Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}

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

WP:DYKUBM

Time to activate the unreviewed backlog mode? WP:DYKN is consistently hitting the WP:PEIS limit. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:31, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Maybe. The backlog's high due to the recent GA drive. There are some very easy closures/approvals near the top of the pile. Another day I think.--Launchballer 15:21, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

BlueMoonset's list shows ~180 unapproved noms for the past week. If we can get that under 100, I'd think that's a good idea. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:19, 21 November 2024 (UTC)

I think it might be time to implement it. The PEIS issue doesn't seem to be going away anytime soon and if anything is only getting worse. It's hard to see all the new nominations because they can't even be seen from DYKN. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: (and any other interested regulars) if there are no objections I think it would be good to activate it tonight at 00:00 UTC, with the goal of reducing the number of noms at WP:DYKN to 80 or so. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:16, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

As a reminder, the steps are: adjusting Template:Did you know/Backlog mode?, commenting in the box at the top of Template talk:Did you know, and adding an appropriate note at WP:DYKUBM. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Sure. if approved, it would have to start at 0001 UTC on 27 November. We may even consider increasing to 2x hooks a day too, since that hasn't been implemented for a while. JuniperChill (talk) 11:17, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

There was a discussion recently which resulted in a new procedure for that, because of burnout among promoters. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:21, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have the link to both the new procedure and the discussion? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:29, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

I didn't really participate and can't remember when it was, but the change can be found at WP:DYKCRIT. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:41, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Specifically WP:DYKROTATE. 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. If I remember correctly, it used to start if it we were at 120 approved nominations with 10 filled queues. I only joined DYK in March 2024, so it might've just changed recently. I think that's the reason why its been a while since we did 2x hooks a day. Looking at the history page, that hasn't been edited since May 2024. JuniperChill (talk) 11:48, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The main reason that we haven't done 2x/day is the switch to a nine-hook set. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I misread the question. I thought there was a new procedure for DYKUBM regarding how and when to implement it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:56, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

We might need to find a few additional prep-to-queue promoters before we can attempt 2/day again. —Kusma (talk) 11:33, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Absolutely. There haven't been two sets a day for a long time, because there aren't sufficient volunteers working on the project, checks become more cursory and errors creep in as a result. I strongly oppose moving to two per day.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:06, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

There was a suggestion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 202#Approaching 12-hour backlog mode? that we do two-a-day for a fixed three days.--Launchballer 12:42, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

If all of the queues and preps were filled (except the last prep set, which should be left empty for moving hooks around) we would have about 70 approved noms, which is far lower than the 120 that was recommended. In my opinion, the preps and the queues should be filled before the switch to ensure that DYK can handle 2-a-day. Z1720 (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

That was exactly the point of the 3 days and 6 filled queues. Even if nobody does any more promoting, we have enough in the bank to get through the sprint. We can always do another sprint if we need to. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 18:59, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

Just noting that I have implemented backlog mode on all of Template:Did you know/Backlog mode?, Template talk:Did you know, and WP:DYKUBM. I say let's worry about 2/day when we get there.--Launchballer 01:27, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't seem to have had much effect yet, so I would highly suggest to everyone here to do also review as many nominations as you can, even if you don't have any outstanding or planned nominations. The "reviewing even without having your own nominations" practice really needs to be encouraged more and I'm still surprised it isn't pushed more often especially during backlogs like this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:16, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm taking it a step further and I will (voluntarily) do 2 reviews for every nomination I do (similar to the suggestion when reviewing GAs), even without WP:DYKUBM and even before I reach 20 nominations. I've also been doing reviews well before I hit the 5 review mark. JuniperChill (talk) 10:09, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Christmas DYK sets

A. krampus living in Brazil

With Christmas just over four weeks away, I think this is a good time to ask: does DYK want to do sets for Christmas Eve and Christmas Day?

If yes, here are some potential hooks that can be used:

• Template:Did you know nominations/Pflaumentoffel: Food, needs a review
• Template:Did you know nominations/The Christmas Invasion: TV, currently in Prep 6 at SOHA
• Template:Did you know nominations/HMT Night Hawk: Ship, Approved SOHA

In addition, these articles are at WP:GAN and could potentially be used as Christmas hooks:

• Pioneer Courthouse Square Christmas tree: Tree
• Norwegian Christmas Tree in Washington, D.C.: Tree

Thoughts about creating this set are welcome below. Z1720 (talk) 15:38, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I did actually see the Christmas Invasion in prep and wondered why it wasn't being saved. Pinging @DoctorWhoFan91, Piotrus, DimensionalFusion, Thriley, and Grimes2: who are involved with the first two noms. (I've been putting off expanding Piri & Tommy for over a year and they did a track called "Christmas Time" if that's of any use?)--Launchballer 15:56, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: Nominate it when its ready: if we decide not to use it for this set, the article will still be better. Z1720 (talk) 16:51, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

It's fine with me - I can review any new XMAS hook if pinged. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:09, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer: I'm not really familiar with DYK- should I add somewhere that it should be saved for Christmas (I will read the instructions to DYK more comprehensively later). @Z1720: Great idea. Also, I'm working on another Christmas special- if it gets nominated and passed by then, I can nominate that for DYK too. DoctorWhoFan91 (talk) 11:26, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

No, what someone needs to do is pull the nom, leave a note, and put it in WP:SOHA. I've done that.--Launchballer 11:39, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

• I'm planning to do a nativity painting. Johnbod (talk) 01:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Christmas hooks should go into the "Special occasions" section at the bottom of the WP:DYKN page. Thanks guys! Gatoclass (talk) 14:11, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Actually, they should go into the "Special occasions" section at the top of the WP:DYKNA page (direct link: WP:SOHA), and only once they're approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:37, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

While not a "Christmassy" hook, it would be nice if Template:Did you know nominations/HMT Night Hawk could run on Christmas Day for the 110th anniversary of her sinking - Dumelow (talk) 20:17, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

@Dumelow: Since the hook mentions Christmas, I think it is appropriate for the set. It will also help us diversity the setZ1720 (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I can work up an article on a Brazilian Krampus species.--Kevmin § 17:51, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• Template:Did you know nominations/Dickinson pumpkin. I just made a Christmas hook for this. Thriley (talk) 21:14, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Today's DYK (fact that is unlikely to change)

Just a heads up that I've edited the current Every Night hook to remove "released ten years ago today", as that violates WP:DYKHOOK: "The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change". RoySmith (talk) 17:13, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Why? This does not violate the guideline you stated, as the release date is unlikely to change. There is no prohibition to using relative dates, nor should there be. (We had references to "today" or similar all the time during the Olympics). —Kusma (talk) 18:52, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Because that statement is only true today. Tomorrow that statement will be incorrect. RoySmith (talk) 19:03, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Tomorrow that statement will not be on the Main Page. Everywhere it is archived, it is clear that "today" is referring to the day when the hook was on the Main Page. If you find that unclear, please suggest a modification of the wording of the rule so it expresses its spirit more clearly. —Kusma (talk) 19:11, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I thought this would be an uncontroversial change, but I guess not. I've reverted it. RoySmith (talk) 19:29, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

Thank you. It may be worth discussing how explicit we want to be about anniversaries of this type, but let's do that separately from the "unlikely to change" rule. —Kusma (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

I think we should leave the anniversaries to OTD :-) RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2024 (UTC)

We've had this sort of hook as an allowed special occasion type ever since I started at DYK, and it's not been seen as a problem before. As Kusma notes, the day it runs/ran will always be a fixed period in time from the original event, and that certainly shouldn't change. OTD deals with famous anniversaries; DYK can be more specialized. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:51, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

It might be useful to clarify exactly what the "unlikely to change" guideline even means as it's caused confusion in the past as to how it should be interpreted. Maybe a reword or rephrasing is in order? Like what does "unlikely to change" even mean: at the time the hook runs, or indefinitely? The current wording is vague. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, can I ask if there was any reasoning behind changing "established" to "definite" when the switch to WP:DYKCRIT was made? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:04, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

mm, no, I don't remember there being any intention behind that. Honestly, I think "unlikely to change" should be cut. There's nothing with temporally grounding a hook that only airs for one day, they're all time-indexed in the archives. Besides, we do that all the time when we refer to someone as alive or holding a current job when, inevitably, they won't be doing that at some point. We shouldn't be reporting breaking news at DYK, but the process takes so long I can't imagine how that would happen anyway.

As for "definite facts", I think it's important that we don't air that something can be true, or air an opinion or disputed fact as truth. We have to air either that something is true or that people say it is true (which is not the same thing as a single study suggesting something). But I think that hooks like tomato sandwich are fine, great even. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:14, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Well, what do people think about:

... that the name of Kim Jong Un's daughter has not been publicly disclosed?

in Prep 3? RoySmith (talk) 15:13, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

A little trickier, because it's theoretically possible that her name has been disclosed since the article was written - somebody might want to check that just before it hits the main page. Other than that, I would suggest adding the word "preteen", because the really amazing part is that the girl is 11 or 12 years old and still nobody outside the regime knows her name! Gatoclass (talk) 15:43, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Now in queue, although I would never have promoted it in a month of Sundays given that her name could be outed at any minute. I strongly recommend pulling.--Launchballer 13:10, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The spirit should be that its unlikely to change before posting. Otherwise, posts about being the current record holder or regarding current roles would need to be revamped, and would be a departure from past practice. —Bagumba (talk) 01:29, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and boldly changed the wording over at WP:DYKHOOK. Wordsmithing or changes to the phrasing are welcome, but the point I tried to say there is something like "the fact is unlikely to change before or during its DYK appearance, but what happens next is beyond our purview." Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:43, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

"ten years ago today" is ambiguous because the date varies, depending on the time zone, and different readers will be in different time zones.

And notice that, while the article says that it was "released as a non-album single on 24 November 2014", the DYK archive shows it under the date "25 November".

So, I agree with RoySmith's concern. Such hooks are asking for trouble. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:51, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1

• ... that Oliver Hutchinson was the subject of the first successful live demonstration (pictured) of the television on 26 January 1926?

As discussed at Template:Did you know nominations/Oliver Hutchinson I had deliberately worded it as "Oliver Hutchinson (pictured)" rather than "demonstration (pictured)" as I am not sure when the photograph was taken (except that it was published in June 1926). It is the first photograph taken of a television image but not necessarily taken during the demonstration of 26 January 1926. Also, I included the full date in the hope that it might run on its anniversary; I am more than happy for it to run whenever but you can probably trim the full date to just "in 1926" - Dumelow (talk) 18:27, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

• • I'll unpromote and move to WP:SOHA when I get back home, unless another promoter wants to do it in the manetime. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:49, 26 November 2024 (UTC)

The thing is, January 26, 2024 is way beyond the six-week maximum for special occasion hooks, given that the nomination was on November 16. If the January 26 date is to be granted, it first needs to be discussed here per WP:IAR and WP:SOHA. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 27 November 2024 (UTC)

As I said, I am happy for it to run now if needed, but for the sake of a handful of weeks, it would be nice to run on the anniversary. Noting it would be 10 weeks after nomination and there are still nominations about that old on the list for review - Dumelow (talk) 10:23, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

The guidelines say that six weeks is the maximum, and that is based on the day of the nomination, rather than the day of the review. If you really want the January 26 date you will need to formally request an IAR exemption here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:11, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 6

Zooming In on the Andromeda Galaxy

• I nominated this, and thus a second pair of eyes is needed.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Will do when I'm less frazzled, probably the morning.--Launchballer 22:26, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me.--Launchballer 23:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

• Danke.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 00:01, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Timeless Voyage

• Article needs a citation directly after the hook fact. Tagging PARAKANYAA, JuniperChill, and AirshipJungleman29.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:57, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  @Crisco 1492 shuffled the information around to fix the issue, hopefully? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:02, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

  Yep, this looks good now. Thanks.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 21:05, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

Do song lyrics meet or not meet WP:DYKFICTION?

I remember there being some kind of dispute if song lyrics count as "in-universe" or not, and interpretations seem to vary depending on the user. Can we get a clear answer on this? Asking because of the Dune hook that's currently in Prep 3 and how it's a hook based on the song's lyrics. Courtesy pings to nominator Tokisaki Kurumi, reviwer OlifanofmrTennant, and promoter Crisco 1492, although this question is more of a general question and not specifically about Dune. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:10, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but the way the hook is written avoids DYKFICTION. The hook tells the reader what the song is about rather than discussing the fictional world of the song. Others may disagree. This resembles the previous discussion about the science fiction hook that ran several weeks back. Viriditas (talk) 04:23, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

We really need some kind of clarification or footnote regarding that guideline, at least for edge cases like songs, because the line between "in-universe" and "real world" can be really blurry. I'm not sure if editor discretion is sufficient if there can be disagreements. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

My take, and it could very well be wrong, is that the hook under discussion highlights the theme of the song, not the fictional world, a subtle difference. Viriditas (talk) 05:02, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I would say it's a violation, because the hook as it is refers to conditions on a fictional planet. However, if the hook was altered to refer to, say, what the fictional planet is reportedly a metaphor for, ergo, the "desert-like atmosphere" supposedly prevailing at the time on the Japanese video site Niconico, that would not be a violation. Gatoclass (talk) 06:53, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

That’s the theme of the song, in other words, "the end of life", a very real thing. It is separate from the fictional element itself, although the story will express that theme as a consistent thread. Themes aren’t fictional, IMO. The hook is saying, the message of the song is the end of life. That’s taking one step back from the fictional story and looking at it from a level once removed. If I write a story about a robot left behind on an alien planet trying to find a connection with alien life while finding itself alone, and I say the theme is isolation, am I talking about the fictional story or the message it is conveying? Robots, alien life, those things are fiction, but if I write a hook saying the theme is isolation, I am not talking about fiction, I’m one step removed from it commenting about the work in its totality, not within its universe. Viriditas (talk) 07:29, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The song lyrics are about the end of life on an imaginary planet. There is no claim in the article that the lyrics are about the end of life in general - quite the opposite, in that the writer says the planet was a metaphor for conditions on the website Niconico. So the hook is both inaccurate and a violation of DYKFICTION. Changing the hook to make it about the metaphor identified by the writer would eliminate those issues, although perhaps it wouldn't make for the world's greatest hook. But regardless, the hook as it is doesn't meet the criteria. Gatoclass (talk) 07:49, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I would agree that is a problem. The article says "the theme of the song is a desert planet where life is dying and 'no grass will grow for the next millennium'", but the hook says "lyrics about the demise of life", while the source says nothing about the theme. Looking even closer into this, it appears that the end of life is indeed a metaphor, not a theme as the article currently says, for several different things, some controversial. So yes, based on your explanation, the hook should be pulled or changed. Viriditas (talk) 08:42, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Pulled.--Launchballer 15:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer and Viriditas: I am not quite sure, but, according to the source, there is this: "where life has eroded and 'no grass will grow for the next millennium.'" (from Japan Times) ときさき くるみ ^{not because they are easy, but because they are hard} 19:33, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It's a violation, but more importantly, the sort of violation DYKFICTION is meant to stop. The rest of the hook is a boring word salad, and the addition of the theme of the song's lyrics—which could be anything in human conception—shouldn't help. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 07:31, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Themes are extremely limited, in the same way that there are only seven (or so) basic plots. Technically, "end of life" falls under the "death and mortality" theme, which is part of 20 or so common themes. Viriditas (talk) 07:44, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

If that is true (I doubt it) why is noting that this is one of twenty common themes interesting Viriditas? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:56, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

It's a good question. I find it interesting because it illustrates the concept of a universal narrative structure, but this is often considered controversial and the subject of much dispute. Viriditas (talk) 20:48, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• As another edge case, consider the following which caught my attention today:

• ... that Salvadoran president Nayib Bukele (pictured) has referred to himself as the "coolest dictator in the world"?

The article says that this self-description was meant "ironically" suggesting that it was a joke or parody and so not meant to be taken seriously. And it was posted on Twitter, which is a silly place. The hook strips out all this context and so encourages the reader to take it straight.

Andrew🐉(talk) 08:28, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

On the other hand, independent news sources also describe him as an autocrat, so whether or not he labelled himself as such ironically, it seems there is some substance to the label. Gatoclass (talk) 08:51, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Not a DYKHOOKBLP violation; it can't possibly be undue to describe a currently serving dictator as a dictator.--Launchballer 15:27, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The issue is not what sort of politician he is but whether he is the "coolest" such in the world. This seems to be a fanciful bit of theatre, rather like Donald Trump describing himself as "a very stable genius". Such self-promotion is hype and that seems similar to the fictional issue in that the claims can easily be outrageous because they are not real. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

This seems to be a fanciful bit of theatre. Indeed, and I think readers have the intelligence to recognize that. Regardless, it's a quote that will surely attract plenty of attention, giving people an opportunity to learn something useful about El Salvadoran politics. Gatoclass (talk) 17:41, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

And BTW, no, it is not akin to a fictional issue. The hook describes a real-world event - that politician X said Y - so clearly DYKFICTION is not applicable. Gatoclass (talk) 18:16, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I imagine this will be an unpopular opinion, but I think DYKFICTION is a stupid rule and would love to see it revoked. RoySmith (talk) 18:30, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• I personally feel like the spirit is good, but the implementation ends up causing trouble; the hook that started this had real-world applicability, but because part of it dealt with a fictional narrative, the whole thing was canned.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:22, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• I still don't understand how the non-fictional bit is interesting in the slightest. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:43, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

If you think the implementation of DYKFICTION causes trouble, you should have seen how things were before it was implemented.

And I'm afraid I must disagree with you regarding the aforementioned hook Chris. The problem IMO was not so much that it violated DYKFICTION as it was that the hook simply wasn't an accurate reflection of the article contents. Gatoclass (talk) 19:50, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• Oh, I remember 2011/2012. I still find myself more aligned with Roy than having regular "this violates DYKFICTION" reports for items that clearly have real-world connections.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 20:12, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

DYKFICTION was added way back in 2009, so if you started here in 2011, you would not have experienced what things were like before it was added.

However, in a nutshell - when users are permitted to use fictional elements of creative works in their hooks, you end up with, for example, an endless plethora of ho-hum hooks about video game "plots" which almost all feature the same basic elements (good guys defending world against evildoers ad nauseam) - and no clear criteria for, or agreement on, how to separate the occasional arguably worthwhile example from all the duds. Which in turn means either endless arguments about whether or not the plot devices are unusual enough to qualify under the interest criterion, or alternatively (and more commonly) dud hooks making the main page day after day that are an embarrassment to the project.

So while there might be a very occasional fictional device that would serve to make a decent hook, the amount of energy conserved, and the level of quality maintained, by DYKFICTION vastly outweighs its very occasional inconveniences. Gatoclass (talk) 20:58, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad nobody brought up DYKFICTION for my Julio and Marisol nom. RoySmith (talk) 21:36, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

Nor should they have IMO, because that is a creative presentation of a serious real-world issue. Gatoclass (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

• With the hook that inspired the question now pulled, we still need to have the original question clarified, as in how to treat song lyrics when it comes to DYKFICTION. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:48, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  I think that's the wrong question to ask. DYKFICTION is meant to prevent a common subclass of uninteresting hooks: hooks that are simply regurgitations of someone else's creativity. Unoriginal and boring. If we make a hook that just recaps the plot/subject of a song, then yeah, that's a DYKFICTION fail. But – provided that music journalism is a functioning institution that produces decent analysis, which it isn't and doesn't – there are lots of interesting ways to analyze lyrics and music, a lot of interesting stylistic choices that are certainly something the reader might find interesting. I find it fascinating that Olivia Rodrigo uses a car as a backing track in "drivers license". Less interestingly, "Mr. Brightside" sets the listener up for a sexually explicit reference, but doesn't follow through on it, just by playing with the rhyme scheme.

  In general, I think DYKFICTION is meant to stop regurgitation and boringness. If you find a hook that isn't just repackaging someone else's work and ripping off their creativity, it's worth considering more holistically whether the hook is actually interesting and should be passed as such. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 12:11, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

I thought we had already dealt with this, but since it apparently isn't clear yet, I would say DYKFICTION is violated if the lyrics describe fictional events and the hook just basically describes what the lyrics say, or as leeky puts it, just "repackages and regurgitates" them. If on the other hand, one has reliable sources that, say, analyze themes or deeper meanings in those lyrics, or relates them to real-world events, that would probably be permissible material for a hook, though obviously it would still have to meet the interest requirement. Hope that helps - Gatoclass (talk) 16:16, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Queue 1

The Crystal (tabloid)

@AirshipJungleman29 and Crisco 1492: The article says "Some coverage ..." which got turned into "regularly covered". That's a stronger statement which may not be justified. RoySmith (talk) 01:17, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

• Source says, "In China during the first half of the twentieth century, many newspapers circulated in big cities, but only Crystal in Shanghai and Heavenly Wind in Tianjin regularly had discussions and stories about same-sex relations." Article also has "The Crystal was one of few contemporary Chinese publications to regularly cover same-sex relationships and other LGBTQ issues." — Chris Woodrich (talk) 01:24, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  OK, so the article needs to be updated to say "regularly", and then it will support the hook statement. RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  Article already does with "The Crystal was one of few contemporary Chinese publications to regularly cover same-sex relationships and other LGBTQ issues". — Chris Woodrich (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

  OK, that works, thanks for walking me through it. RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

Prep 3

Port Mercer, New Jersey

Pinging Lbal, Viriditas, and Crisco 1492: I originally was going to change "passerby" (singular) to "passersby" (since the implication is that this happened to lots of people), but it isn't people passing by, it's various floating vessels being pulled along the canal by mules where those mules end up in the water, not people riding mules and person and steed getting pulled into the canal and needing rescue. "Passerby" is a "one who" definition, not a "something that" word, so it's not appropriate in this context. What's happening is a swing bridge deliberately being opening late and sometimes entangling the tow lines being pulled by the mules, so the mules are pulled into the water and have to be rescued by the locals. A possible edit: replace "profited from passerby by dragging their mules" with "profited from passing vessels by dragging their tow mules". Thoughts? Suggestions? BlueMoonset (talk) 05:18, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Viriditas (talk) 05:31, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I think that sounds good. Lbal (talk) 15:20, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Prep 2

Dog

@Wolverine X-eye, Rjjiii, and AirshipJungleman29: I don't see where this is in either of the sources and there appears to be a couple of sentences straight out of sources (see Earwig). Also, in trying to cram six images into one slot, I would argue that none of them show up particularly well at a small size. (If you want to go for views, I suggest using the video.)--Launchballer 02:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree about the image. Maybe just crop out the one dog in the upper-left and use that? I'm not a huge fan of using videos; they don't have the immediate impact that a still image does. RoySmith (talk) 02:56, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer & RoySmith, at some point the nomination had this image:

Huskies

Also, do the quotes from the sources on the nomination not cover the hook fact? Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

That's an improvement, but I think

Jack Russel Terrier

would work even better. RoySmith (talk) 03:38, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith Looks good, "examples" needs to be singular. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:43, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Done RoySmith (talk) 03:59, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

PS, I noticed that dog had been indef semi-protected 14 years ago. I'm not a fan of indef protection, so I've put it back to unprotected. Let's see what happens. We can always reprotect it if necessary. RoySmith (talk) 04:04, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

I still don't see it in the first source but I do see "The researchers determined that dogs were probably domesticated from now-extinct wolves between 11,000 and 16,000 years ago — before humans began farming around 10,000 years ago" in the second. I recommend truncating the hook at wolves.--Launchballer 10:22, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Castlereagh–Canning duel

@Michael G. Lind and Seefooddiet: I just added two {{cn}} tags that will need rectifying before this can run.--Launchballer 02:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Muthkwey

Just noting that I did prep-to-queue for this last month; its title was the problem and that's been fixed, so I will rely on my earlier review.--Launchballer 02:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

1957 Manipur Territorial Council election

@Soman, Crisco 1492, and NightWolf1223: There's an unsourced footnote which should probably be cited. (And I hate that WP:CLUMP on a cellular level, however much it isn't a DYK issue.)--Launchballer 02:50, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

• Soman, if you have a ref... otherwise a fundamental part of me wants to hide it.  — Chris Woodrich (talk) 04:32, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  I agree, having that long of a list in the footnote detracts from the article and is bordering on indescriminate. I would not be opposed to removal. NightWolf1223 <Howl at me•My hunts> 05:10, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

  The ref for the footnote is the same as the ref for all the geographic delimitation of the constituencies, the Manipur Gazette. I find no other way to express the the delimitation of the constituency than to include the list, I have no euphemism for this group of villages. --Soman (talk) 09:35, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

My concern has been resolved.--Launchballer 10:23, 2 December 2024 (UTC)