, though I note their sample size was only a little more than 1,200 articles. I haven't been able to find a full copy of the text through the Wikipedia library or Google. If it's alright with you, I think ALT2 is better supported. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 22:12, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4

Latest comment: 13 days ago20 comments5 people in discussion

He Jianshi

If this is where I think it is, ("He believed that the Chinese opera could be used to cultivate support for the revolutionaries,[2] and in 1906 he had – together with Pan Dawei, Lai Yitao, and Liang Juexian – established the Youshijie Drama Society in Guangzhou to advance the revolutionary interest, with He as its manager.[9]"), then it probably ought to spell out that the society was used for that purpose. I can't help you with Selfish.--Launchballer 13:52, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • Is "to advance the revolutionary interest" not sufficiently explicit? Shame about SELF-ISH... if Prep 3 doesn't get a third set of eyes, I may have to go IAR to avoid a failed update, and it looks like this prep may follow the day after.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:02, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
My beef is that I'm not convinced opera and drama are necessarily the same thing (I did drama in school and there was no opera in it). If push comes to shove, Fijian Labour Corps in prep 7 checks out and can be swapped but let's see if someone else chips in first, and I'll look for another hook in prep if needed.--Launchballer 14:19, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
  • I understand that, but the source is clear that the "Drama society" was the name of an opera troupe. "Sun Yat-sen promoted the democratic revolution and regarded drama as an important means [for revolution]. He Jianshi responded positively. In 1906, he, Pan Dawei, Lai Yitao, Liang Juexian and others established the "Youshijie Drama Society" in the Baoan Charity Hall at Huangsha Tiyun Bridge in Guangzhou. He served as the general supervisor and carried out the work of improving Cantonese opera." The spoken-word form of drama, huaju, hadn't arrived until a few years earlier and didn't become mainstream until the 1930s. If you're still uncomfortable with this, He Jianshi's anti-American activities are well documented, including in English, and there was an ALT about not carrying William Howard Taft that could be used. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:36, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
No, that's fine. This is good to go.--Launchballer 14:46, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

SELF-iSH

As we have another nudity in music videos hook in the next set I suggest kicking this one back anyway per the previous section.--Launchballer 11:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
@Morgan695, Explicit, Kimikel, and Koopastar: Pinging around so there are no surprises.--Launchballer 13:07, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Margaret Pargeter

  • ... that Margaret Pargeter was one of the most widely read authors in Britain in 1986?

The data in the source is from 1985 (the article was published in March 1986, so it can't provide information for that year). I'm also not convinced about the data being bundled by genre (the most popular books were romance novels by five authors including Pargeter, but it doesn't give any actual data for each one) but that's not objectively wrong because of the dreaded "one of"... Black Kite (talk) 00:21, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Assuming it checks out, "that Margaret Pargeter wrote 49 novels between 1975 and 1986 and published her 50th in 1997" would be a good hook. All references to it in prose are cited to the 1997 novel though. Also, pinging @Cielquiparle, ResonantDistortion, and Hilst:.--Launchballer 10:41, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
I quite like your alt hook. – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 11:01, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
@Launchballer Thanks for the suggestion. Here's my tweak (to make it less "pat" so that there is still something to click for):
  • ... that Margaret Pargeter published 49 novels within 11 years, followed by her 50th novel 11 years later?
Cielquiparle (talk) 20:04, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? It doesn't appear to be user generated, and it cites your alt hook apart from the fact it says the 50th was published in 1998 (suspect that might be the US release date, as all other sources say 1997). For someone who was supposedly such a widely-read author, there is very little about her work - I can't even find a proper obituary. Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
The fact she was a volunteer fire-fighter in the ARP during WWII might be a decent hook as well. Black Kite (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
Per [42], basic members can update the site. So no, not an RS.--Launchballer 14:42, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 13 days ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The previous list was archived about half an hour ago, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 1. We have a total of 321 nominations, of which 135 have been approved, a gap of 186 nominations that has increased by 16 over the past 6 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) 15:18, 6 November 2024 (UTC)

I am around and will perhaps take a look at a few nominations by tomorrow. Regards, Aafi (talk) 14:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 5

Latest comment: 13 days ago15 comments5 people in discussion

Flag of Falcón +1

@Soman: I added a {{cn}} tag to the Flag article as I don't see anywhere that "23 states of Venezuela" is sourced. Also, what makes it notable, given that there are only two references in the article?--Launchballer 12:04, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I don't get the {cn} tag issue. Are you disputing that Falcon is a state or that Venezuela has 23 states? Or that Falcon has a flag? And for notability, we generally don't test notability of state and national flags. --Soman (talk) 23:17, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm saying I think there should be a cite for Venezuela having 23 states, yes. (Also, not really a DYK issue, but regarding "having large whitespace in bottom is not good for readibility", I couldn't agree more - which is exactly why I moved the last three images to a gallery!)--Launchballer 23:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

It's OK I'm OK

@MaranoFan, Viriditas, Crisco 1492, and Kimikel: "Edited into it later" needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 11:09, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Done. Viriditas (talk) 11:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Fine by me.--Launchballer 11:25, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Deutscher Kurzwellensender Atlantik

@Dumelow, Bruxton, and Flibirigit: I believe this needs an end-of-sentence citation.--Launchballer 11:22, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Fine by me.--Launchballer 11:30, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Abraham Hamadeh

DYKToolsBot not working

Latest comment: 13 days ago6 comments3 people in discussion

RoySmith, DYKToolsBot hasn't updated in two weeks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:35, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, I'll take a look. RoySmith (talk) 15:37, 29 October 2024 (UTC)
Interesting. There's a cron job that's been running for a bit over 14 days, which is probably what's holding everything up (as I understand it, cron won't kick off a new job while an old one is still running). I'm not sure what got it wedged, but I've manually kicked off a run and that seems to be working fine so I'll probably just kill the stuck job and see what happens. RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

As an aside on this, I'd really like to see more joint custody of all the bits and pieces that make DYK run. I hadn't looked at this stuff for over a year and it took me some time to figure out how it all worked again. If I got run over by a bus and somebody had to pick it up from scratch, it would have been even harder. The more we're all familiar with all the moving pieces, the more resilient we all are to roving homicidal busses. RoySmith (talk) 21:01, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Speaking of, just noticed that GalliumBot is down, if theleekycauldron isn't already aware. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: he's back! (i think.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:30, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Luo Shiwen

Latest comment: 13 days ago3 comments1 person in discussion

Hi there. Would it be possible to request a second pair of eyes at Template:Did you know nominations/Luo Shiwen? The reviewer, Buidhe and myself disagree about the use of CCP-related sources and its potential impact on article neutrality.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 18:20, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

WP:DYKN seems messed up

Latest comment: 12 days ago6 comments5 people in discussion

The articles/templates in November 7 and 8 aren't transcluding. Anyone know what is going on? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:41, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

The page has exceeded the maximum number of template transclusions due to the backlog of nominations. It's a known issue. Flibirigit (talk) 17:48, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
For a bit more detail, see WP:PEIS RoySmith (talk) 17:51, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Thanks! « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:57, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
WP:GA had a backlog drive last month. That's probably also got something to do with it.--Launchballer 18:05, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5

Latest comment: 11 days ago12 comments6 people in discussion

Núria Llansà

@Hilst, Kingsif, and Cardofk: The wording of the hook is kind of awkward. Could this be reworked? RoySmith (talk) 15:08, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Sorry for the delay. How about "... that despite being Barcelona's starting goalkeeper for 1972, Núria Llansà played one match as a right-back?" – 🌻 Hilst (talk | contribs) 14:54, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Done, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Flag of Falcón

@Kimikel, Soman, and Crisco 1492: The hook is technically short enough (exactly 200 character), but it's a mouthful. Could this be significantly shortened? No need to cram every detail into the hook; just enough to get the reader's attention. RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

I suggest "that the current flag of Falcón, first hoisted at the Monument to the Venezuelan Federation in 2006, is based on a then-200-year-old naval flag" or even "that the current flag of Falcón was first hoisted at the Monument to the Venezuelan Federation in 2006" if you're feeling ruthless, but I still want the {{cn}} and notability concerns I raised above resolved.--Launchballer 15:21, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

Lichfield War Memorial

@Kimikel, Dumelow, and Flibirigit: There's significant WP:CLOP from historicengland.org.uk. Some of it is unavoidable, but there's a lot of text describing the structure which is so obviously directly from the source it should be quoted and attributed rather than trying to tweak a few words here or there. RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 7 November 2024 (UTC)

The above concern is too vague to parse. When analyzing Earwig results, I see proper nouns and directly attributed quotes. Exactly which passages do you find problematic? Flibirigit (talk) 16:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Here's a some obvious examples. There's more, keep looking on your own. Note that WP:CLOP says Close paraphrasing, or patchwriting, is the superficial modification of material from another source. Editors should generally summarize source material in their own words.
In the years prior to the First World War the city of Lichfield housed the depot for the four reserve battalions of the South Staffordshire Regiment and the North Staffordshire Regiment
By the First World War, Lichfield was the depot for the four Reserve Battalions of the South Staffordshire and North Staffordshire Regiments
Bateman also designed the war memorial, which was constructed by Messrs Robert Bridgeman and Sons of Lichfield. The War Memorial Committee decided to restrict eleigibility for appearing on the memorial to men who were born in the city or who lived there at the time of their enlistment
The large war memorial screen, also designed by Bateman, was built by Messrs Robert Bridgeman and Sons against the east wall. It commemorates 209 local servicemen who died during the First World War: the War Memorial Committee had decided to restrict the names to those of the fallen who had been born in Lichfield, or who were living in the city at the time they enlisted
The garden and memorial were opened on 20 October 1920 by the mayor, H. G. Hall, and dedicated the same day by the Bishop of Lichfield John Kempthorne. The ceremony was attended by a large number of dignitaries, the buglers of the 6th Battalion of the North Staffordshire Regiment, the band of the 2nd Battalion of the Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry and choirs from the cathedral and local churches
The garden was opened, and the memorial screen unveiled, on 20 October 1920 by the Mayor, Councillor HG Hall, and dedicated by the Bishop of Lichfield. The garden was filled with a crowd of civic and ecclesiastical dignitaries, the families of the commemorated men, representatives of the armed services and the uniformed organisations, buglers of the 6th Battalion North Staffordshire Regiment, the band of the 2nd Battalion Oxfordshire and Buckinghamshire Light Infantry, the combined choirs of the cathedral and Lichfield’s churches, and local residents
RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 7 November 2024 (UTC)
Sorry I have been away for a few days. I will gladly take others advice on this but my understanding per WP:FACTSONLY is that facts are not copyrightable, only creative writing is. In my view the examples above are restatements of facts from the source, but happy to look again if we think creative elements have been copied - Dumelow (talk) 07:20, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I am inclined to largely agree. To me, the only part which goes beyond WP:LIMITED is the last sentence of the second highlighted paragraph. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:44, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
I have solved that problem by yeeting that sentence, as adding "the city's" to an earlier paragraph says the same thing.--Launchballer 13:02, 8 November 2024 (UTC)
Roy, I have looked multiple times on my own, and your claims are not obvious. The sections highlighted by Earwig are groups of proper nouns which are not close paraphrasing violations. The lengthy quotes are properly attributed. I do not see where you are coming from on this. Best wishes. Flibirigit (talk) 12:33, 8 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 7

Latest comment: 11 days ago12 comments4 people in discussion

Ye Gongchuo

What makes Who's Who reliable? It's listed as red on WP:RSP.--Launchballer 14:59, 9 November 2024 (UTC)
Fine by me. This took a while to verify everything, but I think this is all there so it should be good to go.--Launchballer 01:08, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

SELF-iSH

Walter Campbell Smith

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_202&oldid=1257552050"