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.

We are above 120!

@DYK admins: According to the count of DYK Hooks, the number of approved hooks is 121. There are also 5 queues and 6 filled preps, so we can probably switch to two sets a day after midnight UTC. TSventon (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Noting that I have no time to do any promotions right now unfortunately, so I hope there are others who can step up to the plate to do the admin checks!  — Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

aaand flipped :) buckle up, y'all! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

i believe the hooks for revival vintage bottle shop (nomination) and wpsg (nomination) should be removed from prep area 7, as they are no longer scheduled to run on their requested date. i don't know if any of the other promoted hooks were scheduled for a specific date.

courtesy pinging nominators Valereee and Sammi Brie, so that they are not alarmed if their hooks are removed from the set. dying (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

okay, seriously? there's gotta be some way for us to keep track of s.o. hooks in prep... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

yeah, theleekycauldron, i had been thinking of creating a template for date requests, to append at the end of hooks, that would show up in the nominations and in the queue, but not on the main page or in the archives. maybe seeing something like    date requested: x   in the queue would easily allow one to determine, at a glance, whether a hook should be rescheduled. dying (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

We can probably slap a switch statement on it to make it only appear in the relevant pages? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I've removed the nominations from Prep 7 and reopened them both; the September 1 section was still there on the Approved page, and they've reappeared there. A quick look at the history on the Approved page and checking past dates shows that the most recent special occasion date was 22 August, so anything from there has already run. What I find concerning is that the practice of adding a comment to special occasion hooks in Prep has died out. Not only do comments it make such hooks easier to find, it prevents them from being swapped between sets by someone needing to balance sets, grab a hook to replace one that had to be removed for more work, or make room for late-appearing special occasion hooks. If that can't be done, I'm wondering how a new template is going to get attached, found, and properly dealt with. (The template would also need to suggest which of the two slots should be used in a two-a-day regimen, which seems overly complex.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, i would assume that some kind of conditional statement would be needed. i admittedly found it easier to use if and ifeq statements rather than a switch statement in my code, which i have placed in an invisible comment underneath this unicorn: . thoughts? i'd be happy to use a switch statement if you can propose a cleaner implementation. i'm currently thinking of naming the template {{DYK date request}}.

BlueMoonset, i admittedly wasn't envisioning the template to be anything other than a more visible version of the invisible comment. the current practice of using invisible comments to mark nominations scheduled for specific dates is invisible enough that many don't realize that it is a practice, so hopefully, making the practice more visible would change that. the template would also have the same functions that similar invisible comments have, such as helping prevent the shuffling of a hook scheduled for a specific date to a different set.

i imagine that the template could be attached or removed by anyone, just like invisible comments. i think they'd be much more easily found than invisible comments currently are. also, the template wouldn't be restrictive about what could be passed in as the optional argument, so there shouldn't be any issues regarding how it would "suggest which of the two slots should be used in a two-a-day regimen". for example, the template could display date requested: 2023.08.31 19:30 utc or date requested: any saturday evening (eest) in october if such requests were made. dying (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

theleekycauldron, after reëxamining my code with fresh eyes, i realized how i could use a switch statement to make the code simpler, so have done so in the code placed in the invisible comment underneath this octopus: . i'm not sure if this is what you were suggesting by using the switch statement, though. please let me know if you have any other ideas on how to improve the code. dying (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@dying: adorable, I may have to steal this practice of hiding code. Very clever, by the way – the template would be viewable from Template:Did you know, but not from Main Page. You can just go ahead and create this, by the way, be bold :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:41, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

thanks, theleekycauldron! i'd be chuffed if you copied my code hiding practice. by the way, one thing previously unmentioned is that i avoid using the same emoji twice on a page so that my description of the emoji only appears once in the page's code. if i used, say, two snakes in a plane row, someone searching for "snake" to find the invisible comment might accidentally review the wrong code.

anyway, i've gone ahead and created the template. please let me know if any issues arise. thanks! dying (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

@dying: awesome! i might make this more general-purpose, to tag any hook in the queue as "under discussion" or whatnot :) for now, this works great. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Special occasion 26 August Currently in Queue 1 is Template:Did you know nominations/2023 United States FIBA Basketball World Cup team, which was originally scheduled for 26 Aug. As their first game is at 12:40 UTC, I request that it now be moved to Prep 5. Thanks in advance.—Bagumba (talk) 15:19, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

•  Done though please double-check to ensure I did it correctly. My swap puts 5 bios in queue 1, but I think it's OK to IAR as the topics are still balanced in Queue 1 and Prep 5. Others are welcome to make swaps if they wish to balance the bios, too. Z1720 (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Eko Patrio (nom)

• ... that while Indonesian politician and entertainer Eko Hendro Purnomo was well-known to his constituents, he was mostly known by his stage name instead of his legal name?

@Juxlos, Grnrchst, and Lightburst: Given that a good number of entertainers become politicians, and that a good number of politicians go by nicknames (Jeb Bush, for one), I'm not sure that this hook says anything very unusual. If it does go through on that, it'll need to be attributed to Eko as it is in the article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:16, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 5: Eko Patrio (nom) @Lightburst, Juxlos, and Grnrchst: I don't see anything interesting about an entertainer mostly being known by their stage name. That's the whole point of a stage name; it's intentionally designed to be what people will know you by. An objection was raised in the nom that the hook needed to be modified, but was promoted unchanged. RoySmith (talk) 14:29, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I raised a similar issue in queue promotion – you can see it in the Q5 section. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:44, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Ugh! I must need more caffeine or something. I promoted prep 1 -> queue 1, but I reviewed queue 5. I'll go back and review queue 1 now. Sigh. You are in a maze of twisty little DYK queues, all alike. RoySmith (talk) 18:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

When is the DYK Nethack fork coming out? Vaticidalprophet 18:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Need to find a little dog first. RoySmith (talk) 01:43, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

altq: ...t..h...@.d...%..!.....|####|....> dying (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've been totally outgeeked. Slinking off somewhere to quaff a potion of healing. RoySmith (talk) 18:01, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

oh, sorry, RoySmith! i didn't mean to outgeek you. your remark about finding a little dog triggered many fond memories, and i just wanted to "yes, and ..." your comment in appreciation. (i even found the little dog for you!) anyway, let me grab some comestibles and join you. dying (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

pulled: no response from nominator and the queue is next in line. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:06, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith and Theleekycauldron: I am not sure we need a new hook here. From what I read in the nomination there is not an objection. The reviewer simply was thinking out loud, Hook could be rewritten slightly to better communicate why his name was an issue. But I very clearly understood why the name was an issue or I would have suggested changing the hook. I remember going to vote in the 1990s and William Jefferson Clinton was on the ballot. I paused while I figured out that it was Bill Clinton - same last name. Now imagine if the name on the ballot had even less of a connection to the name you knew? Like an entirely different last name. Lightburst (talk) 15:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Lightburst: There wasn't an objection in the nomination, but promoting admins and uninvolved editors are allowed to raise their own objections, which need to be resolved. As for the hook itself, if that's the angle you're going for, maybe center a hook around the campaign to get voters to know his legal name. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:36, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I had in mind. A more interesting hook would be something along the lines of "... that entertainer Eko Hendro Purnomo's political career suffered because voters didn't recognize his name on ballots" (assuming there's sources to back that up). RoySmith (talk) 19:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I like your idea above. Lightburst (talk) 22:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Prep 7: United States Marine Hospital (Lahaina, Hawaii) (nom)

• ... that the U.S. Marine Hospital in Lahaina was destroyed twice: in the 1970s due to neglect, and then by the 2023 Hawaii wildfires?

@Antony-22, SL93, and Bruxton: I've bumped this back from Queue 2 so I have time to ask: I don't see something resembling "in the 1970s due to neglect" in the article, could someone point it out to me? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:54, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I think you are right that the word "neglect" is not used. The neglect is assumed. I think we can omit "due to neglect" from the hook and it works. Bruxton (talk) 13:56, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: forgot to ping. Bruxton (talk) 13:57, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: "Neglect" is kind of implied. Let me recheck the sources to find a word that's more directly supported before re-promoting it. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:50, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

How about this? Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:35, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

• ALT: ... that the U.S. Marine Hospital in Lahaina was destroyed twice: in the 1970s due to vibrations from neighboring construction, and then by the 2023 Hawaii wildfires?

combining two threads...

Queue 7: United States Marine Hospital (Lahaina, Hawaii) (nom) @Bruxton @Antony-22 @SL93 The article doesn't say anything about "neglect" RoySmith (talk) 17:22, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, I'm inclined to say the amount of copy-paste exceeds what's allowable by WP:CLOP. I'd appreciate a second opinion on that. RoySmith (talk) 17:31, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Partially discussed above. Maybe nobody fixed the bit about neglect? Bruxton (talk) 18:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

If it meets other people's approval (@Theleekycauldron @Bruxton @Antony-22) I'm OK with the ALT above. I'm still concerned about the WP:CLOP issue. RoySmith (talk) 21:21, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

well I'm also not seeing 1970s, but other than that i'm good with the ALT. Haven't looked into the CLOP, may or may not take a closer look. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:30, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The sources are a bit inconsistent about the exact date of the collapse: some say 1980, some say mid-1970s. I used "by 1980" in the article but that's a bit awkward for the hook. I think the CLOP is from the HABS report which is public domain because it's a National Park Service publication. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:44, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, the sections in question do appear to be from the Historic American Buildings Survey, but you still need to comply with the attribution requirements of WP:CLOP#Public domain or compatibly-licensed content which in turn invokes WP:PLAGIARISM#Public-domain sources. In short, you can do close paraphrasing, but it's not enough to just cite the source as you normally would. It needs to be attributed through the use of an appropriate attribution template, or similar annotation. RoySmith (talk) 00:07, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

This was in the top queue and not resolved, so I swapped it out to prep 5 to give us more time to work on the CLOP issue. RoySmith (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I added Template:Source-attribution to that citation. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron, RoySmith, Bruxton, and Antony-22: I just promoted the prep that this hook was in and wanted to check in on this. It looks like this solves the CLOP issue unless I'm overlooking something else, but I have the same concerns about first in the 1970s due to neglect. This source says it collapsed "in 1980" but this one says the collapse happened "in the mid-1970s". From reading those sources the deterioration was certainly a contributing factor but they frame the construction as being what I would call the proximate cause of the collapse so I agree with the alt above and have changed it accordingly, but I wanted to doublecheck and see if "in the 1970s" was acceptable giving the conflicting dates in the sources? - Aoidh (talk) 19:22, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Getting the easy stuff out of the way first, I'm good with the Source-attribution template.

When we've got two sources that give conflicting dates for something, there's never a perfect solution. One possible interpretation of the sources would be "There was construction nearby in the mid 1970s which led to the building finally collapsing in 1980", but that would be pure speculation. If a more authoritative source can't be found, I would be up-front about the problem and say something like, "The building collapsed sometime around the mid 1970s or 1980; sources differ on the exact year" and cite both sources. If that's the best we can do, at least we've made the reader aware of the issue and they can make up their own mind which source to trust. RoySmith (talk) 21:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

In the article I wrote that it collapsed "by 1980". That doesn't work well with the wording of the hook, though I could reword it to omit the date entirely if it's an issue. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I tried finding a contemporary newspaper article that would put a firm date on when it collapsed, like a paper talking about it right after it happened, but I could find nothing on Newspapers.com. I can't think of a good way to reword it to account for 1980 being a possible (likely?) date without making it awkward sounding. - Aoidh (talk) 03:45, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I did a bit of poking around, but didn't find anything useful that you didn't already have. One thing I did see is that the address is sometimes listed as 1038 Front Street and other times as 1024 Front Street. Perhaps searching on both of those might turn up something useful. RoySmith (talk) 15:14, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I've actually been giving this a lot of thought and the best I can come up with is first around 1980 due to vibrations from neighboring construction. Any objections to that? - Aoidh (talk) 23:03, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

This possibility omits the date entirely. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:01, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• ALT2: ... that the historic U.S. Marine Hospital in Lahaina collapsed due to vibrations from neighboring construction, was rebuilt, and then was destroyed again by the 2023 Hawaii wildfires?

• Your ALT2 suggestion works as well as my suggestion, so if someone else will check off on ALT2, I'll make the change. - Aoidh (talk) 22:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm good with ALT2, but I'll leave it to someboy less involved to issue the check mark. RoySmith (talk) 23:09, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Given that it's in the next queue I've gone ahead and updated it to the ALT2 wording so that way it doesn't contain the problematic year phrasing and more accurate. - Aoidh (talk) 06:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

COI issue at Carla Vernón

There's an interesting issue at {{Did you know nominations/Carla Vernón}}. The nom (TonyTheTiger) is totally up-front about the COI, so there's no problem there, but given the the potential policy issues, noting it here for wider attention. RoySmith (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Its a longstanding issue, I suggested a long time ago that TonyTheTiger take a step back from promoting his sister but they do not appear to have. Note that the most problematic aspect is the promotion of the subject, but that would be an issue regardless of the COI (promotion is not allowed per WP:PROMOTION). Nominating it for DYK himself is inexcusable, that is clear promotion and TonyTheTiger needs a block or ban quick. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't think DYK has ever had a rule against featuring articles created through COI editing or paid editing (see also: DYK–Gibraltar discussions). If that's something we want, that's a rule we should create, rather than inferring it from WP:PROMO. In the meantime, the article isn't in the best shape and I hope the reviewing process will whip it into shape, should the nomination survive the COI question. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

There's technically no such rule, but this case might violate the spirit of WP:DYKNOT, saying that DYK is not a means of advertising, or of promoting commercial or political causes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:37, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

It does appear to be a COI promoting one's relative to the main page. We may not have a codified rule but like the majority of editors in this thread it does not seem kosher and probably falls under DYKNOT as Narutolovehinata5 stated. We cannot list every single thing so we have to use our judgement and see that it passes the smell test. Lightburst (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I agree that we should clarify/modify WP:DYKNOT to make it clear that all forms of WP:COI and WP:PROMO are ineligible, not just commercial or political causes. And that should include all paid editing, regardless of whether the disclosure required by WP:PAID has been made.

Looking at my own DYKs, that would have disqualified both Cranksgiving and Rocking the Boat. In neither case was I paid (or even asked) to write them, but in both cases the impetus to write them was indeed that I though they were worthy entities which deserved greater visibility. That's pretty much the definition of WP:PROMO. RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

Not knowing your relationship with Cranksgiving and Rocking the Boat its hard to evaluate that but IMO "the impetus to write them was indeed that I though they were worthy entities which deserved greater visibility." alone does not PROMO make. There is also somewhat of a self promotion angle to this as the picture they want to use for the article has them in it as well. He even named himself in the image description[1] so it goes beyond just promoting someone close to him, he's effectively promoting himself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I think there's also a difference between what Tony is doing and for example Rachel from BYU. For one thing, Rachel's COI is not only declared, but her DYK nominations have generally have not much to do with BYU specifically but more about the LDS church in general. There's some distance involved and the COI is not as direct. She may be employed by BYU and may be a member of the LDS church, but that isn't any more different than a person being a Catholic, being a member of or being employed by a Catholic organization, and editing articles on Catholicism. As long as it's not directly about the organization itself that should largely be fine. By contrast, Tony wrote an article about his sister and nominated it for DYK. That's very direct and even if she was notable in her own right, that's at best a bad look. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I did not know that Rachel from BYU was making LDS related DYK nominations. IMO thats not appropriate as it is basically promotion of her employer (for COI purposes there is no separation between LDS and BYU, BYU is not independent of the Church). That she is LDS herself isn't really of concern IMO, its not to my knowledge a faith that exercises coercive influence over its member's contributions on wiki. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• Well we are at work getting a better image for the article and will definitely have one before my sister's birthday of October 25 (the intended date request) since I will be staying at my sister's place in LA October 4-10. I may have some before then. I also have pictures of my sister on my phone from my mother's 80th birthday (November 21, 2021). Every picture that includes my sister either includes us both hugging my mother or hugging each other, except for one in which her face is partially cropped. The thing is I am not sure which were taken by me and which were airdropped from my mother's or sister's phone. Thus, there is a muddled copyright situation on those.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
• DYK is designed to promote new content, so I am attempting to promote my sister's article in that regard. I try to promote all of my new content on the main page. I have promoted 18 articles at DYK in the last 6 months and about 900 DYK articles. Many of these are people that I know. I promoted two at both DYK and GA that I met at a party (Kelly Hecking & Ryan Roberts (American football)). For some reason there is a COI tag on one and not the other. I have also promoted several former classmates like Michael Novogratz and Rose Catherine Pinkney (I don't know why there isn't a COI tag on this since she was a frequent cheerleading partner of mine and I have declared such on the talk) who were undergraduates with me at Princeton and Rob Pelinka who I barely knew and who was an undergraduate at Ross School of Business when I was in the MBA program there. Also, I have a COI tag on Lauren Cohen who was a classmate of mine at University of Chicago, but was able to promote him at DYK. I am a huge Michigan sports fan and promote Michigan sports articles at DYK and GA all the time. Basically, I have a long history of promoting articles at DYK that I am connected to. I am always forthright about my connections and have been allowed to pursue encyclopedic merits for these topics to the best of my ability. I intend to pursue the best encyclopedic merit for my sister just as I have for all other topics to which I was connected.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

  It's probably not a very good idea to nominate your sister for DYK, even if you declare a COI and even if she is notable in her own right. At the very least it may have been better to ask for community input first, and/or to ask a third party to do so instead. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  Given that I have a long history of moving COI nominations through DYK, why should I proceed any differently than what has worked in the past?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:20, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  As long as it gets a thorough review and not just a green tick... Therapyisgood (talk) 12:27, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  That is my point. There is a review process that we have plenty of time to get right. That is what matters.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  Well, for starters, the other articles weren't about your sister and the picture in the infobox didn't show you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:30, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  By the time we get to the date request date, there will be a more conventional infobox image. My sister is a COI and regardless of the specifics of our relationship, the COI has been properly declared so that all interested parties can rubberneck while the review goes on. If anything odd happens you can slap the cuffs on me yourself. I would step aside, but so far that has been a disaster. Much of my main space edits to the page have been to correct glaring errors that happened due to my stepping aside.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  If I were you, what I would have done is ask for a third party here on WT:DYK to do the nomination for me, then have that nominator be the actual nom and do the necessary changes. That way, there would be less of a COI issue than what's currently happening right now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  Noting for the record that I've been following this conversation, looking into the background, and am willing to review the nomination. I will try to deliver a probably-way-more-comprehensive-than-DYK-requires review in the next couple days, after I finish catching up on what seems to be 20,000 posts on various fora across several months. Vaticidalprophet 08:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  User:Narutolovehinata5, as I have noted, I was forced to step aside until the article got into main space. The article entered main space with many inaccuracies. Given that after 7 months in someone elses hands the article emerged in a poor state, I don't trust that a DYK nom would be handled any better than the AFC nom was. Sometimes if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself and I will be editing with my COI hat on for my sister's article. Right now, I am working with her staff about a professional photo. Between now and her October 25 birthday that I hope will see her appearing on DYK, there are more inaccuracies to address and other issues.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  I am quite concerned about the above statement. Basically you're saying, "I'm willing to stand back and let other edit, as WP:COI requires, unless I don't like what they're doing then I'll just do it myself". RoySmith (talk) 23:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

  User:RoySmith, there is a difference between me not liking a good editorial effort and not liking a not so good editorial effort.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 07:09, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  COI does not require COI editors never directly edit the article -- though it is very much encouraged that they don't -- and one invocation of IAR I've seen people make a lot is "COI editor is fixing obvious errors or issues". Looking at the recent history here, what I see is fixing of unambiguous factual errors (and here I'd say BLP-policy trumps COI-guideline) and a minor ref formatting tweak. More use of {{edit COI}} would be appreciated, if nothing else to get more eyes on (the talk looks a bit going in circles right now), but I see nothing impeachable about what direct edits have been made. Vaticidalprophet 04:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

  @Narutolovehinata5 Not sure I agree. You could argue that it's "cleaner" for the COI editor to do the nomination themselves, so that it's transparent, rather than requesting a third party to nominate and turn that person into a "proxy" for the COI editor (or put the other editor in an awkward position regardless). Cielquiparle (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I've completed a review. I think this can run, but there are some tone issues I've noted in the article that any uninvolved editor could address (I'm considering reviewer status too involved for that, especially in case an uninvolved editor doesn't agree), and I want some more thoughts on the date request specifically. Looking to get the image (which Tony is handling) and date resolved before approving, and I know I'm a hardass on date requests, so bringing that one to WT:DYK's attention. Vaticidalprophet 02:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Given the circumstances I'm not keen on having the hook run on the subject's birthday, less it be thought of as a birthday gift. If the article ends up running, IMO it should run as a regular hook without regard to date. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with that sentiment. Schwede66 04:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

• I have made dozens of main page (including DYK) date request in the past and don't recall one having been declined. In addition, aren't birth/death dates fairly standard dates to use for a biography article. All main page content seems to have a strong preference for presentation with date relevance. Are there any guidelines for date requests?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  @TonyTheTiger, "I have done this before and gotten away with it" is not a good argument for why we should do it now. RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  User:RoySmith, This is your second attempt to put words in my mouth with false quotes in this discussion. Would you mind stopping your pattern of WP:PAs. I have made no statement about getting away with anything. All admins of all processes on the main page are aware of the precedence for presenting content with date relevance.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'll admit that "getting away with it" is editorializing on my part, but you are clearly arguing that because you've done this before you should be allowed to do it now. I disagree with that premise. RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  In terms of a date request, what I am arguing is that I do not recall having been declined a non-rivalrous main page date request. At WP:TFA when multiple articles were vying for the same date, I have been declined, but in this case it is essentially non-rivalrous because there are not 8 other articles vying for the DYK date. What is the precedent for a date relevant to the article being declined?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Multiple times actually. Sometimes it's because the date requested was considered tangential to the article, sometimes it's because the date was considered promotional, and sometimes it's because it's outside the six-day requirement. Just because a date has been requested and is relevant does not mean the date will be granted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• P.S. between my own content and main page content for WP:CHICAGO, I have probably made about 100 main page requests and do not recall a non-rivalrous decline.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  How many of those included a member of your immediate family? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:33, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Over 9000. What does this have to do with whether date requests in general are unreasonable? jp×g 00:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• A little unexpected history fell out just now. Way back in 2011, TTT was tbanned from "uploading images about himself, broadly construed." The tban was lifted in 2013 by Floquenbeam who said, "I'm assuming the problems leading to the topic bans will not recur" So here we are, with TTT uploading pictures of himself and trying to get them featured on the main page. I guess not technically a violation since the tban was lifted, but seriously? RoySmith (talk) 23:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  I'm very uncomfortable with the whole situation and the prior topic ban has tipped me over the edge. The DYK crowd is exposing itself to criticism by other editors if we didn't push back on this. My suggestion is that we decline the nomination outright. Schwede66 23:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

  A first offense in ten years that was shut down for reasons mostly unrelated to the fact he was in the image? Vaticidalprophet 00:37, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think this hook should run given the circumstances. This is a situation where people should use their own brains and think for a minute and realize trying to get a DYK hook to run about your own sister and where a photo including yourself is in the article is a bad idea. It's pretty clear that TTT doesn't get it. Saying I am a huge Michigan sports fan and promote Michigan sports articles at DYK and GA all the time shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a COI is. "I want to write about something I'm passionate about" does not a COI make. Writing about your sister does. While I appreciate that TTT properly disclosed his COI in relation to this article, he doesn't seem to understand why other editors are (rightly, in my opinion) concerned. And no way in hell should this be run on a certain date "as a birthday gift". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  There is a huge amount that routinely concerns me at DYK regarding undisclosed connections, POV-pushing, factual accuracy, etc. This is...not that high, comparatively? I genuinely get what Schwede is concerned about, because it's much easier to point at and go "there's obviously something weird here!" than the far more subtle and complex issues that come up more often. But if every weird nomination came with an attached "I'm making this because I think it'll help me win an internet argument" or "I've been repeatedly told my articles have factual errors, come check them", I'd call that a win. That's not to say I'm going to die on the hill of running this, but I am really not comfortable drawing the line at "you admit the problem". Vaticidalprophet 00:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  I agree, this is blatant promotion and would be unacceptable if it was, e.g., a new account run by an employee of a company trying to get their company a DYK (even with COI disclosed). I'm baffled that there isn't already a rule prohibiting COI content from landing on the main page, even when it's not being promoted there by the editor with the COI. Moreover, is no one else disturbed by how many articles TTT is creating on people he personally knows, and that he is not only continuing to edit these but also actively pushing them into more visible spaces (GA, DYK, FA...)? JoelleJay (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

  I wasn't aware of the previous topic ban, but given the circumstances... yeah, not a good look. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:06, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

• User:RoySmith, you are making a third false assertion in this same discussion regarding me trying to get a picture on the main page that I did not even include in the DYK nomination. Furthermore, as I have already explained the other pictures that I can currently provide for the article involve my sister and me both hugging my mom at her 80th birthday and us hugging each other at the same event. There will be an appropriate main image in the article before the nomination runs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• FYI, I am in communication with Honest about WP:DCM for a professional main image.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

the image at right appears to be one in which your sister's face is neither cropped nor obstructed, and she is neither hugging nor being hugged by anyone. would this be a more appropriate image to use until a better one is procured? dying (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I forgot about that one. I was looking for pics from other dates on my phone.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• As I have stated on the nomination, I am running into difficulty finding a RS for her birthdate. Although, I know her birthdate, my WP:OR does not count as a source. So the date request may be somewhat moot if the article does not contain the date of relevance.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
• P.S. As a creator of many WP:BLPs, I must add that if I had the option of including a presentable image of any BLP subject along with their only sibling in an article, I would consider it a great plus for the article to include such an image although it might be an odd addition as the main image. If any of you knows of any PD image of any biographical subject that I have created the article for alongside any of their biological siblings let me know so I can add such an image to their article unless User:RoySmith has a false assertion to make about its merits.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

  Don't add photos of your family to Wikipedia. Edit topics you are not related to. Wikipedia isn't for self promotion. Underwoods Witch (talk) 16:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

• Comment - I made a comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Carla Vernón, but to cut a long story short, I think this nom should be archived and we move on. There's too many questionable aspects of this for me to be comfortable that this is a suitable article to run at DYK. I do think Tony is acting in good faith here, but I think their thinking on this is still out of line with how the community views here, and for someone who's explicitly in the past had the very unusual topic ban of not being permitted to upload images of themselves to now be telling us they strongly believe an image of Vernón with her "only sibling" has a strong encyclopedic value? I'm not aware we'd usually think there was much encyclopedic necessity to add photos of people's siblings to articles - WP:NOTINHERITED and all that. So yeah, let's close the nom and move on. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

WHENNOTCITE vs DYK

I have started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Citing sources on a contradiction between that guideline (which forbids repeated citations on consecutive sentences) and our DYK rules (which sometimes requires them, when needed to support a hook claim). I am not proposing to change our rules; I just think that the contradictory wording should somehow be resolved. Please comment there. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:23, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@David Eppstein The guideline doesn't technically "forbid" repeated citations on consecutive sentences. It just says they "aren't necessary", which leaves it up to individual editors. It is not necessary to include a citation for each individual consecutive sentence, as this is overkill. (Many of us belong to the "repeat citation" school on Wikipedia, even outside of DYK, mainly because we're all too aware that long paragraphs with only one footnote often get mangled inappropriately over time and become hard to track and fix later.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:59, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

i agree with Cielquiparle: i believe "It is not necessary to include" does not mean "It is necessary to not include", i.e., $\neg (x\rightarrow y)$ is not equivalent to $x\rightarrow \neg y$. i also do not think dyk's practice contradicts wp:cite. if wp:cite does not require something while dyk does, that just means that it is required in dyk, and is not necessarily required outside of it. (similarly, if a fancy restaurant has a strictly formal dress code, it does not necessarily contradict the local jurisdiction's standards of decency.)

i do, however, recognize that some editors equate "It is not necessary to include" with "It is necessary to not include", so i think it is fine to add an explanatory footnote clarifying that dyk's practice is acceptable, as long as the footnote is not worded in such a way that suggests dyk's requirement is an exception to the guideline. that way, those who do not equate the two phrases will interpret the footnote as redundant (rather than be confused as to why it is an exception), and those that do equate the two phrases will interpret the footnote as an exception.

another possible solution is to simply add a footnote that explains that "It is not necessary to include" does not mean "It is necessary to not include", but you might get pushback from editors who consider this a substantial change rather than merely a clarification. dying (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Supplemental guidelines reorg: not loving it

Maybe it's just me, but I'm finding the reorganized version of the guidelines to be much more difficult to use than the old bullet-list of one liners. I used to be able to scan the list and find the rule that I knew was there somewhere. With the new organization, not so much. Is there any chance we could go back to the old format? RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

It does make sense to me to have all the guidelines in one place, though. Regarding your issue noted in the previous talk item, maybe our newest administrator could learn how to do a history merge; that would overcome that problem. 😁 Schwede66 17:02, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: handily enough, if you're having trouble, any link to the previous supplementary guidelines will point you to the correct place in these guidelines. WP:DYKSG#C6, for example, goes to the same place as WP:DYKFICTION. Schwede66, I considered doing a histmerge, but thought it was more convenient to create a separate page and make sure that history was preserved (i wasn't the only person to edit it). theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:03, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem is, I don't know what I'm looking for most of the time. I have a vague memory of what rule I was thinking of, but don't remember the shortcut, or even any specific words that I could search for. But, scanning down the list of bullet points made it easy to find. RoySmith (talk) 18:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith and Theleekycauldron: I also get lost in the new reorganization. I had a good grasp on the old list with D2 etc. Lightburst (talk) 19:11, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

I like it, and I suspect any newcomers to DYK will as well. Perhaps a link to the old guidelines could be added somewhere? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:52, 30 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron and RoySmith:, I agree that a single set of guidelines is an improvement and that a link to the old guidelines at WP:DYK and WP:DYKSG would be helpful, perhaps on the talk page of the new guidelines. I think I saw a discussion about consolidating the guidelines, that could be linked as well. TSventon (talk) 10:24, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Having everything in one place is good. But I think the bullet-list presentation was easier to read vs laid out in prose form. RoySmith (talk) 16:09, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

the bullet lists kept breaking old links every time rules got added, deleted, or swapped – something we should definitely be able to do. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

• The last time I counted, DYK had over 60 rules and that was just the "unwritten" ones. It's news to me that they have been reorganised but I shall try to avoid looking because I made some reviews recently without any difficulty and it's our long-standing policy that we should ignore all rules. And if you have so many rules that even veterans can't find their way around then it's clear that you've got far too many. See WP:BURO and WP:CREEP... Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
• Agree 100% with @RoySmith:, another unneeded change conducted by @Theleekycauldron:. Therapyisgood (talk) 01:31, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
• Honestly, I would retain a summarized list of criteria on the main WP:DYKCRIT page, in addition to having a more detailed list of rules in WP:DYKSG. I agree in theory that the guidelines should remain in one place, but it is still good to have a short, handy list to refer to. – Epicgenius (talk) 15:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Queue 1

Patricia Mancilla (nom)

• ... that despite her roots as a Catholic catechist, Patricia Mancilla (pictured) pushed to have restrictions on abortion in Bolivia expunged from the legal code?

@Krisgabwoosh, Sammi Brie, and Bruxton: I know that DYK plays things a little fast and loose sometimes, but I'm having a rough time getting on board with this hook given that the article doesn't include any commentary on the intersection of Mancilla's faith and politics. If there's a source that makes this connection, can it be added to avoid the WP:SYNTH issues? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:32, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Official Catholic doctrine – which Mancilla would've taught as a catechist – opposes abortion in all forms. I figured that this was common enough public knowledge that the connection between 'catechist' and 'supported abortion legalization' could be made using the given citations – without a source explicitly linking them. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 15:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Krisgabwoosh: I'm with you, and I think it's an interesting connection to make, but I also think that making it ourselves is OR. Is there another hook that can be used? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: How about something like: ... that Patricia Mancilla (pictured) pushed to have restrictions on abortion in Bolivia expunged from the legal code – even after her party's leader, Evo Morales, referred to it as "a crime"? That's more directly stated in the article itself. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 19:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Krisgabwoosh: I think that's a bit mischaracterizing Morales's position if he remained largely neutral, but we can say that the push divided the party? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:49, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I question whether "did [x] despite party's contrasting position" moves the hook away from WP:DYKINT's request that tidbits be unusual or intriguing – politicians going against their party's on certain policies is pretty common.

I could see about writing an entirely new hook unrelated to abortion; would that require a re-nomination or re-review? Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:08, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I think it's less common for politicians to lead a hot-button cause in contradiction of their party, but I'll defer to you.

If you suggest a new hook here, I can just swap it in :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:19, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Ok, let's settle with: ... that Patricia Mancilla (pictured) pushed to have restrictions on abortion in Bolivia expunged from the legal code – even after leaders in her own party came out against it?

Whereas Morales kind-of-kind-of-didn't express opposition, sources in the article do state party leaders in parliament as having come out against it. Krisgabwoosh (talk) Krisgabwoosh (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Revolution+1 (nom)

@Morgan695, Maury Markowitz, and AirshipJungleman29: I was almost gonna not bring this up, but on the balance, I think it's important to note that MOS:PLOTSOURCE doesn't cover works of nonfiction, and it certainly doesn't cover claims about living people. Is there a way to hedge the synopsis or source it? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:38, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

The entire section is covered in Ref 1: "It covers the major events in his life, such as when his father killed himself, his older brother lost his vision and his mother joined the Unification Church, now formally known as the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification.". The only thing it does not explicitly state is the issue of affordability of treatment. Perhaps worth noting: there is no living person here, the main character is fictionalized and the non-fictionalized character is dead. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I've added a word to make it clear that the synopsis covers the character, so that should cover our bases :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:15, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Murder of Yadira Arroyo (nom)

• ... that the murderer of Yadira Arroyo was found mentally unfit to stand trial three times?

@Lettler, Epicgenius, and Cielquiparle: For the May 2022 deeming of unfitness, CNN doesn't verify it in its own voice, instead attributing to the statement of the district attorney. Can I add a "reportedly" to the hook, and can attribution to the DA be added to the article? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:44, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Added "according to the district attorney's office" per the CNN article. @Theleekycauldron Please go ahead and add "reportedly" to the hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

awesome, will do :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 10:14, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Marcus Junius Gracchanus (nom)

• ... that the Roman historian Marcus Junius Gracchanus adopted his last name to show his support for Gaius Gracchus (pictured)?

@LlywelynII, Elias Ziade, and AirshipJungleman29: The article seems to mismatch the hook somewhat. It says that Gracchanus was an agnomen, which (from its Wikipedia article) seems to be distinct from a "last name" in the modern sense for a while. I'll also be moving this hook out of the image slot; i think it'll divert readers to the article on Gaius Gracchus. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:25, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

this cited source calls it a "cognomen", but it cites Pliny the Elder... do we consider that a reliable source, or maybe reliable with attribution? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:50, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Thank you for specifically pointing out someone mistakenly added the wrong link to the hook. Absolutely that shouldn't've been done. It's a good image, though, and will send readers to the right article as long as the other isn't mistakenly linked in our hook. I'm fine with or without the image but no there should never be any other link in the DYK for any article I created, QPQed, and took through this process. The initial post already said as much, it should be removed here, and ideally promoters should stop doing it entirely. Anyone wanting more info can always click through and the point is always to bring eyes to the new articles, not random others.

Apart from that, no, the article and hook are correct and your points are understandable but poorly taken. Short version: (a) This was (properly) his agnomen, a personally assumed but fully legal last name that creates a sub-branch (clan) of his larger gens (family) assuming his family and society like him enough to maintain it; (b) even if they don't it's still part of his personal last name; (c) his family did maintain it at which point its inherited rather than descriptive nature made it a cognomen anyway; (d) plenty of people apply the term retroactively and/or entirely subsume agnomina into the idea of cognomina; meanwhile, some scholars are ready to die on the hill that they should maintain the entirely misleading Early Modern English idea that the cognomina of clans were "surnames" and the nomina of families were "clan names" or some other concept; (e) avoiding that ambiguity and mess is precisely the reason it's better to just call it a last name, which is unquestionably correct in every sense. — LlywelynII 05:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

[Edit:] It doesn't change any of the above but if you needed to see the Pliny source that's going to be what any modern scholarship on this point is based off Perseus for some reason mislinked it. This is the English version and the Latin can be loaded on the top right.

@Theleekycauldron: If that still isn't enough for you, I provided numerous other hooks. The DYK shouldn't fail: it should just be sent back for a new review of one of the other proposed hooks. — LlywelynII 05:14, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@LlywelynII: I've unlinked as suggested, we should be good to go now :) thanks for the explanation! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:16, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (season 1) (nom)

• ... that the first season of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver received more average weekly viewers than its HBO talk show counterpart Real Time with Bill Maher?

@MyCatIsAChonk and NoonIcarus: I think I'll have to ding this on interestingness grounds – one show beating another isn't super interesting on its own. You can always include, of course, that Maher's been around a lot longer (the cited source does make that connection), and/or that Oliver was in a bad time slot. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:56, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron:

ALT1: ... that the first season of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver received more average weekly viewers than its longtime HBO counterpart Real Time with Bill Maher?

ALT2: ... that Last Week Tonight with John Oliver received a Peabody Award in its first season?

ALT3: ... that an episode in the first season of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver caused the FCC's website to crash?

ALT4: ... that comedic bits were used to split up episodes of the first season of Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, so the audience did not have "to hear anybody talk ... for a half an hour straight"?

MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 11:00, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@MyCatIsAChonk @Theleekycauldron I like ALT3! Cielquiparle (talk) 11:31, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Could you please swap out the existing hook for ALT3 here? Time is running out. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle and MyCatIsAChonk: someone, someday (in fact, probably you, MyCatIsAChonk), is gonna get Net Neutrality (Last Week Tonight with John Oliver) to GA, and I'd like them to have a hook similar to ALT3 when that happens. I think we stick with ALT1, so I'm gonna update the article and slot that in. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Prep 6 Picture hook Jack the Ripper Stalks His Victims

Not my area and @Premeditated Chaos and @Epicgenius are far more experienced than I...but are we certain that this eye-catching early Alexander McQueen design is not covered by a fashion design copyright? (I'm always skittish with 3D art objects.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:37, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: I was not pinged, however This was an image I promoted. I will show you my thinking: I promoted the image based on the fact that Alexander McQueen is British and the United Kingdom has FOP for 3d art. I am glad that raised the question here because this image seems to have been taken at the MET in New York and the US does not have FOP for 3d art. So now I think we need an image license expert to review this. Lightburst (talk) 13:12, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle, thanks for bringing it up. My impression is that, according to c:COM:CLOTHING, "Images illustrating clothing styles or articles of clothing are normally acceptable". Additionally, fashion is not copyrightable in the U.S. (clothing would only be copyrightable if it featured a work of art, such as a print, that is copyrightable), and like Lightburst said above, the UK has freedom of panorama for 3D art as well. – Epicgenius (talk) 13:19, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

c:COM:CLOTHING seems to clearly say the image is allowed. Thanks for that link Epicgenius! Lightburst (talk) 13:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

This comes up every time I do an image of clothing. Do I need to start putting a disclaimer? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 17:42, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't be surprised if someone is going to complain at WP:ERRORS when it's on MP. BorgQueen (talk) 17:59, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible to put an invisible comment in the actual queue directing people to check COM:CLOTHING first? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:04, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos Sure. Done. BorgQueen (talk) 18:13, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Nice, hopefully that helps. Many thanks. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:35, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Premeditated Chaos For future, it would be helpful if this was stated as a comment in the DYK nomination itself. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:59, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I did already mention putting a disclaimer. I do wish people would check Commons to see if they have any guidance about copyright status of things before assuming it's a problem, however. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:43, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure how UK freedom of panorama applies at all in this particular case (as the work is not on permanent public display), but it sounds like the fact that it was photographed in the US makes us confident that there are no copyright issues. Thanks everyone for the explanation. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Freedom of Panorama definitely does not apply: even if this would be covered as a "work of artistic craftsmanship" (poorly defined!) it's not on permanent public display. It's not clear to me that the photograph was taken in the US: the caption says that it's at the Victoria and Albert Museum (London, UK) and was originally uploaded to flickr in July 2015 - when the exhibition in question was indeed at the V&A. But whether or not it was taken in the US, COM:CLOTHING says "care must be taken not to infringe the copyright of any printed or woven design that may appear on the clothing's surface" – is the thorns design copyrightable? Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Humayun Shah

Queue 3: Humayun Shah (nom) @Cielquiparle @AmateurHi$torian @AirshipJungleman29 The source (and the article) only talk about a "legend" but the hook says "popular legend". I'm not sure it's legitimate to assume the legend is popular, per WP:OR. RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith The word "popular" has two definitions: 1) admired by many people; 2) involving "ordinary" people (as opposed to "experts"). The term "popular legend" is just using the word "popular" in the "everyday" sense (the second one). Cielquiparle (talk) 04:18, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Portrait of a Creole Woman with Madras Tignon

Prep 4: Portrait of a Creole Woman with Madras Tignon (nom) @Cielquiparle @Chidgk1 @Tcr25 The image is kind of dark. I uploaded a new version to File:Portrait of a Creole Woman with Madras Tignon (Catlin) adjusted.png with the exposure pushed up a bit. From a technical standpoint, I think it's an improvement. I'm not sure which is better from a aesthetic point of view, or which is more true to the original painting. I'll leave it up to you if you want to switch to the adjusted version. RoySmith (talk) 21:10, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

I think your exposure adjustment could be used if whoever is minding the queue prefers it. ——Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 23:05, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. RoySmith (talk) 14:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

We should not be replacing museum scans of artworks with "corrected" coloring made to aesthetic taste rather than as accurate reproductions of the originals. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Well, that was the point of my original question, and the nominator said it was OK. But, why do you call this a "museum scan"? The commons description page lists the photographer as "Brunk Auctions". RoySmith (talk) 20:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Ok, but it's still a scan calibrated against the original artwork by the people taking a scan, versus calibrated later by some Wikipedia editor who didn't find the dark tone pleasing enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:42, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I get where you're coming from and I'm not entrenched on this. I've asked at WT:WikiProject Visual arts#Post-processing photographs of paintings for additional opinions. RoySmith (talk) 22:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @David Eppstein. You raise a good point. There is a history of portraits of Creole women having their skin tones lightened as part of restoration/"cleaning" efforts, so I tried to be sensitive to that in looking at the adjusted version and comparing it to the later Schneider version. I agree with Johnbod's assessment that RoySmith's adjustments help make elements of the painting more visible than the photograph Brunk Auctions took without overdoing it. The Richmond Museum of Fine Arts has not posted an image of the painting, so it's not clear how they have adjusted a photograph of it yet. (The only picture of the original painting at The Cabildo I can find is in black and white (and it appears small in the back of the frame.) All that said, while I'm okay with the adjusted version, I think the original version was fine too. Maybe the balance would be to use the adjusted version with the DYK (since it will run pretty small) and the unadjusted version on the article page. ——Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:16, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm responding from the visual arts request, although my opinion is not that of an expert. I just spent ten minutes comparing the two images, and I don't think RoySmith's mods are that big of a deal. There is something to be said for the neutrality of the Brunk Auction image, but it is slightly dark. I think the only critical thing I can say here is that RoySmith's changes went just slightly too far, as I found them just a touch too bright, but I doubt anyone is going to notice. I also think it's not uncommon to tweak museum photos for display purposes when it's needed. Finally, to address David Eppstein's interesting claim, I don't think we really have accurate reproductions of original paintings, but the pros who take the best images will probably try to achieve a neutral approximation that approaches accuracy, but this is very difficult unless they have ideal conditions, which is unlikely for most of our museum photos on commons. Personally, I'm fine with RoySmith's changes, but I think an argument could be made that the change went slightly too far. Viriditas (talk) 23:28, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree - the changes were relatively discreet. It is often an alarming experience to go round a museum comparing their official images, especially in printed form, against the original works, so sadly I don't think "museum images" (which this not) can be taken as much of a gold standard. Oil paintings are normally photographed rather than scanned. Johnbod (talk) 23:52, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@Johnbod: it's been a while, so forgive me if I get this wrong, but I remember reading in a photography textbook that neutral images (or photos of things that we might loosely call "accurate") often need to be adjusted for presentation on an electronic display for human eyes. Viriditas (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Very possibly. Someone was asking recently if a British Library image of a miniature actually had a gold ground. It did, but the BL had chosen (presumably) to downplay the shiny gold in their photo. Johnbod (talk) 15:13, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

This is something that has always worried me about images, and why they shouldn't be treated as WP:RS. If I write "The sky is blue", it's unambiguous what that means. Even if I reproduce it in a different font, or render it as "THE SKY IS BLUE", or translate it into another language, the meaning is still clear. But with images, not so much. Even if you AGF, there are many ways that images get processed which can change color rendition. It's not just how you play with color balance in a photo editor, it's the color gamut of the media (a computer monitor may be able to create colors which simply cannot be created in paint, or printer's ink, or vice-versa. And monitors differ. I'm using a consumer-grade monitor right now, with ambient lighting supplied by sunlight through my window. If you're using a different monitor with color calibration and carefully controlled ambient lighting, you'll see different colors. People who really care about color rendition include color calibration cards (example shown). And different people perceive colors differently.

I ran into this not too long ago (I can't remember if it was a DYK or a GA review), where the author was looking at a photograph of a military award ribbon and using that as a source to say what colors were in the ribbon. It was a lot of work to get them to find a real WP:RS which described the colors. RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith yes it was a DYK nom... about Sudanese awards. I remember that one because giving women pink ribbons struck me as sexist. BorgQueen (talk) 09:25, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

My day job is in the museums sector, and often the best colour digital images we have of a work do not remotely resemble what that work now looks like, either because the original photograph was not correctly white balanced or because it was scanned from a negative or print which has degraded over time or because the work itself has faded or otherwise changed colour over time. The photo in this case is a modern one taken presumably by a professional photographer (auction houses can afford to pay for proper photography!) so you would hope that it is an accurate reflection of the work but I find it hard to get too concerned about a minor change to exposure levels here. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Costco hot dog Nomination Prep 7

Just a quick check on the hook I promoted. Could be considered promotion because it makes me want to try it. Asking for a second opinion. Lightburst (talk) 22:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lightburst Seems OK. I mean, the most famous thing about the hot dog is the price...which seems especially topical at the moment given the state of inflation in the US and other countries.

While we're on this subject, I wanted to ask for a new reviewer to take a look at the hooks I wrote for Template:Did you know nominations/Grimace Shake and/or come up with new ones. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

No problem with this hook being too promotional, but I'm glad LB brought it here. Valereee (talk) 18:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Group notice?

What would folks think about trimming Template:Editnotices/Group/Template:Did you know nominations way back? The "Please use the following criteria when reviewing the nomination below." section is just yet another copy of the instructions, which means it's yet another copy that needs to be kept in sync (and the current version is already out of sync in some ways). I find it just something I need to scroll past to get to the meat of the nomionation and doesn't add any value. RoySmith (talk) 23:33, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

It's a very convenient check/aide memoire while you're reviewing to remind you of the criteria: it sits right there in the editor while you're typing. Also very important: the icons ({{DYKSymbols2}}), which should be copy/pasted into the reviews (a few people still type their own, forgetting the subst:, which keeps the bots from recognizing the icon), and the copy/paste DYKproblem template strings. I don't think you're going to save any space most of the time: the {{DYKbox}} DYK shortcuts box alone is taller than the edit notices, and it's stacked under the {{DYK tools}} box. If Wikipedia:Did you know/review criteria is out of sync, then it should be brought back into sync. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:45, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the table of symbols is useful; I copy-paste from that all the time. But the rest seems excessive (and out of sync with the newly-reorganized "everything in one place" guidelines page). RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

If the problem is that some components are not quite in sync with the guidelines page, perhaps theleekycauldron could update what is no longer perfectly accurate. However, especially for new reviewers, it is useful to have the reminders right there: too many forget the close paraphrasing/copyvio/plagiarism check and the other "within policy" checks (including neutrality), so I think it would be a mistake to remove something that remains useful: there are always new reviewers. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith and BlueMoonset: I've changed the editnotice so that it transcludes the relevant section of Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions, so that we're not responsible for maintaining more than one page. By the way, BlueMoonset, what's to stop me from having AnomieBOT substitute every transclusion of {{DYKyes}} and related templates? Seems like that would be a boon, unless there are places we don't want it substed... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

would it be helpful to add an anchor at the bottom of the editnotice and a link to jump to that anchor near the top of the editnotice? i admittedly don't recall ever editing an editnotice before though, so i am not positive that this would work. dying (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Available: A Big, Juicy Review.

In exchange for a fast review of Script Ohio, I will do an on-demand review of any hook you fancy and give you a premium barnstar. Interesting trades also considered. (I'm trying to ram this through before the Ohio State-Youngstown State game.) I hope I'm not violating decorum or guidelines by making this offer. If I am, please strike. Chetsford (talk) 04:30, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Working on it. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 01:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Done! Thanks for the interesting article. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:42, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers - thank you so much! I'll make the suggested updates you mentioned on the Talk page right now. Please let me know if you need me to do any reviews in return! Chetsford (talk) 00:06, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I think that Queue 7 is the one set to run on September 9. Any chance we can swap this one in? Pinging the main prep-maker Cielquiparle and the queue-maker Aoidh. No pressure. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 00:09, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Chetsford For next time: The right thing to do would have been to call out the special date request explicitly when you first posted to this Talk page 5 days ago. As it stands, it seems our admins are overstretched at the moment, so I'm not sure if this could get slotted in as a last-minute swap request. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:58, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

But @Aoidh...if we were to swap one of the current hooks out, I would swap out the Costco hot dog one and we'll build a really nice new set around it. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:08, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle:  Done, Costco hot dog is now in Prep 2, Script Ohio is in Queue 7, set to run on 9 September. - Aoidh (talk) 05:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Chetsford, as an Ohioan with roots in Y'town, I just have to ask: Why the Youngstown State game? Valereee (talk) 18:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

It's their first game of the season at home. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah. I'm camping on an island in the middle of Lake Erie with a bunch of Youngtowners, and most are at least mild fans of YSU, and they know it's a ridiculous matchup, but they still want to watch and are rooting for OSU (pardon me, TOSU) becuz OH! Valereee (talk) 20:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not much of a football person and am missing a lot of Midwestern cultural context, so I feel much as I would if I were camping in the middle of Lake Erie: somewhat lost but trying to make the best of the experience! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 20:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't sports. But I make the best of game day by focussing on having fun making food in unusual conditions, which is always fascinating for me. Today it's bread and pizza (friend brought a propane-powered oven). Also drinking wine helps. :D Valereee (talk) 20:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Deshong Art Museum

Queue 5: Deshong Art Museum (nom) @Cielquiparle @Surtsicna @Dwkaminski The hook fact accuses a 15-year old boy(who is presumably still alive) of committing a felony; this needs to be sourced to something better than www.uncommongood.com which is a blog. I see this was discussed in the nomination, but never got fixed in the article. Less importantly, the photo from the infobox is a much superior image; if nobody minds, I'm going to swap that one into the hook. But the sourcing really needs to get resolved. RoySmith (talk) 20:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith It already was corrected (if you re-read the nomination discussion, you'll see that the Philadelphia Inquirer article is mentioned). You can find the citation in the "conviction" sentence. The direct URL is here: https://www.inquirer.com/philly/news/local/20100110_Languishing_Deshong_property_frustrates_Chester.html Cielquiparle (talk) 20:17, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The ProQuest version of the same article is here – works if you log in to ProQuest via Wikipedia Library. Cielquiparle (talk) 20:20, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The statement The heist was carried out by 15-year-old Laurence McCall is cited to uncommongood.com RoySmith (talk) 20:22, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

The crime is also mentioned in Delco Times newspaper article "Former art thief could really use a job" https://www.shapell.org/manuscript/abraham-lincoln-seal-appointment-edward-joy-morris-minister-resident-turkey/ and New York Times article https://www.nytimes.com/1979/10/18/archives/the-city-us-gives-4-million-for-harlem-center.html Dwkaminski (talk) 20:40, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I have no problem with you swapping out the image. I found it after I submitted the DYK. Thanks! Dwkaminski (talk) 20:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Done. The sourcing issue still needs to be resolved. RoySmith (talk) 20:41, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I added the Philadelphia Inquirer article to the fact. It does quote the thief as being 16 years old rather than 15 so I updated it in the article. It should be updated in DYK also. I don't know how to do that at this point. Dwkaminski (talk) 20:55, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm getting increasingly concerned about the WP:V aspect here. We've got two sources which quote different ages. And the third source (The New York Times) says, The 17 paintings ... have been identified as canvases stolen over a period of time from 1976 on. It doesn't say how long a period of time, so it's unclear that assigning any one specific age to the thief is justified. I don't see how we can run this without a more definitive statement in a WP:RS. Preferably several, since the ones we have disagree.

I'm also seeing so much copy-paste without attribution between Alfred O. Deshong and Deshong Art Museum that I don't see how WP:COPYWITHIN isn't a problem (@SunDawn: who did the NPR). And while I haven't done a careful count, I suspect if you took out the copied text, this might not meet DYK's "1500 characters of original prose" requirement. My recommendation is that this be pulled. RoySmith (talk) 23:07, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

It's worse than the 1500 characters rule: since the copied material was old, it must be 5x expanded. The article is currently 3124 prose characters; if at least 625 of those are copied from another article, then further expansion will need to be done for it to be eligible for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:13, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

Good point. The first revision of this is Special:Permalink/1167616538. It appears to be almost entirely material copy-pasted from Alfred O. Deshong and DYK Check says it's 2685 readable prose. So clearly this fails. There's just too many problems; I'm going to pull it. RoySmith (talk) 23:25, 2 September 2023 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: When I check the article length (excluding infbox, section headers and photos) I get 8,423 characters in the javascript kit character counter. Dwkaminski (talk) 12:12, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance on the age of the thief as the most important part of the DYK hook. Maybe once you do a careful count and your suspicions are confirmed, this can be reconsidered for DYK. Dwkaminski (talk) 02:28, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dwkaminski The problem isn't the hook...the problem is that DYK doesn't count content cut-and-paste from existing articles as "new". Anyway I've removed/replaced "Uncommon Goods" (a shopping website) completely as a source on both the Alfred O. Deshong and Deshong Art Museum pages now, so at least that's fixed. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Sometimes we IAR here as is wp policy. But I have yet to see us IAR in regard to the 5x rule. Several times I have come up just shy of 5x as a nominator and the rule was invoked. Sadly it forces editors to needlessly pad articles in some cases. In my case it caused me to withdraw the nominations like in this case. Lightburst (talk) 03:11, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

One of the lessons is that if you're a fix-and-expander, it's better to cut all the problematic content out of the article first. And then wait a day before expanding. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:39, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: weirdly enough, no, you can't do that, per the old SGs. It's from the last version before you started working on it. I personally think that's fairly stupid, but what can ya do. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:37, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

But you can if someone else deleted it, right? Not by proxy obviously. But if someone slashed and burned, for example at AfD. (I might...have some experience in this area. Rightly or wrongly.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I think there was an exception given for copyright violations, and of course there's always the option of nominating an article for GA if it's good enough. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:00, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Fine. Let's kill it and I'll work on submitting it as a GA. Thank you @Cielquiparle: for the strong changes to both Deshong Art Museum and Alfred O. Deshong. Dwkaminski (talk) 14:36, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dwkaminski please note, whatever you do with GA, you still have to address the WP:COPYWITHIN problem. This is not just a nice-to-have, and not just a silly DYK rule. It is a legal obligation of providing the proper attribution to comply with our licensing requirements. RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not clear on how to address the copywithin problem. I created Alfred O. Deshong years ago and finally decided to separate out the Art museum as it's own page. I would think changing the text enough would address the concerns but any other guidance is greatly appreciated. Dwkaminski (talk) 15:07, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Optimally, it would have been done at the time of the original copying, but since it wasn't, you should follow the procedure described at WP:RIA. RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Dwkaminski I've described what you need to do to fix the COPYWITHIN issue. I see that you've nominated this for GA without fixing this problem. Copyright issues are one of the quick fail items listed at WP:GAFAIL. Please don't just keep ignoring this. RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Nomination - article Mimodactylus

There is a question about the copyright status of the image (File:Mimodactylus in life.png) that I raised in the nomination. It is a lovely image but I am not satisfied with the copyright status of the image. I wonder if someone here can look at my concern in the nomination and comment here or there. I do not want to hold up the nomination if I am incorrect. Lightburst (talk) 14:15, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I should send out pings to @Hog Farm, FunkMonk, and Elias Ziade: also. Lightburst (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• The article is licensed as CC-BY-4.0 (see here) so it's fine. Black Kite (talk) 14:19, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

• Hmm .. although it also says " The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material." and that image has a credit line ("Artwork of Julius T. Csotonyi.") - which I think means that's just a credit and not indicating otherwise, but others may want to pitch in. Black Kite (talk) 14:23, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

Since it doesn't say anything like "copyright by" or "courtesy of", it just seems like a common artist acknowledgment. Note the image is in relatively low resolution, and sometimes artists "donate" low res versions of their work for CC licensed research articles. FunkMonk (talk) 18:46, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

@Lightburst @FunkMonk Sorry for the late reply. I agree that the artist mention is to acknowledge their work. el.ziade (talkallam) 08:38, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Horror aequi

Queue 7: Horror aequi (nom)

@AjaxSmack, Surtsicna, Dying, and Cielquiparle: Maybe this is a convention that I'm not familiar with, but why are there question marks at the beginning of the sentences of the last two examples? - Aoidh (talk) 19:58, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

It appears to be a standard convention in linguistics to mark examples that are dubious, questionable, or relatively unacceptable. A related notation uses an asterisk at the start to mark something that is ungrammatical or incorrect. See https://linguistics.stackexchange.com/questions/338/meaning-of-star-asterisk-in-linguistics —David Eppstein (talk) 00:17, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah okay, I understand. I looked and that is also mentioned as the third definition at wikt:?. I don't know if this usage is common and I've just never been exposed to it, or should a note or something perhaps be added to the article to explain why the mark is there to avoid confusion for readers unfamiliar with that usage? - Aoidh (talk) 00:40, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I tried adding a note about that to the article. You might not have noticed but the same convention was used earlier with some asterisks. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

I did notice those but I am more familiar with asterisks being used in that way, but maybe that's my bias showing that I assumed that convention would be more recognized because it's the one that I recognized. - Aoidh (talk) 08:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

​​I used the question marks and asterisks at the beginning of the sentences in the article because the sources for the article do, as do similar Wikipedia articles. I'm not entirely comfortable with such usage in a general work like Wikipedia, though, as such usage is not transparent and/or is counterintuitive to a non-linguistic audience. This is probably not the place for an extensive discussion, but at a minimum, a boilerplate explanation of the meanings of ? and * should appear in these articles (e.g. "An asterisk before a form indicates an ungrammatical or impossible form, while a question mark indicates that the form is questionable, but not outright ungrammatical.") I added some explanation of the uses at Question mark § Linguistics and Asterisks § Linguistics and opened a discussion section at WT:LING § Explanation of linguistics use of * and ?. —  AjaxSmack  18:00, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Image license question for Fernando Henriques

I have raised questions at Template:Did you know nominations/Fernando Henriques regarding the image of the subject. Input from anyone is welcome. Flibirigit (talk) 23:56, 3 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree with your qualms. The licensing metadata is obviously incorrect. I have tagged it with the "wrong license" template on commons. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:13, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Display problem in WP:DYKN

Erm, is it just me, or did the template display get screwed up for the nominations in WP:DYKN after Sep 1st? See here. S5A-0043^Talk 08:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's a part of the post-expansion inclusion size limit – it happens when we have too many nominations. Hopefully we can alleviate that soon! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:02, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

What we need are more nominations reviewed and passed, so they get moved off the nominations page and to the approved page. If that happens, especially with the longer reviews, more transclusions will become visible. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:16, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Queue 1

Posthumous publication

Article: Posthumous publication, DYK nomination. @Mgp28, Damian Vo, and Cielquiparle:

I added two citation needed tags to the article that will need to be resolved before this appears on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 14:32, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Biblioteca Gabriel García Márquez

Article: Biblioteca Gabriel García Márquez, DYK nomination @Kippelboy, Victuallers, Ergo Sum, Lightburst, and Cielquiparle:

• ... that in 2023 the IFLA named the Biblioteca Gabriel García Márquez the "best new public library in the world"?

I have added the word "public" to the hook, as that word was missing from the quote in the source. Please comment below if there are any concerns. Z1720 (talk) 14:58, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about an hour ago, so I've created a new list the first 34 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 19. We have a total of 304 nominations, of which 127 have been approved, a gap of 177 nominations that has increased by 21 over the past 12 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations; with those 177 unapproved noms we are overflowing the Nominations page, so each one reviewed, when it is eventually approved, helps more reviews to transclude fully by reducing the overflows.

More than three months old

• June 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Dress history

More than two months old

• June 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Words (Piri & Tommy song)
• June 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Bigface
• June 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Froge.mp3
• June 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Grimace Shake
• July 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Gracie Graves and the Kids from Room 402
• July 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Paul Needham (librarian)

More than one month old

• July 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Himmatul Aliyah
• July 19: Template:Did you know nominations/World constitution
• July 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Harris Turner
• July 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Tamás Király
• August 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Li Sin-heng
• August 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Inferno (Counter-Strike)

Other nominations

• August 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Solution and EU Party
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Stripping (textiles)
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Walid Hamdiya
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Medway Branch
• August 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Conjurer (band)
• August 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Science-Fiction: The Gernsback Years
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Seamus Heaney HomePlace
• August 13: Template:Did you know nominations/A Friend of the Family (TV series)
• August 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Mary Josephine Shelly
• August 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Hot (Seventeen song)
• August 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Wade Meckler
• August 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Pin-ups of Yank, the Army Weekly
• August 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Haggai Chisom Ndubuisi
• August 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Lisa Krzykowski
• August 18: Template:Did you know nominations/James B. Tapp
• August 18: Template:Did you know nominations/LittleBits Synth Kit
• August 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Percy Delf Smith
• August 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Dan Simonescu
• August 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Shows of a Lost World
• August 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Red Hill Band
• August 19: Template:Did you know nominations/CKMI-DT
• August 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Serrano Legacy
• August 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Tip (album)

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) 03:23, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Prep 6: Sinéad O'Connor on Saturday Night Live (nom)

@Thriley, Maury Markowitz, and Cielquiparle: I've moved this out of Queue 2, as I believe putting it in the image slot would divert viewers to the article on O'Connor – no prejudice against it being put back in the image slot in p6, because it is O'Connor, but I feel like another hook should get a chance at that slot. Also, I've tagged the lead image as having no valid fair use rationale. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron I've removed the image deletion tag after filling out the "Purpose" line in the Fair Use Rationale template for this particular article (but not the other two). As the image illustrates the main topic of this article, specifically, it seems non-controversial in this case. (Not sure about the other two instances of use.) Cc: Randy Kryn Cielquiparle (talk) 05:30, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Cielquiparle! I think it does need fair use rationales for every article, but that's not a DYK problem. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that a proper rationale is needed for each article. I added a purpose in the rationale for the biography but the SNL article also needs one. The need for this specific image is less clear in the SNL article, but maybe one could argue that it's the most iconic of the controversies that the article describes and that any other image of any of them would be equally unfree. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Thank you for catching that. I am confused why the 2014 image is not appropriate for the front page? Thriley (talk) 15:53, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thriley: per WP:DYKIMG, try to avoid images that divert readers from the bolded article into a side article. This probably wasn't the most clear-cut case of that, so again, I'm happy for a promoter or admin to put it back in the image slot if they want it for their set. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately there are no decent available photos of her from around the time the performance happened- which would make more sense than the 2014 one, but I still think it is appropriate. I’m pretty sure I’ve seen this done a few times in the last year or so. Thriley (talk) 03:50, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

@Thriley I'll have to agree with @Theleekycauldron that the image in question is unnecessary. Besides, taking the picture slot is a privilege, not a right. Whatever happened in the last year is irrelevant to this case; people make mistakes all the time. BorgQueen (talk) 13:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand it is a privilege. I rarely nominate articles with a picture, so I was excited for this one. Thriley (talk) 18:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Queue 2

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Models of communication (nom)

• ... that according to transaction models, meaning is not just transmitted but also created in the process of communication?

@Phlsph7, Onegreatjoke, and Cielquiparle: Can't quite convince myself that the hook is broadly accessible/intriguing, although I do see what it's trying to do. Maybe something on the fact that Aristotle developed one of the earliest models, or that he thought it an art or tecnhe? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: The following would be possible Aristotle-related hooks:

• ALT2: ... that one of the earliest models of communication was developed by Aristotle?
• ALT3: ... that the five core elements in Aristotle's models of communication are the speaker, the message, the audience, the occasion, and the effect?

Personally, I prefer ALT0 and ALT1. But I can also live with ALT2 and ALT3. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:43, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Phlsph7: I can slot in ALT2; what would you think of this, out of curiosity?

• ALT4: ... that Aristotle thought of communication as a kind of art, or trade?

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:47, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: It would also work but this hook is more about the concept of communication and less about the model of communication (roughly simplified, models are the visual diagrams and the corresponding explanations while "concept" is a wider term). And we would have to check whether "trade" is the accurate translation of techne in this context. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

All righty, we'll go with ALT2 then. I mean, I could argue that Narula 2006's statement of "the earliest" can't be hedged to "one of the earliest" just because encyclopedia.com isn't as sure, and we should have to note that disagreement, but I'll defer to you re: consensus of reliable sources, I haven't looked through most of 'em. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:18, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

I also thought of that option. But it's probably better to use the weaker claim to be on the safe side here. ALT2 works fine for me. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

References

1973 Brooklyn hostage crisis (nom)

• ... that the 1973 Brooklyn hostage crisis has been described as the "birthplace of hostage negotiation"?

@AdoTang, Sammielh, and Cielquiparle: the quote comes from The Guardian (citing a documentary?) citing an unnamed NYPD captain. That claim isn't quite as dubious as I would have guessed, but it'll need in-text attribution in both the hook and article. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The Hollywood Reporter, among several other sources, states it was from an interviewee in Hold Your Fire (the Guardian article is also about the documentary, which brought a lot of attention to the incident). The blog Black Girl Nerds specifies that this is NYPD Captain Al Baker, who is quoted by several other sources as one of the interviewees in the documentary. However, the blog is the only source I know of that specifically quotes Baker as saying this, and it's a blog, so I don't really know what to cite here, especially seeing I've never actually watched the documentary and can't confirm this for myself, but I can mention it was "an NYPD captain" and maybe also mention he said it in Hold Your Fire. This in mind, I would prefer to rewrite this hook as "...that an NYPD captain called the 1973 Brooklyn hostage crisis the "birthplace of hostage negotiation"?" AdoTang (talk) 23:25, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@AdoTang: I'm good with that, I'll swap it in :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:33, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Akiho Suzumoto (nom)

• ... that Japanese voice actress Akiho Suzumoto claims to be able to recite 70 digits of pi?

@Narutolovehinata5: the article and hook seem to disagree on whether she is able to do so or merely claims it. Which is correct? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:51, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Both of the sources for the hook say it as fact, I went with "claims to" since I thought it was safer since the sources were her agency profile and the profile on her old radio program and thus thought it might need attribution. If you think it would be more accurate to omit the "claims" part from the hook to better match the article, since neither source say it's a claim but present it as fact, I'm okay with that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:57, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

all right, I'll update the hook to match. I'll also add "from memory", because, well, the number of digits of pi i can recite decreases drastically when you take away my cheatsheet. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: One more thing, sorry – I was gonna AGF on the sourcing, but I took a peek out of curiosity, and one seems to be from her agency (which would arguably fall afoul of "unduly self-serving" in WP:BLPSPS) and the other doesn't seem to contain the claim. Is Google Translate failing me on the latter one? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:12, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

It's in the picture of the second source (the radio one). Here's the direct link to the picture if you need it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

Castello di Santa Eurasia (nom)

• ... that a wolf ate Boris Johnson's dongle at an Italian castle owned by a Russian billionaire?

@No Swan So Fine, Whispyhistory, and Cielquiparle: Do we trust the dongle claim enough to make it in wikivoice? If so, the article shouldn't attribute inline. Also, I'm not seeing where the article says that it's owned by a billionaire? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:57, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Theleekycauldron:...Added citation to billionaire. Could add "according to Sands", but looks okay to me as it is. Philafrenzy might give a better reply. Whispyhistory (talk) 07:07, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes, Sands is certainly a reliable source, and the book was published by a reputable publisher. No Swan So Fine (talk) 07:46, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Looks OK to me. It's just a last place amusing combination of words and nothing controversial. Dogs eat stuff like that all the time. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

given that it's a firsthand account (and that Sands has worked at papers owned by Lebedev) I'll attribute the hook inline. I'm not entirely sure that the billionaire source gives due weight, since it's not related to the castle, but since it's just background I'll let it slide. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:04, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Is it important that the wolf's name was also Boris? Cielquiparle (talk) 09:23, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

We are at 120, but

@DYK admins: According to the count of DYK Hooks, the number of approved hooks is 120. There are also 6 queues and 5 filled preps, however last time we switched to two sets a day we had to switch back after 6 days due to running low on preps and queues. I therefore suggest we don't switch tomorrow but wait until we have a few more preps/queues TSventon (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

We're now at 138 approved hooks with 4 queues and 6 filled preps; we can't fill more preps until more preps are promoted to queue, so switching now wouldn't be a great idea. Requesting a few admins directly (since none showed up last ping to the admins as a whole: Cas Liber, Z1720, RoySmith, Kusma, Aoidh, and theleekycauldron. If we can get up to all seven queues, then we stand a reasonable chance of filling up the preps over the next couple of days, and perhaps we can have a smoother and longer-lasting switchover than last time. Thank you all very much for your help. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Real life gets busier for me in September, so I anticipate that my ability to promote preps to queue will diminish. Z1720 (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm also not available much for DYK stuff these days, so don't count on me. RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

On it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 00:41, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Shouldn't our hooks do justice to the subject?

I read on the Main page today

• ... that when Edgar Jaffé died, D. H. Lawrence wrote to his widow to say that he was glad?

I don't have good words to say how inadequate I find that type of hook, catering to some general interest in sensation but saying in no word who the subject was, and did where and when. I thought someone French, because of the name. I tried to avoid to even click, not to raise the count, but hovering over it found that he was German, so I feel responsible, and would normally take the hook to Portal:Germany. This one, as it is, I will not take there, because no indication of relevance to Germany is provided. He was minister of finance in Bavaria, professor of economics, from a Jewish family with a long history, but readers interested in such topics get no clue, and will probably miss him. Shouldn't our hooks at least provide some context to indicate why a subject has an article, to not hook only readers who won't care beyond the little sensation mentioned? -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:59, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

It is “hooky” and that’s the problem. Do we need so many hooks that point out minor irrelevant details? I like a hook that allows a reader a glimpse of the more profound/meaningful aspects of the subject of the article. Thriley (talk) 18:22, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

The hook reveals something about the person. Maybe not an exemplary hook, but I would not second guess the good faith work of the volunteers and promoting admin who I think is @RoySmith:? Some other volunteers who were involved in the nomination should know this is being discussed. @Cielquiparle, Susmuffin, and Narutolovehinata5: Lightburst (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Or maybe @Z1720: was the queue promotor? Lightburst (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I think <throwing under the bus mode>it was Z</throwing under the bus mode>. FWIW, however, when I'm promoting a queue, I'm basically looking that the hook fact appears in the article and is reasonably sourced, and that there's no copyvio issues. If I see something else I'll query it, but I rarely get beyond the basics. So, despite my bus-throwing-under, had I promoted that queue, I probably wouldn't have said anything either. RoySmith (talk) 20:27, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

That's not how hooks work. The main point of hooks is to encourage people to find more about the subject by reading the article, and in many cases, highlighting an unusual or interesting aspect about the subject is more effective in doing so than telling on the spot what the subject is best known for. For example, a hook that says "Did you know that John Doe played the lead role in a performance of Wagner's Ring Cycle at the Bayreuth Festival in 2023?", while undoubtedly impressive, may not make people want to learn more about Doe since the hook may not make much sense to non-opera fans. However, a hook that goes "Did you know that John Doe, who performed at the Bayreuth Festival in 2023, studied computer engineering before starting his opera career?" would be more effective since an opera singer having a background in something other than opera would make people curious and make them want to find out how that happened. It's the same thing with other subjects, not just opera. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Can we please stay with this topic, which is not opera? The hook says nothing about the subject that I see, but gladness about his death, expressed to the widow. I don't think we should run such hooks, - it's unfair to the subject, almost indecent. Imagine that was about a person who recently died. Another - minor - problem with the hook was that (in your terminology) it "relies" on knowing who Lawrence was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I mostly agree with Gerda on this. The hook is more about Lawrence than about Jaffé. Hooks should be about the main subject (i.e. bolded link). It's also a bit of an easter egg because the (missing) context of Lawrence being Jaffé's brother-in-law is important to understanding the hook. RoySmith (talk) 15:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

For reference, I did suggest hooks that were related to his descent from the Jaffe family, his work with Kurt Eisner and his editorial role in the Archiv für Sozialwissenschaft und Sozialpolitik. They were regarded as having been less interesting than the remaining one, so I chose to work with the one that had a chance to be promoted. As far as I know, the promoted hook broke no policies and did not contain anything that might break them in the future. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 01:10, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

In truth, the most intriguing hook was ALT0 (!)...the one about his wife having an affair with Max Weber (and Alfred)...but I agree with the assessment that it wasn't appropriate to run...and given all the options, it seemed OK and it was definitely hooky in that it got 12k views (!). In hindsight maybe it would have been better to insert the descriptor "economist" before the name, but for sure, fewer people would have clicked because all the questions they would have had about the fact would have been answered at that point. (I too have occasionally succumbed to putting too much information in the hook when I feel that the topic is extremely important, but have realized in hindsight that fewer people read the actual article because of it.) Cielquiparle (talk) 04:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

• If the hook were about someone who died recently, I would agree that the hook was insensitive or in bad taste. However, given that Jaffé died over 100 years ago, I don't see a problem with the hook ... and on the plus side, it attracted 12,000 sets of eyes to a very well written article on an important person and as a bonus drew significant extra views to other important topics, including:
  • D. H. Lawrence (7,080 views - quintupling Lawrence's average daily views);
  • Else von Richthofen (2,008 views - an article that had never before received more than 119 views in a day);
  • Frieda Lawrence (916 views - a record in daily views for Frieda);
  • Kurt Eisner (593 views);
  • Alfred Weber (462 views - the second highest daily view total ever for the Weber article);
  • Otto Gross (411 views - a record in daily views for Gross);
  • People's State of Bavaria (363 views - a record in daily views for the article); and
  • German war guilt (257 views - another article achieving a record in daily views).

Such extensive secondary viewing shows that the article was read closely and inspired considerable interest and curiosity. IMO having a "hooky" hook was key to drawing eyes to all of these topics, and in attracting so much attention, it did justice to the subject and should be rated as a tremendous success! Cbl62 (talk) 21:05, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Cbl62 good points. Lightburst (talk) 14:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

FWIW, that hook actually got me to the article of someone I had never heard of (and have no particular interest in) because I wanted to know why. So for me that's a hook that has done its job. Valereee (talk) 15:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I see that the hook was attractive, but at the cost of painting the subject as someone whose widow would not object to gladness when he died. I wish that kind of tabloid hinting at some mystery would not replace what in some past time was called "Did you know? I also think if something is in bad taste for someone who just died, it is in bad taste, period. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 17:42, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Prep area 6 - Amphitheatrum Johnsonianum

Prep 6 Amphitheatrum Johnsonianum

just double checked the quote and it should properly be "an invitation to regicide" [no "do"]

Source: https://books.google.com/books?id=NESibcqnsPgC&pg=PA190#v=onepage&q&f=false

also we had a case of double-word blindness and there are two as present, one inside and outside the quote. One as should go, don't think it matters which.

so sorry didn't catch before & thanks for all you do. jengod (talk) 20:47, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

I've updated the hook :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:49, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

TY! jengod (talk) 20:54, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

clicks to an article not linked in hook

I found this very interesting. Vintage spirits wasn't even linked in the hook (... that when Kentuckians discover unwanted bourbon, there is something they can do with it?), it was simply a link within the background section of the target article. Over 1600 people read the target article closely enough that they clicked to a second article from it. Valereee (talk) 18:54, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

People are quite interested in the bourbon and spirits. Bruxton (talk) 20:20, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Apparently so! Valereee (talk) 15:34, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Queue 3

Thwaites Glacier

The hook is rendering as ... add 65 cm (25+1⁄2 in) to ..., where the +1/2 is apparently generated by {{frac}}. Is there some reason we can't use {{convert}} in hooks? — Preceding unsigned comment added by RoySmith (talk • contribs) 20:19, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I believe that {{convert}} calls {{frac}} in such cases anyway. That template usually styles fractions correctly by transcluding ; perhaps there is something on the queues page or the Main Page that prevents its proper display. Otherwise we could simply change the unit conversion to 26 in? I'm not entirely convinced that the vulgar fraction is necessary. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:10, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I changed it to use {{cvt}}, letting it default to no decimal digits. RoySmith (talk) 15:46, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The Librarian (version control system)

The hook verifies, but this has so much potential for a better hook. @Cielquiparle, Airborne84, and Wasted Time R:. Some ideas:

• ALT3: ... that if you were having trouble keeping track of your source code, The Librarian could help?
• ALT4: ... that a program's source code was once saved from a fire by The Librarian?
• ALT5: ... that The Librarian could help audit your code?

RoySmith (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

ALT4 is good. I think ALT2 is a little more intriguing than ALT3 or ALT5, but I am okay with any of these. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Rock Diver

This needs a WP:RS citation for it being his first short story. RoySmith (talk) 20:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Reigate

This needs end-of-sentence citations for the facts. RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Diggin' Dogs

This would be a stronger hook if you left off the with design input from Edmund McMillen? part. RoySmith (talk) 20:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Pub test

The hook fact is sourced to a news report which uses the term. I think it's a bit of WP:OR to generalize from that. RoySmith (talk) 20:51, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Queue 4

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Women in Etruscan society (nom)

• ... that frescoes, sarcophagi, urns, and trousseaux all found in their tombs show the importance of women in Etruscan society (bust pictured)?

@JeBonSer: I rephrased the hook, as I thought it was a bit clunky. The latest version is in queue :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:21, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Pinging also Chidgk1, who proposed the approved version that was modified. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

Great Chidgk1 (talk) 06:24, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Still good for me. JeBonSer ^{(talk | sign)} 01:48, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Education (nom)

• ... that it is controversial whether indoctrination is a form of education?

@Phlsph7, Golden, and Cielquiparle: The article seems to say that some consider indoctrination completely separate from education, while others view it as a necessary supplement in the early stages. So, it doesn't seem that anyone's arguing that indoctrination is a form of education, more that it might be useful for that. How to rephrase the hook? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:27, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: From our article: An important discussion in this regard is about the role of critical thinking. It asks to what extent indoctrination forms part of education.

If you think this formulation is better, we could use:

• ALT3: ... that it is controversial whether indoctrination forms part of education?

Phlsph7 (talk) 07:44, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

By the way, the original indoctrination-hook is ALT0. Golden suggested in their review that ALT2 should be used:

• ALT2: ... that in 1948, the United Nations recognized education as a fundamental human right? Phlsph7 (talk) 07:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I understand that that's an informative hook, but it's the kind of hook that doesn't compel anyone to read the article, because all the facts you need are right there. Also...I would have thought that many people know this, so there's nothing unusual intriguing about it. Cielquiparle (talk) 13:29, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I agree that the indoctrination hook is more intriguing. We can use the human-rights hook as a plan B in case we can't get the indoctrination hook to work. Phlsph7 (talk) 13:51, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Give Me Your Hand (nom)

• ... that Megan Abbott was inspired by Donald Trump's comments about menstrual blood while writing Give Me Your Hand?

@Sammielh, Nathan121212, and Cielquiparle: Seems to fail verification. Both the article and the source treat Trump as mostly coincidental to the writing of the novel, a temporal curiosity. I'm not seeing anything to suggest that this inspired her – I mean, I think she was already writing the book by that time. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:33, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Thanks for spotting that, I was trying to keep it short for the hook. I'm happy to amend to "... that Megan Abbott's 2018 novel Give Me Your Hand uses menstruation as a metaphor, paralleling comments made by Donald Trump during the 2016 election" or to change to ALT1. Sammielh (talk) 10:19, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Right. I thought about it, and thought the word "while" is what finesses the hook, as "while" clearly signals that it was already "in progress". Cielquiparle (talk) 13:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Nancy Brown (columnist) (nom)

• ... that advice columnist Nancy Brown crowdfunded the reforestation of a clearcut during the Great Depression?

@Gobonobo: I can't access the book source, but I trust that it verifies that Brown took part in the fundraising, and not merely that her readers raised the money in her honor? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:44, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron Basically, yeah. Here's the bit from the Detroit News:

In 1929, The News began a campaign to reforest huge swaths of Northern Michigan that had been clear-cut by loggers. The News, in partnership with the state Department of Conservation, offered plots of 40 acres to be seeded with new pines for a $100 donation. A letter writer going by the name "Andy" proposed that Experience readers raise their own $100 to seed a plot. Readers raised enough money — in small sums, 10 cents here, a dollar there — to plant 14 plots, a total of 560 acres reclaimed. Each plot carried a sign that read: "These 40 acres planted in 1930 by the Experience Column in honor of Nancy Brown."

As the columnist, Brown was presumably responsible for selecting the initial letter from "Andy" for publishing. This source and the book source both credit the "Experience community" (the readership) with organizing around these fundraising activities. Additionally, her columns were later reprinted as books, and the introduction to one, it says that for a couple of years, the profits from the books went towards the reforestation project. I haven't delved into the individual columns, but my sense is that she actively encouraged the fundraising there as well. gobonobo ^{+ c} 22:17, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

gobonobo, maybe this would be more accurate:

• ... that readers of Detroit columnist Nancy Brown funded the reforestation of 560 acres of land in her honor during the Great Depression?

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:22, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron I suppose it is accurate, but it crucially denies her agency. Also, the "crowdfunding" in the 1930s is what makes this interesting, IMHO. My understanding is that you don't think that publishing the 'call to fundraise' letter and donating proceeds from her book are sufficient for the claim made in the hook, that "she crowdfunded". Is that right? If you give me time, I can dig into some references that might shed more light on her role in the fundraising. gobonobo ^{+ c} 22:48, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@gobonobo: fair point, please do dig :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:56, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron @Gobonobo As the reviewer of this nomination, I should have paid more attention to this aspect, admittedly, but I didn't: sorry for it... Oltrepier (talk) 08:57, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Castle in the Sky (nom)

• ... that audiences tweeted 143,199 times in a single second during a 2013 airing of Castle in the Sky?

@TechnoSquirrel69: easy fix, but hook fails verification. I'll update it to clarify that not all of the 143k tweets were from the audience. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:47, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Good catch! I believe I just looked at the headline when writing this; I'll fix the wording in the article as well. —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 20:52, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: If the number isn't being mentioned, then it might be worth noting that the film actually caused the record to be broken twice, the first time being in 2011. Source: [2] —TechnoSquirrel69 (sigh) 21:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

I'll add it in! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:06, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

How can I find the discussions for old DYKs (and the ones currently on the main page)?

Is there a link somewhere?? I don't see anything in T:DYK/Q, DYKNA, DYKN, or DYKA? It would be really helpful to be able to find these nomination discussions! JoelleJay (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

There's several ways to get to those discussions. One of those is via the talk page of the target article; that should have the discussion transcluded to it. Another way is to guess the link. For example, for Bridgeman Island (South Shetland Islands) (currently on the main page), it would be Template:Did you know nominations/Bridgeman Island (South Shetland Islands). Schwede66 04:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

If you already have a DYK credit for the article, the talk page message will also contain a link to the nom discussion :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:53, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

One of the issues we face here is that it's not easy to navigate as things move through the process. If you're just looking to browse discussions, probably the easiest way is from the archives; the nomination discussion for each article will be on that article's talk page or archives. Valereee (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Thanks all, I was somewhat aware that one could find the discussions from the talk pages, I just thought there would be a more direct way to find them and assumed I was missing it among the million DYK subpages listed in the sidebar. JoelleJay (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

JJ, nope, you're not missing anything. I really is that difficult to follow. :D Valereee (talk) 12:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I wonder which more direct way than an article talk you'd expect, and for most it's even transluded. Another way is to check out where an article is linked from, and then search for "Did you know". They typically come towards the end. I did that for Ute Vinzing yesterday because its her birthday today, and found two.

(and then I forgot to sign) - The two nominations were Template:Did you know nominations/Ute Vinzing and Template:Did you know nominations/Bent Norup. Do you see what I see? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:31, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hooks for currently available commercial products

Per this now-closed discussion, do we need to come up with some sort of rule for currently available commercial products? I'm wondering if a nomination for a CACP needs to be announced here? Valereee (talk) 16:35, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there's any way to have rules about "currently-available commercial products", as a category, that isn't...unreasonable. I'm reminded of the Jimbotalk regular who insists all Final Fantasy FAs are sponsored by Square Enix. To explicitly say the thing I implied at ANI: this article got through because no one was willing to look at the women's soccer hooks after Themedsetgate, because we'd already had a huge drama blowup and rejecting the article as an involved party would have presumably caused another, and enough people looked away it got through. Given the article was at-a-glance-obviously-problematic, this seems to have the simpler solution of "reject at-a-glance-obviously-problematic articles". As someone who looked at that article and went "well, if I-specifically knock this back to DYKN I'm going to reignite Themedsetgate, but someone uninvolved will definitely notice it", I recognize this is easier said than done. Vaticidalprophet 16:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by there's no way to do it but it isn't unreasonable? Valereee (talk) 16:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Oh, I think you meant there's no reasonable way to do it? Sure there is. If the article is about a CACP, a link to the nom (or alternatively the promoted hook) has to be posted here to get more eyes on it. How is that an unreasonable requirement? Valereee (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

What is a currently available commercial product? Is a song released last week a currently available commercial product? Is a video game released last week a currently available commercial product? What if they were released 20 years ago? Is a book released last week a currently available commercial product? What about one released in 1850 that's still in print? Is this 30-year-old shirt a currently available commercial product? Is a film that's on a streaming service a currently available commercial product? Does it depend what service? Is a play that's currently touring a currently available commercial product? One that just finished touring? Does it depend if it's community theatre vs Broadway/West End? These aren't gotchas, they're exactly the questions people raise when debating this (as noted, things given as examples of articles "too commercial" to run TFA in that discussion are a historical article about a small loss-making football club founded in 1908, owned by its own supporters for a period of the history in question and a culturally significant but commercially irrelevant punk album from 1982). Vaticidalprophet 17:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I'd say use your judgement. If anyone who touches it thinks, "Huh, this looks like possibly a CACP...let's post it", it gets posted. If literally no one who touches it thinks so, any questions ultimately asked about why they didn't think so will help us clarify. Valereee (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I also think that the Themed Set Drama was a large contributor to a hook that was bland and an article that had problems getting through, and I was going to start a discussion on related observations and proposed solutions - since this is here, I'll springboard off. Kingsif (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Something like this:

CACP approved nomination

• Template:Did you know nominations/BattleBit Remastered

Valereee (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

If the CACP bar is "all modern video games", that's going to either get rapidly clogged up and die, or become a box-checking exercise that doesn't do an improved job of rejecting at-a-glance-obviously-problematic articles (because people will not look at them long enough to glance). The shoe should have been spotted by the first person to look at it, and would have been if it wasn't very specifically the subject of a different drama making no one touch it with a ten-foot pole. Vaticidalprophet 17:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

BattleBit Remastered is a June 2023 release. No one has to use any judgement to say that one should be caught. One that's 20 years old? I literally do not know the subject area well enough -- are there actually 20-year old games that are still being actively marketed in their original form? If there's active advdertising, my judgement would say, yeah, it should be covered. If it's just people still buying a copy here or there, probably could let slide. Valereee (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The 20-year line is gesturing a little at "I said both 'song' and 'video game', and a 20-year-old song is a different timeline to a 20-year-old video game". (I have some drafts on games that age, and they're abandonware, but abandonware for an extremely popular series, so I'm sure some definitions would count them as "products" based on the series name even if you literally can't buy them.) Other media have yet longer timeframes; a book or play can be commercially popular centuries after release. The linked conversation includes a "too commercial for the main page" argument for a book from 1985. Vaticidalprophet 17:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

So use your judgement. If you think a nom you are making/reviewing/promoting/otherwise looking at should have more eyes on it because it's a CACP, list it here. If not, don't. Easy peasy. Valereee (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

@Valereee: I just wanted to comment on the question are there actually 20-year old games that are still being actively marketed in their original form? because the answer is "absolutely yes", which I know because I had an experience with this the other day. A site like GOG.com does marketing, which I know because I got an ad the other day for Heroes of Might and Magic III that stood out to me because I remembered and loved that game, but it's a game that was originally released in 1999 and would still qualify as a CACP depending on how you want to word the requirement. The oldest game I found on that site that was available for purchase (I don't know if they're actively advertising for it) is from 1983, 40 years ago. - Aoidh (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Requiring discussions on things just because they're currently commercially available would probably be highly impractical an counterproductive. It could also potentially ban, unfairly, large swathes of content. What is needed here is simply common sense: if an article is clearly promotional and the hook could be reasonably interpreted as being advertising even if unintentionally, then reject the hook and the article, or fix up the article before approving it. Use common sense when reviewing, that's pretty much all that is needed, no need for special sections or an extra set of eyes except for contentious cases. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 19:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Discussion doesn't need to be required. I think notification is a good idea. If no one else thinks so, it's cool. I've edited the nom for BattleBit Remastered to strike

• ALT2: ... that within two weeks of release, BattleBit Remastered was the #1 top seller on Steam and sold over 1.8 million copies?

Which I felt was overtly promotional but was looking like what was being agreed to by the nom and reviewers. So... Valereee (talk) 20:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that a notification requirement for certain classes of nominations is the right way forward. It seems very much like a band-aid solution. The problem we have is that there isn't enough scrutiny on DYK hooks and articles between nomination time and Main Page appearance. Sometimes this is particularly embarrassing, like when we run something that sounds like an advert or with a poorly sourced and easily disproved "first" claim or a BLP issue or a copyvio problem. Identifying some classes of noms that are more likely to cause embarrassment and announcing them here so more people check them may help with problems in some of these noms, but could make people concentrate less on checking other things. If we single out one source of issues, I don't actually think potential advertising is the most important problem. It is also potentially a very wide issue (anything about a song by an active artist or any video game series currently on sale or any book on sale or any TV series currently streaming or any sports person viewable on paid streaming services or pay TV or any nice holiday spot could reasonably be included). As they say, hard cases make bad law. Let us not allow this snafu to make our rules even more byzantine (remember, a rule like "this typo of noms requires notification" isn't automatically something that will happen, we will also need people to check it) when what we really need is to motivate people to scrutinise, fact check and sanity check all of the hooks we run. —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

There are currently 3 in prep or queue right now which would fall into this. Until Taylor Swift releases a new album, that may be typical. And when Taylor Swift does release a new album and there are a dozen CACPs here, maybe someone will say, "Hey...maybe we limit these to one a month." Instead of no one noticing that we're suddenly Swiftopedia. Again. Valereee (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Why would we limit new articles about a current topic that our editors care about to one a month? Sometimes we have a lot of species, sometimes we have a lot of bishops, sometimes we have a lot of football players. A large amount of DYK noms related to one topic of current interest is fine unless there is a COI involved. What is not fine is bad hooks, where the possibly promotional hooks are just one of many problems. In my view they are less deserving of additional scrutiny than "first" hooks that often fall apart at the first critical look. But my point remains that we should identify the systemic problems we have at DYK and address them, not add yet another rule targeting a few particularly embarrassing that will need to be policed. —Kusma (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I don't really want to go off on a tangent. I don't care what we decide -- one a week, one a month, whatever -- but we shouldn't be doing multiple hooks every week for six weeks running without someone at least bringing it here to say, "Hey, we've got fifteen Taylor Swift hooks in the system. Should we figure out a way to not actually look like we're part of her publicity machine? Valereee (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

IIRC we were fairly good at mentioning when we suddenly had 15 Taylor Swift hooks, though it got sort of bogged down in the Radio Station Wars. (That, specifically, could've been mentioned earlier and without the radio station digression.) I think at this point there are a whole bunch of people, myself included, who will be well aware that the next Swift album will probably be a pain on DYK, and can bring it up and handle it in sets without needing a structured "approval double-check" system for a different thing entirely where no one agrees on its inclusion criteria. I recall approving ALT0a, not ALT2. Vaticidalprophet 04:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

To get back on topic (I really don't have any interest in discussing Taylor Swift), you missed a few:

• ... that one reviewer for Women Philosophers in the Long Nineteenth Century was let down by the book's lack of poetry? (Queue 2)
• ... that Megan Abbott was inspired by Donald Trump's comments about menstrual blood while writing Give Me Your Hand?
• ... that fans of Castle in the Sky twice broke the record for largest number of tweets posted per second?
• ... that Towa Tei's "Sometime Samurai" remained unfinished for eight years until Australian singer Kylie Minogue re-recorded the song in 2004? (all three Queue 4)
• ... that Gage and Tollner used to close from June to September because of oyster shortages? (Prep 5)
• ... that Eternal Blue, a metalcore album, was inspired in part by 1980s pop music? (Prep 7)

For any of these, the DYK appearance could cause additional sales. Do you really want people to consider pulling such hooks if the nomination hasn't been announced here on WT:DYK? (That would be the natural enforcement mechanism for your proposed rule). —Kusma (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I just saw the dustup/ANI that has caused us to look at our methodology. I think the nature of hooks - especially about restaurants, merchandise, books, TikTokers, athletes, musicians, and let's face it hooks for all living people; have the tendency to trend toward some level of promotion. I have seen editors here use judgement to shut down hooks, and we do have a system of checks and balances both here, and at errors. We get collectively worried when we get called out because we work so hard to improve this section. Let's face it sometimes we make mistakes but we do learn from them. I feel like the morning's concerns were escalated and that was unfortunate but I am sure we will learn from this. I do not want any of our reviewers and promotors to feel so stung by this that they curtail their involvement here. I want all the editors who work here to know that I appreciate you and I have much respect you. I am a work in progress and so are all of you. Bruxton (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I used my judgement that those were unlikely to actually be promotional. Those are all at least a few years old and likely not currently being advertised. If someone wants to get more eyes on them, great, but I didn't think they fell into the category of concern. The restaurant opened 150 years ago. I see a difference between that and

... that within two weeks of release, BattleBit Remastered was the #1 top seller on Steam and sold over 1.8 million copies?

But if you don't see that difference, you can go ahead and call attention to the years-old books, albums, and restaurants. Or not, if you don't feel like it. And the natural enforcement method would be to simply post the hook if no one else has. Hopefully before it gets posted to errors and does get pulled. Valereee (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Hooks about years old books or films are more likely to make me spend money on these products than hooks about current video games. But I don't see them as necessarily problematic. I want everyone to call attention to any bad hook they find in preps or queues, but I do not think the hooks I mention above are bad. I don't see any reason treat the BattleBit hook differently from the Castle in the Sky hook.

Overall, I don't think it is helpful to post hooks here without an identified problem, and this includes "CACP" hooks. —Kusma (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Agree with @Kusma that everything is promotional on some level.

I take full responsibility for promoting a hook that shouldn't have been promoted.

More discussion is helpful for sure. But rather than drag all discussion here I wish more of it would take place within the nomination template itself. The question of "is this too promotional?" is sometimes explicitly discussed within the nomination template, and for sure it should have been in this case. Appreciate it when passers-by take the time to flag their concerns at WP:DYKNA.

In any case, don't make another rule to try to band-aid what appears to be the proximate problem, but absolutely keep encouraging more scrutiny at every stage. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

How? Workers here, especially promoters, have a very difficult job. When they pushback, noms and reviewers get bent out of shape. When they don't, and something like Nike Phantom Luna, they're the ones who most often get called on the carpet by the rest of the project. If we simply "encourage more scrutiny", aren't we just telling people "Do your difficult and visible job better."?

What we need is more critical eyes. The way to get critical eyes on a nom is to call attention to it somehow. Too many people, operating on their own, look at something like Nike Phantom Luna, think, "That seems kinda (whatever)", but shrug it off because the (others who've worked on the nom) thought it was okay, and surely someone would have said something by now. I can almost promise that is exactly what has happened with every problematic hook we've ever had: a generalized reluctance to be the first to speak up when you notice a problem no one else seems to be noticing. Valereee (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I looked at Nike Phantom Luna and thought "This is obviously problematic, but I just spent ages on WTDYK with the guy who forced its author to pump out a ton of hooks in a month for a botched themed set, and if I specifically say this is problematic that's going to cause issues, so I'll wait for someone else to obviously notice". I admit some surprise no one else obviously noticed. Given the background of those sets can be described as "many people pointing out issues without being listened to", well, there certainly was an issue there, but not quite the bystander one. Vaticidalprophet 11:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Again I'm having a hard time connecting this with the themed sets issue, but clearly multiple other people think it's directly connected somehow so I'll accept that it is and that I'm just not familiar enough with that particular debacle to see it. Valereee (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion for how to handle themed set proposals (related to above discussion of promotional hooks)

Observations and suggestion

1. Quick deadline/pressure of Themed Set causes rushed article updates
2. Quick deadline/pressure of Themed Set causes insufficient reviews
3. Previous Themed Set-gate causes involved users to not want to intervene with issues for fear of being seen as prejudiced to Themed Sets
4. DYK encourages inexperienced users to review. Uninvolved users (in Themed Set-gate) are more likely to be the involved parties of Themed Set reviews. Uninvolved users were typically those who were not active in discussion, which has significant overlap with inexperienced users; it may be more likely that inexperienced users are taking on Themed Set reviews, and they are less likely to notice — or feel empowered to challenge — article issues.
5. Presumption of all Themed Set nominations needing to be promoted may cause reviewer to give less attention to article issues.
6. Presumption of all Themed Set nominations needing to be promoted may cause reviewer to not challenge the hook quality.

I have one overall suggestion to help combat this: start a sub project of DYK for Themed Sets, like task forces of WikiProjects. We have had successful Themed Sets before, Museum Day and Women's History Month come to mind, and these involved other projects. It clearly needs an exerted effort to make sure the coordination allows for quality content — or stops non-quality content. This isn't a suggestion to offload the issue; the subproject would, first before anything, need enough active users to agree on and handle Themed Sets or they just won't happen. I suggest its coordination would involve planning well in advance and to handle nominations effectively as a group. Open communication with the whole DYK project would hopefully prevent other users feeling that bringing up issues Themed Set noms would be taken badly. Kingsif (talk) 17:39, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, not following why we're veering off into themed sets? Valereee (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Based on @Vaticidalprophet: and others' comments at that discussion, and my experience in nominating the article, I observed issues in the process that relate to it being a themed hook, issues that would not be as prevalent if it wasn't themed, and issues that collectively contributed to it getting through. Kingsif (talk) 17:54, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Ah...maybe we should just make it a separate discussion, and note that it's related? Valereee (talk) 18:08, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

CACP in Q1

• ... that the New York City-based fashion label Sandy Liang is inspired by grandmothers in Chinatown, and often features Liang's own grandmother as a model?

Valereee (talk) 17:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Please change "and often features" to "has featured", as the "often" / ongoing tense is hard to verify with 100% certainty unless you have a very current source.

Tbe "inspired by Chinatown grandmothers" and "Chinatown grandma chic" is mentioned all the time in conjunction with Sandy Liang...but is it still intriguing? Yes, because most people have probably never heard of the designer or the label.

Is it overly promotional? The second half of the sentence is about the act of promoting/advertising, which can be grating, but in this case it doesn't seem that offensive...possibly because it has the word "grandmother" in it. (If you were to replace the word "grandmother" with "baby" for example, it might seem more annoying to more people.) Cielquiparle (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Personally I don't really see this as a promotional hook. It's a interesting and unusual fact, and merely saying that Liang's grandmother models for the label doesn't seem like actually promoting the label, it just says information about it. To me there's a difference between an actual advertorial hook, which would be a big no-no (something like "did you know that Sandy Liang is perfect for grandmothers?") and a hook that simply discusses about inspirations or unusual aspects. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

CACP in P1

• ... that you don't need pro tools to Scare the Hoes?

Valereee (talk) 17:55, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

The problem here isn't about commercial products. The problem is the use of "you" in wikivoice even if it is in the quirky slot. (And related to the "song lyric" problem discussed extensively recently.) Also, some users might find making a joke about "hoes" offensive on the main page. There might be a clever way to fix the hook while keeping it concise and quirky but it's beyond me. @ULPS @Schminnte @Vaticidalprophet Cielquiparle (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I'm new to DYK, so forgive me if I'm misunderstanding any policy here. I think "CACP" means available commercial products, but I don't see it as promotion (if anything it's the opposite, but I believe it to be neutral). The direct quote from the artist while discussing the album was this is what we would sound like in the 90s with no Pro Tools, so it would not work without that. (EDIT: I realized this may be referring to the album itself, again I don't believe it to be promotional. Is stating a fact about an album promoting the album? If so all releases of well, anything would be banned from DYK)
I believe that I have seen DYK slots with '"you" before, but if that is an issue a change to something along the lines of Pro tools aren't needed to... could work.
I do understand the issue with "hoes" being offensive, but considering that is the quite literally the name of the article I don't see a way around that while still keeping the hook interesting/quirky. If someone else has any ideas it would be great to hear them, but there has been worse on the Main Page before. NOTCENSORED and all that I guess. ULPS ^{(talk • contribs)} 01:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Yes we have occasionally had hooks with "you" in them but you can't rely on precedent. Revving what @ULPS proposed:

• ... that Pro Tools were not needed to Scare the Hoes?
• ... that Pro Tools were not needed for Scaring the Hoes?

If I had to choose between those two, I would go with the latter. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Is there a specific issue that would be caused by using 'you' here and fixed by not using it? I'm not proposing suddenly putting it everywhere, but checking that I've promoted 40 hooks in the current p/q sets and one uses 'you' (and I think it might be the only one of ~450ish that does), I think there's an acceptable bending-the-structure rate in the same sense as something like "did you know ... that?" was. Vaticidalprophet 05:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It's mainly the "what we state in wikivoice" problem. We generally don't use wikivoice to make recommendations about whether or not you need to use certain tools to achieve an outcome (which is what "you don't need" sounds like).

On second thought, I don't think the statement "this is what we would sound like in the 90s with no Pro Tools" necessarily means that Pro Tools weren't used or "needed". So the hooks still don't quite work. (Quirky is hard.) Cielquiparle (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle, my two cents: I think the statement is backed up by the full quote from JPEGMafia, when combined with the other relevant quote in this source. As for a hook that doesn't use "you", how about this hook which I think keeps the quirky aspect:

• ... that JPEGMafia did not use Pro Tools when Scaring the Hoes?

Schminnte (talk • contribs) 07:36, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Schminnte Thanks for the Dig! / Warner Recorded Music ref, which makes the claim clearer. (A primary source but apparently it's case by case for primary source-based hooks.) Latest ALT makes it sound a lot less like inciting readers to bully or commit violence but how about swapping "when" with "for" or "in":

• ... that JPEGMafia did not use Pro Tools for Scaring the Hoes?

Cielquiparle (talk) 09:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Either your suggestion or mine is fine by me. I feel that yours is more "socially acceptable", but loses a bit of the quirkyness. But as I say, I'm open to either. Schminnte (talk • contribs) 09:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

I think Schminnte's version is better. The plain version reads a bit boring, like "did you know that Kusma did not use power tools to assemble his Ikea shelf?" —Kusma (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet, do you think either of Schminnte's or Cielquiparle's would work? I'd like another voice here before I promote this to queue. —Kusma (talk) 12:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

While I don't think the original was problematic, I'm fine with Schminnte's rephrasing (and only that one) if there's a desire for one. (I think it flows a little better as "didn't use Pro Tools", though.) Vaticidalprophet 12:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Changed to Schminnte's version, not convinced we need contractions. —Kusma (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

CACP in P2

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

---

• ... that the Costco hot dog and soda combo deal has cost $1.50 since its introduction in 1984?

And that is everything that, in my judgement, would fall into the class of CACP that is currently in prep or queue. Valereee (talk) 17:58, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

I must admit I do not know the acronym. But I think this is about promotion? If it is, I asked the question about the hook a bit farther up on this page. Lightburst (talk) 18:31, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Currently available commercial products. :D Valereee (talk) 18:33, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

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

Prep 5: Chollas Creek (nom)

I wanted to promote this prep set, but I think there is a verification issue with the lead hook:

• ... that a California sea lion, later named Freeway, traveled up Chollas Creek (pictured) before getting onto California State Highway 94?

The source given in the nom [3] states that Freeway escaped twice, and was once found on Highway 94 and once in Chollas Creek, and does not say that Freeway travelled up Chollas Creek. The two sources in the article attached to the statement that Freeway traveled up Chollas Creek to reach Highway 94 are [4] (no mention of Chollas Creek, unreliable source) and the other source [5] just offers it as a possible theory, "But how exactly did the sea lion get so far inland? Near the highway is a dry Chollas Creek bed. Maps show a possible 3-and-a-half mile path from San Diego Bay, up the waterway to Highway 94." This seems to at least require a hedging "may have traveled up Chollas Creek", but that isn't quite as hooky. Or are there better sources? Ping nom RightCowLeftCoast, reviewer Blythwood, promoter Cielquiparle. —Kusma (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)

Have changed in article to make the statement more precise. I think "may have" is OK and more true to source than saying "likely" (and also better than referring to the other time he actually was found traveling up Chollas Creek, because that isn't exactly what the picture is showing). Cielquiparle (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Changed to "was thought to have". Cielquiparle (talk) 00:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

That's better. I'm surprised that User:GalliumBot doesn't seem to have logged the change. @theleekycauldron, is that a bug report for you? —Kusma (talk) 09:37, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

@Kusma In the past I have noticed a lag – it can take a while for GalliumBot to catch up. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

CPAC in M9

Here:

• ... that author Jonathan Krohn gave a two-minute speech at the 2009 Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) at age thirteen?

jp×g 05:16, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Switching to 2/day

I am switching to two sets per day. We have too many approved nominations (130 is too many) and need to get through them faster. I will try to do some more p2q promotions while we are on 2/day. Are there any date requests I need to fix now? (Is there an easy way to find out?) —Kusma (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

It would also help if people could fill up Prep 2 (needs four more hooks) until midnight UTC to avoid us running out of promotable preps. —Kusma (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

P2 is finished. Technically (because we're only just ending a shortage of bio images, and because the prep that was built before I got there was set up how a bio image prep is) it means we now have two consecutive bio images, but, you know, something tells me readers aren't going to riot and picket WMF headquarters? (Of the informal-formal rules, 'no consecutive bio images' is probably the least adapted to actually building preps.) After building 6 consecutive preps a large chunk of what's left is articles I nominated/reviewed/GA-reviewed/have way too much involvement with to promote, so probably watching for a moment rather than building much. Vaticidalprophet 09:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Potentially could just dequeue any COI and promotional/commercial stuff that is queued up Underwoods Witch (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Queue status colours

I like the warning colours for admins about the number of filled queues, but I think they should convey more urgency when we are at 2/day. Perhaps the colour scheme/urgency level should be based on how many days' worth of queues we have left?? —Kusma (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

We could try to undeprecate <blink> and <marquee>. Vaticidalprophet 09:56, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

RoySmith (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

You can do that with CSS now, I believe. jp×g 16:14, 9 September 2023 (UTC)