The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.
This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:Did you know. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
The only place I can find that talks about being two months ahead of schedule is in the lead and unsourced. There's probably something in the "ABC upheaval" section, but I can't find it.
OK, thanks. I assume the Times-Union article that was cited is available on line somewhere, but I can't find it. It would be good if a URL could be added. -- RoySmith(talk)18:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
@180app @2x2leax Could one of you please address this? I'm guessing the correct citation is one of the three at the end of the next sentence, but none of those are available to me, so I don't want to just guess. Thanks. -- RoySmith(talk)17:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Done. As a bonus, I specified the exact page to avoid confusion. It seems that I failed to notify that I translated the page from the Spanish wiki when I created it, however. I apologize for that, and would like to stress that point as, due to the fact I have not checked, I am uncertain as to who is the original author of the Spanish page (although from the partial bibliography I have with me physically, the article seems accurate). Nevertheless it's been done. Thank you for notifying me.
I'd also like to point out that reference 17 appears to address not only that sentence but also almost the whole paragraph in general. 180app (talk) 17:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I suspect it's there, but I can't find a specific sentence and citation that directly supports the hook.
The first part is in the section "Relations with the Byzantines": Like the Ghassanids, the Kalb embraced Monophysite Christianity. As for the second part: the "Islamic era" section talks about how some members of the tribe converted to Islam prior to the Muslim conquest, while the majority probably remained Christian, and then says the conversion of much of the tribe to Islam probably occurred after this battle – i.e. the Battle of the Yarmuk, which is described by Wikipedia as the decisive battle in the conquest, though the fighting continued for another few years. Whether DYK rules allow this to be simplified into the hook statement the Banu Kalb tribe ... became Muslims after the Muslim conquest of the Levant, I'm not sure. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
We need a more solid citation. It's a DYK style thing whether the hook can summarize multiple facts from various places in the article; it certainly makes it harder (for either a reviewer or a reader) to verify, but I'm not sure it's strictly against the rules. On the other hand, we've elevated a collection of weasel words ("some", "majority", "probably", "much") into the hook's stronger statement of fact in wiki voice. That's a problem. And for sure, relying on one of our own articles for anything is right out. -- RoySmith(talk)18:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
The hook should be modified to reflect the more careful language (weasel words) used by the sources: "largely" or "mostly" should be inserted before "became Muslim"; many Kalbites, including several notable chiefs, retained their Christian faith until their deaths, two or three decades into Islamic rule. After the Muslim conquest of the Levant or after the Battle of Yarmouk are somewhat interchangeable, but of course the latter is directly supported by the source. Al Ameer (talk) 03:29, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
The hook is sourced to MEL Magazine, which WP:RSN treats as a marginal source. I can't find any other usages of "volcanussy" outside of blogs and social media, so I'm hesitant to put it on the front page. I'm convinced that -ussy is a thing, but I'd prefer to see a more solidly sourced hook, especially for something risqué. Isn't there something we could grab from the Michael Dow paper? thatchussy? I'd also recommend that the ADS's (primary source) announcement would be a better source for the Word of the Year award than the Gizmodo rehash that's used now. -- RoySmith(talk)15:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
For sure - I've removed MEL as a source in the article in favor of the Philadelphia Inquirer's donutussy. The ADS source is also now used instead of Gizmodo. AviationFreak💬21:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)
I really wish I had never seen this. YouTube keeps showing me some stupid commercial for Cheerios and all that goes through my head is, well, you know. -- RoySmith(talk)01:59, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Chidgk1, that article has three referencing errors: Cite journal requires journal Can you please attend to that before it moves to the main page? Schwede6605:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
@Schwede66 Thanks for telling me but I cannot see the error messages. Is there a way that I can set my user-id to always see such messages do you know? Chidgk1 (talk) 11:34, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Chidgk1 you can set your user-id to always see cite error messages, but I can't remember how. With default settings, if you open source editor and click edit preview you should get a message like Script warning: One or more {{cite journal}} templates have errors; messages may be hidden (help). You could then either fix the errors or ask for help. TSventon (talk) 10:41, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Mandarax, what do you advise here (re: splitting a triple nomination into three separate noms)? (I confess that I once split a double nomination into two by myself – not sure how I managed it – actually it was more like ditching half the double nomination but having to rename it because I was only saving the "other" half which didn't appear in the title of the template.) Anyway I understand that splitting and/or renaming nominations is gnarly and usually ill-advised, so very interested in your counsel. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:03, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
What happened to the hook that was promoted, it is different than what was agreed to and promoted. It is now in Queue 3 Here is the hook that was approved. ... that as a last-minute sub in a premiere performance at Oper Frankfurt, Elena Manistina sang from the side while the assistant director mimed onstage?
But now it says this: ... that as a last-minute substitute in a premiere performance of Tchaikovsky's The Enchantress, Elena Manistina sang from the side while the assistant director mimed onstage?
After all of that tweaking and discussion by multiple editors in the nomination why did someone slip in there and change the hook? Bruxton (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The rest of the participants were against " details that would overly complicate the hook". What is the point of working on the hook from January 4 to January 19 if someone unilaterally changes what was agreed on? I think more editors need to read the nom discussions, this one was not hard to follow and it ended with a majority agreement. Bruxton (talk) 21:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I mean... yeah. Gerda was the sole opposer of the agreed-upon hook in a discussion in which she wasn't the nominator, and then she gets a hook changed at the wrong venue in harping on the exact same thing she was going on about in the nom, which consensus explicitly rejected. I don't think DYK should reward that kind of behaviour. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:16, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think so. It was not Gerda's nomination and I think Gerda knows better than to carry on forum shopping to get changes that others already rejected in the nom. Bruxton (talk) 21:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
It's a completely well-intentioned but profound difference with what this particular project is about. I really don't think there's a fix at this point. Years have been spent trying to explain, it's simply a difference of goals. I feel bad about it, but I think it's not possible to fix. Valereee (talk) 00:08, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I objected to both of these nominations being run on 3a grounds; my rationale being that simply being neat does not equate to hookiness; if the hook doesn't leave the reader wanting to know more about the subject in some way, it's failed at its job of being a hook. Any number of statistical analyses will bear out the idea that if the hook doesn't give the reader a reason to investigate further, they're not likely to do that, and neat or impressive aren't reliable indicators of intrigue. I'd be happy to perform any of them, if asked.
On the nomination for Old-Fashioned Cupcake, SL93 simply writes "Good for you I guess. Re-approving." He then follows me over to the nomination for Kimmo Leinonen and unilaterally overrides my objection there as well, similarly dismissing my concerns as "being too picky". He continues, "A hook being "hmm, cool!" is good enough and that alone might lead to more clicks".
Looking past the end-run around the process, I don't agree with SL93's interpretation of the guideline. It says that hooks should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing, and "intruiging" means "arousing one's curiosity or interest". And WP:DYKHOOK, which is also part of the DYKCRIT, says When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article. If the hook doesn't hook a reader into wanting to read the article, it's clearly not a hook and they clearly weren't very curious about it – at least, that's what the DYK criteria we agreed to says. These two hooks are simply neat facts; they only reason they get any clicks at all is because people are interested in the topic (simply being about pop culture or sports is not a reliable way to get clicks, something I'd also be happy to demonstrate), not what we're actually saying about it.
I have every right to override something that I feel is a personal opinion. As I said at Template:Did you know nominations/Kimmo Leinonen, "You said "but being neat or impressive doesn't always translate smoothly to being hooky", which means that it has a chance of being hooky. I'm not sure how much of you denying certain hooks is based on what readers tend to like and how much is what you personally don't like. I wonder that because you only referred to yourself at Template:Did you know nominations/Old-Fashioned Cupcake. If it is a cool fact (this nomination) or a neat fact (the other nomination), it's fine." "Cool" and "neat" can equal "intriguing". You are missing that your thoughts are not everyone else's thoughts. SL93 (talk) 03:33, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Well, the idea that I only promote hooks based on my personal topic preference is absurd. I've been rather burned out this month, but in December 2022, I promoted 98 hooks – a full 40% of the 246 hooks that ran that month, more than anyone else. Not much room to cherry-pick, and they included wars I've never heard of, sports I don't follow, television I don't watch, old music I don't listen to, history hooks, and much more. I'll promote from any topic – but I do require that they be good, intriguing writing. That's why the hooks I promoted also beat the median average that month by a full 36 vph – a score higher than any other editor that month (with the exception of Amakuru, who promoted only one hook that scored quite well :D).
I can point you to piles of hooks about "first"s, "most"s, "best"s, "said to be the most important"s, "founded"s, and "premiered"s that fill out the bottom quarter of our stats pages. They don't tend to compete with writing that directly excites the reader. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think that your statistics matter. You require it per your opinion, just like practically anyone else. You also unilaterally override people, even multiple people because of your opinion of a hook. I don't believe that you, your thoughts, and your statistics are perfect. DYK isn't about scoring and if it is now, count me out. SL93 (talk) 03:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Honestly, I will have to leave DYK if I have to deal with an incredibly picky editor repeatedly who seems to act like their opinions are gospel because of their interpretation of statistics, which heavily relies on their own opinions in the long run. SL93 (talk) 03:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
my opinions aren't gospel, but they are qualified. I'd like a well-explained and constructive consensus if I'm wrong, and I'm happy to be wrong. I'd like to know why I'm wrong, though, and I'd like that reason to be supported with evidence. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Great, but I think you are changing what DYK is about and I don't like it. You can override people and I can't? Wikipedia is more of a hobby for me and I will not type out a long response with hours of research. Not only that, but I don't have the time do the research that you did despite being "swamped". SL93 (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I also didn't sign up for DYK as a hook competition. I don't think that anyone did, or least as a major factor. SL93 (talk) 04:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
You said that you "require that they be good, intriguing writing", which implies that editors who do the opposite of you do not do that. That is terrible. I have seen you unilaterally object to a hook that multiple people were fine with, and then everyone else had to scramble for a hook to please you. SL93 (talk) 04:21, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I'm not planning on responding further in this discussion, but I will state for the record that I did not mean to imply any such thing. I think all prolific nominators, reviewers, promoters, admins are doing fantastic work in their own ways, and I enjoy seeing them in action; I'm not gonna cast aspersions about that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:24, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
It certainly read like that. You said to Gerda Arendt on your talk page - "And that's the real kicker – it's not about whether people wanna read about opera, it's not about pageviews, it's not about whether a hook might contain too much information." But now it is about page views apparently. I'm fine with you not responding to this discussion, but please don't complain about others unilaterally rejecting others when you do that all the time. SL93 (talk) 04:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I do agree that pageviews aren't everything (I'll be the first to admit that my own hooks rarely do so well when it comes to view statistics). However, in Gerda's case, there has been a consistent pattern that the hook formats she was using were underperforming when compared to other hooks. Indeed, as stated multiple times on DYK, Gerda's hooks have often been near if not at the very bottom of the pageview hits. True, pageviews are not everything, and if it was just a single hook that underpeformed, it could be argued that it have been due to other factors and not just the format. However, when Gerda's hooks, which often are indeed quite detailed or are reliant on specialist knowledge, consistently do badly (an observation that multiple editors have noticed, not just Leeky or I), it does suggest that there is an issue with the hook format itself. Granted, this applies to all editors and topics and not just Gerda/opera, I just wanted to point this out since you mentioned her as an example. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) For what it's worth, we did just have a long RfC about the intriguingness requirement, and there was consensus to change that criterion to emphasize a hook's intriguingness to readers with no specialist knowledge or interest. This is still admittedly a subjective opinion, but it does mean that the days of arguing about what exactly a "broad audience is" should have been put to rest. Approving a hook against objections regarding their intriguingness would go against an actual DYK criterion, one that normally needs to be checked and implement much in the same way we check if articles are new or long enough.
As for the articles themselves, I'd say the ice hockey hook is fine, although perhaps a slight clarification could be change to emphasize that the IIHF is the worldwide governing body of ice hockey (I don't think the IIHF is anywhere near as well-known internationally as FIFA is). The second hook is more marginal and I'd agree that the hook as currently written seems specialist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:40, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
From reading theleekycauldron's comments, it doesn't seem to have to do with being intriguing based on people "with no specialist knowledge or interest", especially in regards to the ice hockey hook. SL93 (talk) 04:43, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
In the instances when multiple people disagree with theleekycauldron about a hook, I feel that she should think twice about her opinions. I also wonder where it says that hooks "simply being about pop culture or sports" is against the rules. SL93 (talk) 04:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
No one ever said that hooks about pop culture or sports are not allowed. Indeed, we've allowed hooks on the multiple times and if anything are among the most well-represented topics on DYK. However, WP:DYKSG does suggest that editors should not assume that all readers know about what sport is being discussed. This means that hooks about sports (and by extension pop culture) should at least be understandable so that even readers unfamiliar with a sport or fandom can still understand and enjoy a hook. That's what the "intriguingness to a non-specialist" criterion means. Admittedly, it can be hard to follow and practice, but when writings, ask yourself: "will a non-fan understand what I'm trying to say here?" Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:58, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
That was quoted from theleekycauldron in this discussion. Again, I don't think that she means it the same way that you mean it which I agree with and always have. I have not seen her mentioning that in any recent DYKs that she objected to or in this discussion. SL93 (talk) 05:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
To clarify, I feel that it is only or mostly about page views and competition to theleekycauldron. I am not into DYK being that way at all. SL93 (talk) 05:07, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
Comment - I don't have much skin in this game, as I don't work in the hook promotion area, but I will say I don't think we should be obsessing over page views myself. I have noticed a lot more reference to it on this page lately, but I assumed that was just a bit of harmless fun. However, if it's now impacting hook decisions and we're declaring people "winners" and "losers" based on it, then we need to stop doing it IMHO. In the old days, page views was just a bit of fun in the form of a personal message to nominators saying "if you're interested in the page views of your hook, click here" with an informal invitation to add their hook to a hall of fame if it did particularly well, but that was it. No monthly stat breakdowns, no attempting to "learn lessons" if something didn't perform well. This isn't to knock Leeky, who has my longterm respect, or indeed Naruto or SL93, who all put a lot into this project, but for me, the primary purpose of DYK has always been editor-centric, rewarding people for writing new material by showcasing it on the main page, and I think we should cut those editors some slack as some topics are just naturally less interesting to the general readership than others. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 07:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I still respect theleekycauldron also and I regret part of what I said. My frustration is coming out so much because I don't appreciate the changes and I can't comprehend why so many editors seem to be for it. I think of DYK as an enjoyable place that I have been participating in for years because of the reasons that you brought up. I don't know what to feel about a relatively new editor coming along and changing so much. I know that editors have compared leeky to Yoninah, but I don't remember Yoninah being as picky and I always respected her pickiness when it did happen because it made sense to me - even when it came to my own hooks. I don't think any other editor has gotten as involved in page views and statistics as leeky and I really don't feel that it is needed. I also do not promote articles to "score" on page views per hour. SL93 (talk) 08:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think people ever said that pageviews are everything. Indeed, I myself am the first to admit that my own hooks rarely do well, and I do agree with Amakuru that in many cases it's better to be featured on the Main Page at all rather than to obsess with pageviews at all. However, they are still a useful tool in knowing how to make better hooks and knowing what hooks are good ideas and what aren't. We all want our hooks to be better and pageviews are a useful (albeit not the only way) to know if how we are handling hooks is the right way or not. In my case at least, I try to make my anime-related hooks interesting for non-anime fans too, and while pageviews aren't everything, they can prove useful if I'm hitting that goal or if there is still room for improvement. I do agree with Amakuru's sentiment that pageviews aren't everything, but on the other hand, I think that saying that some topics are "naturally less interesting" could be interpreted (unintentionally) as being patronizing because, personally I do believe that any subject or topic can make a good hook no matter how niche they are, as long as the material and drive is there. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:25, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
It may have not been said, but I don't know how anyone can fail to notice the major increase in caring about them recently, especially with the talk of promotors "scoring" or not. SL93 (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think it mostly started with Gerda's classical music hooks and people expressing concerns if her hooks were indeed appealing to broad audiences (such concerns have been raised for years, even before the recent intriguingness criterion change). Pageviews started being brought up back then as a way to test if these concerns had foundation or not, which I think eventually evolved into a general interest in pageviews regardless of the nominator. Whether or not this interest in pageviews is warranted is really up to the editors, that's just how I saw this evolving. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:31, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's warranted to be so interested in page views that hooks are simply being denied based on prior page views. Page views can be fun to look at, but it's just that. The DYK rules don't even mention page views once. Also, I don't understand why it matters if an editor promotes hooks that have the most page views per hour. SL93 (talk) 08:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
(edit conflict) But this is exactly the point of why the stat collection process has become a bit of a negative influence lately. I get the impression that Gerda is losing faith in DYK because of the constant battle to even get her articles published here. Classical music is a niche area, the majority of the population just don't have that much interest in it, so however much you strive to make the hooks interesting, the stats will never really spike that much. But it's still encyclopedic and useful material, and we want to thank Gerda for that without her feeling she's being pushed away. I don't want to personalise this, clearly everyone's acting in good faith, but I definitely think we need to revert to the old way of doing this from a few years ago and stop obsessing over hookiness and stats, concentrate the review on whether the hook is accurate and the article of sufficient quality. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 08:44, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, it's obviously part of reviewing to challenge hook choices and work with the nominator to get the hook as interesting and hooky as possible within the confines of what's in that particular article, but the DYK doesn't automatically become a fail just because the best available hook still doesn't attract that many hits. — Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
I agree to some extent with the above sentiment but I disagree with what was said above about classical music. That topic is most certainly not niche, or at least it's not as niche as it may seem. Classical music does have a large fanbase and many people are at least familiar with some composers and music. Even then, many people still listen to it. Opera is perhaps not as mainstream as classical music in general, I would agree. However, I disagree that opera and other forms of classical music are inherently less interesting to general audiences. Just because a subject is "niche" does not mean a non-niche hook is impossible. With that said, given that we do have the "intriguingness to a non-specialist audience" criterion, so how do we reconcile that with concerns about nicheness? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:01, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
There's no doubt that some genres of music are more popular than others, and I'm reasonably sure that genre is a stronger driver of page views than hook quality. Taylor Swift hooks are always going to get more clicks than Beethoven hooks. If our goal is to drive pageviews higher, we know how to do that, but I don't think anybody would be happy with the result. It's good that DYK exposes our readers to the breadth of topics covered by the encyclopedia, even the unpopular ones. -- RoySmith(talk)15:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
There is no doubt that editor frustration is apparent here. Promoting is incredibly time consuming and there can be disagreements among promotors. A promotor's opinion can sometimes be overruled when it is not based on anything empirical. Regarding "intriguing"... how is it measured? We cannot measure it but many of us know it when we see it. I am not intrigued by some of our hooks, but I am likely to promote the ones I understand. Intriguing is not quantifiable criteria. So then it is looked at through the lens of an editor's Worldview. And our worldviews are disparate. Bruxton (talk) 19:11, 26 January 2023 (UTC)
"Am I missing something?" Well, yes. Namely that DYK has been transformed into a depressing little fiefdom that is not only tiring to contribute to, but actively discouraging. Urve (talk) 00:30, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Good for you. It means nothing to me that someone complained a decade about the wording of a rule about hook length. It especially means nothing when this diff is being peddled out to "lol" at genuine feelings of active exclusion, ones that I've only recently developed. But what do I know? I can only speak to my experience. Urve (talk) 00:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Did you actually read his complaint to the end? We were getting called High Priests, a selective and insular group. Your mention of fiefdom reminded me of that complaint in particular. Guess what, even your cynical attitude reminds me of him. Almost like a doppelganger! 😆 BorgQueen (talk) 01:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
All right, well, this seems to have spiraled somewhere I wasn't hoping for it to go, but I would be remiss if I didn't address some of the things that came up here. First off, I want to address SL93 and Amakuru's comments about pageviews competition, and I'll be earnest about it (not something that's always encouraged on Wikipedia, but I proceed regardless).
I care quite a lot what the DYK community thinks of me, and of the work I do for it. On a practical level, I can't build preps without the trust and goodwill of the community, but I'd be lying if I didn't hold that trust personally as well. Being a young person on the project – who hasn't been around all that long in the scheme of DYK, who doesn't always have lots of other outlets to be a huge geek – incidents like this set off a nerve that makes me worried and upset, because I want to be considered a part of the team, and being dismissed out of hand tends to really hurt. In other words, I didn't bring up pageview statistics because I wanted to assert that I'm better, or because "better" is a thing that can be measured objectively. I brought it up because I wanted to demonstrate why I should have a seat at the table. I do hope that worry is understandable, and I'm grateful that you both reaffirmed that when you simultaneously dinged me for saying some, let's be honest, rather dumb things.
But, second, I do care about pageviews, to a limited extent. I don't like making it a competition (something this conversation has reminded me to think about more), and I understand that our readers like some things more than others – there are plenty of hooks and hook writers I will defend wholeheartedly despite poor pageviews count, repeatedly, because I see them putting in the good faith effort into not just writing good hooks, but improving. At the same time, though, I want our readers to read the things our nominators to create. Amakuru points out their view of DYK as editor-centric, but I think it should also be reader-centric – to me, DYK can also be about drawing people in and teaching them things they might not have known before, and I do take pride in hooks that guide lots of readers to solid content. But not every hook that does that is "good", and not every hook that doesn't perform stellarly on a table is "bad". It's not about winning and losing, it's about the fact that hook writing is a little different from the other DYK criteria; most criteria have a set goal to reach, but with hook writing, we just ask for a minimum, because the sky's the limit. I might want to push someone to write better where someone else thinks it's acceptable as is; it's a difference of style, and a balancing act.
I'd be happy to answer as many questions as people have about how and why I care about pageviews; I know it came across like I'm worshipping traffic, but in truth, it's only one factor, not judge, jury, and executioner. I wrote some about it here, and I plan to adjust it in light of this conversation. And, yeah, sometimes I think that an article just doesn't have any good material to make a hook with, and I hate it when that happens; but I also feel like getting more people excited about learning is a worthwhile goal to work towards, if we go about it in the right ways. — Preceding unsigned comment added by theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) 06:09, 2023 January 31 (UTC)
As Narutolovehinata5 mentions, we had an RfC at /Archive 188#Request for comment: The need to update Wikipedia:DYK#gen3 which found consensus for the rule to specifically say "unusual or intriguing by a reader with no special knowledge or interest". Interpreting that remains a fuzzy area, but it nonetheless remains a DYK criteria that must be assessed, and handled via consensus when disputes arise. The way re-approvals occurred in the nominations raised here are effectively WP:WHEEL-warring. Whatever individual opinions on page views is, such wheel-warring is as inappropriate here as it would be for admin actions, especially if this is the rationale given for the wheel warring. There are discussions to be had about the issues raised here (I think we mention statistics a bit too much, I think classical music is as deserving of interesting hooks as other topics), but we are working within the framework of the previous RfCs unless a new consensus is formed, and the way the issues were worked through in the noms mentioned was clearly poor. CMD (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I took that comment with a grain of salt because it didn't refer at all to being "unusual or intriguing by a reader with no special knowledge or interest". "I'm afraid the hook falls rather flat for me." does not seem to be in the spirit of the rules, but rather in the spirit of being that one editor's opinion, especially when it doesn't point to the general readership as the reason. I could make theleekycauldron's comment at most sports articles because they do not interest me, but that would also not be in the spirit of the rules. I would have did it differently now, but that was my thought process. SL93 (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
oh, is that what this was about? I didn't mean that it didn't interest me, i meant that it fell rather flat relative to the guidelines in my interpretation. Lots of hooks pass without intriguing me, I'm fine with that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
@SL93@Theleekycauldron Please know that Wikipedia appreciates each of your contributions and opinions as all-time Top 5 hook promoters at DYK, in addition to everything else you do. By all means take whatever breaks you need, but hope you both come back to promoting soon! Cielquiparle (talk) 12:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: So... the K-pop hook is the lowest one again. I wonder why? It bugs me as I did think the hook was amusing (albeit a little cringey) and K-pop does have a global fandom. BorgQueen (talk) 03:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Contrary to popular belief, pop music is at somewhat of a disadvantage compared to DYK's regular average – Taylor Swift, Kanye West, K-Pop, all of 'em tend to underperform. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:49, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
Prep7: Honey Nway Oo
Taung Tan, I've had a read of Honey Nway Oo, which has been promoted to Prep 7. Nice work. Great to see an editor working in a geographic area that doesn't get much attention. You'd be glad to learn that the hook has the image spot. The picture has been cropped from this photo, which is a very good photo indeed. I've had a look at your upload history at Commons and it's your only high-quality photo taken by yourself. I hope you don't mind me asking whether you indeed took that photo? It's just that it's uncommon to find such a good photo being the only one in an editor's upload history. Please do accept my intrusiveness but we have to be very careful that we don't break the rules and it's better to simply ask the question. Schwede6605:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
This is the only place where I’m having (or rather trying to have) this conversation. The OP isn’t the most active editor so let’s give it a bit more time. Schwede6623:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
Schwede66 Hi, I'm here. Sorry for the delay in responding; I've been extremely busy lately. Thanks for asking the question. After I created the article, I tried to contact her through her FB profile, and I eventually got in touch with her. I also asked to donate a natural photo for Wikipedia. Finally, she accept to donate photo with own metadata. She could occasionally connect to the internet because she lived in the jungle, but the connection was poor. So she requested that I upload her donated photos to Wikipedia, which I did. I've got more photos to upload on Wikimedia Commons. If you want to confirm this, you can be happy to send a message to (Redacted). Thanks Taung Tan (talk) 09:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
@Taung Tan It's not appropriate to post other people's email addresses on the wiki. I've deleted the address from the page history for privacy reasons. Please see WP:OUTING for more details. When done maliciously, that's a serious breach which can lead to being blocked, but in this case I'm sure you meant no harm, so there's no need for anything beyond my making sure you understand that you shouldn't do that again.
As for the photo, you tagged it as "own work". Based on your description, that's incorrect. "Own work" means you took the photo. That's not the case here. Commons has strict rules that need to be obeyed regarding permission to upload soembody else's photos, and I don't think you've met them here. I see that Schwede66 has already pulled the hook. I'm also going to head over to Commons and suggest that the image be delete from there due to invalid permissions. -- RoySmith(talk)14:03, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Schwede66... Hi I'm back. Sorry, I'm in the middle of a university exam, and there's no longer any activity on Wikipedia these days. I always tell the truth, and yes, ,the photo is not mine; it was donated by Honey. Now I've already explained this problem to the owner via Messenger, and she will send an email to Wikipedia soon. Please allow one week. Taung Tan (talk) 06:38, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Please could an experienced reviewer have a look at the nomination for Cathedral of Our Lady of Seven Sorrows, Suzhou. This is the reviewer's first review and they have said they have some concerns and asked another editor to look at it. There is an issue with the image that baffles me, so editor and reviewer would both benefit from some advice. TSventon (talk) 14:46, 28 January 2023 (UTC)
The hook says this was the "first Iranian to be executed in public in connection with the Mahsa Amini protests". I see lots of sources for somebody else being the first execution, and this one was public, but it's WP:SYNTH to put those together and say this was the "first public".
I thought one of the sources stated that but maybe that was a misremembering. Either way, if nothing for the hook can be proven then it will have to be pulled for a bit. Onegreatjoke (talk) 17:32, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
A few of the article's sources say the execution of Majidreza Rahnavard was the first public execution to take place in connection with the Mahsa Amini protests. The first execution to occur in general was that of Mohsen Shekari, who was executed within a jail four days prior to Rahnavard's execution (which is supported by the fact that his family was recorded outside of the jail where the execution took place, reacting to the news of his death - his execution was neither witnessed by the public nor his family).
Reuters: "These harsh sentences and now the first public execution... are meant to intimidate Iran's people." [1]
Washington Post: "Rahnavard is the second protester to be executed in the past week, and the first to have his body displayed publicly" [2]
Both articles mention Mohsen Shekari's execution, but both make it clear that Rahnavard's was the first public one. Afddiary (talk) 21:55, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
The hook says "first fraternal organization". The article says she formed the first lodge of the Independent Order of True Sisters, and the source also talks about "the first Jewish women's lodge in America". Is a lodge synonymous with "fraternal organization"? I'm not sure. A second opinion that that would be appreciated.
The Chicago Tribune says the bridge was built in the "late 1800s", but the article says " late 1840s", citing "local oral history". We need a better citation for the date.
Since we have not heard from the nominator or reviewer I rewrote the first paragraph of the history section to omit oral history and cited the new paragraph to the Chicago Tribune as quoted above. Bruxton (talk) 18:26, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing that. I hate to double-dip, but looking closer at the hook now, I think we've still got a problem. The hook says "struck by vehicles at least 40 times since August 2020", but the Chicago Tribune source we cite doesn't actually say that. It says, "40 tall vehicles ... in recent years." Later on it says the bridge was reopened on Aug. 14, 2020, but there's nothing that actually ties the "40 tall vehicles statement" to that date. Actually, the more I look at that reference, the more confused I get. The citation is:
{{cite news |last=Rumore |first=Kori |title=Trucks still hit Long Grove's iconic bridge, but town punches back — just as it always has against modern life |url=https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-long-grove-bridge-history-buffalo-creek-robert-parker-coffin-20221127-ocyqkw3bcncghkjio4cectednm-story.html |access-date=2023-01-01 |work=[[Chicago Tribune]] |date=2022-11-27 |url-access=subscription |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221223065439/https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-long-grove-bridge-history-buffalo-creek-robert-parker-coffin-20221127-ocyqkw3bcncghkjio4cectednm-story.html |archive-date=2022-12-23 |url-status=live}}
but when I look at the archive.org copy, it's an article from the Lake Country News-Sun, which I guess was reprinted in the Chicago Tribune. That part's not too confusing, but the byline is Karie Angell Luc, not Kori Rushmore. And the date is Sep 23, not November 27. I could see the date being the date of the reprint, but why has the byline changed? So I have no clue what's really going on with this reference. -- RoySmith(talk)19:00, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: can we resolve this one? I reworded the area of our article to say, "The next day, it was hit again, this time by a school bus; according to the county sheriff's office, since the reopening, there have been dozens of bridge strikes as of September 2022[update]". I used the Keilman Chicago Tribune reference. So we can change our hook to say dozens which is slightly ambiguous but relays the fact that it was hit many times. Bruxton (talk) 16:25, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. I updated the hook in the queue to say "dozens", and shortened it a bit while I was there. BTW, anybody who find this topic interesting should certainly check out https://11foot8.com :-) -- RoySmith(talk)16:43, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I never got the ping (I think it has to come in the same edit as a signature), so catching up on this now. @RoySmith and Bruxton: I'm not sure what the confusion on the referencing is -- the claim about 40 vehicles was cited to the Angell Luc article, which says Residents toasted its Aug. 14, 2020, reopening ... Since the reopening the bridge has been struck by vehicles 40 times, according to Deputy Chief Christopher Covelli of the Lake County sheriff's office. Could we restore the more precise statement to the hook? ~huesatlum03:25, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
It is oddly specific and according to one: "Since the reopening, the bridge has been struck by vehicles 40 times, according to Deputy Chief Christopher Covelli". Dozens conveys the regularity of it as well. Possibly a better reference is the Chicago Tribune. We were just trying to solve an issue that was brought up here. Some references say tall trucks, some say dozens this one says 40. Bruxton (talk) 03:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I think we should pull the hook and figure this out in the nomination - this problem solving has been going on for days and now and HueSatLum has undone the bridge strike change that was researched and referenced. The Chicago Tribune reporter most likely could not come up with a precise figure and to have us us calling it 40 based on just one of many contradictory local references is just not a good plan. If dozens does not work then we need sources that agree on the precise figure. It would not be right to cherry pick the more impressive figure. Bruxton (talk) 04:16, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
It's in scare quotes in the quirky slot, and if you click, the article makes it clear it's "described as" by The Big Issue – so it's a tongue-in-cheek claim, not "most famous" as in calibrated by Nielsen. And apparently primary sources are OK on a case-by-case basis? Cielquiparle (talk) 05:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
I think it's clear that "the most famous snort" is jokey and not some official title. There are two ALTs to choose from if not, but I think the meme is the most interesting thing in the article. Potentially a hook could be crafted around the words in the meme: "... that Phil Fletcher is just a normal man, an innocent man?" but i don't know how well known it is - Dumelow (talk) 08:50, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Oh, that sucks. That was a great image. Hey, I'm all for not violating copyright, but sometimes I think we take things too far. -- RoySmith(talk)22:56, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
FYI. This would not make any difference to the above, but you acted so quickly re the Lego fandom, that you beat me to commenting on it. As I say, it wouldn't make any difference, but I just wanted to comment that the image of "Adult fans of Lego at a Lego workshop event" was added and licensed in Commons by the person in the image. But, ah well ... — Maile (talk) 22:58, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
Yes. But what I meant, is that I was going to suggest swapping out the one image with the image of the man. But too late now, so doesn't matter. — Maile (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
To clarify: is the "try not to mention people without articles by name in hooks" thing a hard rule, or merely a suggestion?
I take it as a case-by-case thing. Like, if part of the hook needs to indicate a male person and the reader doesn't need to know who that is, it might be more succinct or hooky to say "Mr Smith" than "subject's male accomplice"... and sometimes a funny name of a random person is useful, too. Why add it as a guideline when we'll IAR on it for the cases it's already ignored for. Kingsif (talk) 23:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
I think I've completed this in one move (by pushing Ong back one prep set), moved the accompanying credit down as well, hopefully haven't broke anything. Cielquiparle (talk) 07:41, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
The second article makes it clear it's the first time an ice skating rink has been installed in the Tokyo Dome, which is why I think @Henni147 felt secure saying that it's the first figure skater...but actually I think the reason to say "first figure skater to perform solo at the Tokyo Dome" is because of the contrast: HUGE dome, one tiny skater skating all by themselves. Anyway then the bolded part you probably have to subtract "solo". Cielquiparle (talk) 08:47, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron and BorgQueen: The sub-heading of the source states that he will be the first figure skater in general to perform at the Tokyo Dome, not only the first solo performer: "[...] the two-time Olympic champion unveils his next project - 'Gift', the first-ever figure skating performance at the 55,000-seater in the Japanese capital."
Note: Hanyu will not only be the first solo figure skater, but the first skater ever to perform at the Tokyo Dome. His performance will mark the first time for an ice rink to be installed at the venue. There has never been a skating or ice hockey event at the Tokyo Dome yet. You can find that information in this Japanese source for example: newspaper article by Sports Hochi.
@BorgQueen: I saw your latest modification of the hook. Would you mind linking "ice skater" to ice skating with a piped link? I think, it's important for readers to know which sports are covered by the term "ice skating". Thank you very much in advance. Henni147 (talk) 07:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Done, thanks! Sorry, I think I had covered 0, been a little relaxed on 1 and 1a, and missed that the cite for 2 was only at para. level. My bad, out of practice for some months, will be more attentive. SeoR (talk) 13:48, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
(It's the same as what it said before, just slightly re-ordered and definitely better because it's clearer who is doing the providing, as well as clarifying that it was something Cooper wrote.) Cc: Whispyhistory, PhilafrenzyCielquiparle (talk) 09:39, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you both for improving this ALT. I would recommend using the "wrote that" version; the other phrasing could be read as meaning that she described it this way to the women she recruited, when in fact, this was something she wrote for a different audience. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 17:47, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
@Schminnte: The hook fact needs to be in the article. Currently the article only cites Ask.Audio as a source and does not explicitly say that the nickname came from them. Could you please address this? Thanks. BorgQueen (talk) 16:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I wonder if it'd be possible to run this hook (pending approval) on 17 Feb to coincide with the show's first performance night. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)
...my lead image choice? 😀 I know it's kinda unusual; I had to fill the gap left by having the previous lead pulled, and first I picked the zinc white hook with the The Scream image but I knew you guys were gonna say the image was only tangential, so I resorted to the synthesizer. BorgQueen (talk) 20:07, 30 January 2023 (UTC)
Is Prep 3: Lady Rainier (nom) even notable? The sources are three articles in the same local newspaper, a blog posting from a columnist for that same newspaper, and a listicle from a local business's blog. I doubt this would pass AfD with that collection of sources. -- RoySmith(talk)15:08, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I forgot to ping @Jjonahjameson, so doing that now. As for these two sources, my original complaint included three of the sources being from the same local paper. Adding a fourth source from the same local paper doesn't help. As for the book, it's a classic WP:PASSINGMENTION; referred to once (bottom of page 93), as part of a paragraph on a related subject. These are not the sorts of sources that satisfy WP:GNG -- RoySmith(talk)15:48, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I compared this to two other Seattle statues; Fremont Troll and Statue of Lenin (Seattle). They're also both heavy on the local coverage, but at least they've both got broader-exposure sources. I've also done some searching for Lady Rainier sources, and I'm just not seeing anything. -- RoySmith(talk)16:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
I've noted here and here some close paraphrasing problems I've found in articles created or expanded by . This editor is a very prolific DYKer (2nd-most, in fact), so I just want to give reviewers a heads-up to keep an eye out for this in future nominations. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 23:00, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @DYK admins: , @BlueMoonset, Theleekycauldron, Sojourner in the earth, and Nvvchar: we need to have some basic background on Nvvchar, and some careful reviews on what they submit. You only need look at WP:DYKNC to know that Nvvchar has been one of our most prolific editors, and he's been mentored by some really good editors. After an absence, they are back. Their first language is not English, and everything they submit needs to be reviewed with a fine-tooth comb. I got to the point where I just stayed away from promoting any Prep to Queue if they had a hook in there - because it was almost always containing errors that were not caught, and things had to be edited ... almost every time. And a lot of their hooks were considered for the lead hook. Yes, promoters should check such things, and so should nomination reviewers. Please, please extra care in reviewing. Thank you. — Maile (talk) 01:54, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
If I'm not mistaken Nvvchar retired in 2016 after a series of disputes over source-to-text integrity and copyright. I do not recall the details, but I believe I'm accurate in saying the concerns over their content had merit, even if many took issue with how they were raised. At the very least I second Maile's recommendation of extra scrutiny: but I'm wondering if those more familiar with Nvvchar ought to be notified. Vanamonde (Talk)02:14, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Not familiar enough with this editor to know who would be more familiar with his work. The only one I can think of is deceased. But I think we just take precautions by way of extra scrutiny on submissions by this editor. But if the past is any indication, they really like DYK and will send us numerous nominations. — Maile (talk) 03:58, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
I didn't add any content so didn't warrant a credit, I've just been trying to copyedit and fix links on a few of Nvv's articles. He hasn't edited in 7 years, I'm sure he will take note to avoid paraphrasing in future. The main issue is that he's not a native English speaker and needs help with copyediting. I suspect it's difficult for him to rewrite in his own words due to the language barrier. ♦ Dr. Blofeld20:16, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
WP:CIR, and lacking that, WP:GOCE. I certainly appreciate their effort making contributions in a language which is difficult for them, but it can't be DYK's burden to deal with the problem. Yo sabe un piqueño de Espanol, pero no escribo en eswiki. Es la misa cosa. -- RoySmith(talk)21:08, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
@Dr. Blofeld and Nvvchar: Just some advice here. DYK has changed a lot since 2016. In one aspect, the regulars who used to do all the promoting etc. have gotten more picky about what they promote to the main page. In addition, we have some newer editors and admins who work very hard to make sure everything is correct before it lands on the Main Page. What that means in real time, is even some of our long-time prolific editors are getting push-back on what they submit. Roy Smith's link above for WP:GOCE (guild of copy editors) is a pretty good place to start. Another good idea would be to have editors you trust look through what you create before it ever goes to DYK. Gone are the days when any editor can repeatedly submit sub-standard nominations. — Maile (talk) 02:20, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I haven't personally bothered with DYK in nearly 10 years... In fact I'd support it being nuked in favour of a GA section... ♦ Dr. Blofeld11:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
If that's due to quality, that is part of the reason things have changed. I would be interested in how many DYK articles are GA, and how many are x5 and new. CMD (talk) 12:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Granted, the average quality has improved since then due to the efforts of people here, and it's good that some GAs are appearing but I've always thought GA very important and think that we should be placing a strong emphasis on promoting it. ♦ Dr. Blofeld13:26, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Meier repeatedly beat Stealey, to Stealey's great annoyance. Meier revealed he had worked out the internal logic of the game and could predict the upcoming action.
Bill, as a
former fighter pilot, was chagrined that Sid could beat him handily on every occasion. Sid explained that he was only analyzing the game's rudimentary programming and predicting its simple moves.
It goes on like this for the next couple of paragraphs. You can't just copy sentence for sentence and change a few words. I'm tempted to pull this, but before I do that, I'd like a second opinion. -- RoySmith(talk)01:45, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I went ahead and took a crack at modifying the wording in the article to get it a bit further away from the source. I don't know if pulling the hook is really warranted in this instance, but please let me know what you think! —Matthew - (talk)02:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I think that section could use a full rewrite. It remains written in a very magazine style. A rewrite to change the tone would likely fix the paraphrase issues. CMD (talk) 03:33, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@MatthewHoobin What makes something a close paraphrase is superficial modification of material from another source. See Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. If you go sentence-by-sentence and just change some words, or tweak the sentence structure a bit, that's close paraphrasing. And additional "modifying the wording" isn't what it needs. -- RoySmith(talk)13:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I understand, but I'd also like to point to the following from that guideline: "Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing." Perhaps someone more adept at writing or in tune with tone (the latter per CMD's suggestion above) could be useful here. —Matthew - (talk)22:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen@RoySmith I have reviewed @MatthewHoobin's edits and think they did actually help change the tone and the paraphrasing issue. I have made further edits to his edits and to another paragraph in that section. I am satisfied that this is OK to run and does not need to be pulled. Of course, it would be great if someone else could look at it as well, but this is an improvement for sure. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen I'm liking CTCA to P7, though it's not showing up in Prep for some reason? I wanted to suggest moving Old-Fashioned Cupcake to Valentine's Day/P7 as well. I am happy to try to fill the gap that would leave behind in Prep 3 if needed. (Incidentally...if the notability issue with Lady Rainier (the statue of a woman) is not resolved soon, it will need to be dropped from Prep 3 as well.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The sentence ending in including the 10,000-silk-flower May Queen dress worn by Florence Pugh, which was purchased by the Academy Museum of Motion Pictures for $65,000 which supports the hook needs a citation.
The next citation is close, but it says the dress sold for 65,000 according to A24. I added the citation directly after the sentence, so that part is set. Not sure if we need to attribute. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:45, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
Variety in general is a WP:RS, but given that they qualify their statement with "the Academy Museum declined to confirm the price point", and I can't find anything on A24's website that specifies the price, we need to also qualify our statement. I'll take care of that in a moment. -- RoySmith(talk)15:36, 1 February 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton, Onegreatjoke, and JJonahJackalope: Needs an end-of-sentence citation for the hook fact, presumably after the sentence starting On August 12, 1834, a mob of several hundred white men....
I found this cited in the body (riot section). The sentence you call out is in the lead and should not be cited. Bruxton (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7, Chidgk1, and TheAafi: I'm not convinced The Radavist is a WP:RS. WP:RSN doesn't have anything on it, but it looks pretty much like a blog without any significant editorial oversight to me. In any case, even if we decide that's OK, I suggest linking Kangal -> Kangal Shepherd Dog. Also, the usage of "gall" in the hook is, at best, somewhat unusual, so I would prefer to see some different wording. -- RoySmith(talk)16:57, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I had suggested in the nomination to use Kangal shepherd dog because Kangal isn't really known to everyone but the promoter missed this perhaps. We can agree or disagree on the source but I am happy with your suggestion. What do you suggest in place of "gall"? Best, ─ The Aafī(talk)17:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Maybe "... that Kangal can be a hazard to cyclists in Turkey?" I wouldn't be surprised, however, if the Kangal link gets more clicks than the cycling link. I did a bit of searching for better sources. I found quite a few cycling blogs that talk about the Kangal (https://cycloscope.net/cycling-turkey, for example). I wouldn't call any of them solid WP:RS, but at least there's some confirmation that this isn't just one person's opinion. -- RoySmith(talk)18:09, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Ugh, I didn't even notice that. I'm just making suggestions, but now that you've pointed out the cleverness, I'm not liking it. I think it'll go right over most people's heads. -- RoySmith(talk)00:17, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, if anything doesn't work, we can just give the nominator more time to work on another relevant hook, that cycling has helped the feminist movement grow in Turkey?, which perhaps can work best instead of "Kangal can gall" or whatever and might have more better sources. If we can fix the current approved hook, it needs to be rephrased, at the least, for a readers convenience. ─ The Aafī(talk)09:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
@TheAafi: The DYK was closed and I did not notice this discussion until now (maybe I need to delete my old notifications in some way as the notification icon is not changing color when someone pings me). Are you reopening the DYK? Or is there some way I can put this discussion on my watch list if you want me to do something? What do you want me to do? Chidgk1 (talk) 12:36, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
@TheAafi if you're OK with my suggestion above ("... that Kangal can be a hazard to cyclists in Turkey?"), I'll go ahead and change the hook to that, and we're all done. I think mentioning Kangal in the hook is a good idea. To be honest, there's almost nothing in the article that's specific to Turkey; the Kangals being the one major exception, but the original wording of the hook needed improvement. -- RoySmith(talk)14:21, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
In Queue 7, we have a hook about a dress, and one mentioning sewing, in a row. Intentionally so? - The hook looking like about a dress isn't about a dress (although it mentions material and auction price and who wore it) but a horror film. Is that the current style of hook wording? - I felt mislead. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:36, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Have been reading about costume design lately and think it's OK, but I agree the article was a bit thin on detail, so I've added a bit more info about why the auction price was so high. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Request to close withdrawn DYK noms
In case "too many transclusions" remains a problem, there are at least two DYK noms that can be closed as withdrawn now:
Not looking for sympathy, but just wanted to say that I am sick. Hopefully some other prep builders can step up. Bruxton (talk) 19:34, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
The word "intricate" is excellent and is used a lot with regard to "talim", e.g. From such annotated drawings the talim-writer produced a written shorthand indicating the number of warp threads to be covered with different colours so that by following the written instructions the weaver could reproduce the pattern. This technique of annotating the designs, so that each stitch was written down, was possibly responsible for the development of the most intricate of patterns woven in an extraordinarily wide range of colours. (Now with citation in lede.) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Rather than a language, this "talim" appears to be codified instructions for weaving specific patterns. Rather odd that the article doesn't specify when this "language" was used.. The phrase "as per" jumps out amongst the use of english. Again I ask should we be sending readers to rather sketchily written articles. -Roxy thedog08:28, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@RAJIVVASUDEV To me the remaining issues to address in the article are:
Include at least one citation at the end of the first paragraph of the "Techniques" section
Resolve the "too many citations" problem in two places: first paragraph (lede) and the final paragraph. Six footnotes is definitely too many; the article is likely to get tagged soon by a bot. Please pare it down to a maximum of three of the most relevant sources if possible. You can also use a footnote at the end of each sentence within the paragraph, which may help you spread the citations out.
Please add some indication of the point in time in human history that the talim has been used. There must be some mention about this somewhere, even if it's approximate. And make sure it's cited.
(The rest is copy editing which I'm happy to help with as a final step; so if you could take a look at the above three issues, that would be great. Thanks.) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Talim is not a coded language, but a weaving notation, construction instructions for the craft weaver. the paper "Cognitive dimensions of talim: evaluating weaving notation through cognitive dimensions (CDs) framework" by Gagan Deep Kaur, a ref for the "article" makes that quite obvious. (currently ref 10). This article struggles to make that simple fact clear.
Temporal considerations - The phrase "last century" is confusing. It seems Talim are still used in craft weaving traditions. Roxy thedog17:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Hmph. Maybe that works, but when the fundamental hooky fact underpinning a hook turns out to be dead wrong, that's usually grounds for a pull from prep. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:39, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron Is "dead wrong" really fair? There are lots of DYK hooks where we agonize over word choice. If "code" is what we want to preserve, I am happy to look again across the sources to find how we might be able to use it without taking it one poetic step too far. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I mean, if it's not a code, than yeah, we've fundamentally missed the target on what the thing we're describing actually is. If it's more like a recipe, that's not really as interesting. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:59, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
Talim is the code, I believe there is another term for the recipe (talim-something), or that it can be both. We can use the word "hieroglyphics" in scare quotes from one of the sources (which is maybe more "oooh"). I am happy to look at more carefully and fix maybe after work today. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
"Talim" was unarguably a code or script. Another hook I might propose is.
ALTX1: ...that there were cards with codes in the Kashmiri language for weaving shawls?
ALTX2: ...that coded cards were used to create patterns in Kashmiri shawls?
@BorgQueen@RAJIVVASUDEV Article is looking much better and the points are clearer – talim as both the code itself as well as a set of code. Will spend some time on further copyedits later today. (Asked a friend who studied computer science about the Kaur article and the advice was – yes, it's fine to say it's a coded language (as many sources do), just don't go too overboard in following Kaur's analogies with regard to "cryptographic system" specifically, because strictly speaking that may be a step too far for the cryptography people.) Cielquiparle (talk) 16:13, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
In other words, my preference is still for the hook as it currently stands:
... that Talim is a coded language used to create intricate patterns on shawls and carpets?
As you've seen, I've documented the relevant quotes in the individual citations, and I can continue to do that as appropriate. Think most of what's left to do is rearranging some of the points and possibly even getting rid of some of the repetition. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:17, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Still not a coded language - you cannot ask "what time is it?" in Talim (because it isn't a language) - but you can give shedding instructions to a weaver. ... and yes, the article was a mess, due to WP:CIR in english, as I keep pointing out. - Roxy thedog08:06, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@Roxy the dog I do agree with you that it is a problem if a nominated article requires this amount of copyediting from multiple editors. DYK is not some copyediting drive project. BorgQueen (talk) 08:17, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure it's fair to accuse @RAJIVVASUDEV of lacking competence in English, though. In my experience, lots of English native speakers benefit from copy editing by others. The editor is very responsive to specific and constructive feedback and has produced interesting articles on other topics. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle It's not their English actually. The article was pretty disorganized, the reference format was wrong in about a dozen places (confusing editor with author, for example), and I don't know why the Arabic root wasn't even mentioned in the Etymology section. It seems to me that it's more about a lack of thoroughness and research skills. BorgQueen (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
... that Talim encodes intricate patterns for Kashmiri shawls and carpets?
If I'm reading the feedback from Roxy the dog correctly, it was the "language" part that was especially problematic for computer scientists and/or linguists. (I have been trying to think of ways to use the idea of "fiercely guarded...trade secret" but maybe simple is best.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen, @Cielquiparle I understand and will strive to improve my work. I am thankful for your copy edits and efforts. However, there is another side to the coin. There is a history of disagreements between us, as Roxy they have proposed deletions that I have challenged and successfully defended. Here is the list (,,). They could be seen engaged in disruptive editing on my various pages, provoking me and leading to edit wars. A recent example is the 'Textile' page, among many others. However, listing all instances is not appropriate for this platform. They hold negative views towards my work and are struggling with old grudges. Additionally, they exhibit a lack of interest and an insufficient understanding of history. Thanks, and best regards RV (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I've just created {{Did you know nominations/2023 London Marathon}}. In the last 3 years, the articles for these events have run on the day of this race, and had good viewing numbers (15-40k views). It's currently 80 days until the race (which is more than the 6 week limit for date requests), and so I am posting here hoping to get approval for this to run on the day of the event, 23 April. TIA, and let me know if there's any queries/objections. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:51, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a couple of days ago, so I've created a new list of all 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 26. We have a total of 245 nominations, of which 98 have been approved, a gap of 147 nominations that has increased by 14 in the past ten days. It would be nice to get the gap back down, at least below 100. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Part I
In Special:Diff/1137040010, @Dr. Blofeld made a good point about giving GA more visibility on the main page. As a easy-to-implement step in that direction, we could give all the DYK hooks that qualified as a result of passing GA some distinctive visual. Maybe replace the leading bullets with a little icon that shows which qualifying path the hook took (new, 5x, or GA) -- RoySmith(talk)15:03, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I would oppose distinctively marking GAs and 5x expansions on the Main Page (will either be confusing or use up valuable space), but we could drop the "Start a new article/Nominate an article" links (or move the Start new article link elsewhere on the Main Page) and instead link to a page explaining that DYKs are new or expanded articles or fresh GAs. —Kusma (talk) 15:14, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
It wouldn't take up any more space; the icon would go where the bullet is now. And I don't see why it would be confusing. Each icon could have a tooltip: "This article recently passed a Good Article review", "This article was recently expanded to 5 times its previous size", or "This article was recently written". As a nice side-effect, the tool tips would add value to people using screen readers. -- RoySmith(talk)15:34, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd need to see a mockup, but I can't imagine anything that isn't unduly distracting (and tooltips don't work well on mobile). The information density in the DYK area is already very high, I don't think increasing it further is going to do us much good. —Kusma (talk) 15:55, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I oppose for the simple reason that I have now seen over and over again, that "GA" doesn't guarantee a consistent level of quality, and that a higher proportion of GA articles seem to cause problems during DYK review than one would expect. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I oppose, simply because it'll increase the workload. I'm the one currently doing much of the work and do you expect me to mark every hook GA, 5x, etc? No way. (Unless you promise you'll do all the marking... lol) BorgQueen (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
We could link to a page that explains DYK instead of sending people to Template talk:Did you know (a highly technical and specialised page full of jargon) directly from the Main Page. Good articles could be linked from such a page or from the Contents pages. (If they aren't already, I never use the Contents system). —Kusma (talk) 19:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
There are accessibility considerations to not using the bullet points, which generate HTML list markers – whatever we use would have to replace those as well. Also, bullet points are too tiny to render GA icons. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:40, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
From a technical standpoint, list-style-image lets you replace the bullet with an image of your choice, but retains the HTML list semantics for the sake of screen readers and such. I do agree that the standard GA/DYK icons are too large, but somebody with graphics skill (i.e. not me) might be able to generate smaller versions of them. Or maybe continue to use bullets, but use the green and blue colors from the original icons, and find some third color for the 5x bullets. Although, that might end up being so subtle nobody would even notice. -- RoySmith(talk)18:53, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
as long as the coloured bullets are contrast-compliant with the light blue background, that can work. GAs would be green, of course – I think new articles could be grey or blue. I also propose gold for fivefold expansions and pink for transwikis.
One of my DYK has been partially translated from a Russian Wikipedia article, and another from French, so yes, it's a DYK thing. Which brings up another concern -- what if an article is transwiki and GA at the same time? Half pink-half green? BorgQueen (talk) 23:56, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
I have similar thoughts to Kusma. Why would the reader care? And if they do care, we should discuss having an "About" link in the footer and provide an appropriate landing page where, amongst other things, new vs expanded vs GA can be explained. And when you look at the big picture and compare how DYK and GA are doing, in my books DYK is doing much better. We have a reasonably solid quality control in place and whilst things do slip through the cracks, it's at a rate that I find acceptable. GA, on the other hand, does not have such a quality control in place. You can get GA by just one other editor looking at it and that's it. There are some shocking GAs out there... Schwede6603:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Extend that question to new articles and recently expanded articles. Why should the reader care about new or expanded articles? And the answer is that DYK encourages editors, not readers. Building on that, I believe that the type of work Wikipedia needs and will need, is changing. There is less need to spawn new articles because so much of that work has been done. Take dog breeds, for example. Search your dog's breed, and you will find an article. It's the quality that varies. Beagle is great; check out the Beagle spectrum photo. Coyote is very informative. Chow Chow is more a collection of (admittedly fun) dog legends and (admittedly cute) photos of Chow Chow faces. The benefit of increasing the visibility of Good Articles and Featured Articles is to encourage editors to do the kind of hard work that it takes to bring Chow Chow up to the level of Coyote and eventually Beagle. Rjjiii (talk) 05:27, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Queues vs Preps naming insanity
Why do we have "Template:Did you know/Preparation area N" but "Template:Did you know/Queue/N", i.e. an extra layer of subpage? The best explanation I can come up with is some past system architect sat down and said to themselves, "How could I best design a data structure which has some non-obvious inconsistency so as to play with the head of some future software engineer?" And they succeeded. -- RoySmith(talk)15:46, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I've been meaning to bitch about this one for a while, thanks – what surprised me in looking this up was that the preps predate the queues? I suppose that makes sense, but dang... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:52, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
OK. I'm just trying to figure out why so many people seem to give up on helping at DYK, and I can't help feeling like this Talk page is part of the problem. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:02, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I think it's more about the workload being insanely demanding, and that just one mistake may lead to a public embarrassment, lol. BorgQueen (talk) 12:11, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
This is Wikipedia. We embrace the mistakes and get them fixed quickly. And it is so amazing to have such a huge community of editors watching and helping with corrections and improvement. @BorgQueen takes on a phenomenal workload for which we are all grateful, but seriously, @Trainsandotherthings and others, if you are out there and just want to test drive hook promotion, now is a good time to do it. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:43, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Trainsandotherthings! Looks ok to me technically, but the one thing to be aware of is DYK Rule #3b: Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article. So in this case, the sentence within the article that says, "Dahalo (bandits) have attacked vehicles, leading the government to require that vehicles travel in convoys of at least 10 on many roads", needs to have a repetitive footnote in it, even if it's identical to the footnote that appears one sentence later! (So it's best to get that resolved now one way or another; otherwise it gets flagged by the Admins later and leads to more Talk page discussions.) Cielquiparle (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I checked the source before promoting, and it does verify that claim, but the citation is at the end of the paragraph. So all that I need to do is add another footnote at the end of that sentence? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:38, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, you've doublechecked the source, so it seems like the simplest solution. Maybe say in the comment why you're doing it, so that the article creator and editors are aware that it's a DYK requirement. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The language used by some editors on this talk page deters and discourages me from participating. Being polite and courteous is a lost art. Flibirigit (talk) 14:34, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
So says someone who accused me of violating the "spirit" of the rules because I closed a nom after reviewing it, when you know well that we have only a limited number of people working here. I did't see any trace of being courteous in it. Look in the mirror. BorgQueen (talk) 15:05, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
The verb 'bitch' to mean 'complain' seems really not so much a curse word as slang. Certainly I'd be calling it out if someone used it as a noun to call someone else a bitch. But are we really saying "I've been meaning to bitch about this" would drive away people if "let me know if I screwed it up" wouldn't? Valereee (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Is one system (sub-sub pages vs six sub pages) better than the other, or would it be fine either way if consistent? Would fixing it create more trouble than would be worth it? CMD (talk) 15:33, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
At this point, I'm sure fixing it would create more problems than it would solve. But after tracking down a hard-to-find bug in my code due to this, it felt good to rant a bit.
And, yeah, I wish people would be more conservative in their choice of vocabulary. There are people who are offended by profanity; if it makes them feel unwelcome, we've driven away a potentially valuable contributor. -- RoySmith(talk)16:47, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I've wondered if it might help to split this Talk page into two, and separate "Helpdesk" Talk from "Internal Team Comms". But that would probably quickly get messy too. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:51, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
There are people offended by the fact that Wikipedia doesn't censor things the way they want. Should we accommodate them too, lest we drive away potentially valuable contributors? There is a profound difference between using profanity, and directing profanity at other editors. The former is just a fact of life, the latter is an issue. But I don't see anyone here directing bad words at other editors. On the list of issues with DYK, "people use bad words on the DYK talk page" is very far down the list. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 19:17, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Not a disqualifier, but the citation for the hook fact David LeRoy Anderson (special makeup effects artist) (2004). Raising the Dead (featurette) is incomplete. I don't know how DVD cataloging works, but I assume there's some sort of id number similar to an ISBN which could be cited to make it easier to find? Interestingly enough, I did find "Dawn of the Dead Collector's Edition" at Best Buy. It's listed for $60,696.99 ($5,058.09/month with 12 month financing). I'm assuming that's an example of algorithmic pricing gone pear shaped.
@RoySmith @Cielquiparle I'm not familiar with any sort of identifier other than a standard barcode number. I've found that the barcode number for the DVD is 8715664018361 (as found on an image of the DVD box here) but there's no space for that in the citation, and I'm not sure where in the citation it would go. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 15:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
That's the original movie. From the title, this looks like some "about the making of..." type of documentary. Which @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy makes it all the more important we know where you found the information, so other people can verify it. If it's one of those "video extra" things that's included with the movie on the DVD, then you should note the time index where the clip can be found. Most of the standard citation templates include fields where you can shove stuff like this. For example, {{cite web}} has "At" (May be used instead of 'page' or 'pages' where a page number is inappropriate or insufficient) where you could put the time index and "id" (A unique identifier used where none of the specialized ones are applicable) where a UPC code could go. UPC codes aren't the best thing, but if there's no better identifier, it's better than nothing. Actually, {{Cite AV media}} would be even more appropriate for a DVD, and that has a "time" field (Time the event occurs in the source; preceded by default text "Event occurs at"). -- RoySmith(talk)16:23, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith I believe that @Nineteen Ninety-Four guy cited it as a featurette because that's what it's listed as on the dvd. We already discussed adding timestamps in the nomination page and why we can't do it; to summarize, neither of us own the DVD and we don't know if timestamps from a youtube video of it would be accurately aligned with the content on the DVD. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 05:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
OK, I have included the timestamps as requested. A friend loaned me his copy of the CE Blu-ray for the sake of this DYK entry (this one). It appears that the runtime of the featurette in the disc is identical to the ones on YouTube, with only 1 sec difference between them. I'll just continue reformatting the refs at a later date, as I'm a little busy with school works atm. Hoping you're satisfied. Nineteen Ninety-Four guy (talk) 05:58, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
gives the reader enough information to be able to find the source and verify it themselves. If I understand things correctly, this is on a DVD titled, "Dawn Of The Dead [Collector's Edition]". When I search for "Raising the Dead", all I can find is this YouTube video which is not the right thing. If it's on a DVD titled "Dawn Of The Dead [Collector's Edition]", then that's what you should cite, because that's how somebody would find it in a DVD catalog. From the shout factory page you linked to, it looks like this is on disk 2, so I'd include that in the citation. But also note the guidance in WP:SAYWHERE about second-hand sources.
Shout Factory is a great boutique label, btw, if you collect genre films on physical media. I own some of the limited edition blu-ray titles they've released. BorgQueen (talk) 16:40, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I personally found Alt1 more interesting; it's concise, punchier, and verifiable via an online source: ALT1: ... that Kyle Cooper designed the title sequence for Dawn of the Dead using real human blood? Source: "For this spring's Dawn of the Dead, he even used real human blood." (Wired.com) I'd like to suggest we use this one instead, if you and @Cielquiparle: would agree. BorgQueen (talk) 18:37, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen The last 3 lines of the poem currently say:
a troupe of carnival comparsas
hundreds of extras in zombie makeup...[in] a "factory"
Winston Churchill...on extraterrestrial life
I know you like blood units though, so if you really want to change it, please go ahead...but another option for "using real human blood" might be to drop it back to Prep, then we'll surround it with other dramatic hooks for maximum effect. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:18, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
At one gig I had, the company decided that all development teams were to adopt scrum. It's a mostly harmless software engineering methodology which primarially serves to guarantee a reliable income to people certified to teach it to development teams. One positive aspect is that it emphasizes short meetings. One day, I organized the entire team to give their morning reports in haiku. -- RoySmith(talk)02:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I tagged this last week for WP:N. It doesn't look like there's been any changes which would support it being notable. I doubt this would survive WP:AfD. If this can't be fixed quickly, it'll need to get pulled. -- RoySmith(talk)15:03, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I suggest to send it to AfD. IMO the article should be evaluated by the community to determine if the article should exist. Otherwise that tag will be there in perpetuity and that is really not fair to the article creator. Bruxton (talk) 16:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh, don't worry, it'll get there eventually. I was hoping we could avoid that if possible by giving the author another chance to do some more research and find some better sources. But given that the Main Page Clock is ticking, we can't wait too long. -- RoySmith(talk)16:37, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't find that distracting. In fact, the hook says as much (i.e. that she wasn't FLOTUS) so one cannot or should not expect her picture there. Schwede6605:29, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I also did not find it distracting. I promoted the hook to queue but other admins are free to make changes to the hook per this conversation. I will also monitor this thread for discussions in the coming days. Z1720 (talk) 19:07, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello all, a while ago I nominated Stowe Gardens as a DYK, but it turned out to not be eligible, as the page was the result of a split. Last week it got promoted to GA, but when I tried to re-nominate it it wouldn't process it - I think becuase the template was in use? I left a note here for the previous reviewers on 28 Feb. I wondered if there was anything I could do now to progress a DYK for the page? Lajmmoore (talk) 13:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Lajmmoore, I have had a look at the template and it looks OK, I would add a note that the original split was part of a paid project and possibly the original hook as an alternative. I have added the template to unapproved nominations and the article talk page as required. One problem is that the nomination should have been made within 7 days of approval as a GA, which appears to have been done on 28 January. I would support accepting the late nomination as you first attempted it on 28 January. Unfortunately your pings to me and theleekycauldron didn't work as you didn't sign your post. TSventon (talk) 15:09, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I just assembled P5 and found the image I picked isn't on Commons because... "Although this image is free under US copyright law and thus acceptable on the English Wikipedia, it is believed to be non-free in its home country, Ethiopia." Does this mean that this image will have to protected manually here on English Wikipedia , or it makes no difference? BorgQueen (talk) 23:40, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: I'll be honest, I'm really not sure? My two main issues would be 1. the image needs to be protected on enwiki and 2. krinklebot can't upload it to Commons. It's entirely possible that cascading protection handles the first, and krinklebot has a licensing detector that handles the second – but I dunno. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:49, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
A shout out to all the volunteers who wanted to help with hook promoting back in January, only to find that the Prep Sets were all full: There is plenty of room for you to come back and contribute now!
(If you are trying it out for the first time, highly recommend using the WP:PSHAW tool, which eliminates the technical faff, and a quick scan of Template:Did you know/Queue#Instructions and WP:DYKNN. You're welcome to promote just a hook or two at first, no need to complete a whole set. Also, the place to look for hooks to promote is WP:DYKNA. )
And to those who have given lots of time reviewing hooks in ERRORS and QUEUE/PREP: Please consider spending some time reviewing the "approved" hooks at WP:DYKNA and adding comments there if you spot potential issues. Many thanks. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:24, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
From what I see, where the reviews could use the most improvement is verifying that the fact(s) stated in the hook are indeed in the article, cited at the end of the sentence to a WP:RS, and that the source does indeed support what we say. -- RoySmith(talk)14:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Currently, our instructions are to use {{subst:DYKproblem|First Republic of Armenia|header=yes|sig=yes}} to post a notification on a nominator's talkpage if their nomination has failed. This is the same message as is recommended for nominations which only have small problems to fix, and merely states that there are "some issues with it may need to be clarified". It seems a bit misleading to post that message and then have them follow the click through and see that "some issues" means "ineligible". Would there be support for a different notification, along the lines of "Unfortunately your nomination for DYK has failed. Further comments are available on your nomination page"? CMD (talk) 08:47, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I suppose the idea makes sense, but I think more clarification is needed here. By "failed nomination", do you mean a nomination that has been given a yellow tick, or a nomination that has been closed? If it's the latter, I think that could require its own talkpage. If it's the former, the wording you suggested would need to be revised to make it clear that the nomination has been marked for closure, but actually hasn't failed yet. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:08, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Not sure about a yellow tick, I'm talking about the red cross. The wording was purely off the cuff, new wording can be created if people agree the current notification is unhelpful. CMD (talk) 10:19, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the info BorgQueen and Schwede66. Sorry, wasn't meant as a dig at anyone; I am grateful for the tireless work being done by all to keep DYK going. Would be interested to know why the new modification log didn't pick it up though. The FWW/WWI distinction is just another of those odd things to be mindful of when preparing queues and preps I suppose. Incidentally I got the capitalisation in my earlier ngram link wrong, the correct link is this one; the proportion of usage of the two terms is almost exactly reversed in American English and broadly 50/50 across all varieties - Dumelow (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
Part II: Idea, thinking outside the box so to speak
If I have the dates correct, DYK has existed at least since March 2005. GA came into being in October 2005. So, on or about the same time. Correct me if I'm wrong on that. I don't know how the various parts of the Main Page came into being. But Featured content takes up the majority of it - FA, FL and FP. While FA is everyday, the others are rotated. Just a thought - why can't one of the Featured slots rotate with GA at least one day a week. It would be a really nice way to showcase GA all by itself beyond a one-line blurb. Is that a reachable goal to negotiate a one-day-a-week appearance for GA to have its own section? Feedback? — Maile (talk) 16:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
I think there's a lot to what @Schwede66 said. I don't know of any review process IRL which works well when there's only a single reviewer. Even if you assume all reviewers are honest and skilled, different people have different things they focus on. Maybe one person is a stickler for the quality of the sources and somebody else is more into making sure the prose is well written.
Having more than one set of eyes is always a good thing, and that's what GA lacks. Incorporating GA into the DYK acceptance criteria at least ensures some additional review before it hits the main page. If there was some sort of "GA showcase" section, it would need to have some level of additional quality control beyond the initial GA. -- RoySmith(talk)16:45, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Well, there's a remedy to that. GA has its own regulars, who would select the chosen article. And in doing so, they would put it up for critique before it even made it to the own page. Featured has its own processes where they make Feature quality first, then are put on a request list for main page, and are reviewed and voted on.
Maile, I have no idea how it might work, and have doubts as to whether it's desirable. However, if you want GAs to have their own spotlight, if they're new GAs, then see what the folks at WT:GAN think, since they'd have to be on board; if they're existing GAs, I don't know whether WT:GA or WT:GAN would be a better venue, but again, it seems like you're need some GA folks working on this. One reason GAs were added to DYK to begin with was because they weren't important (or good?) enough on their own to warrant their own space, so they got shoehorned in with DYK. I don't understand why they should have two sections on the front page for them, unless you're planning on excluding GAs that have appeared via DYK from the new GA section. As a side point to RoySmith above, one reason why DYK requires a different reviewer for a new GA from the GA reviewer who passed it is precisely because any issues not picked up by the original reviewer have a better chance of surfacing with a second pair of eyes, which is why some GAs nominated at DYK are sent back for work on anything from copyvio to citation issues, and sometimes delisted (or even, very occasionally, deleted) due to things found out at DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:55, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for answering. Yes, I was wondering what it would be like for GA to be removed from DYK and given its own Main Page spot. Just floating ideas, since Dr. Blofeld sees much good in GA. But re what else you mention, I haven't performed a GA review for any nomination in a long time. My experience in doing those reviews, is that some editors are really good in what they submit. But the GA checklist for a review is kind of lightweight and does not cover as thoroughly as DYK. I have in the past failed a couple of GACs, where the editors just re-submitted without any changes, and they were passed anyway. — Maile (talk) 01:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd be opposed to removing GA as a pathway for GA. The reason GAs were added in the first place was because requiring DYKs to be new or 5x expansions meant that many older articles would never have a pathway to being featured on the Main Page, and being a GA at least gave them a pathway. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:56, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't have to AGF because I speak some Japanese (although my native language is Korean). The term itself is real. But you're suspicious about a specific source(s), we should ask them to replace it with more reliable sources, as usual. BorgQueen (talk) 08:17, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I've never been comfortable with our whole AGF on sources thing. For off-line sources, it's easy enough for the author to provide an excerpt from the source which supports the fact. Likewise, for non-english sources, between machine translations and the availability of bi-lingual wikipedians who can assist with human-powered translations, there's no reason we should have to AGF. Given how often I see citations that don't verify in on-line english-language sources, I have to assume our track record is no better for off-line or non-english-language, so AGF seems unjustified.
Thanks for the advice.
At this point, the only source for 2chan is the huge classification table in [19], so I will proceed on the assumption that the source here is the one in question.
This classification table in 2chan is exactly the same as the table on page 22 of the reference material. It can be found here as a trial reading the book online.
I added 2chan as a source in the Japanese version of the article to show that the origin of the classification table can be traced back as far as ancient times, but if there is any doubt about its reliability, it can be replaced with page 22 of the book.
My personal opinion is that it would be more convenient for the reader if it were left in the Related Links and Other Items section, but it would not be a problem to delete it.
Since I am no longer the primary author, I would be interested in hearing others' views. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 狄の用務員 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
In the Japanese article, the book is used as the source for its classification table. There was also an objection to using 2chan as a source. It might be safer to replace it with a book (personal opinion).狄の用務員 (talk) 09:38, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
If the source were to be changed, I think it would be better to change the headline with it. Kaneda introduces the table as a "list of yaoi hole factions.(やおい穴派閥一覧)".
I just tried to change the source and got an error. Can someone please take over for me? I am not familiar with Sfn tag, Sorry for the hassle. 狄の用務員 (talk) 11:04, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for catching this, @BorgQueen. I admit I didn't look at the sources listed outside of the ===Bibliography=== section very closely, so that's probably why I missed 2chan being used as the source. Now that I'm looking at the list of "web" sources again, I see some whose metadata can be improved, so I'll work on that. —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 02:20, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I just finished improving the remaining cite templates, so all of the sourcing that I missed in the earlier pass have been vetted. The web sources may be unconventional by western standards, but in my view they meet the reliability conditions of WP:SOURCEDEF. Feel free to let me know if you have any questions about a specific source. Note that page number is missing in the 2典 citation, but a copy of the tree chart described as the source of the inspiration is available here. (Yes, I realize that's a 2channel copy that copied the book's content.) —Arsonal (talk + contribs)— 04:48, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't know much about DYK, so let me ask. Is there a deadline for this work? Is there an approximate release date? Is there any possibility of an extension?狄の用務員 (talk) 08:33, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
@狄の用務員 There's a deadline for nominating an article, yes. But once nominated and passed the reviewing process, featuring the article on the Main Page can be delayed, within reason. BorgQueen (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
I am new to DYK, but it looks like a very valuable opportunity and I would like to add some text, is that allowed? I am not sure about deadlines.
The draft is here, the text is messy right now and the source is not attached yet, but I think I can make it into a decipherable text in about 5-10 days.
Should I ask this here or should I discuss it on the talk page of the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 狄の用務員 (talk • contribs) 15:10, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Also please note that, if you rewrite a significant portion of the article, it will have to go through a reviewing process again. BorgQueen (talk) 22:25, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
@Arsonal@BorgQueenThanks. I was not very familiar with DYK. It's a bit pity, but to avoid unnecessary burden and confusion of redoing the peer review process, I'll pass on it this time and contribute some other time. I appreciate advices. 狄の用務員 (talk) 09:43, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, also to all the hook reviewers and everyone vetting behind the scenes.
Just to confirm: Does Ertuğrul Gazi get an automatic pass on number of characters because it only goes over due to the metric-to-imperial conversion? Cielquiparle (talk) 06:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Was trying to progress review of Charles Grobe and noticed that Abraham Lincoln quickstep hook was already approved by @Narutolovehinata5 (pretty straightforward and interesting). @BorgQueen Would it be possible to swap that hook in for the February 12 set, which is Lincoln's birthday? Cielquiparle (talk) 10:53, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Exploding bullets might be entertaining but would make the section too busy and give it an inconsistent look not matched by ITN, OTD and other sections which use standard bullets. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:41, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Personally I've never been on the receiving end of one, but offhand exploding bullets don't sound like much fun at all. EEng15:37, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
In the cited source, I cannot verify where it says that the song was the first Bob Dylan song to be remixed. Can someone quote from the source where it says this? Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 15:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
As of 17 October 2007 per Pop Matters: In fact, the only previously unreleased track — the only remix ever to be approved by Dylan, Mark Ronson’s remix of “Most Likely You Go Your Way (And I’ll Go Mine) — is only available through the digital version of the album being sold through iTunes.Cielquiparle (talk) 16:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: and others: I am a bit concerned with the use of "officially", as it's a little bit of an unclear word (what makes a song official? I assume that it is the fact that Dylan authorized it. I think that's where I struggled to verify the information.) Perhaps one of the alts below might be better:
Noting that I promoted the prep set (as everything else was fine) but any admin can make changes (or not change the hook) per this conversation. Z1720 (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I have gone back and forth, as several readings are possible for all these hooks, but currently leaning toward the original hook ("to be officially remixed"), especially after reading this Rolling Stone news brief (you have to read the whole paragraph in context). ALT2 sounds kind of funny in that it sounds like Bob Dylan was approving his own track to be remixed ("remix this one"), when in fact the above-mentioned article and this Rolling Stone interview with Mark Ronson make it clear, Ronson "auditioned" to be allowed to remix, by sending him a demo remix of that particular song. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:48, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Since DYK only explicitly excludes stubs, and has long accepted Start- and C-class articles, I see little chance of a separate B-class requirement being approved for DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
Rite/use
@Pbritti: I've slightly tweaked the wording of this hook (in Prep 4) to "the use to use", since the pronoun "one" (singular) clashes with "they" (conventionally plural). I know that "they" is often used singularly, but rarely juxtaposed with "one" in the same sentence. I'd be happy to revert the change if you don't think it's worthwhile. At any rate, well done on a pleasantly quirky hook! — RAVENPVFF·talk·00:38, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen I like the 19th-century trees of life diagrams in principle, but don't think they render particularly well as thumbnails, either. Also, the image captioned "Hello babes" (?) from 1875 is better than the 1866 one now in Prep 1 (which is tied to the hook, which is why you swapped it).
One way to fix might be to swap the Tree of life hook with the ALT1 (which the reviewer preferred anyway for "broad appeal") and see if it works with the 1875 image or another one from that page? But it definitely would need a new caption. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:25, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I just proposed a possible alternative (using ALT1). But I just re-read the article and don't think it works. Will hunt for another image or hook for that set. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:40, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen On second thought, could you please swap Prep 1 and Prep 2? Those two are not tied to "special occasion" dates, so swapping them each other shouldn't mess up the order. We need more time to sort out Prep 1, as it seems @Dying is trying to steal one of those hooks for April Fool's Day (for a mashup, no less).
(Personally I don't like it but could warm up to it, as long as the original DYK nominator is OK with the mashup; I understand DYK team decisions usually override what the nominators say, but in this case I think it's only fair. Or, allow the "victim" of the unexpected mashup to run twice in DYK, once on April Fool's.) Cielquiparle (talk) 05:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Sounds good. Cc: @Chiswick Chap and @Onegreatjoke re: alternate hook proposed. (BTW – Reactions to the Charles Darwin hook are varied – he definitely ticks the "familiar name" box, but it also makes the hook almost too "obvious" and unsurprising.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah it does. Btw I altered the hook to match the article's (and Darwin's) British English: conceptualize to conceptualise. BorgQueen (talk) 12:58, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: At 140x140px, it looks like a piece of some old, partially torn black-and-white textile to me. 😆 Was it really the best pic you could find for the set...? 🤔 BorgQueen (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Really? I see an aerial photograph of a neighbourhood with a train station-sized hole in the middle of it, and immediately want to click to enlarge and read the story. I thought it was in striking contrast to all the same-old train station images we regularly run, and the hook sort of relies on the image. (The theme for that set is "Transport & Education"...loosely defined.) Cielquiparle (talk) 09:33, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
Lost my words... ok, maybe it's just me (and my mobile). But I won't move it to the queue; I'm sure someone else, perhaps RoySmith, could do it. BorgQueen (talk) 09:51, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith the thing is that there are several Tree of Life images and the hook is talking about a specific 1866 one. And I've corrected my previous choice of the image according to the hook. BorgQueen (talk) 02:22, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: Getting one's image, or an image one likes, on MP is a privilege, not a right; I hope people don't take it for granted. Especially if the image happens to be an aerial photo (!). You can't possibly expect that it'd show up well at 140x140px, when a large segment of readers will be seeing it on a tiny teeny mobile screen. BorgQueen (talk) 05:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen I honestly thought the aerial photograph was fine, and I didn't realise people other than DYK team members looked at the main page on their mobile phones, since Wikipedia seems so keen to push the mobile app, which remains "safe from DYK". Cielquiparle (talk) 05:28, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The sharpening does make it better at a small size so for the use on the MP it's the best (I guess). Looks meh on the article itself so I guess I will swap it to cropped 2 once DYK is over. ~StyyxTalk?09:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Ugh. That needs to get replaced. The quality is really unsuitable for the main page. As a minor point, the image used for the hook and the image in the article are not the same; I don't know if that's acceptable or not. But the real point is that it's just not main-page quality in a small size. Cropping and (over) sharpening a poor image doesn't make it better. -- RoySmith(talk)13:30, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I think it is broader than BLP and I think that is reasonably appropriate: hooks are presented on the main page, and contextless. Like a headline vs a newspaper article that weighs a debate. However, I think the kind of summary that would appear in a WP article lede should be fine for a DYK hook. I do not think the use of "unduly" refers to DUE, nor should it. Of course, I don't think either of the hooks mentioned here are particularly negative, let alone unduly. Sure, factual statements can be negative, but in such short snippets it's often more down to tone than the contents. The first hook does not say why Roiland was removed from the show, nor does it focus on that (more sentence weight on the recasting). The second hook says that some guy was some crypto guy's top advisor in an aggressive lobbying campaign (I do know the Bankman-Fried case, but the purposes of this explanation) - while crypto and [aggressive] lobbying are viewed negatively by many people, those same people are generally aware that they're things pretty much every major US company engages with. Both hook facts fall under neutral to me. So while I, like everyone here probably, has thoughts on the "don't be unduly negative" thing, 1. I don't think it really applied to either of these, 2. it's almost certainly something that after 2 weeks of discussion we'll decide should be case-by-case anyway. Not worth the bytes? Kingsif (talk) 10:08, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Admittedly, as a non-fan of Rick and Morty but as someone who knows about the series, I'm not a fan of the proposed hooks not just because of the possible BLP concerns, but because I feel that such a popular and long-running series deserves a different hook. It also feels like a case of recentism when I'm sure there are many events from the series' history that could also work as hooks too. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:01, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
@FormalDude It's still an unfolding news item – it's still unknown who will be cast in Justin Rolland's place – and it's the topic of much speculation. (The best of the current lot is ALT1 which reads: "... that Adult Swim will recast all of co-creator Justin Roiland's voice roles in Rick and Morty?" which is also still in future tense.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:15, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
I can see that, and also that it's the spirit of @Theleekycauldron's initial question – are we genuinely steering clear of the negative if we just try to "spin" something problematic in a positive light. Anyway, enough ink. Let's solve it. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:51, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
ALT5: ... that McDonald's returned Szechuan Sauce to their menu twenty years after being discontinued because of it's numerous references in Rick and Morty?
I think #1 and #5 are the best, #4 is solid. Discard the other two - digital images and animation being made in digital imaging and animating software? Not hooky. And the three comparisons are all of the same flavour - I had a hook like that myself a few years ago, but it was a TV show getting compared to Sharknado and an Oscar-winner, the giant difference in referents being what made it hooky IMO. Kingsif (talk) 14:26, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
Re ALT5:
It's its not it's
As written, it says that McDonald's was discontinued, not the sauce.
And that variation shows that the original A5 above is incorrect in its clear implication that the discontinuance was due to the references, not its return. What a mess. I'm in a bold mood so I rewrote it in T:DYK/P4. EEng18:39, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
@FormalDude wants Rick and Morty toward the beginning of the hook. @EEng doesn't like using the words "restaurant" and "product". I don't like "restaurant" and "product" either, but I also don't like the passive voice in the current version. How about:
I don't dislike those two words per se, but WP:ELEVAR is bad enough in articles, way bad in a hook, and absolutely intolerable in a hook twice. 5c is fine with me. EEng06:01, 11 February 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.
I really like this hook and want to keep it, but I have some formatting questions for the DYK community. For context, the bolded phrase is a New York Times headline about the event, which read "Bush Encounters the Supermarket, Amazed".
Should the bolded phrase be in present tense to align with the original headline (Encounters), reflect the change to the headline (Encounter[ed]), or be kept as it currently appears (Encountered)?
Should the bolded phrase be in quotation marks, since it is quoting the NYT headline?
Should the bolded phrase be in italics, since the phrase is from a headline?
Thanks for your thoughts. I have already promoted to queue, so an admin will have to make any changes that reach consensus. Z1720 (talk) 17:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd suggest keeping as is, with its use of past tense within artistic license since the point is to replicate the effect of the headline rather than to indicate it's a quote of something. If put in quotation marks to mimic the citation of the NYT article title (which would be the convention instead of italics), then I could see using square brackets to indicate the past tense, but I don't think all of that is necessary. Courtesy-pinging @Onegreatjoke, who is the actual nominator. czar17:48, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
The most fundamental rule of DYK is that a hook must present a verifiable fact. Instead, this hook states, in Wikipedia's voice, something which is probably not true. Bush was not in a supermarket. The chairman of the New York Times admitted it was being "naughty", and other news outlets reported that Bush was unamazed, and Time reported all eyewitness accounts as refuting the New York Times story. This hook should definitely not run in its current form. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM18:15, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
@Z1720 In that case, could we please replace with ALT5...?
The hook says "top advisor" but the article and the WaPo source both say, "top Washington advisor". There might be other types of advisors, so the hook should say "Washington" just like the article and the source.
(OK I see now the initial catch was from @RoySmith. Maybe you could sign the individual sub-sections in the future, so it's clearer to those who are jumping in and out to respond to specific items in the list?) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:40, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I added a footnote for 2013 in the lead section of Battle of Chios (1912) as a quick fix for compliance with DYK Rule #3b: Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article. The spirit of DYK Rule #3b is that readers shouldn't struggle to verify that the fact stated in the hook is backed up by a reliable source cited in the article, so it's a bad sign if a DYK admin can't find it (even if technically the fact appears in the narrative later).
However, @Cplakidas and @Onegreatjoke, you may want to take a look at the article to see if there is a better way to address this requirement. In fact, if you can add a citation for the "nearly 350 years of Ottoman rule", maybe we could go with ALT0 instead. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith and Cielquiparle: I confess I am surprised here. The last parts of 'Fight for Chios' cover the final conquest of the island: "The last Ottoman forces at Pityous followed suit on the morning of 3 January 1913 [O.S. 21 December 1912]" is directly cited already. As for the 350 years, the Ottoman capture in 1566 is also cited, and the rest is merely subtraction and rounding. IMO that falls under WP:OBV. Constantine ✍ 12:18, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
@Constantine Please understand that when I'm processing a prep set promotion, I'm doing 8 hooks in a batch, so I don't have the time to read each article completely; I'm mostly skimming and/or doing keyword searches. If I can't find it that way, I'm going to make a query. Yes, I found the citation for 1566 and did the mental math to come up with "about 350 years". That part was fine. But for the capture in 1913, I found a lot of things that were cited to happen in 1913, but none of them were obviously the island being "captured". I found a few things that sort of sounded like they might be describing a capture, but I'm not looking for "sort of sounded like", I'm looking for "It says captured, right here, cited to a WP:RS". -- RoySmith(talk)13:59, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: fair enough, but that is the nature of hooks that summarize entire articles. I nevertheless hope I have addressed your query, or is there still a problem? Constantine ✍ 15:16, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
PS, WP:DYKNOT defines hooks as interesting facts taken from Wikipedia's newest content. I get that people like to summarize the entire article, but that's pushing the envelope a bit; that's a "summary", not a "fact", so don't be surprised if you get pushback from a reviewer who is having a hard time verifying the facts. -- RoySmith(talk)17:38, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not exactly sure why, but the DYK that just ran yesterday (11 February) is being recorded in the history as if it ran today (12 February) in WP:Recent Additions. This is a pattern that goes back a while, and I'm not sure the root cause. Does anybody have any suggestions for how to fix this going forward? — Red-tailed hawk(nest)01:25, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Red-tailed hawk, this issue is actually regularly reported on this page. it was discussed more in depth here, where i also proposed a solution that received some support, but it was never implemented. i would still support its implementation, though i currently don't have the time to offer to normalize the archives. dying (talk) 07:21, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to let you know, I've tagged the article for being too magazine-like in tone, but I think this could be a relatively quick fix to revise to be more encyclopedic. (It comes in part from relying so heavily on interviews with Greg Noire, etc.; it might help if you can find additional secondary sources.) I'm happy to help with revising if needed, so let me know; I don't think we need to pull the hook if we could sort it out within the next couple of days. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:22, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: Those were basically all the secondary sources that existed, at least ones that were reliable, although I can look again. Could you help give specific points on how to revise the article? I think what you're getting at is that the article relies too much on attributed opinion and quotes from Noire? Thanks — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 16:23, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
@PerfectSoundWhatever Yes, way too many direct quotes of the subject, relative to the rest of the article, plus the way his methods, style, and emotions are described, largely from his own perspective. Some unnecessary level of detail that we wouldn't expect to see in an encyclopedia article – e.g. the fact he emailed a music festival in order to get a gig. Some of the phrasing is too informal and magazine-like: "Noire's favorite photographer..." Cielquiparle (talk) 00:55, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
@PerfectSoundWhatever Thanks for fixing! Better for sure. Have removed tag. @RoySmith Yes, "magazine-like" = reads like an article in a magazine, rather than an article in an encyclopedia. Pop culture articles are naturally less academic-sounding – in the end, tone and style are determined in large part by the subject matter – but in the case of a biography we are also trying to steer clear of sounding too autobiographical, too promotional, or too much like a features writer at a magazine interviewing the subject. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:31, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
There's an item in the holding area for February 22 that appears to have been overlooked; the preps that will run on that day are already full. Schwede6609:47, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure it is. It sometimes requires judgement to pick the right one depending on time zones and where the item is physically located. Schwede6621:11, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
... that Richard Horn's novel Encyclopedia is structured as a series of encyclopedia entries that can be read in any order?
Looks like the nom preferred and the reviewer only okayed ALT1? Anyone have an objection to changing to ALT1, as I'm also actually not sure the source provided supports this hook -- the closest is seems to come is saying "the entries don't follow chronologically". Valereee (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
(Nominee here): I have a slight preference for ALT1 as well. I will say that I don't really agree that the source doesn't support this hook, though: The relevant passage was Each entry is complete unto itself, but each has references to other entries if the reader has difficulty following the sequence of events, which reads to me as "You can bounce around and read the cross-references without impacting the actual plot." ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me!16:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I have no doubt that the assertion is true. It doesn't actually bother me to have it in the article that way, even. But for a DYK hook, I prefer to find clear support. Otherwise someone will no doubt bring it up at ERRORS. I like to avoid that if I can. :) Valereee (talk) 16:51, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I appreciate that ALT1 may be more "clever", but to me it's also too "pat":
ALT1: ... that Richard Horn's novel Encyclopedia is structured like its title implies?
In other words, there is no mystery there, and no real reason to click. With such an interesting concept behind the novel, surely we could brainstorm additional hooks? And/or glean from numerous other sources? (I added one to the article yesterday that says, In some lexicon novels, like Richard Horn’s Encyclopedia, one may either follow the alphabetical sequence of entries or skip from one item to another that expands on it; the entry “Bishop’s Cope” concludes with the invitation to see the entries “Doom” and “Papageno” (21–22). Cc:@ThadeusOfNazerethCielquiparle (talk) 10:38, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
could even go for the quirkier:
ALT2: ... that Richard Horn's 1969 novel was an Encyclopedia?
This reads awkwardly to me, I can't access the source, do we mean he was the first after the uprising? 'Since' sounds like it should be referring to something that's happened recently. Like maybe he'd become mayor last year, becoming the first since the uprising. Would rewording to 'after the' be incorrect? Valereee (talk) 16:49, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
February 27
I reviewed a February 27 article and it is now in special holding area. That would be for the image slot in Prep 6 - or without the image (up to promotor). I hope someone else can promote it when the time comes. Right now it is the last prep so I think we need to wait. Bruxton (talk) 16:48, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
There's way too much worrying about occasional clumps of related hooks. So what if there's two bios, two WW2-related, two of whatever back to back once in a while? Avoiding this seems to be something someone threw into the "rules" 20 years ago, just because it seemed like a good idea at the time. EEng19:54, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Having 500 arcane rules like this is why I am hesitant to contribute to building preps. No matter what I do I'm bound to do something wrong like adding two hooks about villages or trains or the Spanish Inquisition or whatever in the same set. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 20:58, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
@EEng@Trainsandotherthings Not a big deal at all! As long as it's in Prep, the promoter has lots of flexibility to adjust as they see fit...and there seem to be plenty of lurkers and admins who will also move things around if they think a particular combo doesn't work. So my comment to Bruxton was more in the spirit of...do with this what you like. No one is "wrong", no one is "in trouble" or "mad", no one actually dies. Low stress, lots of artistry, enjoy! Cielquiparle (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
@Red-tailed hawk The hook itself is very well-supported. However I'm not as sure about calling him a neo-Nazi in wikivoice in the article. It cites one source, and I don't know if it's a RS. It may be, but I'm just not familiar with the source. Perhaps you could add allegedly to the neo-Nazi claim? BorgQueen (talk) 13:02, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The Russian-language sources who aren't Kremlin-aligned the Ukrainian sources tend to refer to him as neo-nazi, while Western sources definitely hedge a lot more, either saying he has "ties" to neo-nazis (possibly true, but I generally find that language of dubious value), or that he had once been part of a neo-nazi movement, but they generally only characterize him as a Russian (ultra-)nationalist in their own voice. I've removed the text for now (The Insider was the source, and it's a Latvian newsorg). I don't think that Western sources are particularly more reliable here, but all sources seem to agree on him being a Russian nationalist, while several either decide against or for some other reason omit the characterization of Mangushev as Neo-nazi. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)15:03, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
I haven't been following all the details, but there's been some sadness happening in the WMF cloud environment the past couple of days. That probably explains what's going on with the bot. -- RoySmith(talk)01:53, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
On the 15 February 00:00 UTC update, the bot hit (what appears to be) a pywikibot bug in how anon talk pages are handled. Looks similar to phabricator:T306291, except with the 0s instead of uppercase/lowercase. pywikibot.exceptions.InconsistentTitleError: Query on en:User talk:2409:40F3:2B:72D:8000:: returned data on 'User talk:2409:40F3:2B:72D:8000:0:0:0' Will add 'file bug to pywikibot folks' to my to-do list. Anyways, DYKUpdateBot is back up and running now :) Thanks for incrementing the queue counter! Shubinator (talk) 17:11, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Hey, Shubinator, is the bot going to be run for the prior batch of articles that it messed up on? Not sure if it's capable of doing that or if those need to be manually done now. I can self-award mine if need be. :P SilverserenC04:34, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I was unaware that sensationalism was actually policy, as opposed to mere good taste that I decided to flout for reasons I give below. In any event, I don't see why the other hook wasn't promoted, and would have preferred it with the image attached. Both hooks were originated by me in an attempt to get a Four Award for this local neighborhood station, so I would much prefer at least one hook make it to the Main Page. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 01:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I wouldn't classify your hook as C11 break, it has encyclopedic value behind it – there are things I now want to know about the hook that don't just boil down to it being lurid. Like, what was the point of the protest? Why that paper in particular? Finger-chopping is catchy, it's what's around it that makes it worthwhile. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:59, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Actually, I'm kind of annoyed with myself that I didn't come up with "... that Henry Benvenuti was so angry with the art editor of the SoHo Weekly News, he gave them the finger?" -- RoySmith(talk)02:11, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
It's source #8 Borzo, p. 43 - in the first paragraph of the History section, at the end of the sentence about it being the first etc. — Maile (talk) 02:12, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
What needs to be added to the article? The exact wording already in the article, "upon its opening the first electric elevated railroad in the United States." And it's sourced at the end of the sentence. FYI, this not being Halloween, "first" is a lot less gratuitous shock-value than decapitation — Maile (talk) 02:26, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Not to divert the conversation, but I'm going to divert the conversation. The real question is why in hell do railroad articles go out of their way to tell our readers about miscellaneous "incidents" from a zillion years ago? Every station and every line has had decapitations, mutilations, suicides, and electrocutions -- as ol' Charles Francis Adams put it in his Notes on Railway Accidents[4], "Even in the forms of sudden death on the rail, nature seems to take a grim delight in an infinitude of surprises." But they're utterly uninformative trivia unless notable for the number killed, a reform prompted, etc. EEng03:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
As said earlier, I deliberately added such information for a hook for a Four Award. I found a better hook afterwards, which also did not get promoted for some reason, but left it in there. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:57, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to put this as gently as possible, but that's a great example of how these stupid awards and contests induce people to do stuff that doesn't improve articles or the project. If that was, like, a really interesting hook I could understand, but but it's not. It's just another railway accident, which you shoehorned into the article so you could get some barnstar. EEng15:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I pretty much agree about contests sometimes pushing people to do things that aren't the best thing ("be careful what you measure"), but I'm at a loss to understand why writing a lurid/sensational hook helps towards getting a four award. Another thing I do notice (although not a DYK issue per-se) is that a lot of the article isn't actually about the station. Much of the article is about the subway system in general and the company that ran it. You need enough of that to put the station in the right context, but what's there now is excessive. The article could be half its current length and not lose any information about the station itself. -- RoySmith(talk)16:02, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Beats me. I personally avoid these whenever possible, and none of my hooks have ever involved an accident. They are very much routine, I've seen numerous newspaper accounts of unfortunate accidents for essentially every railroad I've researched. Wood River Branch Railroad#Accidents and incidents shows about how much attention an average article on a short railroad should dedicate to accidents, in my view. But yes, the original hook here was awful. Providence and Worcester Railroad, a FA, only mentions a single accident, and one which was significant both for prompting the P&W to double-track its main line, and as the first accident to have a photo published of it in a newspaper. I try to remove them when I find them, but I'm just one person. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
None of that Wood River material belongs. The P&W martial does belong, for the reasons you mention. EEng15:48, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I personally think the Wood River material is fine, but I will be taking the article to FAC later this year once I finish expanding it, where reviewers can assess if it merits inclusion or not (and you're certainly welcome to share that perspective there as well, as it will influence if it gets cut or not). But regardless, I agree with the general point here that routine train accidents do not make good DYK hooks in almost all cases. This is also why I generally don't work on train station articles (New Haven Union Station being an exception) as I generally find them quite boring. I skimmed the article in question here and I really do not see anything that's particularly "hooky", though RoySmith's suggestion might work. A Four Award should be a reward for going through the requisite steps normally, not a goal in and of itself. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
The Wood River material is fine? Here it is:
A man was accused of attempting to derail a Wood River Branch train on April 14, 1897. It was alleged William H. Baton had placed a railroad tie over the tracks, which was later struck by a train; the train was not derailed as the tie was caught in the locomotive's cowcatcher. A jury found Baton not guilty of placing a tie on the tracks.[1]A fatal accident, the first in the company's history, occurred on May 25, 1914. A local resident was traveling across the bridge over the Wood River on foot, despite being warned a train was due. A southbound train from Hope Valley rounded a curve near the bridge, and could not stop in time to avoid a collision. The man, Ernest Peter Palmer, was struck and thrown into the river. Though the train's crew dove into the river after him and recovered his body, a coroner later determined he was killed instantly upon impact with the train.[2]
So let's see. In 1897 there was a tie on the track, but the cowcatcher knocked it off so nothing happened. Someone was accused of putting it there, but was acquitted. So? What does this tell the reader about the railroad?? How is this (including the man's name, even) not pure trivia of no significance whatsoever???
Meanwhile, some dumbass was struck and killed while walking on the tracks in 1914. Even today, about 500 people are killed this way every year in the US alone, and about the same number injured. How in the world does this help the reader better understand the topic of the article, which is the Wood River Branch Railroad??? Absolutely nothing. It's all rank trivia. EEng23:18, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
Okay, I'm going to be more blunt. You're acting like a jerk, and I don't appreciate it. It costs nothing to be nice to people. You've made your point, you don't have to (falsely) imply my articles are full of discursive junk. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:28, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
This has nothing to do with you, and I have no idea what articles you've written or worked on. But it's my long observation that railway articles are full of junk trivia on miscellaneous accidents of no particular significance, and it's my further (long) observation that FA, despite its pretension to passing only top-quality articles, instead often passes rambling bloat. So I'm afraid I must disagree with you the "surely" FAC reviewers will do anything. EEng04:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
If the April Fool's hook does violate OR or "direct citation" (not sure how lax those specific rules are for April Fool's hooks), we can always promote the nom's ALT0, which is about an architectural remnant of the station. It's likely that it wasn't promoted because of interest, but I'veseenworse on the Main Page. (No disrespect to anyone involved, of course, just the hooks.) – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 20:31, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
... my apologies if I come across as really offensive here, but is RoySmith's hook funny or April Fools-y in a way I'm not getting? and what's the sourcing like that it could be considered OR? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:25, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
No offense taken at all. Saying that a nickel could take someone from Chicago to California – a distance of about 1,000 miles – would elicit a sort of sensible chuckle or at least raise some eyebrows. I'd say it's somewhat OR since the article never explicitly says as much, but map and book sources corroborate the statement. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 23:01, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
This is what I understand, from our article: "The fare across the "L" was legally mandated to be a nickel (5 cents, $1.37 in 2021) in the late 19th and early 20th centuries." and "As of 1915, Chicago Avenue had two streetcar lines, both serving the station: one went westbound from Lake Shore Drive to California Avenue". Bruxton (talk) 23:05, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
that'd be an okay AFDay hook if the bolded article were the California station – since there's any number of Chicago stations that connect to it, I'm not sure I see this one as suitable. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:15, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
I know on all counts, I was just wondering how strict/lax DYK was about such deliberate tomfoolery on normal days. If it's fine with everyone else it's fine with me. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:10, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Problem with building preps. I now have more than 15 nominations in the approved section that I either approved or nominated. I think I also have some waiting approval. Sadly, I will have to curtail my promotion activities so that my own work can advance. Also ATM I am hungry after my latest article on Bondiola sandwiches! Bruxton (talk) 21:45, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
@TonyTheTiger I don't know how it got started, but once the incorrect template title was created with the leading space, it just kept getting propagated to more places. I think I tracked them all down and fixed them. Let me know if you have any more problems with this. -- RoySmith(talk)20:36, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
The first one I think requires some familiarity with the subject and the second describes an event so horrible that I really don't want to read its sources. Could anyone check them before they hit the Main Page? Thank you. BorgQueen (talk) 23:45, 17 February 2023 (UTC)
Earwig is down so I couldn't do a copyvio review, but the hook facts for both check out with WP:RS. I had never heard of City & Guilds Mnemonic Code before, so that was kind of interesting. It predates MIX (which I was aware of) by several years, which is really interesting because I had always thought that was an idea Knuth came up with.
@FormalDude, Krimuk2.0, Novem Linguae, Thriley, MyCatIsAChonk, and Cielquiparle:WP:DYK#gen4a says that Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided. While the former hook is up for consideration, and the latter has already been promoted to prep, both could conceivably fall afoul of the policy. The trouble is, for me (as exemplified by the disagreement in the discussion), it seems very unclear what exactly this rule is meant to communicate.
When we say "unduly", what do we mean? Does "unduly" literally mean "compliance with WP:DUE"? We write 200-character hooks, it would be very difficult to follow this unless we either 1. exactly match the tone of the whole article, positive and negative or 2. find that the whole article is duly negative, so the whole hook can be duly negative. Does it mean "strict compliance with reliable sourcing and notoriety requirements", making exceptions for what probably wouldn't overall be DUE but is so widely covered as to render BLP considerations near-moot?
And when we say "negative", what do we mean? Does "negative" mean "anything unflattering"? Does the fact that Justin Roiland was fired from a major network television show suffice for negativity, or would we have to explain why he was fired to fall afoul of the rule? Is being heavily associated with someone under criminal charges negative? Do we adjust for whether the hook is intended to communicate something negative, or what the effect is overall?
And if a hook makes an attempt to omit certain names or facts for BLP reasons, but then directs them to a part of the article that spells it out, does that matter if the article complies with DUE? That doesn't make much sense to me; most people are gonna look for that part of the article, read it, and leave.
making people a little more likely to respect the {{DYKsubpage}}
When you subst out {{DYKsubpage}}, it creates a pale blue background with a small black border. What if we implemented the small black border, without the blue background, for non-closed nominations (doesn't transclude)? that way, it'd be apparent to someone who makes an edit outside of the template that they've screwed it up. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:07, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
this is an interesting idea. i would hesitate to use a solid border, though, as i believe this is generally used to indicate to editors that a discussion has been closed. how about using a dotted or a dashed border instead? i also think it might be useful to include such a border in transclusions of the template in article talk pages, so that editors unfamiliar with dyk but wishing to participate in the conversation will have a more visual clue that comments left directly on article talk pages may not be seen by editors who are viewing the nomination template directly. dying (talk) 06:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
nbsp in category names???
Closed nomination templates have (for example) [[Category:Passed DYK nominations from February 2023]] in them. Note the between "nominations" and "from". Somehow it seems to work; the nomination gets put in the right category. But why is it there? Is this intentional? -- RoySmith(talk)23:57, 7 February 2023 (UTC)
There's some editing tool or script that seems to turn spaces into nbsp at random times -- you see it happening now and then on talk pages. I predicts that's what's happened here. Luckily, for some reason the wiki software apparently substitutes regular space for nbsp before going to fetch the article or whathaveyou. EEng02:17, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for notifying me of this discussion, I appreciate the opportunity to respond. I think the sentiments in Roy's question are completely valid and I agree with everything he said; namely: the purpose and placement of the non-breaking-space is not self apparent while its usage seems extraneous, static (serving no appreciable end), and unnecessary. And: the history of its use has not had an adverse effect on the DYK project's goals, expectations, or needs. Unfortunately, I can not add much to those truths as my memory is insufficient for the task and I'm almost certain that reviewing my contributions will be insufficient as well (the overwhelming majority of testing I perform when editing templates is conducted at Special:ExpandTemplates where matters can be exhaustively vetted and answers: confidently derived, but, unfortunately, nothing is stored in one's editing history to demonstrate diligence or show how decisions were developed or choices were made. What I do remember and can say and show, is: we had recently merged project desires and goals and the functionality of a former template (I do not recall its name) into {{NewDYKnomination}}. As much as possible, where nothing contrary occured, I would copy coding and follow the former template's lead (to lesson the likelihood of generating breaks in logic established by the former). In this case, you can see that every nomination in Category:Passed DYK nominations from July 2011 was categorized with the nbsp in identical fashion, which I merely mimicked in 2013. I'm sorry that I couldn't give a more definitive answer and I wish you "all the best" going forward; I am particularly fond of the DYK endeavor, proud to have been involved, and hopeful to one day, again, be active within the DYK project. Sincerely. --John Cline (talk) 03:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
Two things Oscar Wilde may not have known: Everything does not include everything, and: a single thing about moderation. Aside these, he was pretty well versed. I stopped drinking caffeine years ago; around the time I discovered giant Hershey's Kisses.--John Cline (talk) 06:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a couple of days ago, so I've created a new list of the first 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 28. We have a total of 228 nominations, of which 98 have been approved, a gap of 130 nominations that has decreased by 17 in the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:28, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith, I do it manually. As I construct a new one (based on my previous one), I look at every nomination in the "Older nomations" section of the nominations page from the oldest until I have accumulated about three dozen (or run out of noms), and invariably find ones that need the "again" icon and add it myself—a bot would miss those—plus I do other bits of cleanup along the way. When I get tired of doing this, a bot might be a good idea if no one wants to take over, though I've been doing it for years now. If a bot comes along anyway, I'll probably just stop, which would mean those nearly weekly checks wouldn't be made any longer. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:54, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
OK, sounds good. I'm just looking for ways I can make the process work better, but I'm not looking to put you out of a job that you enjoy doing (and do well). And thank you for doing it. -- RoySmith(talk)18:03, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
... that Werner Pinzner shot the investigating public prosecutor, his wife, and himself during an interrogation at the Hamburg police headquarters in 1986?
This sounds like Pinzner shot the prosecutor's wife, not his own. Perhaps "... shot himself, his wife, and the investigating public prosecutor" instead? Black Kite (talk)11:15, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Even though the fact that he photographed musical artists is not hooky in and of itself...and it reads like a laundry list...that is quite an impressive list of names to grab the attention of readers. Also, he gets points for having the last name "Noire". Cielquiparle (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Famous name-dropping is something DYK tries a lot in order to attract views; in my experience, it's not very effective in this kind of circumstance. The name Noire read as fairly normal to me, it wasn't interesting until I clicked on the article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:20, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Also, a significant number of readers won't have any idea who any of those people are. Let's not assume everyone is familiar with those (quite narrow) genres of music. Black Kite (talk)00:36, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Yup. Of the five artists mentioned, the only one I've heard of is Drake, and I couldn't tell you anything about him other than that I've heard the name. And I have no clue what's special about "Noire" as a name. -- RoySmith(talk)03:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I know who Drake and Lamar are and I've heard of the other names, but yeah the hook, while impressive, is probably not the best option. @RoySmith and Black Kite: As you two are admins and there seem to be reasonable objections about the hook, maybe either of you could pull it from Queue while other hook options are discussed here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:26, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Not sure why ALT0 got promoted when I approved ALT1 ("... that concert photographer Greg Noire aims to "de-concert [his] concert photography"?") as the more interesting of the two. Is it because of the brackets in the quote? DigitalIceAge (talk) 06:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @DigitalIceAge. So the solution is simple: Replace with ALT1. In future, if you're essentially rejecting a hook, it's a good idea to strike it out like this, so there's no confusion down the line. (Though I have wondered...what would it take for PSHAW to automatically reject hooks that have been struck? Always surprised to see them presented as options in that otherwise very clever tool... @Theleekycauldron) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: This feature's been something I've taken a whack at a few times – the trouble is that PSHAW then removes struck hooks from the page entirely when closing the nomination. Getting around this would take maybe ten minutes – the problem is that the code PSHAW uses to generate the window is incredibly annoying to work with, and it's forced me to into creating what boils down to a mass of nested, kludgy code. Working with it makes me, as my friend likes to say, "upsetti spaghetti". Apt for the spaghetti code :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron I figured it was something like that. Is there something else we could do, like tell people when they strike hooks to also remove the question mark at the end or something...and then PSHAW really will pretend it's not there? Cielquiparle (talk) 08:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
DigitalIceAge Promotors promote the hooks that they verify and like. I liked that one and promoted it. It happens. Try doing some promotions so that you can get mired down in these discussions. Bruxton (talk) 19:12, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused about this discussion. Is the consensus leaning towards a new hook, or the status quo? If it's the former, we could temporarily pull the nomination and try to go with any of RoySmith's suggestions. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:01, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen Per the discussion above...but also going one step beyond, could we please change the Greg Noire hook in Queue 3 to say:
... that Greg Noire aims to "de-concert" his concert photography?
(It's shorter than the original ALT1, but I don't see why we need to say that Greg Noire is a concert photographer (repetitive, though maybe that was on purpose), and also, putting just "de-concert" in scare quotes seems enough. It is an unusual expression (and a direct quote).) Cc: @DigitalIceAge @PerfectSoundWhateverCielquiparle (talk) 08:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
It has been mentioned at WP:ERRORS (here), that hooks are being copy edited in Prep without being discussed anywhere. I assume these are good faith edits, discussion is good. As with the hook for Kalle Rovanperä was changed from a correct wording to incorrect, just by changing one word from "in" to "at". Comments, anyone? — Maile (talk) 22:26, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The change was logged on the talk page of the nomination. Unfortunately, it was old enough that there was no notice it'd be logged there, but new noms have advertising on them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:33, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
You're referring to just one hook, something else. What I was referring to, is that a good-faith editor has been going through the preps, many, and changing wording without any discussions. — Maile (talk) 22:41, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, and I would like them to continue doing so. The prep set process is the last bit of flexibility DYK has – regulars who know the DYK format and style and punch, have dealt with thousands of hooks, and are qualified to act with a bit of leeway do still make mistakes. But they are a net positive for the project. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:45, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
This thread reads like one of those weird phishing emails I get all the time, which at first glance appears to be talking about something important but when you read it more closely, it doesn't actually say anything specific. Can somebody fill me in, please? Which prep are we talking about? Which hook(s)? Which editor? What diffs? -- RoySmith(talk)23:12, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
The log at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Kalle Rovanperä is confusing. It looks like it is saying the hook was changed to unlink some years. It is only if you go view the diffs that you see that there was another change as well. Maybe it would be helpful for these logs to include the original hook inline, to make it more obvious what has changed? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
I mean, I will say that both versions logged at the template talk use "at", so they could have noticed it, but you're correct that there's a bug in GalliumBot's temporal range. It is supposed to include the original for reference. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:28, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
the capitalization of "bondiola" appears to be inconsistent in the article. the source cited in the nomination does not use a capital letter, while the hook does. note that a recent report at wp:errors stated that "we don't typically capitalize the names of dishes". dying (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I cannot locate anything in our MOS which states this about capitalization of food items, but I will take direction from others. Bruxton (talk) 17:05, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Bruxton, i don't think there's a guideline on the capitalization of food like there is on job titles or deities, so i assume that they are generally not capitalized unless reliable sources capitalize them (e.g., Twinkie). some of the capitalization used on wikipedia seems arbitrary to me (e.g., liverwurst versus Leberkäse), and seems to also possibly depend on the language used (e.g., Shopska salad versus sałatka szopska), so i won't pretend that i know whether the name of this sandwich should be capitalized. i only brought it up because i had figured that you had accidentally overlooked it since the capitalization is inconsistent in the article, and i had assumed that you had reviewed enough reliable sources to determine if it is correctly capitalized in the hook or not.do reliable sources generally capitalize the name of the sandwich? dying (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
@Dying: Thanks: I went through sources and determined that lowercase is correct. One sandwich with bacon, the Bondiola di Treviso remains capitalized as the source shows. Bruxton (talk) 14:56, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
the hook mentions the year 1907, while the article states "At the time of the university's founding", which appears to be 1906. dying (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
would it be appropriate to qualify the hook to make it more clear that kloe has since reached the age of majority? for example, adding "at the time" after "old enough" could work. dying (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
although i assume full compliance with the mos is not a requirement for dyk, this article violates mos:dl to the point where two consecutive paragraphs have the same red link. i am fine with it if others are, but i thought i should bring this up just in case. dying (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I included links at every mention while writing the article so I could add, remove, and move material without having to keep track of which the first mention of any particular work/author is and make sure that that's the linked one, and then just never got around to removing the duplicate ones. I have now removed duplicate links within the same section, but kept links that are duplicates in different sections (I don't think readers should have to go looking for earlier linked mentions). TompaDompa (talk) 16:19, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
oh, that makes sense, TompaDompa. personally, i still feel it's a little wonky (e.g., arthur c. clarke is linked four times, including twice in a subsection), but it's much better now. thanks for cleaning the article up. dying (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
the hook mentions that the surveyors were chased away with guns, while the article only mentions that the local farmers were armed. (the cited boston evening transcript source confirms that they were armed with guns.)
also, this admittedly may be a bit nitpicky, but because the surveyors were driven away in the 1930s 1830s while the residents decided to build their own railroad in the 1960s 1860s, it seems possible that no residents actually changed their minds; some simply disagreed with their parents. (the same source states that "Wickford in the sixties realized the mistake its fathers had made".) dying (talk) 16:07, 18 February 2023 (UTC) [copyedited. dying (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)]
I don't think it is unreasonable to infer that "armed" means with guns. The source does indeed confirm that armed farmers drove away surveyors for the Stonington Line. The substance of the hook doesn't seem to be in dispute to me. I did not say "armed with guns" in the article because I was worried about too closely paraphrasing the source language.
You're off by 100 years for the second part, not that it changes the substance of your inquiry. The hook does editorialize, but DYK gives a decent amount of freedom to editorialize in a way we would never do in an article's text. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:18, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
ha! you are right. fixed. thank you.i know a bit of leeway is given for dyk hooks that is not normally given for article text, but admittedly, my senses are a bit finicky for now as this is the first set of hooks i have promoted. if others see no issue, i have no problem with it either. dying (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I would add mention of "guns" to the article. I don't see any issue with close paraphrasing here, but you could certainly avoid that completely with some rewording: "were chased out of town at gunpoint by local farmers" -- RoySmith(talk)17:11, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
PS, I added a column number to the citation. For historical newspaper scans like this, it makes it a lot easier for the reader to find the right place in a page full of dense text, especially since this particular item doesn't even have a title. And thank you for jumping in and helping with the prep sent building! -- RoySmith(talk)17:16, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
I know I've been the Grim Reaper recently, but a 1909 "Gee Whiz" filler is not a reliable source for history in 1837. This will sound harsh, but it's close to Doug Coldwell–style sourcing. EEng04:27, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this is the same as what Coldwell did. Coldwell had a habit of exaggerating details and using old sources to back up extraordinary claims that are prone to change, such as speed records. TAOT used an old source as a citation for an opening date and for some other details related to the opening, which are unlikely to change in the future unless, say, a historian publishes a book that debunks these events. Although it is true that a newer source would be better for this article, it doesn't come close to what Coldwell did, which was to use old sources to back up a statement, then pretending that the statement still holds true today (like what he did with New York Central and Hudson River Railroad No. 999).However, I would recommend clarifying in the prose that the Boston Evening Transcript made all these claims back in 1909. For instance, The company planned to route their line directly through the coastal village of Wickford, but, according to a 1909 account in the Boston Evening Transcript, surveyors were chased out of town by local farmers armed with guns. – Epicgenius (talk) 20:38, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Sometimes, there are books on specific railroads; for instance, an entire book was published in 2018 about the Wood River Branch Railroad. Such is not the case for the Newport and Wickford. I have used modern scholarship where possible, including Frank Heppner's Railroads of Rhode Island, published in 2012, and Ronald Dale Karr's The Rail Lines of Southern New England, the second edition of which was published in 2017. It is ridiculous to claim that contemporary newspapers cannot be used as citations; doing so would mean taking an axe to thousands upon thousands of articles for no good reason. Assuming a newspaper is not just someone's op-ed, it is a secondary source, as it includes the author's reporting on and interpretation of primary sources. If people want to make the hook weaker by adding extra stuff, fine, don't let me stand in the way.
I remain, to put it lightly, pissed that EEng thought it appropriate to compare this to Doug Coldwell. Last I checked, it was an ANI thread literally started by me that set the entire series of events in motion that led to Coldwell's indef and the impending mass deletion of his work. But sure, it's just like Coldwell just because I used a contemporary source (and did not misrepresent it, copy it, or use it for extraordinary claims). I've checked contemporary press against my modern book sources, I do not just blindly publish anything I see in an old newspaper. You may think you're being some sort of tough-but-fair quality enforcer, EEng, but comments like yours just make you seem out of control, throwing around wild claims without a second thought. I'd like to think you're better than that. Especially considering your own body of work, you have no right to claim that my work is fake or unreliable or trivia. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 18:24, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
EEng, i believe that is an exceptionally unfair description of Trainsandotherthings's work. Epicgenius described the obvious differences between the two better than i could. if the brevity of the boston evening transcript source is what is bothering you, i would suggest reviewing the manufacturers and farmers journal source cited in the nomination, which has a more in-depth description of the events. i had enjoyed reviewing Trainsandotherthings's featured article on cedar hill yard when it was featured at tfa, and had found nothing worth bringing up.considering how upset you made Trainsandotherthings, i would suggest striking your statement. i am guessing that you had noticed a superficial similarity in this case because the sources are old, and had intended your comment as an off-the-cuff remark to get a few laughs, but i don't think this hit the way you were expecting it to.Trainsandotherthings, i hope you don't leave dyk on account of EEng's words. i had only tried to provide constructive feedback because i cared. the fact that i chose your hook in my first dyk set should hint to you how much i respect your work. dying (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
To be clear you did nothing wrong, dying. You were right to bring up your concerns and I actually agree that the way I wrote the hook originally could be misleading (and I won't object to praise, either). I'm not trying to be a diva here, that comment that upset me just seemed to come out of nowhere and felt utterly unfair towards me. I take the quality of my work very seriously, and when people point out valid issues I seek to address them. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:16, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I humbly and sincerely apologize to Trainsandotherthings for invoking DC. It really was an inapt comparison. I'll say it again: I really apologize for that.But that doesn't change my fundamental concern, which is that 19th c newspapers must be used with great care, and in light of an understanding of the journalism of the time; the source for this claim falls short. What we have is the Boston Evening Transcript saying (in 1909) that the Providence Journal said (unknown date) that something happened in Wickford 70 years earlier. That's nothing like a reliable source -- papers at the time routinely reprinted lore and legend, especially about bygone times, to entertain their readers without worrying about veracity. This has all the earmarks of a tall tale: "Grandpa, how come the railroad takes the long way 'round, avoiding us here in Wickford?" "Well, little Hiram, way back when my grandpappy tilled the soil hereabouts, them durned surveyors came one day and ..." Even a news item contemporaneous to the alleged events (i.e. from 1839) would have to be used only with caution, if at all -- what we really need is a modern work of history. The article on the New York, Providence and Boston Railroad (whose representatives were allegedly chased away) says nothing about this. That article's sourced to what seems (provisionally) to be a reliable source -- Hilton 1968 -- which a no-preview online search reveals does mention Wickford on one page. Does it say anything about this episode? If I remember I'll check tomorrow. EEng19:14, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
First, I appreciate and accept the apology.
Regarding the merits of the issue, Wickford was indeed bypassed, and Heppner's book states that commercial interests in Wickford were largely opposed to a railroad arriving in the village, as it would compete with the ships that then were the primary means of trade there. Heppner also mentions large landowners were likely reluctant to sell property for a railroad as they viewed it as ruining their way of life. He does not identify any one reason for the line avoiding Wickford.
I took a look at the original survey report for the Stonington Line, which does not discuss Wickford at all. I've looked through other sources online without any success. It appears that so far nobody has written a book on the New York, Providence and Boston Railroad. From my research thus far, I can neither prove nor definitively disprove the account in the Providence Journal article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:23, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Well I'll try to check Hilton tomorrow if I can remember, but if neither supports this I think we have to let it go. Articles can't be repeating this kind of recycled fluff. EEng01:59, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Hilton is available on the Internet Archive; the only mention of Wickford is its inclusion in a map. As for Heppner, the relevant section of the book is titled "Why did the railroad avoid Wickford?", so I feel like he would have given the answer if he knew it. Instead he only says we might speculate that the route ... was determined by a complex of reasons that might have included opposition from recalcitrant plantation owners. This suggests to me that there is no hard information about what went down. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
You saved me a stop at the library. Are we all agreed this doesn't belong in the article, even as "The Boston Transcript reported..."? Sorry, again, to be the Grim Reaper, but the situation set my spidey senses tingling. EEng19:30, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
At this point, if someone wants to pull the hook for the time being so we can workshop something else, I won't stand in the way. I've been wicked busy with work irl this week, but tomorrow I can sit down and look at the article and sources and try to identify a replacement hook. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 01:55, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
wait, are 19th-century newspapers generally not considered reliable? i am fairly inexperienced when it comes to old newspapers, but i had felt that the detail that the providence journal had gone into to explain why the surveyors were chased away seemed sufficient to me.[a] i haven't read the heppner source, but Trainsandotherthings's description of it seems to align with the account in the providence journal.[b] the latter source provided enough detail that i didn't really question the statement in the hook, though i admittedly haven't read enough fabricated stories in 19th-century newspapers to readily identify when i have been reading a tall tale. dying (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Well trust me, I have read plenty of fabricated or sloppy or legend-telling stories in 19-c newspapers. That's why they are, in general, primary sources. EEng18:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, I read the entire article and saw it went into detail and it did not directly contradict anything I could find in other sources. I wouldn't have used it to support a hook if I had doubts about its reliability. EEng strongly believes it should not be considered reliable, and I am taking his concerns seriously. But if everyone else says the hook is ok to run, it should run. If not, I will prepare an alternate hook this weekend which can be used instead. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:13, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Notes
^i realize now that, although google books titled the compilation manufacturers and farmers journal, the manufacturers' and farmers' journal appears to have been a precursor of the providence journal, and this specific article was printed under the latter name.
^the article mentioned that the people had a "zeal in behalf of Wickford's 'merchant marine'" and "were much interested in shipping, and thought that a railway might divert trade from two or three sloops". it also notes that the residents "were in hearty sympathy with the stage coach drivers [and] proposed to show ... that the oyster diggers were invincible".
The hooks appear to be fine but I'd appreciate if someone could double-check them before they hit MP tomorrow. Thank you. ♥BorgQueen (talk) 04:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
BQ, are you looking for anything in particular? Just took a look and tightened one a bit, didn't see anything else that jumped out at me. Valereee (talk) 14:02, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen Sorry but I have been wanting to fix my own hook for a very long time but have been at a complete loss as to how to fix it. I think I would like to change it to say:
Which is very dry, but I think that's the best way to say it. (The current verb "enshrined" may be technically precise but sounds a bit odd in wikivoice.) Otherwise, the most "surprising" fact is that it was a very deliberate test case carefully pre-planned by African American community leaders in California working with John W. Dwinelle. But that's difficult to hint concisely in a hook. Input welcome. Cc: @Onegreatjoke @Bruxton @PigeonChickenFish @JengodCielquiparle (talk) 12:36, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
To me personally, this is a compelling hook. But I'm pretty sure it fails WP:DYKSG#context. I know what Plessy v. Ferguson is, but I suspect most people outside of the US would have no clue. -- RoySmith(talk)14:32, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
IDEA #2 is ok with me. February is black history month in the US. Ssdly the hook is scheduled for March unless we swap it with an earlier queue. Never mind it will run in Feb Bruxton (talk) 00:56, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks @jengod for all the hook ideas and thanks to everyone else for feedback. Happy to go with IDEA #2. @BorgQueen Would you be able to change it accordingly to:
... that Ward v. Flood was the legal basis for racially segregated education in California?
The hook doesn't specify which single-season record. Suggest changing to "touchdown record", so as not to confuse with the single-season scring record, which he didn't break until the following week. Also, "all-time" seems redundant, and suggest removing. What other type of record could it be? Suggest "...NFL's all-time single-season touchdown record". Pinging Onegreatjoke and Sammi Brie from the nom. —Bagumba (talk) 11:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived earlier this evening, so I've created a new list of the first 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 3. We have a total of 239 nominations, of which 105 have been approved, a gap of 134 nominations that has increased by 4 in the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
February 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Grip (raven) <-- unsolicited comment by me (not the reviewer): this article is DELIGHTFUL and warrants the top/image spot if at all possible
Please remember to cross off entries 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) 06:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I have a question about an article. It was recently at AfD and nominated at ARS and then improved. It closed as Keep 5 days ago. The previous article was in large part, an unreferenced copyright violation so I wonder if we have to count the characters that were in that version of the article when counting a five times expansion. I am wondering if I can nominate the article here now without counting the previous copyright violation article. Thank you Lightburst (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Here is how I counted it: The article was improved, referenced now has 1550 characters, and previously had 215 characters which were referenced. I will just nominate it and if it is not ok I can withdraw it. Lightburst (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
It was added to the AFDay page at 18:45 under "Awaiting verification", and then moved about an hour later to the "Verified hooks" section. Nominations for the Day are supposed to be placed on the regular Nominations page and on the AFD page under "Awaiting verification"; once they are passed for AFD, they should be removed from the Nominations or Approved page (whichever it's on when someone notices), while moved to the "Verified hooks" section at AFD. The move can be done by anyone. It happens infrequently enough that most people never run into this particular issue. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:35, 19 February 2023 (UTC)
Cielquiparle mentioned this above, and I've been wondering about it myself. Rule #3b says that the source supporting the hook fact must appear no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. As far as I'm aware, this is not a requirement anywhere else on Wikipedia, and I've observed frequent pushback from editors who are being told (correctly, according to DYK rules) that they need to change their citation style for the duration of the hook's run on the Main Page, even if they change it back again afterwards.
The rule was added in April 2008, following this discussion. The wording was fleshed out during a series of edits by EEng in July 2014, eg. [5], [6], and again by Maile66 in May 2019. The original reason for the rule seems to have been that the hook fact is by definition an extraordinary claim, and that extraordinary claims require extraordinarily prompt citation; but I don't see anything at WP:EXTRAORDINARY or elsewhere that would support either of these premises.
So I'd like to discuss whether this rule is really necessary. The important thing, in my view, is that reviewers and readers can quickly and easily verify the hook, and I think this purpose can be served in many cases by a footnote at the end of the paragraph, or at the end of the next-sentence-but-one. If it isn't clear which footnote supports the hook fact, that's a problem; but if it is clear, then the nomination shouldn't be held up on a purely technical point. This is the kind of thing that leads to disputes and turns people away from contributing. I think rule #3b should recommend an immediate citation, but leave reviewers free to take a common-sense approach. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 21:35, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I was thinking about it earlier, and I do find this rule rather odd. There are some scenarios where I think it's a fairly good idea (while writing up this response, I independently thought of Sojourner in the earth's not-immediately-clear-which-source-verifies example independently; great minds something something?). However, I think that an experienced editor who looks at an article should generally be able to understand why things have been placed where they are without going off on anything other than the article and the sourcing. DYK's 3b requirement runs counter to that intuition, and I'd probably support a modification. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:48, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
I think it's a good thing to keep. Facts in hooks will draw greater than average scrutiny, so making it easier to verify them is a good thing. This is especially true when the hook is based on several facts scattered around the article, which is a real PITA to a reviewer. Do we really have people making edits to satisfy DYK and then backing them out as soon as the hook is no longer on the main page? That strikes me as wp:gameing the system. -- RoySmith(talk)22:01, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
It's not gaming the system, it's necessary to meet DYK. Outside of DYK, running the same source on consecutive sentences is unnecessary visual distraction. CMD (talk) 00:48, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I'd be against modifying it. For one thing, the reason why the rule exists in the first place is to easily verify the hook fact. This is important, as a hook fact being verifiable is a major criterion. If we moved the footnote/reference elsewhere, it could be somewhat more difficult to know which reference is used as the source for the hook fact sentence. This is especially important if a paragraph is cited to multiple sources but only one source is used to reference the hook fact, or if the hook fact uses a different reference from the rest of the paragraph. The rule may seem counterintuitive especially when it's not required elsewhere, but it exists for a very good reason. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:05, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: But isn't there a case to be made that where a dupref is wholly unnecessary, having to do the back-and-forth of requiring it wastes valuable time? Like, every extra ounce of flesh we have to exact out of nominators is also something promoters have to put time and effort to. It clogs the whole system. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:23, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
In most cases it's a very trivial edit to do, it's as simple as simply adding a "<ref="example"/>" tag to the relevant sentence. As I mentioned earlier, the rule exists to make verification easier, and the work needed to meet it is usually so trivial that it could easily be done as long as the nominator is still active (or if not, the reviewer can make the needed edits themselves). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:26, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Here's an example of a nomination that was rejected for non-compliance with rule 3b. This was the only issue with the nom, and it was an easy fix – it would have taken 30 seconds to duplicate the footnote that appears at the end of the paragraph. But nobody did it. Like leeky says, trivial demands can be major blockers. Sometimes it only takes a grain of sand to stop the gears from turning.@RoySmith and Narutolovehinata5: I understand your concerns, but easy verifiability doesn't necessarily mean the footnote must appear at the end of the sentence. How would you feel about a slightly looser rule along the lines of "It must be immediately obvious to the reader which source supports the hook fact"? Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:06, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
@Sojourner in the earth As with many things, there's a range of compliance with the letter and/or spirit of the rule. The spirit is certainly, as you say, that it should be obvious to the reader which source supports the fact. I also agree that in the Rhacophorus kio case you pointed out, the insistence on complying with the letter of the rule was excessive. There was only one citation that could possibly apply (the one at the end of the paragraph), it was available on-line at the URL provided, and the fact was stated in the first sentence of the source. At the other end of the spectrum, we get examples where there's a bunch of citations, so you don't know which one to look at. Some may be hard to access; I'm willing to put in some effort, but not if there's a menu of 3 or 4 possibilities, all of which take work to run down. At the far end of the spectrum, we get hooks which are synthesized from several places, and the best hint we get from the nominator is "several".
So, @Chipmunkdavis I'll walk back my comment above about gaming the system. But I do think we need to get tougher on our requirement to provide solid sources, and cited in an obvious way, for all our hook facts. As long as we do that, I'm less worried about the details of how the citation is formatted or where it is placed. -- RoySmith(talk)15:57, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I would be interested to hear your experiences of those examples. My experience is edits like this one, where I had neglected to duplicate the cites for DYK and BorgQueen kindly did it for me. In the past I have also been requested to duplicate it myself, and have done so. My expectation would be that an uncited hook would fail, so I don't know how much tougher that could get. CMD (talk) 16:13, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree that DYK can't really accomodate complicated hooks synthesized from several sources, and that it's the nominator's responsibility to make sure the hook is easy to verify. I think modifying the rules along the lines I suggested above would actually get this point across more clearly. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2023 (UTC)
The reason for it is to make the hook fact source(s) easy to verify. I have no problem with complicated hooks from multiple sources, but all of those sources at the end of the hook sentence(s) make the hook easier for both DYK workers and readers to verify. Valereee (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)
As anecdotal evidence that rule #3b wastes editor time and generates bad feeling, here are some instances from within the last six months of nominators being surprised, confused and/or irritated by the rule: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5. Another issue that arises is when the nominator is not the main contributor to the article, and the article author fights back against the addition of redundant footnotes: see eg. 1, 2. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:22, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source, appearing no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article.
I propose modifying this as follows:
Each fact in the hook must be supported in the article by at least one inline citation to a reliable source. It must be immediately obvious to the reader which source supports each fact; ideally, the citation should appear no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact. Citations at the end of the paragraph are not sufficient. This rule applies even when a citation would not be required for the purposes of the article.
I am against it. Like what was said above, such a rule could cause confusion when it comes to verification, especially if a sentence or paragraph has multiple references and/or the hook is based on multiple sentences. As I mentioned earlier, adding a duplicate footnote is quite trivial to do, so why the need to change the rules instead of just following them? The rule exist for a reason: easy verification, and in fact it is based on previous experiences where reviewers had difficulty verifying facts. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:37, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I am against removing that, too. It puts the burden on the people doing all the heavy lifting here to go figure out which of the possibly multiple sources the thing is sourced to. It's one teeny-tiny burden for each nominator, one giant PITA for someone building a prep or moving one to queue because workers here don't know the sources like the nominator does, and there are 8 hooks per set. Nominators shouldn't be surprised about this more than once, so shouldn't be annoyed by it more than once. Valereee (talk) 18:06, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
I can go along with the text now suggested by Sojourner in the earth, a reasonable compromise. I see the last sentence of that is as suggested by me in the previous discussion, so there is sure to be something I agree with in it! Moonraker (talk) 15:29, 9 February 2023 (UTC)
How about, "... ideally, the citation should appear no later than the end of the sentence(s) offering that fact, and in no case later than the end of the paragraph." If you've got an entire paragraph cited to a single source, that source applies to the entire paragraph. Putting a duplicate copy of the citation in the middle of the paragraph is busywork. If anything, it makes the paragraph harder to read.
It gets more confusing when there's a bunch of citations at the end of a paragraph. In fact, I think that's a terrible style, because it means you don't know which one you need to look in. So I would say multiple grouped citations would fail the "immediately obvious" requirement.
3b was added because DYK was (as it still does, though perhaps to a lesser extent) absolutely plagued by hooks which didn't reflect the source, so anything that helped get more eyes get on the source could not be passed up. I'm not the originator of 3b (I don't think), but I am the guy who stuck the prompt in the nom template that says, "You are urged to quote and cite the hook source" -- a further attempt close the gap between the hook and the source that verifies it.I'm against any change here. Valereee's reasoning (a weakened rule puts the burden on the people doing all the heavy lifting here to go figure out which of the possibly multiple sources the thing is sourced to. It's one teeny-tiny burden for each nominator, one giant PITA for someone building a prep or moving one to queue) is right on. A common problem is that sometimes material gets moved around, but the refs get left behind, or a new ref interposed between the hook and the paragraph-ending ref, etc. A simple, clear rule -- what we have -- is best in this case. EEng01:20, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
I really don't understand the people who push back on requests to clarify the sourcing for their nominations. Forget about any altruistic motivations of improving the encyclopedia or making life easier on the multiple people who need to approve your hook before it goes anywhere. All you need to do is think about your own interests.
In life, you will be faced with many situations where you need to get somebody's stamp of approval. Getting your hook promoted is just a microcosm of this. There's two basic strategies. One is to argue that what's being requested is unreasonable, stupid, busywork, annoying, illegal, immoral, or any of a number of different things. Or you can just suck it up and give Mr or Ms person whose signature you need what they want and be on your way. The later is usually more productive. But, whatever. -- RoySmith(talk)22:04, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, there's clearly no consensus among the regulars here, and at least a few who think that any change would make their lives harder, so I'm happy to let this drop. I appreciate everyone's input, and I'd still like to plead for a bit of IAR in cases where it's really obvious where the relevant citation is. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 22:44, 12 February 2023 (UTC)
@Sojourner in the earth, we IAR here regularly. I don't think anyone would object if a nominator said, "The citation for the hook fact appears at the end of the following sentence and is easily and immediately found, so I'm going to ask we IAR on that for sake of readability" and a reviewer agreed. Someone else might still decide to add it in at some point, but I don't think in a situation like you're describing a nom would be rejected simply for not having a source at the sentence. What's more likely is that the nominator doesn't provide the source and quote in their nom, doesn't put a citation on the sentence, and doesn't return to address the concern. And even then often some regular here will go try to figure out what the source is and insert it themselves. I've tracked down and inserted multiple sources when I was reviewing or promoting a hook or moving a prep to queue and I'm sure there are dozens here who've done the same. Valereee (talk) 15:38, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
I often waive the "end of the sentence" rule, for exactly the reason @Valereee describes. As long as there's a source which obviously applies to the sentence where the fact is stated, and that source does indeed verify the fact, I'm good. When I push back on 3b is when I can't find a source which meets those criteria after a reasonable amount of looking. "Reasonable" is defined as "however much I feel like doing at the moment", which may be very little if I'm pressed for time and trying to get through a hook set that's already had several other problematic entries.
And, as I said in other contexts, when I push back on a review, don't think of it as I'm trying to fail the submission. Think of it as I'm trying to get help from the submitter to understand how I can pass it. An argument about why the sourcing is obvious isn't going to get things moving in the direction you want them to move. -- RoySmith(talk)15:54, 14 February 2023 (UTC)
Agree with RoySmith, as long as we have a source in the nomination template which explicitly support the hook, that should be enough. Though this should not down play the importance of adding citation immediately after the hook in the article itself. --Mhhosseintalk07:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
DYK promoter of the month award?
This isn't something I need consensus to do, but I do want to check whether DYK people think that the idea is... erm, tasteful. I designed these hats, to be awarded to people who 1. make more than 100 promotions total or 2. make more promotions than anyone else in a calendar month. I then folded it into these two barnstar-like awards:
DYK promoter of the month
For making the highest number of promotions in the month of February 2023 (200, or 40%), I hereby present you with this DYK promoter's cap! Prep building is hard work, no question about it, and this cap symbolizes the dedication, friendliness, and obviously supreme judgement of the promoter :P Thank you for all your work at DYK! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
DYK promoter of the month, with distinguishment
For making a majority of the promotions in the month of February 2023 (200, or 60%), I hereby present you with this DYK promoter's cap! Prep building is hard work, no question about it, and this cap symbolizes the dedication, friendliness, and obviously supreme judgement of the promoter :P (plus, this one comes in a fancy blue.) Thank you for all your work at DYK! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:47, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
Seems very important to recognize the super active hook promoters (like @Theleekycauldron and @SL93 and @Bruxton who go for long stretches being the only ones on the case. Could we also do something small but nice for everyone who pitches in now and then as well, to encourage broader participation? (Maybe set a minimum threshold, like 4 to 8 hooks in a month?) Should DYK admins get something as well? Cielquiparle (talk) 10:05, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
well, there are 47 names on WP:DYKPC, and I haven't counted the PotM list, but I bet there's a lot of names on the former that never had the requisite spike in activity :) They'll definitely get their own hat as well. I can't think of a way to count DYK admin queue moves reliably – more thinking is required :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:13, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
I wouldn't worry too much about recognizing admins. Literally every queue has a name on it, and every talk page notification is signed by an admin. The work is very visible within the project. Valereee (talk) 14:59, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Of for crying out loud, you two. It's a wry joke, a recognition that only a fool would put in so much hard work for so little recognition or reward. Take in in the spirit offered. Jeesh! (Am I right, theleekycauldron?) EEng21:30, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
yep, that's about right – you'd have to be silly to do this :) (it's also a taking-the-piss in regards to BorgQueen's "high priests of DYK" thread.) I could probably reword the body of the message to make the joke a bit clearer, or just scrap it if it still doesn't land. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:37, 15 February 2023 (UTC)
+1. I love the dunce cap. Anyone working in preps at DYK is basically volunteering for a job where pretty much the only attention you ever get is negative. :D Completely idiotic. Valereee (talk) 14:54, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Is that really true though? As a DYK nominator, I always feel grateful when my hook gets promoted. (Or fixed, even...as long as it doesn't get fixed the wrong way.) I don't really see the point of a dunce cap and would rather see us have a suite of little icons we could use to thank everyone who contributes – the reviewers and re-reviewers at DYKNA, the hooksmiths (wherever they happen to surface), the proofers, the admins, the errors crew. People help in small ways that payoff massively later. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:40, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I object to the current hook (below), as it's an oversimplification and slight misrepresentation of a legal dispute.
ALT0a: ... that Comcast removed a Florida TV station from its lineup for broadcasting home shopping in prime time instead of its normal UPN programming?
I understand that @Narutolovehinata5 was trying to make the hook more "interesting", but the original hook proposed by @Sammi Brie was actually very carefully worded to avoid any legal problems.
If that is too clunky, we could try simplifying. For example:
ALT0b: ... that Comcast removed a Florida TV station from its lineup on account of its erratic broadcasting?
I actually thought the opposite of Narutolovehinata5 – that "erratic broadcasting" was more intuitive to a broader audience than "sometimes aired home shopping in prime time instead of normal UPN programming". (It's also more accurate in that it's more broad and according to the source, it appears even WVUP concedes its broadcasting was "erratic"). But if you want to double down on that specific allegation, you could say:
ALT0c: ... that Comcast alleged that a Florida TV station sometimes aired home shopping in prime time instead of its normal UPN programming?
I would be fine with ALT0c as it mostly gives ALT0a's thought while addressing the concerns raised here. I am opposed to including the erratic broadcasting part as it added too much complexity from the hook and detracted attention. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I've now swapped it to Prep 2 (as it doesn't seem all that quirky somehow). Could also try this variation on ALT0a, which possibly fixes the current version simply by inserting "allegedly":
ALT0d: ... that Comcast removed a Florida TV station from its lineup for allegedly broadcasting home shopping in prime time instead of its normal UPN programming?
@Bruxton To me, the hook skews toward Comcast's point of view (as opposed to WVUP's), and the specificity of "prime time" based on that source also bothers me. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:38, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Currently, the prep/queue instructions show: "Follow this or you WILL break something: {{DYKmake|ArticleName|Editor|subpage=}}, {{DYKnom|ArticleName|Nominator}}". I just thought I'd check that no "subpage=" is needed on DYKnom, whether adding "subpage=" will break it, and either way if something could be added to Template:DYKnom/doc explaining this. Best, CMD (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
is there any way we can phase out the letter-number entirely, actually? It's a really clunky system for when we want to modify the text, it breaks links. We can just do paragraphs and shortcuts, like every other guideline page. This wasn't really designed to be a guideline page, but it is one now, so... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:51, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Please yes. I can never remember what alphanumerics correspond to what rule or guideline. Have to go look them up every time if context isn't provided when they're mentioned. Shortcuts that actually make sense to a human brain would help. Like Rule 3b could be WP:CITEEND or something. Valereee (talk) 15:23, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Can we trim them down at all? We should make the rules as concise as possible for newcomers, we don't need to scare them off with scores of rules and 20,000 characters of text in addition to the 14,000 characters already in the main rules. For example:
A3 isn't really a rule but could be an explanatory note to A1 or A2 (in fact A1 and A2 could be merged).
I can see absolutely no point in B3, C4, C10, D4, F5, F7, which are addressed by the MOS or general policies.
I can't see the point in section E at all; why list rules that aren't rules?
F1 could be merged to C8, F2 merged to B1, F3 with C4, F4 with C9.
F8 seems a duplicate of A5
G2 could be merged to A4.
G4 is pointless, the intro to the list already explains this.
I think "The consensus is that hook-for-hook reviewing is not acceptable in case of multiple nominations." can be trimmed from H4, the first sentence already says a QPQ is required for each article in the hook.
I think J3 is outdated, we've run at a constant eight hooks per update for many years now.
I have a feeling that section J on hook preparation should be split off to its own page, new reviewers don't need to know these rules.
@Dumelow: I've wanted to make a lot of these changes for a while, particularly with regards to A1/A2, A3, B3, C4 (which is literally not true, we do {{-?}} all the time), D4, G2, and G4. The issue is the numbering system; every time you make a change, you have to make a crap ton of link rot by breaking links to the anchors. If all of the links to SG?C6 suddenly need to go to C5, we have problems.
I will point out that section F is explicitly not meant to be original, it's "Rules listed elsewhere but often overlooked", and section E is meant to combat those who might make up unwritten rules that aren't actually standard practice. Section J originally was a separate page, but it was then copied to the SGs; in the interest of preserving one rule page, rather than two, I blew up the original. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
That being said, the SGs are flexible by design; you're free to unilaterally make any changes that you feel reflect what DYK is already doing in practice. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
In that case I fully support the proposed approach to move to paragraphs if it helps to simplify the rules. If section J remains on the same page we should make it clear that it is not expected to be learnt by those who are looking to just submit nominations - Dumelow (talk) 11:17, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I also support converting to short paragraphs that can receive clear shortcut boxes. tlc, I see that the DYKsg template links are really useful. For me it helps if there are actual listed shortcuts which I can in turn create additional redirects that make more sense to me. If that's something that would work for the template links, and those are a better way to handle this, I'd be happy to do that too. But really what I'm looking for is when someone says 'per G4' I can hover to remind myself what G4 is instead of having to go to the other page and scroll down or search. Valereee (talk) 13:56, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Looks like DYKUpdateBot hit 503 server errors in the middle of the day - different than the previous issues we've seen over the past few weeks. I've started it up again, it's online now! Thanks for the manual update, I've prodded the bot to hand out credits for the missed set. Shubinator (talk) 07:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
This user likes to run bots even when they are kind of erratic.
Thanks for the clarification @Cielquiparle. As I said, I don't have enough knowledge about the DYK timings because there are so many preps and queues. Glad that you clarified. ─ The Aafī(talk)04:56, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
No problem, it's good to see nominators following their nominations closely (because they often do get modified along the way even after they are promoted). The "Local update times" table at the top of T:DYK/Q tells you when each Queue and Prep is scheduled to run, but it does sometimes change, especially if we suddenly have to change to 12-hour DYK cycles instead of 24 hours. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:00, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
prep area 4
apparently, after i had already familiarized myself with the set of approved hooks, compiling my second dyk set was much easier than compiling my first. feedback would still be appreciated. dying (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
thanks, Valereee! theleekycauldron is correct; it's just {{hlist}}. i was thinking of eventually creating a template if the format gets a lot of use, but i'm still experimenting with what works at the moment. of course, you're welcome to copy my code and use it as you see fit. dying (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
i think the 'S' in "Kenyan Senate" should not be capitalized, because the use of "Kenyan" as a modifier suggests that "Senate" is being used generically. however, i didn't want to remove the capitalization unilaterally, in case i am missing something. "Senate of Kenya" could also work, and is also how the article on the senate is titled.
also, the article and various sources appear to avoid explicitly stating that orwoba's trousers were stained with blood. for example, the article lead uses the phrase "apparent blood stain". would it be appropriate to similarly add "apparent" to the hook somewhere, such as either before or after the "in" currently immediately before "blood-stained"? dying (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, those are all valid points! I'm never submitted an article for DYK? before. Should I edit my original nomination with your suggestions? Walrus World (talk) 21:37, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
welcome to dyk, Walrus World! there's no need to edit the nomination, as it has already been closed. you can just mention here how you would prefer the hook to be modified. dying (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
opinions vary on what constitutes close paraphrasing, but the fact that the phrase "workers whenever they got too close to Asia Square Tower 2's facade" also appears in the original source makes me uncomfortable, considering that there are quite a few other natural ways to rephrase this.
also, i am confused about the article's description of "artwork ... depict[ing] everyday scenes of people on the old series of Singapore currency". i was unable to find the scenes described, including the lunch crowd and the bird watchers, on the old currency. the cited source mentions that "[t]he artwork juxtaposes the daily activities of the people here with our old currencies", which does not suggest to me that the scenes were actually found on the old currency. dying (talk) 12:41, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
I just want to add that I haven't really consented to the DYK nomination and only got notified of this. Ah yeah, also perhaps a little confusion when I transcribed... yes it's basically juxtaposing everyday scenes of people against the old series of Singapore currency. There's a certain ambiguity in the rephrased version. ZKang123 (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Well I would have preferred if I was notified... though it seems to have slipped under my radar since I didn't put the article on my watchlist. Nevertheless, I'm fine with the DYK overall, though it seems there are issues with the phrasing of it? ZKang123 (talk) 01:04, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
oh, i see now! the article's description meant that the illustrations of everyday scenes were placed on depictions of the currency, rather than that everyday scenes that were already depicted on currency were chosen for the artwork, or that everyday scenes were placed on the currency itself. i completely had missed the intended interpretation because the only image of the art that i saw in the cited source was an illustration of running people placed next to, rather than on, such a depiction. anyway, CMD's edit made the description much clearer for me. although i now consider the matter closed, i am leaving the subsection heading intact due to the tangential discussion below. thanks, ZKang123 and Aaron Liu! dying (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
@Dying It's wall art that has everyday people do activities near or on currency. The currency isn't actually altered. Maybe "everyday scenes of people juxtaposed on an old series of Singapore currency"? Aaron Liu (talk) 14:53, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
@ZKang123: Once an article is on Wikipedia it does not belong to an individual editor. The article belongs to the encyclopedia. Other editors can 5x expand it, nominate it for AfD, GA, FA, DYK ITN, merge, redirect etc. Bruxton (talk) 22:27, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, but if a creator prefers not to be involved at DYK, nominators should be aware. They don't have to be included in the nom or pinged to questions. Valereee (talk) 22:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)
oh! i had not known that. thanks for letting me know, Valereee. absent anything mentioned in the nomination, should the editor that qualified the article for dyk be normally pinged to questions or not? dying (talk) 07:03, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, @Dying, missed the ping somehow. Personally I don't think people should nominate articles they didn't create/expand/GA without asking the editor who did if they'd be interested in taking the article to dyk. If they say they aren't interested in participating, move along to the next candidate. Valereee (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I know it isn't mine, just a little bemused that someone would create a DYK for this article. I thought they would have consulted me first on making a DYK. ZKang123 (talk) 01:06, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Personally I think people shouldn't nom without discussing with the creator/GA nom. It feels a bit rude to me, as those are the people who probably know the most about an article, know the sources best, know which little bits of info might make a good hook. I'm actually not sure why people do it, really. I think it's well-intentioned, but I do think it often isn't appreciated in the way the nominators thought it would be. Valereee (talk) 01:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
This is a surprise to me. I have lately been nominating many articles that I did not start and I do not consult. Just did one about an hour ago. As an article starter I love it. The article that got me started here was Gallos (sculpture). I started it and was not consulted when Dumelow nominated it here. I was excited about it. I later got the article through GA. The rest is history and now I am toiling in here. Bruxton (talk) 02:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I have dropped a note on the few times I've done it, but I can see why it might not be thought necessary. Perhaps we should try to encourage reviewers to work with the nominator where possible, unless the creator decides to become involved. CMD (talk) 02:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Chiming in as an uninvolved article creator: there's a risk that a nomination is made prematurely while an editor is still working on a (somewhat live) article that is still in development. Amending the DYK guidelines to require permission or endorsement within a reasonable amount of time (which the GAN process uses to discourage drive-by nominations) would be a good idea. SounderBruce02:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it should be a blanket prohibition. In the past I've nominated newly-promoted GAs and even articles whose GAs I reviewed (something that is allowed under current DYK rules) and for the most part those were without issue. So maybe it should be a case-by-case thing? Or if an article creator/expander doesn't want to be involved in the DYK nomination, they could simply say so? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:46, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I have tweaked the article sentence on old notes and everyday life to hopefully make it clearer. I avoided the word "juxtaposition" given the paraphrasing concerns raised, but also note that the instance raised above appears to have been copyedited. CMD (talk) 03:08, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
what do people think of the replacement of "that art at" with "that an artwork at" in the hook? admittedly, i am not fluent in singaporean english, but Aaron Liu raised it on Ravenpuff's talk page here, and i thought that the point had enough merit to bring to a wider audience. dying (talk) 05:50, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
At least IMO artwork is uncountable, and even if it is countable the text implies that it’s a single piece and not part of a larger set. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:08, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Please see WP:VPM#Your wiki will be in read only soon. The gist is enwiki will be read-only nominally an hour starting at 14:00 UTC on Wednesday 1 March 2023. Looking at the update schedule, I don't think this will affect us, but people should certainly keep an eye on things. I'm not sure where we are with switching to 2-per-day, but I'd strongly recommend that we not do that until after the dust settles from this event. -- RoySmith(talk)04:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
This should be okay for DYK, as we update at 00:00 and 12:00 UTC, so it will be editable at 12:00 and hopefully the 1-hr update work shouldn't take 10 hours to do. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
This hook describes this nature reserve as being located in Ukraine. While I suspect most readers would agree to this statement, it's nevertheless still non-NPOV. The target article briefly summarises the geopolitical situation, but I think omitting the aforementioned words is good enough for DYK's purposes; I reckon most readers would know where Crimea is. — RAVENPVFF·talk·19:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Happy to work on it, but I am lacking context on International Women's Day. Is the idea to fill up the entire set with women's bios and/or women-related articles? Are all the hooks in the special holding area guaranteed a slot, or can we use some of them on another day? If I work on it, do I get to choose the featured image? Is there any other history or context that I'm missing? Anyone? Cielquiparle (talk) 05:43, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Based on previous years, yes: all hooks in the set are either about women or have to do with women. Hooks don't necessarily have to be reserved or requested specifically for that date, however. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:59, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
OK, I'm nearly done with the International Women's Day set. I am hoping to be able to approve Bicycling in Islam and then asking @Bruxton or someone else to promote it to one of the open slots where I currently have a placeholder.
This leaves the quirky slot, which is thematically challenging given that it's IWD. I've looked at all the possible quirky candidates (across both approved/pending approval), and at the moment the quirky hook I'm liking best for IWD is the one for Millennial pause. @dying is there any way that the DYK submission for that could be progressed sooner rather than later...? Or is it too complicated to address all the issues quickly? Cielquiparle (talk) 20:02, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
i think it's near completion, but admittedly have been distracted by other things. (i also had the recent idea of simulating the gen z shake by animating text, but have been struggling to figure out if that's possible on wikipedia. any advice is welcome.) however, i would hesitate to use that hook for the quirky slot, to avoid suggesting that only women exhibited the millennial pause. i had originally written the article personally considering it a neutral habit (not unlike writing english in cursive), but have come to realize that some view it rather negatively. dying (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
...thanks @dying for the feedback. Will hunt for another quirky hook candidate in the meantime. (FWIW, I don't think it would necessarily suggest that only women do the millennial pause...) Anyway it's an interesting article. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:43, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Bruxton. Yes, eggy is right! If we want to keep the ALT0 hook, I would strike the "struggles for liberation" part and say instead something like:
... that feminist activists' efforts to expand the rights of women, like those of Fatma Aliye Topuz, were helped along by the bicycle?
What's the expected minimal work to complete a QPQ? For example, I have quick failed a number of nominations (such as this one) but never used them for QPQ as I felt there wasn't sufficient work involved to consider it a QPQ review. Is there a consensus about the minimum standards for what constitutes a QPQ review?
I don't know that we have any official policy on that, but I certainly agree with Naruto's sentiment. It's easy to rubber-stamp something. Failing something with a good explanation of why is usually harder. Overall, I think DYK quality would improve if we had more fails and fewer pencil-whipped tickmarks. -- RoySmith(talk)16:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes. We certainly don't want to do anything to make passing a nom more "valuable" to the reviewer than failing it. EEng21:14, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Agree with the idea that a review is a review even if it's a fail. Assuming it's not a pro-forma action, I don't even think they need to check all the GA requirements, it just needs to explain what was failed and how as Roy notes. CMD (talk) 17:09, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree with CMD. I think even a "Has copyvio issues that need to be addressed, including x and y"-style review, with no engagement with the other criteria, should be enough. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:19, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
There is a kind of scout's honour code that if you come across a quickfail, you don't do the necessary work to extract a QPQ from it, even if you can – if a first time newbie nominates an article that is nowhere near new enough or fivefold expanded, you can get a QPQ by doing a full review. But that work doesn't help the DYK backlog, so, maybe just quickfail and move on. A more laborious quickfail can count, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:25, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
... Benjamin Tompson is credited for being the first native born poet to emerge in North-America?
(All the context has been removed about the American colonies, making it way too broad of a claim (i.e. "native born" sounds like it covers any indigenous person in North America). Plus "emerge" is extremely vague and could mean anything. "Is credited" in wikivoice sounds like Wikipedia is saying that this is still current, but the sources cited are from 1924 and 1953. "Credited" also sounds like we are giving him a medal for "emerging".)
One way to fix this might be to simply say:
... Benjamin Tompson was billed as the "first native-born poet of America"?
I have been pondering ALT hooks for Benjamin Tompson every day and didn't solve it until just now. I think I've finally cracked it and it will get clicks because of the "what does that even mean?" factor. But at least it's not in wikivoice. I think we were all overthinking. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
Disagree. From Macmillan dictionary: DEFINITIONS1. (be billed as something) to advertise or describe someone or something in a particular way, especially in order to make them sound interesting or important. Electric cars are being billed as the automobiles of the future. Synonyms and related words. To advertise or publicise.Cielquiparle (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle: I think we'd need to make it a lot clearer that the quote isn't from an independent source:
... that publishers of Benjamin Tompson's work bill him the "first native-born poet of America"?
Which, i mean, isn't that interesting? Yeah, lots of publishers are gonna say silly stuff to sell books. It also still kind of feels like we're stepping on indigenous people, to allow publishers to repeat bad claims with our megaphone. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:42, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
OK, then can it. Just so everyone has context, the first writer and poet to be published in the early American colonies was Anne Bradstreet, who was born in England. This is why Houghton-Mifflin and whoever else got so stuck on "native born". I have wondered if we could work Bradstreet into a hook with Tompson but I think it's too complicated. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:48, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
I didn't get a chance to mention this before the hook got promoted, but the terms Romani[7] and English Traveller are both cited in the article. I'm not sure which one will be more recognizable to readers, I feel like Traveller is kind of UK-specific while Romani is used a bit more internationally. BuySomeApples (talk) 03:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @BuySomeApples for clarifying. I see that the term is appropriately cited within the article, even though it does not appear in the BBC article that was submitted as part of the original DYK nomination, as Flibirigit rightly pointed out, and will adjust the hook accordingly in Prep. Cc: @Onegreatjoke @FlibirigitCielquiparle (talk) 05:19, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Hi all, I've just noticed there's a bot going around removing standalone DYK templates on article talk pages and adding the info instead to the article history.
For example: previous state, state after change.
In principle this seems fine, but I notice there are some elements of the full template not present in the folded version, in particular the link to the nomination page and the "check views" link. Just wanted to make sure this is fine with the DYK project. — Amakuru (talk) 12:56, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
I've stopped the bot task on toolforge. The specific example doesn't look like a bad change to me, since all the information required is preserved as template parameters. If needed, we can change the display of DYK in article history. Or if not preferred I will simply tell the bot to not merge dyk templates. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 13:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
AH yes, I see all the info is still present. SO it might just be that a tweak to {{Article history}} is in order, to display a bit more info for DYKs in the drop-down section with the show/hide toggle. — Amakuru (talk) 15:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
i think the link with the text "fact from this article" links to the nomination page. this isn't immediately obvious, though. dying (talk) 19:41, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
So here's a proposal. I've noticed lately that there's kind of been an increase of vandalization to WP:DYKN, enough to where I bringing this proposal here. This past week alone has seen five cases on vandalism on that page. Sometimes, those instances of vandalism can be unnoticed for minutes to even hours before they get reverted. So I wonder, should we add a permanent Semi-protection to that page or would it be better to just keep it the way it is? Onegreatjoke (talk) 22:30, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Very very strong oppose. We very rarely if ever put indefinite protection of any kind for the first protection, and I don't think the level of vandalism that the page does get would warrant semi-protection anyway. In addition, it would be unfair to brand new editors who would want to create a DYK nomination; thinking of new editors who are being guided through the process via Edit-a-thons and the like. Sure, it's true that nominations by brand new editors tend to have a high failure rate, but we shouldn't discourage that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:07, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
Even if that's the case, RoySmith is right below. Indefinite semi on the first attempt (or at least the first under the current situation) is strongly frowned upon outside of extreme cases like ArbCom-imposed stuff. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:06, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
The general rule is to only protect something when reverting vandalism has proven futile, and then only at the lowest level and for the shortest time duration that solves the problem. So, if we're past the point where just reverting is not getting the job done, then semi-protection for a limited time span seems like the next step. We're a very long way from the point where considering indef anything is justified. If it keep happening, ping me and I'll take a look. -- RoySmith(talk)00:04, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Note that I’ve nominated a few DYKs on behalf of an IP editor and the IP has seen those through the process, e.g. responded to nomination issues. Last time, I even got the IP to do a review first before we nominated so that we had a QPQ. Schwede6617:14, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Template protected?
I am trying to start a new nomination, and I tried three times. each time I get a red Template protected lock, and this language: "Creating nomination page: Failed to save edit: The article you tried to create has been created already.
Getting token: done
Arrgh :( Something bad happened. Your DYK template wikitext is provided below, which you can copy and use to create." Any thoughts? Bruxton (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
What is the page, and was there a previous DYK nomination (might have failed, existed for a different page at that title, etc.)? CMD (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: It appears that someone put a high level of template protection on the nomination template. Click the nominate button and see. "A template-protected page can be edited only by administrators or users in the Template editors group. This protection level should be used almost exclusively on high-risk templates and modules."
I assume the page you are trying to create exists already. What is the article name you are trying to create a nomination for? Schwede6615:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
As noted above (#Bicycling in Islam) I pulled a hook from queue 1. I haven't been following the details of what we're doing via-a-vis special focus on women, but I'm guessing we've waived the "not too many biographies" rule? I'll leave it to somebody who is more up what we're doing in that regard to find a suitable replacement. -- RoySmith(talk)17:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I was also hoping for Josiane Lima because it's non-US (there are already 3 in the set that are US-based, and it's International Women's Day, not 50% US Women's Day). Cielquiparle (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Lima is in Queue 4; In general I try to avoid cannibalizing queues because that just kicks the problem down the road. However, if somebody wants to swap it, I won't object. -- RoySmith(talk)22:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I have recently started participating here and I am grateful for the work everyone does. I have a nomination Template:Did you know nominations/National Tom Sawyer Days. The article was a copyright violation. About 200 characters were referenced to UGC source (answers.com) that is red on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The rest was just un-cited content which I considered a copyright violation. So the article was sent to AfD and WP:TNT'd and then what I consider 5x expanded. I would like opinions on the article's qualification for DYK. Can we determine that this is 5x or maybe IAR to proceed? Lightburst (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I have responded in the template, but it doesn't look like a 5x expansion, even if we were to use 422 characters/74 words as the starting point. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I do not understand the count that finds 422 characters . The article had 2 lines cited, 214 characters which were cited to a user generated source which WP does not accept as reliable. The article was completely rewritten and now has 1550 characters. I think it is a matter of how we are counting. Lightburst (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Thanks for that link. I think my misunderstanding has come from my belief that copying a source without a reference or citation is the definition of a copyright violation. Like copying an image without attribution. The definition used at DYK or on Wikipedia must be much more narrow. There are hundreds of rules for DYK and apparently RFCs that I am not aware of. What strikes me the most in the linked RFC is the comment repeated over and over in the proposal: This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article. Sadly this is the second nomination in the past two weeks that I will need to withdraw. Lightburst (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Unreferenced text is not regarded as a copyviolation. You have to have a source to show that the text got copied from somewhere before it is a copyvio. That is not specific to DYK; that is how it is regarded by the English WP. Completely different rules apply to images. Schwede6602:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
@Schwede66: Before nominating I asked the question. but it was my own misunderstanding of a violation. I could find the source of the cc but I think this nomination is not going to proceed and I have wasted enough of everyone's time. Thanks for the help. Lightburst (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
You did the right thing by asking and Joseph's answer was correct (as you now know). Don't feel bad about wasting other editors' time; it's all part of the process. If you stick with DYK, I guarantee you that you'll be a better editor in no time as there's a decent peer review process going on here. Most editors who hang out here are really helpful. Keep it up! Schwede6602:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes thanks. I never thought to check whether today's featured DYK image was a derived work. I take responsibility but by the same token, as I was saying earlier, today's DYK was sitting at the top of the "Approved" DYK page in the dark orange box for weeks and weeks before it finally got promoted. I'll go propose it on ERRORS but I think the solution is to swap in the other New Zealand hook featuring a woman. (I had deeply regretted not being able to use both New Zealand picture hooks...) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I've got what I think is a working version of move protection for queued hooks working on testwiki. I've got (unprotected) copies of {{Did you know}}, {{Did you know/Queue/1}}, etc from a few days ago on testwiki. The bot doesn't care about a "promotion" being done properly; it's just looking for a properly formatted Hooks section. If you add a hook, it should move protect it sometime in the next 10 minutes. If you remove a hook, it should unprotect it, again within about 10 minutes. It doesn't care about a target page's content, just that it exists.
Please play around with it and let me know if you see any problems. It would be most valuable to me if you throw weird stuff at it that I hadn't thought about in an attempt to break things. If all goes well, I'll start a formal BRFA in a few days. There's a draft at User:DYKToolsBot/BRFA 2 Draft. -- RoySmith(talk)03:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Don't really wanna screw around with testwiki, but I would make sure to test that your bot can correctly interpret [[Article|'''pipe''']], '''[[Article#section|pipe]]''', and '''[[Art? icle]]'''. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Those are good test cases. Offhand, I'm going to guess it'll pass on 1 and 3 but I'm not so confident about 2. I'll leave that for tomorrow. Don't worry about breaking anything on testwiki; that's what it's for. -- RoySmith(talk)03:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh my. {{ship}} will certainly fail, thanks for pointing that out. I do the wikitext parsing with mwparserfromhell; it'll find the template, but won't be able to expand it. To do that, I'll need to get parsoid involved. -- RoySmith(talk)13:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I assume we're talking about switching back to 2 per day? I haven't been pulling my weight lately due to IRL stuff. BorgQueen has been putting in overtime keeping things running. I'll try to jump back in a bit, but I'll renew my objection that the 2x pace is not sustainable. -- RoySmith(talk)17:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
You guys might notice that every single queue currently bears my stamp. Having said that, if @Bruxton and @Cielquiparle would continue doing their jobs as impeccably and thoroughly as they are now we could pull this off like we did the last time. It won't last long anyway. BorgQueen (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes I have stepped back because I have too much of my own work in the hopper. I am still promoting a few here and there. Bruxton (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Rrrrrrright. Not that it's a contest or anything, but mad respect to @BorgQueen and @Theleekycauldron who are in first and second place, respectively, with their entries in the monthly stats so far in February. (On top of everything else...) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Remember that it isn't just reaching 120 approved to set off the change to two a day, its reaching 120 with ten queues and preps filled at the same time. At the moment, there are nine filled. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Hello, and congratulations on getting this DYK promoted. I've been following this article along with the DYK discussion ever since the original AfD in August 2022, and I'm glad it finally got verified. I saw that the DYK lingered a bit because there were concerns about the hook which seem to have been resolved now, but the cloud that was the long discussion ended up revealing a silver lining! It turns out that because of the discussion, the DYK promotion now coincides with the upcoming 2 year anniversary of the subathon - March 14th. Because of this, I wanted to ask if there was a possibility for the DYK quote to appear on the front page on that day, if any of the March 14th slots are still open, just to celebrate the occassion. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
@PantheonRadiance Right now it's slated to run on March 5, and would require an admin to intervene to demote the hook and see if it can be slotted in for March 14 and even then, there is no guarantee. We are currently at a "critical juncture" during which DYK may shift gears at any moment, and run twice a day (for 12-hour shifts) instead of only once a day, which greatly confuses scheduling of special occasion hooks. If I were you, I wouldn't mess with the timing at this point and just let it go. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I didn't notice that! I wish I had earlier so I could have requested the date. Honestly, I'm just happy the hook is even running at this point, considering the lengthy AfD and WT:DYK discussions. :) — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Please change an artwork to art or artwork. In this context, artwork is uncountable. This was changed in [8] by User:Ravenpuff and he hasn't responded to me on his talk page yet. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Maybe I'm interpreting this more strictly than I should, but I do not think the hook for Caulfield railway station meets the interesting to a broad audience criterion. The hook is ... that a train crash occurred at the Caulfield railway station which killed 3 people and was the first fatal accident to occur on Melbourne's electrified rail system? This reads to me as a news story in the local paper, not a hook that makes me want to read the article. It also barely even mentions the station, the ostensible subject of the hook. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I disagree! I really wanted to read the article after reading that hook. I like that it manages to work in a reference to Melbourne's electrified rail system, rather than only focus on an accident. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
But the hook did have too many unnecessary words, so have shortened it now at prep (minus "occurred" and "and"). Somehow getting rid of "occurred" actually does make it seem a little less "news story in the local paper"-like. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I've pulled this as the claim seems to be false. See Railway accidents in Victoria which lists many earlier fatal accidents. The word "electrified" doesn't seem to be an adequate way to weasel this as we read that "On 23 March 1925 eight people were killed when a car was run into by an electric parcels van at a gated level crossing at Wickham Road, Highett." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
If it needs to be fixed, it's actually very easy - by changing it to "...3 people, who were the first passengers to be killed on Melbourne's electrified rail system". The incident named above was a collision between a train and a motor vehicle, in which all the fatalities occurred. Black Kite (talk)10:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
This still won't do. The article says "Three people were killed and 170 injured in the first fatal accident to occur on Melbourne's electrified rail system". The source says "Three people were killed and 170 injured in the first fatal accident to occur on Melbourne's recently-electrified rail system." Neither the source nor the article use fine distinctions about passengers or which vehicle they were in and so they are wrong. To go beyond them is OR. Note also that the article copies the language of the source too closely. There were already some Earwig issues during the GA review and it still gives a score of 25% which still seems too high. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Yes, have deleted "passengers" and reverted to first fatal accident on Melbourne's electrified rail system. It's what the plaque says, so it seems solid. Not sure what was going on at Wickham Road, Highett, but electric railways tend not to have level crossings, so it is possible that that particular collision was not on Melbourne's recently electrified rail system. The copyvio flag is fair enough – the 30% match is from direct quotes, appropriately cited – but exceeding 25% (where there were no direct quotes) did seem too high in this case, so I've edited a bit and CC: @HoHo3143 so they are aware of this discussion (and why there has been a flurry of editing). Cielquiparle (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I reckon the plaque is wrong too. There's a detailed account of the earlier Highett accident here. Notice the photographs of level-crossings with overhead wires. The incident also appears in the similar article about the Highett railway station. The line through Highett was the Frankston railway line which was electrified by 1922 and also connected to the Caulfield station. My impression is that the Melbourne rail network was remarkably extensive and complicated for the time and so it seems easy to overlook some aspect or incident. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
On the nomination page itself, I suggested an alternative hook based on how the station has operated continuously since 1914 with minimal changes. I believe we should workshop a hook based on that here. I believe it would be more interesting and avoid the other issues associated with the original hook (which I actually did not notice myself). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
That's the best I could come up with. It's not exactly an article that lends itself to good DYK hooks, and in my opinion this is a recurring issue with DYKNs for train stations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. I would say that's because when I create or expand an article that doesn't have anything hooky, I simply don't nominate it. I technically could have nominated Bighorn Divide and Wyoming Railroad for DYK, but there's simply nothing hooky, so I didn't try and force a mediocre or worse hook through. I just skimmed Caulfield railway station again, and I stand by my assessment that there's very little that's really "hooky", so to speak. This raises the fundamental question: is every article that meets the eligibility requirements for a nomination entitled to a DYK, or are we willing to shoot down nominations that just don't have anything hooky? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I agree that it's silly to force-feed DYK articles that just don't have anything hook-worthy. And that describes most train stations. Your typical train station has some tracks, some platforms, services some rail lines, was built in some year, perhaps was the scene of one or more accidents, is served by some other modes of transit, is built from some kind of building material, etc, etc. I just read through Caulfield railway station and really couldn't find anything worth hooking about. I had a glimmer of home when I saw that it was heritage listed, but https://vhd.heritagecouncil.vic.gov.au/places/279 didn't offer any hook material either. -- RoySmith(talk)16:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, there are certainly exceptions (did you know that New Haven Union Station was almost demolished but is now the busiest train station in Connecticut, NRHP listed, and recognized as an significant design by Cass Gilbert, who also designed the United States Supreme Court Building?) but your typical train station (e.g. Branchville station) is unlikely to have much that merits a hook. I generally have an easier time because I write about entire railroads or major rail yards, so there's a whole lot more that can be said (Providence and Worcester Railroad is over 6,000 words and I took it all the way to FA status). I wish more nominators would exercise more self-discipline and recognize that sometimes an article just isn't DYK-worthy. I hold myself to that rule. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I am against failing the article. It is a GA and I read the article during my review. Hook rejecting is becoming very subjective. It only takes a single editor to raise an objection and then we all start parsing and rewriting. We have a nominator, reviewer and promotor who saw fit to advance the article. We should not be invalidating everyone's work based on subjective criteria. JMHO Bruxton (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I didn't object to the hook for being incorrect, though Andrew Davidson's concerns appear to be valid to me. If someone has a hook that works, I won't stand in the way. I proposed one and was told it wasn't interesting, so it's not like I immediately gave up on the nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Personally, I thought that the hook would've been interesting enough but if it's considered either uninteresting or incorrect then i guess the nom can fail. Personally, I thought that hook could work but I can't really argue against majority opinion. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Working on a new hook now. I'm not one for big discussion threads but this one is great! What a gift to have @Andrew Davidson point out problems before this hit the main page and ERRORS. Asking good questions is the key to getting good answers. And as for "this article is boring and has no hook potential"...some of us take that as a challenge. I'll be back! Cielquiparle (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
The Greek train crash may also be a reason to try a different hook. Browsing the article, the association with the race course seems a particular feature. Perhaps something like:
If we still want to focus on the crash then, to satisfy my objection, we just need to duck the claim of a "first". We could leave that to the plaque, for example,
ALT ... that Caulfield railway station has a plaque (pictured) commemorating the Caulfield Railway Disaster of 1926?
I am agreeing with the two editors above about the first hook proposed by andrew. The ideas are separated in our article - first part of the hook is in the intro with an offline source, and the second part about the horse deliveries is in the History section - I find a reference for the horse platform which is hard to make out or to find the information about "Racecourse horse deliveries". I hope that we can find a better source for that claim of "...and a platform for delivering horses to it?" Bruxton (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Many thanks to @AndrewD for brilliant ALT hook re: horses and @Bruxton for excellent flag re: horses and sources. More sources and horses have been added to the article (which may also be slightly more exciting and informative than before). Resisting temptation to try to fashion a clever quirky hook out of this one. Updating hook accordingly, with minor change of "nearby" to "adjacent", as the station is directly adjacent to the main entrance of the racecourse (per source). Cielquiparle (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Queue 4: Brazil's first rowing medal
The hook currently reads "... that Paralympic rower Josiane Lima won Brazil's first rowing medal?" That is only true if you ignore rowing at the Pan American Games. Those games have been held since 1951 and Brazil won two silver medals that year. Hence, as stated, the hook isn't true (as is regularly the case with "first" hooks). Schwede6601:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Probably because somebody removed Para/Olympic. Either of those is true, and it's what both the article and nom say. Just add it back. Kingsif (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, none of the hooks on the nomination page were ever correct. And what got promoted (ALT2) is unchanged from the nom page, so I'm not sure what exactly you mean, Kingsif. Schwede6603:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Schwede, we can all look at the nom page. There are various hook suggestions, and every mention of "first rowing medal" includes that it was from the Paralympics. It was discussed at the nom page, too. So I have no idea what you mean. Kingsif (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
The intro also makes some statements which don't seem to be supported by the main text. "... both Sunni and Shia Islam ..." for example. I don't see anywhere in the main text that talks about that. Similarly, "mobility (social control)" isn't mentioned, at least not under those terms. It's also a bit of WP:OR to equate "mobility" to "social control". -- RoySmith(talk)15:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Additional thought. Since Islam is a religion, and not a geographical location, it seems awkward either way. Perhaps "Bicycling and Islamic women" or "Islamic women and bicycling", or something link that. — Maile (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle present title has come out of WP:Bold effort and consensus may take it's own time. I am all the way for inclusion of words 'Women' and 'Muslim world' in the title. I do not have issues about temporary suitable renaming for DYK duration too.
First para of the lead is largely inherited from before expansion and later rephrased. My attempt of shifting that from lead to the body was pushed back. I thought, first para is less likely to get contested, Personally I do not have issues if it is shifted to talk page until citations are matched for the first para.
Whatever I may think about the title, I strongly object to the concept of temporary suitable renaming for DYK duration. DYK should be an observer of article quality. To some extent it's also a driver of quality improvement which is a good thing. If changing the title improves the article, we should do it. If changing the title makes the article worse, we shouldn't do it. The idea that it should be changed to satisfy DYK, with the intent that it be undone as soon as DYK is no longer a factor, is absurd. -- RoySmith(talk)19:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think DYK should have anything to do with renaming at all. As for the two text changes, those seem easy enough to fix (with one just being changing or removing a wikilink). SilverserenC19:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith I understood your points. As you rightly also say DYK itself can be driver of quality improvement with more people joining in at article and article t/p. Bookku (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, definitely need to rename the article, as it doesn't cover men and cycling. Agree with RoySmith that it should be "Women and cycling in Islam" or "Woman and bicycling in Islam". There is a discussion now in progress on the article Talk page for Bicycling in Islam. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
The more I look at this, the more I'm convinced it should be pulled for failing WP:NPOV. This is not at all an article about cycling in Islam. This is an article about persecution of women in Islam, and a different title won't fix that. -- RoySmith(talk)15:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: My opinion was the click surprise regarding the hook. I asked the question recently about the hook. We hid the title with the words "...helped along by the bicycle?" Then when you click you got a religious/political article. I thought it was eggy and said so. Bruxton (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith Let me distance myself from such controversy. I have very much strived to include diverse practices among Muslim women over time and over the spaces and avoiding stereotype. At times and spaces and places they seem to face restrictions some other spaces they do not. About the same I have made a detail statement @ the article talk page which includes ".. Experiences in lived religion seem much diverse than media emphasized narrative. ..".
I also tried to change lead with (pl excuse me for grammar pl note positive effort to balance) ".. Women's participation bicycling in Islamic world has been on and off depending availability of opportunities and social, cultural and religious perspectives and background of respective communities and countries as prevailing at any given time. ..".
Where religious and/ or cultural really restrictions exist and WP:RS available can we do any thing?
@Bruxton Idk provide alternate way to avoid surprise you are talking about, but my effort through DYK has been to avoid stereotype and controversy both. You can suggest improvements or alternatives. I do not have issues. Bookku (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
The core problem is there's nothing significant about cycling in Islam other than women not being allowed to do it. And there's nothing significant about women in Islamic countries not being allowed to ride bicycles which is fundamentally different from women in Islamic countries not being allowed to participate in a lot of sports. I see the article now has {{Unfocused}} and {{Undue weight}} added to it, so it fails WP:DYKSG#D6. There's enough issues here that I don't think it's going to be possible to resolve them before it reaches the main page in less than 2 days. I'm going to pull this. People can continue to work on it if they want without the pressure of the clock ticking. -- RoySmith(talk)16:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
That was the right call. I was just about to do the same a few hours earlier but it was bed time for me. Apart from content issues, I’d like to see the article name discussion having come to conclusion. Schwede6618:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
I shall prefer re-mentionining if possible, since that way article may get attention of experienced contributors and help in improvement. If you do not mind. Bookku (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith @Bruxton @Bookku I think it's fixable and we can reframe so the emphasis on cultural history is also clearer. I will have a look today after work. (I have to confess, I might have misinterpreted the "eggy" comment earlier – I thought my proposed hook revision fixed the problem – but if there is something more specific in your objection, please let us know.) Cielquiparle (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
It was just my opinion that the piped link was a surprise, nobody else seemed to think so, so I did not pursue the matter. Bruxton (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)
i don't know if asian-film.com is a reliable source, but if this search is exhaustive, this article appears to be the only one on en wikipedia using asian-film.com as a source. dying (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
I have replaced asian-film.com as a source. It appears the film release of Formed Police Unit has been delayed (so indeed, not reliable info). There should be a ton of media coverage (and more RS to choose from) once it does come out, though, because of its star-studded cast. @Chetsford @ChipmunkdavisCielquiparle (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
also, the hook contains a list of international organizations: "the UN, EU, and African Union". reviewer CMD mentioned that it was "odd to spell out only African Union and not the other two bodies", and i had felt the same way. however, before i expanded the two acronyms, i realized that if i did so, the hook would be 203 characters long.
shifting a few things around, i was able to get the hook down to 200 characters, but i did not want to implement it unilaterally, so am posting it here for feedback.
@dying @Chetsford @Chipmunkdavis We need to change this hook. Strictly speaking, per the source (Security & Defense Quarterly), it is not correct to refer to "Individual Police Officers (IPOs)" as "local police". I will give this some thought and try to propose alternative wordings, but perhaps you have thoughts here? Cielquiparle (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Cielquiparle, i think, when comparing the types of units deployed by the united nations, you are correct, as individual police officers deployed by the united nations are not necessarily local to the area they are deployed in. on the other hand, the eeas source cited in the nomination mentioned the example of eulex's fpo being an intermediate option between the kosovo police (presumably considered a local police force) and nato's kfor (which seems more militaristic in nature), so i had figured that the hook proposed chose not to focus on united nations units only. (i cannot access the jstor source, so am currently assuming that that source expands upon this, so that the hook is not based on one example.)in any case, regarding alt0c, i think this hook currently suggests that fpos are used in all such situations, and that the appropriateness of military intervention can be determined objectively. as this statement seems a little strong, i would suggest, for example, replacing "are" with "may be", and "would be" with "could be considered". the hook looks good to me otherwise. dying (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
The jstor source says "FPUs are equipped to convey a stronger presence than a collection of individual police officers". I think it is correct they might not be "local police", but I do like the original hook's positioning them as within a scale of response. The new hook works fine for me too though with dying's tweaks. CMD (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Have tried to salvage an ALT hook with the "intermediate response link" idea but finding the "individual police officer (IPO)" concept too technical to convey accurately...but in the meantime, struck by the distinction between the unarmed IPOs and the armed military forces (per the sources).
Cielquiparle, i am a bit wary about stating in the article that "individual police officers" are unarmed, as the article does not define the term, so a reader, unaware that the term has a special meaning within the context of un police, may believe that a local police force is made up of individual police officers. (the kosovo police appears to be armed if the wikipedia article on the force is accurate.)also, are all fpus armed? i assume that they are, but am unsure if the statement in the security & defence quarterly source is applicable only to un fpus. the same paragraph in the source also appears to assert that all ipos are unarmed, while this may only be true for un ipos.by the way, good call on dropping the "considered"; doing so hadn't occurred to me.CMD, does the jstor source expand on the relationship between the fpus and local police? the article cites the jstor source to support the statement that fpus "support ... local police in situations that require additional resources but don't necessitate a military response". dying (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
It says that FPUs usually "work in support of host-state police to maintain law and order, although they can be called upon to serve independently...they support police operations that may involve higher risks". CMD (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
@BorgQueen: Could you please update the lead picture hook in Queue 6 as follows? (It removes the word "armed" per the comment from Dying above.)
i may be reading the german sources incorrectly, but i think this source states that ospelt-amann is considered "the pioneer of the renaissance of dialect poetry in Liechtenstein" ("die Wegbereiterin für die Renaissance der Mundartdichtung in Liechtenstein") rather than a pioneer of the "appreciation of dialect poetry in Liechtenstein" as the hook and article state.
also, i presume that she was awarded the golden cross for her efforts regarding the alemannic dialect of vaduz, though i was surprised to see that the cited source doesn't seem to state this explicitly. i think this can be resolved by removing "for her efforts" from the hook and "For her services to preserving the Vaduz dialect" from the article, though i wasn't sure if i was being a bit too nitpicky. dying (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Dying. There is a whole thread at Women in Red about why we don't want to refer to it as "Vaduz dialect" (even if that's what translation bots say and even if we technically do mean the dialect that happens to be spoken in Vaduz in this case). Personally I am liking "revival" instead of "appreciation" ("pioneer of the appreciation" doesn't sound so good in English), and went ahead and changed it in the article. Cc: @Lajmmoore, @Ipigott (with apologies in advance to Ipigott as I realise you're specifically trying to avoid big DYK threads, but the good news in this case is that the DYK hook has already been promoted! so we are seriously just trying to finetune constructively for accuracy and to do her justice). Cielquiparle (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Does this work? Or is it too strong/broad?
... that Ida Ospelt-Amann led the revival of dialect poetry in Liechtenstein and was awarded a Golden Cross of Merit?
oh, that's good, Cielquiparle. i was struggling to find a decent rewording of "pioneer of the renaissance", and saying that she "led the revival" is better than anything i came up with. also, i'm assuming that dropping the link from "Golden Cross of Merit" was an oversight, though i'm fine with it either way. dying (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
Oh good. Happy if you and Ipigott are happy and yes, didn't mean to drop link from Golden Cross of Merit. Thanks for thinking through and raising the question. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
In light of Special:Permalink/1140684022#shenton way mrt station and past conflicts between article creators and drive-by nominators (and a conversation I had off-wiki), I think we should allow a consensus of authors of the article to withdraw their article from DYK consideration, whether or not they were involved in the nomination process up till then. If I write an article on my own, and it gets drive-by nominated before I feel it's ready, I think I should be able to prevent the article (or any hook in the nomination, we frequently extend line-item vetoes to nominators as a courtesy) from reaching the Main Page. I'd also want to have GalliumBot notify editors when their article is drive-by nommed. Any objection to that? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I would appreciate that the article creators/main contributions would also have an input for DYK noms. I don't mind my promoted articles (to GA) to be nominated for DYK, since others might see something interesting from the article which I have overlooked. But I would wish to be notified and consulted to see if the hook(s) proposed works, since I would be more familiar with the context and source the blurb might be from. So something like FAC or FAR, when the main contributors were also pinged in the DYK nomination. I would support granting main contributors to an article veto powers if they find the article (especially newly-created ones) isn't ready for DYK, and they might prefer having the article 5x expanded or newly-promoted to GA for it to be featured. After all, an article can only be on the DYK page once. ZKang123 (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose this proposal runs afoul of WP:OWN which is actual policy. Also your "drive-by" accusation is insulting to editors like myself who vet, edit and steward the articles through DYK. We should not codify more rules - especially ones that are counter to policy. Bruxton (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I also Oppose. I agree it would be nice to notify the "primary author" (whatever that means in the context of WP:OWN) of a nomination, but I'm not sure how you would determine who that is, and I certainly don't want to get pestered with talk page notices about nominations for every typo I've ever corrected. I would expect that the primary author's opinion would carry significant weight at a discussion, but I certainly wouldn't give them absolute veto power. In any case, "it's not ready yet" isn't a valid argument. I generally write new articles in my user space and move them to mainspace when I feel they're ready (search my move log for "prime time" comments). -- RoySmith(talk)16:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
@Bruxton and RoySmith: I'm not accusatory, some of my best friends are drive-by nominators! In all seriousness, we already do make a list of people who get "credit" for their nomination – if I'm being honest, WP:OWN kinda goes out the window as standard practice here. Reviewers barely ever make changes the nominator would dispute, and creators get nice shiny buttons saying that They Wrote This Article And It Did Appear On The Main Page And If They Care About Their Article's Performance There's A Stats Page For That. And I certainly hope we'd sympathize with people who might be anxious about letting tens of thousands of people view their work all at once. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
@Vami IV: I put you down as the person who brought the article to GA in the nomination. I read the article and I checked the references. I researched and came up with hooks. I made sure they were cited properly. I followed the article through approval. It was a good article and I was glad that you guided it through GA. We have no such rule about notifying editors because of our policy on ownership. I will make myself a mental note that you wish to be notified. Bruxton (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Support but not normally for GAs. This has long been accepted for main page FAs btw. I don't see that WP:OWN is a problem; the concept of "main authors" is well-established at FAC too. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose, unless there's an obvious reason why the nomination is disruptive or being used to harrass someone. Although we unofficially have a concept of who was the main author of a particular article, WP:OWN makes it clear that ultimately there is no special status for anyone, and any editor who wants to nominate an eligible article for DYK should be allowed to so. — Amakuru (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I think we should usually accept it if a page's main author asks nicely for the article not to hit the Main Page. We should not have a formal veto power, though, as that could lead to things like authors vetoing a nom if they don't like the hook. —Kusma (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Support a veto, or at least Kusma's version of "listen to the author if they ask nicely". I also support a notification to the primary author. My support comes from recent experience. I recently had a BLP article pass GA. I quietly opted not to DYK it as he's primarily notable for a few embarrassing incidents from years ago and is now a private citizen. Another editor nominated it for DYK without speaking to me, and with a hook that violated the rule about avoiding negative hooks on BLPs. Had I missed the DYK nomination edit on my watchlist - say if someone else edited the talk page after - I would never have known about the DYK nomination. Although they eventually agreed to withdraw it, I don't like the possibility that it could happen again without notification. ♠PMC♠ (talk)19:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment I would have thought that when you nominate another editor's work at DYK, it's a common act of courtesy to let the other editor know about it. I'm not sure that we need to codify that. Schwede6622:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
I honestly couldn't say how often or how little it happens. Maybe I'm naïve assuming that common acts of courtesy are a thing. Schwede6622:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Several editors and I have done drive-by nominations without issue in the past, so this whole discussion actually surprised me because I always assumed it was something that was permitted and not necessarily discouraged. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
There's no rule against it whatsoever, Narutolovehinata5. But as is normal with DYK, an article can only be nominated if it has become eligible within the last week. As such, it seems logical to me that the relevant editor (or editors) would appreciate a heads up that their very recent work is heading to the main page. Schwede6605:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
I do think there's one thing to consider here. DYK tends to have the idea that ownership of articles and nominations shouldn't be allowed. However, doesn't this technically empower nominators/article creators in such a way that they do have some "ownership"? At the very least I don't think there should be some kind of firm rule. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
In the case of the veto power at least, not without controversy (I have lost count of how many nominations that were bogged down by the nominator's veto power when such nominations could have otherwise run smoothly). In my opinion at least, it goes against the spirit of WP:OWN and most of what happens throughout the encyclopedia. Article creators are great and all, and at times they can be respected for creating an article, but that doesn't mean they should have final authority on everything. At the very least they can be consulted, but I don't think we should have a hard rule where we must follow a nominator or creator's wishes even if consensus argues otherwise (I am speaking from experience here). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)
Oppose, like others above. No objection to the "listen to the author if they ask nicely" principle of course, but a firm rule is a bad idea. Sometimes things come up for discussion and that's okay. CMD (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)
Comment: I have no opinion on the proposal itself, except that I agree with PMC that common sense and cordiality to the subject of a DYK should be codified; put simply, just letting a negative hook about a BLP run should not be permitted. I digress. I propose that it should be mandatory for drive-by nominators to notify the editor(s) who did the legwork in getting an article to a DYK-ready state. Keep it simple and ping them on the nomination template, please. Then in PMC's case above, a discussion about the suitability of the article for DYK can be had, and more importantly people like me don't find out my work was nominated when a reviewer stops by to say, while pinging me since my name is on the nomination because I got it through GAN, "hey, these hooks aren't the best, can you workshop something better?" –♠Vamí_IV†♠07:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
Let me also add, for the record, that the lack of notifying bothers me, especially for newer accounts, because it may make an editor look like unscrupulous, meat- or sock-puppeting to quickly get DYK nominations into the market of consideration by avoiding the tedium of DYK QPQ. At least notify me if you nominate an article of mine, but even better ask me first. –♠Vamí_IV†♠07:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
@Vami IV: the At least notify me if you nominate an article of mine, but even better ask me first. is exactly what WP:OWN speaks to. Let's look at Tinder Fire an article which you have said is your own. The article has six editors. One editor, @Missvain: started the article added (1,210 characters). Isn't it Missvain's article? Maybe they did not want their creation nominated at GA? I have not seen that you asked them prior to GA. Are all major contributors to be notified prior to DYK nomination? Does Tinder Fire belong to the editor who added the most characters? It is a fundamental truth that none of us owns anything related to Wikipedia. If I left the project today it would be next editor up. Bruxton (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
This is an incredibly lame reply. I am just making a simple request, not at all hard to implement. Just ping the people credited in the nomination when you nominate the article. –♠Vamí_IV†♠03:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
LOL it's a a Wikipedia article, I don't care if it becomes a DYK. I'm glad people expand things I start. I'm flattered knowing someone even sees the articles I write. Let alone my boring ass fire articles. Missvain (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment The main takeaway here for me is that most nominators of creations not their own assume they're doing something the creator would like. Some even think it'll be a nice surprise, a bit of unasked-for recognition of your work. But at least some creators actively dislike it. Whether or not the creator should have veto power, that's clearly something nominators should understand: not every creator appreciates what you're doing, and some find it actively rude. It's kind of like throwing someone a surprise party: you might think of course anyone would love that! Some of us live in horror of the very idea.
Maybe we should add that to the DYK nomination thingy when the nominator is not the creator: some notification to non-creator noms that this may not actually be appreciated by the creator and it would be polite to at least open a conversation at the creator's talk before you do them a "favor" they actively dislike? Valereee (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
As with most things in civilized society, it's difficult to know where to draw the line between inappropriate behavior and activity prohibited by legislation. I've done one drive-by. I first asked the "primary author" if they were OK with it, which they were. Had they declined, I would have honored their preference. It's not like we've got so few submissions that we need to be beating them out of people to keep the pipeline full. But I'd still prefer that we keep this as a "best practice" and not elevate it an official requirement. -- RoySmith(talk)15:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree we don't need a rule. I just think people who nominate the work of others are probably unaware that a surprise nomination may not be welcomed, and maybe we should let them know somehow. Valereee (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)
Comment This happened to me a week ago when an article I took to GA was nominated. I had no issue with this, but reviewers do need to be aware that (1) If I didn't nominate the article, then I don't have the DYK nomination watchlisted, so if you have questions about the article, you will need to ping me! (2) If I didn't nominate it, then I didn't supply the QPQ; the nominator did. Hawkeye7(discuss)22:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
Special occasion holding area / color background
I have noticed that the "Approved" hooks in the Special occasion holding area on WP:DYKNA turn out to have problems. Those hooks sit there at the top of the page without being re-checked for weeks and weeks, and the problems only come to light days before the Special occasion, when it is time to promote (or at Queue in the case above, which I should have scrutinized more closely before promoting).
I have wondered if it's the dark orange background in that section that causes people to want to skip over it. The background color is dark, so it is less visually appealing to read, and you sort of get the feeling those hooks have already been bulletproofed and are "untouchable", when in fact they should be going through the same level of scrutiny as all the others (or arguably even more). Is there any possibility of changing the formatting of that section? Maybe changing the orange background to a very light yellow (which to me signals caution and is more readable)? Or maybe even changing it back to white, and clearly marking it as "special occasion hook" in another way? Cielquiparle (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I mean, in most cases, I don't leave comments on an approved page unless I was getting ready to promote it. Just kinda how that goes – the nice thing about my sandbox proposal that I've been mulling over is that we wouldn't actually have to worry about this? Promoters could promote the hook at any time, and then take it out of the sandbox when the appropriate prep comes up. That's what the sandboxes are for: holding double-signed-off hooks pre-scheduling. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I seriously appreciate all the work that editors like @Sojourner in the earth have done in re-reviewing the hooks at WP:DYKNA and flagging up issues. They have caught some serious problems that the original reviewers missed and that subsequent promoters could have overlooked. I try to do the same if I notice anything egregious about hooks at DYKNA, but for promoters it can be double-edged because if we get overly involved, we can't promote the hook anymore. I think it's important to continue to have multiple sets of eyes on hooks that have been approved but not yet promoted, rather than boxing them off somewhere where they are "untouchable", also because we all read things differently depending on background/discipline/geography/language/culture/pet peeves, etc. The earlier these issues are addressed in the pipeline, the better; we want to avoid last-minute agony and embarrassment at ERRORS at all costs, as sometimes the stopgap solutions we come up with there are not so great either. And if these issues are identified at DYKNA (rather than DYK Talk or Errors), we tend to have more original nominator involvement in a positive way. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Electron backscatter diffraction
Template:Did you know nominations/Electron backscatter diffraction was nominated on the basis of being a fivefold expansion. The page size tool says that article before expansion [14] was 11 kB (1,625 words) "readable prose size"; it is now 49 kB (23,472 words) "readable prose size". This falls short of 5x expansion (word counts don't work properly in the presence of mathematical markup). The author contends that they now have authored 86% of the article. I'm inclined to waive the rule, but seeking a second opinion on this. Hawkeye7(discuss)19:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
According to Who Wrote That, FuzzyMagma has written 89.0% of the page. I also note that DYK Check seems to think that most of the "Selecting a reference pattern" section doesn't count as "readable prose", which is just silly. So that's roughly another 1k there. It's also not counting any of the Note section, which is another 2kb. I assume it's not couting that because technically it's generated by {{reflist}}, but if the text that's there doesn't count as "readable prose", then something's wrong with the definition. This is an excellent piece of work. Let's not be a slave to some script, especially when @Shubinatorthe script's author saidI'm uncomfortable with its imperfect logic used as the basis for policy. I'm not even sure you need to invoke IAR to accept this.
Sorry, but I disagree, for a quite a few reasons. First, notes and lists explicitly don't count as readable prose for a reason; in the former's case, you don't need reliable sourcing to add them, and in the latter's case, pretty much every list would qualify if we didn't do that. Even if we were to make an exception for the text in question, you'd still only be up to 52kB, which is short of the targeted 55kB.
Authorial percentage also explicitly doesn't count, because removing old text doesn't count; per SG?fivefold history, you can only deduct old text from the starting value if it's copyvio. The guidelines are pretty clear that this doesn't count; see Wikipedia:Did you know/Meanies. If we wanna change that, that's fine, but the fivefold has always been treated as a hard minimum and I don't see this as a case where IAR is appropriate. If the article was at 11kB, it's inherently very difficult to squeeze an article out of that we can somehow call "new". Fivefold is primarily targeted at stubs, not gargantuan expansion projects, and it's supposed to get harder the longer (less new) an article is. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
Also, RoySmith, you've misquoted Shubinator – that quote, as far as I can tell, refers to how DYKcheck picks which revisions to assess, not the prosesize gadget it relies on (that's not Shub's work). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
I would encourage the lead to be expanded, not to satisfy a dumb rule, but because a larger lead would provide a better summary of the article, and provides the opportunity to make it a bit more accessible to a less familiar reader. I would also be inclined to count the list in this case, as it is genuine prose rather than being a series of items. CMD (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
That's a good point. MOS:LEAD#Length suggests 3-4 paragraphs would be appropriate for an article this long. Whoever reviews this for GA will want to see that anyway, so might as well get it out of the way now. MOS:LEAD also suggests that the citations in the lead be moved to the main body. Citations are essential for WP:V, but they do get in the way of readability, which is of paramount importance in the lead. @FuzzyMagma: to make sure they're aware of this thread. -- RoySmith(talk)17:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
I have rearranged the text from the notes and numbered list near the end so it will be included for the DYK check and then the article passed the 5x criteria. feel free to confirm for yourself on this veriosn ... FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
@FuzzyMagma: If I'm reading these two diffs correctly (12), you seem to have added a large amount of text (in addition to deleting the list parameters, which would bump up the count further, but that's not what i'm talking about), and then reverted that addition. If that's correct, that doesn't count. We can IAR on the list, but you can't add and then remove text to game the fivefold guidelines. Your article needs to pass the fivefold criteria+IAR from review to appearance. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron I think it is the other way around. the current DYK script for some reason does not count notes and anything in a list as texts (both do not fit your definition in your earlier comment). So what I did is taking these notes and uncounted list texts and added them in a way so they can be counted as in the version I have shared. Once this text is included in the DYK check, then the DYK will indicate that the article is 5x. Not sure why notes and list are not included in the DYK varfication but I hope after running DYK script on the current EBSD article you will see my point.
ah, you also added the notes into prose. okay, fair enough – if we're gonna IAR and count those, the nomination would pass with the expanded lead. Even though the text you've added is 83.4% of the total article, some of that presumably comes from removing old text, which doesn't count in assessing fivefold expansions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks people. I do remember an article we shamelessly padded to meet the 5x criterion. (Nobody noticed, and it went on to pass GA in that form.) I had been more strict about 5x since GA was added as an alternative route to DYK. But I was also relieved to find that the work I did on John Anderson, 1st Viscount Waverley was sufficient to reach the 5x threshold and save me having to send it to GA. Hawkeye7(discuss)23:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)
Dr Salvus, DYK is only publishing one set a day at the moment, so it takes longer for nominations to move through the system.
Template:Did you know nominations/Samuel Iling-Junior was approved (given a green tick) on 19 February, the next step is for it to be promoted to a preparation set. A delay of two weeks between approval and promotion is not unusual. The nomination includes an image and each preparation set only has one hook with an image, so it may take a little longer to promote.
@Starship.paint, imo, there's no need to write the full name "Juventus Football Club". The hook already makes people think it's on a football/soccer player. The full name is exaggerated; at most, there could be Juventus F.C.. DrSalvus14:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)
@Dr Salvus: - I wouldn’t assume that a majority of readers are familiar with either Juventus or the UEFA Champions League as identifying football/soccer. Goal (sports) is pretty common among sports. For laymen, ‘Football Club’ identifies context. For those familiar, it’s no big deal. starship.paint (exalt)12:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
@Starship.paint, footballer is already better. Football Club is too long and unnecessary, and there would be no need to have F.C. after Juventus as there would already be enough context. DrSalvus12:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 Looks like we have a new hook from CMD that is both central to the story and avoids the minefields of the previous hook candidates. Could you please review the new hook inside the template? Cielquiparle (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
This is rather boring hook, mostly because for virtually every hurricane, it's true that workers came from other states to help put the power grid back together. All the utilities (power, phone, etc) have reciprocal agreements with each other to send workers and equipment to other areas to help out in emergencies. -- RoySmith(talk)00:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Oh, okay. I hadn't had that happen before. It's a pity, in some ways that image is more representative of the article subject than the hook is. Thank you for the reply. HLHJ (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
@HLHJ At this point, I would just be grateful that the DYK submission wasn't rejected after lingering for four months – it's really thanks to @Flibirigit's patience and willingness to re-review in such detail so many times that it finally got over the line. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
@HLHJ Some topics are more challenging than others. Thanks for your hard work as well. On the bright side, maybe it's a shorter path now to GA...! Cielquiparle (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Cielquiparle! I've been meaning to do a GA sometime, just to learn best practices... I thought I might start on something non-controversial, like pavement light. I've got too much else going on just now, but I'm sure your advice is good! HLHJ (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a while ago, so I've created a new list of all 26 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through the end of February. Including the 69 nominations on the Approved page that can’t transclude there due to length limits, we have a total of 305 nominations, of which 186 have been approved, a gap of 119 nominations that has decreased by 15 in the past couple of weeks. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
I downloaded the DYK tools and I added three hooks to prep 6. I thought it best to come here in case someone wants to check my work. Thank you all. Lightburst (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks @Cielquiparle: ! I am sure I will need some help but I am checking the hooks and sources and doing a second review in the process. And wow - the tools for checking DYK eligibility and the promotion tool are super! Lightburst (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Hi, and hoping it's the right place, this may be the first time I had to post any questions re. DYK. Two linked queries about understanding how well a hook did, no urgency, just when someone doing stats has a moment:
1) I had a nomination reach the Main Page for Women's Day yesterday, Template:Did you know nominations/Lisette Olivera, and it is now posted to STATS. But the link alongside it in the statistics table gives one number (21,211 views, I think), while the table shows another, is it 20,571. Just out of interest, is this because of some difference in time zones?
2) The nomination was approved as a text, non-leading, item, and appeared that way for the first 12.5 or 13.5 hours. Then, for some reason, it was moved up to the lead slot, and its picture brought into use for the remaining part of the day. In terms of long-term recording (which I see is split between Leading and Non-Leading hooks), how is it considered?
Thanks, SeoR (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
hey there, SeoR! The difference between the two viewcounts is background views – some articles, particularly articles on popular topics, will attract some viewers to the page independently of the DYK spike. To adjust for that in determining the final viewcount, we look at how many views the article gets in the days surrounding its Main Page appearance, and subtract those out from the total. What's left is, presumably, roughly the number of views it gets as a function of DYK. The function that maintains the stats page, vandyke, only looks at the set as stored in the archives – so in this case, it'd be counted as a lead slot hook. There's not really any difference, except that lead hooks tend to have a much higher viewcount. Thanks for the question! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, theleekycauldron, that's a comprehensive answer, and now that you mention it, I remember something about this average background viewing deduction from when I restarted with DYK a year or two back, I just had not quite seen how it worked in reality (I don't always check my DYKs' views). And thanks for your advice on that nom; it had a good run, and it was a nice fit for the 8th of March. SeoR (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that, good to know, and I certainly have no objection, the article I offered had a good image with a clean licence, so I am glad it was able to step in. The other image was striking but appeared to be a digital rendering of a photo or some such (it still showed the edge of some surface), so I guess it had some copyright complexities (that whole area is a nightmare I avoid, but I do know someone who works the image permissions queue, a tough gig, as even people willing to donate apparently don't always get it right). SeoR (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Don't jump to conclusions that might not be right (appeared to be a digital rendering of a photo or some such (it still showed the edge of some surface)), SeoR. The photo that appears to have been the basis for the painting (this was linked to in the discussion) does not have the edge that you are referring to. As it happens, I'll be staying at the artist's place over the weekend; I shall ask her what the backstory is. If I remember correctly, this artwork hangs in her living room; I've stayed with her before. Schwede6600:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I'll strike out that speculation, not my business / area of knowledge. I was not aware of any discussion (nor who was involved), only that sometime late in the day things had changed with my submission, and when I looked back I saw the timing. When I first checked the main page, I noticed that rather striking image, but it was only an impression re. its nature, and again, all respect to the artist / contributor(s), I'm sure all was done in the best of faith. I know how thoroughly DYKs are checked, and so the action was precautionary, given the exacting standards of the main page, and not in any way conclusive. Thanks again, SeoR (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Judith Marquet-Krause
Could someone please promote Judith Marquet-Krause to Prep 4? (The article was previously demoted after close paraphrasing was discovered with an article which turned out to have been translated into English from non-English Wikipedia, but has been since reworked and checked.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Is it OK to publish an article about a highway that is still under construction on the main page? Large public infrastructure projects that are "in planning" or "in development" seem like political footballs...and there is always the odd project that is either abandoned or isn't completed for decades. Or is it case by case? Anyway, I wasn't comfortable with the proposed hook for: Antananarivo–Toamasina toll highway about the benefits in terms of reduced travel times (without any qualification or hedging). Cc: @Red-tailed hawk @JuxlosCielquiparle (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I think it is. I don't see why the subject matter itself would not warrant the main page; this is something where ground has already been broken and construction is already underway. The shortening times are derived from the fact that the road will be paved (as opposed to the current dirt roads) and that there will be a relatively high speed limit; none of this seems particularly exceptional. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)13:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
OK, then at minimum it would need a hedge – "projected to be" "expected to be" - etc. It's not confirmed until it's confirmed and the reduced driving times shouldn't be guaranteed in wikivoice "will". Cielquiparle (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Cielquiparle that we should change "will" to "expected to". After all, it's about 3 years until it opens, and things could change in that time. Expected to is consistent with how most articles on future events are written on Wiki. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
Time to move to two sets a day
We are supposed to switch DYK from one main-page set per day to two when we reach or exceed 120 approved nominations and also reach or exceed 10 filled queues and preps combined. At the moment, there are 6 filled queues and 5 filled preps, and the Count of DYK Hooks table shows 241 hooks, 124 of which are Verified/Approved.
In actuality, the Count is an undercount, since we have so many approved nominations on the Approved page that they are only being transcluded through February 26; the 58 approved nominations that can't be transcluded because doing so would exceed the maximum length of the page aren't counted by the bot. The Count should be 299 total hooks, 182 of which are approved.
The changeover needs to be done shortly after midnight UTC and not before—if you do it immediately, the bot will promote the next set immediately, which would be very bad. I haven't seen any special occasion hooks that need to be moved: we had a big batch of them on March 8, and the next ones in the special occasions section aren't for another two weeks. To do the changeover, an admin needs to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200. Thanks in advance to the admin who does this eight hours (or more) from now. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)
Thank you @BlueMoonset and Schwede66:. Is there any way of dealing with the impact of the maximum length of the Approved page? Could we increase the maximum length? Could a bot count all the approved hooks including untranscluded ones? Should the issue be mentioned at WP:DYKROTATE? TSventon (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, it's a bit annoying when the page gets overloaded. It stops working beyond a set number of transclusions; that's hardcoded into the Wiki software, I believe. Schwede6609:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not a tech expert, but it would probably help a lot to replace the call to {{category handler}} inside {{DYKsubpage}} by a direct if statement that places the category if and only if we are in the talk namespace. —Kusma (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
My take on this is that our process is sub-optimal in two distinct ways.
First, smashing all the nominations together into one big pile isn't the best way to present the menu of possible hooks to prep builders. When I'm building a prep, all I really want to see (at least for the initial pass) is a summary of each approved nomination. The article title, approved hooks, possibly an image, some filtering information (i.e. biography, US-centric, quirky), and any special information like "hold for a specific date". There should of course be a one-click way to see the full nomination if you want to dive into the detailed discussions.
Second, if we're going to adjust our publishing cadence, we should do it based on some logical editorial criteria. It would be reasonable, for example to aim for no nomination languishing for more than N weeks after being approved. What's not reasonable is having an arbitrary software limitation drive our editorial decisions; "We need to publish more because if we don't, transclusion breaks". That's like a newspaper deciding to increase the page count because they've run out of room on the loading dock to store newsprint. -- RoySmith(talk)14:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
I wonder if there should be a separate "quarantine" area for nominations that have been approved once but still require additional work (on the hook, the article itself, or both). We currently clog up the "Approved" page with hooks that are essentially unusable for the time being. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, they should definitely be filtered out. That's part of what I was heading towards with DYK Tools, but got distracted by the move-protect project. On the bright side, it's looking like that distraction will resolve itself soon. -- RoySmith(talk)14:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis Are we supposed to move them back to WP:DYKN manually if they were approved once but still require more work before they can be promoted? I've only ever noticed @BlueMoonset moving the templates back, so I wasn't sure. (There's a grey area as well, with some articles at "Approved" where issues are actively being addressed, where I definitely wouldn't bother moving back and forth.) Cielquiparle (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
That is my understanding. It makes life easier for the promoters, as it leaves DYKA with only the ready to go hooks as intended. CMD (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis, while it would definitely make life easier, I don't think there's any understanding, written or otherwise, that promoters or reviewers should be spending their time doing that manually. That's probably something that can be bot work. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
So, I've been looking at implementing this. Turns out, my existing code has been mis-identifying approved nominations because I've been relying on pywikibot's Page.imagelinks(), which it turns out doesn't do what I thought it did. Looking at the WugBot code, I see Wug used a different strategy which seems to work better.
We really need to move towards having a standard library of reusable components which work on DYK objects such as nominations. Then we won't have each bot author needing to roll their own code to do stuff like parse nomination templates.
What's not reasonable is having an arbitrary software limitation drive our editorial decisions. What a good thing that this wasn't the reason we changed at all: we went to two per day because we had exceeded the agreed-upon limit of 120 approved nominations while having ten or more full sets on the queues page, a situation that, by consensus, indicates that such a change takes place. And when we drop below 60 approved or six full sets, we'll change again, regardless of whether the transclusion issue on the Approved page has resolved itself. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
Or maybe not. Removing the category handler didn't seem to do much, assuming my purges did indeed work. Strange. Any transclusion experts? —Kusma (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)
... ... it is deliberate use of the little-known "double ellipses" in the quirky hook slot, discussed in epic detail in Template:Did you know nominations/Millennial pause where @dying was pushing boundaries in exploring every typographical option available on wiki ... props to @Hameltion who suggested it, the sharp-eyed @BorgQueen for being the first proofreader to question it and to @Theleekycauldron for commenting it in so that we can minimize further proofing wars... which may very well start all over again when it hits the main page ... Cielquiparle (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
haha, yeah, i was trying to figure out how to get css text animation to work in a hook, but couldn't figure out how to define keyframes on wikipedia. hook alt1a was my attempt to emulate the gen z shake statically. dying (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not convinced by the article itself, though. It could really be a dictionary definition for a bit of trivia, much of it is conjecture, half of it isn't actually about the subject, and it uses the phrase "zoomer" five times without defining it. Black Kite (talk)19:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
@dying, Hameltion, and Cielquiparle: Black Kite's comment about the issue with this page seems to be serious, but isn't getting page traction, so I'll repost it in a new section:
I'm not convinced by the article itself, though. It could really be a dictionary definition for a bit of trivia, much of it is conjecture, half of it isn't actually about the subject, and it uses the phrase "zoomer" five times without defining it. Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think it's a great article, but as far as I can see, it meets DYK standards. Many of the sources are marginal, but there are enough solid ones that I can't imagine this getting deleted at AfD. I added a link for zoomer. Many of the citations use {{cite web}} when they should be using {{cite news}}, but that's not a DYK fail. I tried to fix the citation to "The Times" to add location=London, but was stymied by the use of {{R}}; the documentation therein asserts that it makes the citations easier to read and maintain, which apparently uses a meaning of "easier" that I was previously unaware of. But that's also not a DYK fail. -- RoySmith(talk)22:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
as a technicality, if the article is tagged with {{Content}}, that does constitute a DYK fail – if the article goes into excessively irrelevant detail, that would be something that needs to be fixed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
(Reviewer here) There was a {{Coatrack section}} tag added by another editor during the review - I removed it because comments by the nominator, and my own rereading, seemed to address the concerns. I realize it may have been out of order for me to do both things, but the section seems harmless enough to me. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
i am presuming that "conjecture" refers to the "Theory" section. from what i can tell, it's not much different from the explanations included in other wikipedia articles about phenomena, and the two theories i described are widely reported in reliable sources, so i thought it would be inappropriate to leave them out of the article. the "Millennials online" section, which is the section that previously had a coatrack tag, was added after i realized that virtually all reliable sources that discussed the millennial pause in depth also mentioned a number of other online behavioural habits associated with millennials, so not expanding on this seemed to be doing a disservice to our readers.i originally had a footnote defining zoomers, but another editor removed it; following Black Kite's comment, i've restored it. dying (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Question - Are there currently any outstanding concerns that should prevent Prep 3 (which includes this) from being promoted to Queue 3? - Aoidh (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh: in general, we don't hold up the whole queue when one of the hooks in prep has an issue – either it gets pulled, bumped to a later prep, or pushed on through to queue with faith that it'll be fixed before showtime. In this case, I'm not sure how this is going to play out yet, so I would recommend either the second or the last option. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Thanks, I looked at it and I didn't see anything super glaring so I've gone with the last option, but I don't mind if someone comes behind me and adjusts that. There were 2 empty queues and 0 empty preps but I wanted to check before acting on it. - Aoidh (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Just another thing - it says " The practice of including such a pause is generally ascribed to millennials, a group often defined to include people born in the 1980s or 1990s" and yet one of the two images is of Jennifer Coolidge, who was born in 1961! Black Kite (talk)10:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Black Kite, i'm glad you noticed! that was actually intentional, to quickly show readers that the term readily applies to pauses in videos by people other than millennials, and to emphasize that "generally ascribed to" does not mean "only exhibited by". did it have the intended effect? would you have done it differently? dying (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
@RAJIVVASUDEV, Mindmatrix, and Cielquiparle: I was checking through Queue 3 and noticed that the reference doesn't quite seem to match the hook. The hook is "... that the origins of swivel weaving can be traced back to the Ming dynasty of China?" but the reference just says The weavers of Ming times...mastered a swivel weaving method (zhuanghua) making use of... it doesn't say anything about the technique having originated from that area or time period, just that they mastered a version of the technique. Am I overlooking something in the reference? - Aoidh (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
Good catch @Aoidh. (And huge congratulations BTW to Wikipedia's newest admin!) Proposing as an alternative:
On the main page currently, the hook for Larry Kennedy has two sets of "..." before the hook. This needs to be changed. BeanieFan11 (talk) 00:34, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I am not a page mover but I believe that Rancho Obi Wan Obi Wan should have a hyphen. Rancho Obi-Wan is now a redirect so we need a page mover in order to preserve the history. I pinged a few editors/admins to the nomination talk page without success. Can anyone here help? Bruxton (talk) 14:03, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
There's an ongoing issue with generation of image thumbnails. I'm guessing it'll be seen a lot on DYK nominations because our use of {{main page image/DYK}} forces generation of a thumbnail in an unusual size, which tickles the bug. -- RoySmith(talk)15:57, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
(And if for some reason they don't look ok, please add your comments/concerns to the nomination template(s). The Piri ALT1 hook mentions her OnlyFans account but I think it is ok as it doesn't mention what content she is selling there, cites a source appropriately, etc. The critique of the Mormon biography is dense to read but I believe my initial concerns have been sufficiently addressed.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:21, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
@Launchballer and Cielquiparle: I'm significantly uncomfortable with the British tabloid known as the Daily Mirror being used to supplement risqué information on a BLP. Could that source be cut? Also, there's a good many primary sources in here, and we should be checking for WP:PRIMARY vios... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 10:27, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
okay, we're gonna have to see about how Lballer feels about that many cuts – I think they're probably a good call, but always good to check back in. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:06, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
@Launchballer @AviationFreak @Theleekycauldron I've made significant cuts to the article to reduce reliance on primary sources, which were mainly supplying extraneous detail (this is Wikipedia after all, not Fandom, etc.). (I think probably the article ballooned because it went through AfD, survived, and then sat around for so long... Even though I think all that detail doesn't belong here, I am seriously impressed with Launchballer's meticulousness in citing everything so carefully.) Anyway I'm sure it might have come as a shock at first, but I do think the article is a lot more readable and stronger now, and hope we can still get this on a path to promotion. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm not going to contest the removal of anything based on it being extraneous (certainly not this side of DYK). I do eventually have designs on putting it through WP:GA and WP:FA and it's only going to get more and more of a shock.
I would argue, however, that per WP:PRIMARY, primary sources "may be used on Wikipedia […] to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts"; for example, I fail to see anything wrong with using her TikTok to cite her master's degree. My rule of thumb is that if the account is blue ticked or otherwise verified (she isn't blue ticked on Twitter but did use her appearance on "The Helping Musicians Podcast" to say that piri_io_ was her account), then anything in there is fair game. I would also argue that The Daily Mirror is acceptable for what I've used it for, i.e. a paraphrased quote.--Launchballer12:43, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
Submitted the master's degree question as a query on the BLP Talk page and cc'ed @Launchballer, hopefully someone responds there. We could raise the question about the other social media sources there as well. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:11, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Queues
@DYK admins: hope to have some prep sets promoted so we can stay ahead of the two a day. Presently there are 5 in the queue and six full prep sets. Bruxton (talk) 17:55, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Preps and a re-review
A special occasion hook is waiting for the March 23-24 prep - it will Likely be the next open prep. Shortly after there are several more noms waiting in the holding area for March. I also want to ask for assistance from an editor to re-review Template:Did you know nominations/Desert of Maine: which was a GA. The editors have stopped responding to me for about three weeks, and maybe my assessment has been unreasonable. If we can get it on track I think it is interesting. Bruxton (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
@Toadboy123, Jon698, and Bruxton: When checking through this queue I noticed there's a lot that seems to be copied from this source. That wording was in that website in January 2021 and this article was not created until April 2022, so it's not an instance of the website copying the Wikipedia article. Statements like bailing out of his aircraft, Hilger was jolted from the opening of his parachute and suffered some sprains and minor injuries and [He] ...took part in the training operations for the men and planes assembled at Eglin Field...A high priority was given to pilots practicing short takeoffs are not WP:LIMITED situations, that seems like a wholesale copy-paste of the website in question, and the article appears to have a history of copyvio issues previously. @BorgQueen, RoySmith, and Theleekycauldron: what's the best way to address this? - Aoidh (talk) 23:40, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
@Aoidh: I think the hook may have to be pulled while the issues are addressed. Seems like parts could easily be rewritten and I could start working on that now. You could check back in one hour after I get into it. Bruxton (talk) 23:52, 15 March 2023 (UTC)
@Zawed, Toadboy123, Bruxton, Jon698, and Aoidh:. I have pulled it. The initial copyright issue was noted on Talk:John A. Hilger 10 months ago. It looks like somebody made some vague attempt to clean it up, but if you look carefully at the Earwig report, it's worse than the raw "64.1%" number would lead you to believe. Most of the passages that Earwig doesn't flag because they're not exact matches are just close paraphrases. Honestly, I think this stands a good chance of failing WP:G12. I'm flabbergasted that this passed a GA review, and then three more reviews at DYK to make it as far as the queue. -- RoySmith(talk)00:06, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Thanks, I wasn't sure when pulling it would be appropriate so I wanted feedback before I did that. I think moving forward I should check them before I move them to queue, not during/after. - Aoidh (talk) 00:12, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
In theory, checking them all before you promote is the right thing to do. In practice, that exposes you to a race condition where two admins are working on the same thing at the same time, so in practice, people tend to promote first. As long as you run your checks immediately after, I think it's fine. That's what I do. For minor issues, I just post the problems at WT:DYK and assume they'll get worked out before press time. But this was a big one, so needed to be yanked. -- RoySmith(talk)00:22, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
What's the best practice for filling that empty spot? I'd imagine you'd pull from one of the preps and move it to that spot but does it matter where in the prep it's pulled from, or when it should be filled once the other hook has been pulled? - Aoidh (talk) 00:28, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I fixed it up. The rest is long titles and military speak which cannot be eliminated. To be honest most of it was. It is 49.7 48.7% now and I do not think it can be changed more. Bruxton (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Pardon me for sounding abrupt, but what you've done is more minor rehashing of wording, i.e. turned more word-for-word copying into close paraphrasing that evades the scrutiny of Earwig, but doesn't address the real problem. I've nominated this for a GA reassessment; in my opinion, the original GA review was defective. -- RoySmith(talk)00:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
"Not my article @RoySmith: but there is no way to say he was assigned to be the commander of the 307th without close paraphrasing. I know you have a burr for GAs and occasionally I do, I am stuck on one now. Bruxton (talk) 00:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
What I would do is scan the prep areas and find another article which fits the same general criteria (in this case, an American biography) and move it to the empty slot on the queue. Unfortunately, PSHAW can't handle that, so you'll need to manually copy the hook (and the associated credit template further down). I would have done that myself, but I was too worked up ranting about the pencil whipping this had gotten both here and at GA.
It's best to work from the back of the prep area list. If you cannibalize a prep area that's going to be promoted to the queue soon, you're just kicking the problem down the road. -- RoySmith(talk)00:41, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree with you most times about GA - but this one is full of technical jargon and long worded military assignments. A few sentences like the one about "bailing out" were copied. I just rearranged sentences to stop earwig from alerting. Bruxton (talk) 00:47, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I understand about long-winded titles, names of battles, etc. That's not the problem. I just rearranged sentences to stop earwig from alerting is pretty much the definition of close paraphrasing. The idea is not to make Earwig shut up. The idea is to read the source, understand what it is saying, and then write original prose which conveys the same information. -- RoySmith(talk)00:54, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
It is a situation where I changed the wording or used synonyms for words like assault/raid, assigned/served/posted etc. Earwig alerted to sentences like: Operational Training Unit Bomb Group with the 14th Air Force in Kunming, China. I rewrote sentences like Chief of Staff, Allied Air Forces Northern Europe in Oslo, Norway, from July 1959 to July 1961. moving the dates to the start and changing wording. But that is not CC. IMO it is not the proper way to look for CC to click on Earwig - but it is a start. There were several sentences as Aoidh mentioned above, but they have been corrected. I was trying to avoid bogging it down into what we have now. Bruxton (talk) 01:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
This is a little frustrating, but you seem to have a fundamental lack of understanding of what close paraphrasing means. The examples you give, I changed the wording or used synonyms, and moving the dates to the start and changing wording are exactly what close paraphrasing means. You should review Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing#Substantial similarity. -- RoySmith(talk)01:21, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to see what exactly caused the five alarm fire, and it was clearly earwig tripping on sentences which are hard to change. It may have been a misspeak on my part or an oversimplification: What I have done is I tried to put the ideas in my own words. Close paraphrasing is only changing a few words. I am sure I only changed a few words on the job titles and assignments, like putting the years of service for a job title in reverse order, not to fool anyone, but because it cannot be put in my words. And it calms down the earwig clickers. Anyway, it is now pulled and under a GA reassessment. and I have been sufficiently insulted and admonished. be gentle with people Roy. Bruxton (talk) 01:35, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Coming back to the basic question—what do we do with a nomination with such fundamental problems—in my view we should simply reject these nominations. Yes, the article can be cleaned up. It needs to be cleaned up. But it should never have been nominated at DYK in such a state (nor should it ever have passed a GA review, but that's another issue) and when we have such big problems on our hand, we should simply put the big REJECT on it, close the nomination, and move on. That's at least my view. Schwede6603:33, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I think it's case by case. If it's salvageable, and someone is willing to put in the time and effort to fix the issues, then by all means fix it. But if there isn't – and even the original nominator doesn't want to put in the time – then it's fine to reject.
Big picture, DYK plays an important role in highlighting what current content creators are doing, and if it helps some people learn and become better editors – or simply realize what they shouldn't be doing – that is in many ways a more important result long term. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:05, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
In a short stretch of time Cielquiparle and myself have promoted just shy of 700 nominations. There are bound to be hiccups, and this was a miss by me. I am sure I did not run earwig on the article. If I had I would have noted it in the nomination and the article would have been improved without public shame and embarrassment for so many. Several other articles had CC corrected during nomination and in that way everyone had a learning experience. I share Cielquiparle's opinion that many editors up their game as a result of participation here. I know I became a better editor through the helpful advice I received while nominating and reviewing. Participating here means reading hundreds of articles, checking sources, seeing styles, offering advice... and through all this I became better at editing wikipedia. There is much to know in order to master editing here. I have watched Cielquiparle dive in to edit articles so they are correct, and I try to do the same. That is what I hoped to do with this article last night. My own experiences here gave me the courage to nominate my contributions for GA. I want to advise Aoidh that Leeky, myself and others often drop comments at the nominations about CC and other issues, and in that way DYK grows with new editors participating and learning. I would like to welcome Aoidh to DYK; I know right now it is not exactly how I described in my !vote in your RFA, but it will be. Bruxton (talk) 16:14, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
I apologize again for dumping on you so hard. You have been doing a huge amount of work here and that is certainly appreciated. This one just happened to push a couple of my hot buttons in combination: sub-standard GA reviews, and copyright issues. Of all the dozens of rules we have at DYK, complying with WP:C is one of the most critical. Nobody's ever going to send a nastygram to WMF legal complaining that we miscalculated a 5x expansion, or a hook was boring, or we ran too many biographies in a row. But they will send complaints about copyright violations, so that's what we really need to get right. -- RoySmith(talk)17:51, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
A scan of the sources suggests your disambiguation hunch is correct. I think the location-less version is best. There's also a double "open" issue. Could we go with "... that when Luna Park opened in 1906, the first program included "comedy sheep"?" Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:59, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Queue 1: Gloria Cameron (nom) This needs an end-of-sentence citation for ... was the first native Jamaican to appear on the British television programme This Is Your Life.
Queue 1: Killing of Nathan Heidelberg (nom) The hook states that the police officer was on his front porch. There's nothing in the article that says "front porch", just "porch". It is also just "The Heidelbergs' suit stated he was on the porch". We can't go from "the suit stated" to asserting it as a fact in wikivoice without a better source. I'm also concerned about the statement in the lead: Heidelberg's death was the result of a chain of communication failures. Unless a source said that, then it's WP:OR to draw that conclusion. Likewise, The police assumed the alarm company had informed the Wilsons that they were on the way. I don't see anything that states what the police assumed, so we can't say so in wikivoice. The infobox labels David Wilson as a "perpetrator". Given that there was no conviction, WP:PERPETRATOR doesn't allow us to say that. I have my doubts about this article meeting WP:NPOV.
For the front porch, I have added that down in the "defense" subsection, per this source: "A second photo showed the view the MPD officers might have had coming up the front porch of the Wilsons' house." There are other passages in that source which can be used also, but that one puts the police firmly there.
"Communication failures" Changed to the more neutral "There were several communication failures". I changed it to "The police assumed the alarm company would inform the Wilsons that they were on the way", which is supported by the above source ("Based off of Wolf’s testimony it was shown officers were sent to the Wilson residence under the impression someone was working to initiate content with David Wilson as the “key carrier”. This was based on numerous other alarm calls MPD has handled where the alarm company worked to contact the homeowner.") and is mentioned down in the prosecution section.
Took "perpetrator" out of the infobox (actually, the shortcut you linked is to the notability guideline; I think you might have meant WP:BLPCRIME?)
@Daniel Case yes, that addresses all the specific things I called out, so I'm good. That being said, since this is a WP:BLP about a sensational topic, I'd recommend that other DYK regulars give this a look to see if I missed anything. -- RoySmith(talk)15:37, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith For Gloria Cameron, is it not enough that the first claim in question is properly cited within the article body text? (It appears as Footnote 40; search for "This Is Your Life".) It has to be cited in the lead section as well? The reason I hesitate to simply cut/paste and repeat the citation, is that the rest of the lengthy lead section does not have any footnotes, thus creating the problem that we don't want to imply that Footnote 40 covers any of the other sentences preceding it. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:11, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
It seems to me that the above issues are resolved. Please ping me if there is anything that I need to respond to, or approve. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 09:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Require Earwig check during QPQ review
It doesn't make sense for admins and promoters to be surprised by flagrant Earwig violations, when this could easily be checked by reviewers further upstream. If WP:C is really a priority, we should require Earwig checks during the initial QPQ review, while continuing to remind reviewers that it does not catch everything. This would have the added benefit of raising awareness among more content creators about using Earwig as a tool on a regular basis; we could include some wording about what to look for in Earwig results, and how to avoid close paraphrasing per WP:CLOP. (It might also encourage more editors to call out when offline and/or non-English sources are used, so that it becomes easier for other reviewers to quickly spot when an additional manual check might be useful.)
Current wording:
Check that the article does not contain plagiarism or close paraphrasing. The Earwig tool can be helpful for this, but reviewers should be aware that the tool has many limitations and is no substitute for a manual spot-check.
Proposed wording:
Check that the article does not contain plagiarism or close paraphrasing per WP:CLOP. The Earwig tool must be used for an initial check for possible copyright violations, with a closer analysis for any matches above 20%. Reviewers should be aware that the tool has many limitations and is no substitute for a manual spot-check.
Is it a standard process to follow up with the editor and original reviewer when violations are detected after the fact?—Bagumba (talk) 09:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
We should be demanding that people do some sort of copyright check, and in my opinion rejecting QPQs from people that haven't check close paraphrasing. But Earwig isn't the only tool that can check, and so we shouldn't explicitly demand this tool is used. What happens if for instance Earwig is down for a day or 2? With the new wording, nobody would be able to pass any DYK noms. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:45, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I would strongly oppose mandating the use of a specific tool. You need to look at the sources, not the numbers given by tools like Earwig. —Kusma (talk) 09:47, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The proposal is well-intentioned – I wish it were that simple. I actually think that we might want to consider forcing non-Earwig checks on articles that are heavily sourced to books, journals, and other sources not easily scanned by Earwig. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:56, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Not just that -- sometimes we have reviewers saying things like "Earwig is <20%, so no copyvio". To pass a review by such a reviewer, you just need to edit your copypasta until it passes the Earwig test, which does not change at all that it is copyvio. By mandating the use of Earwig and of specific numbers, I fear we will have many reviewers who will use Earwig and check a specific number instead of checking for copyvio and close paraphrasing. —Kusma (talk) 10:25, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
OK, so requiring Earwig checks is a no-go. How about being more specific about what it takes to check for plagiarism or close paraphrasing? The current wording is so open-ended, many reviewers are obviously doing little more than a hand wave.
Proposed wording:
Check that the article does not contain plagiarism, close paraphrasing, or unverified information, by performing a spot-check of at least three citations within the article. The Earwig tool can be helpful for this, but reviewers should be aware that the tool has many limitations and is no substitute for a manual spot-check. If three spot-checks are not possible, please state the reason for this in your review.
That is much better! We'll just need to agree on how much evidence for this we'll want in a review. (Is "spotchecks fine" OK? "Checked three sources, not copyvio"? "Spotcheck of English sources fine, assuming good faith on sources written in cuneiform"?) And another question is whether to change our culture from a "QPQ done" check to "QPQ review passing minimum standards done" check, but that probably isn't easy. —Kusma (talk) 11:28, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Re: Culture change, I think it's worthwhile to continue pinging the QPQ reviewer when problems are found after the review. Often those reviewers turn out to be very committed and more responsive than the nominators themselves; but for others who were simply too lax, I think they gain an appreciation for the need to be thorough once they see just how much they missed during the initial review. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:42, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I agree that we need to get stricter about reviewing standards, but as others have stated, Earwig is just a tool and I'd hate to enshrine in policy that it's the officially mandated tool. It comes up with false positives (direct quotes, proper noun phrases, etc), as well as false negatives (close paraphrasing). Certainly, nobody should be citing the number it comes up with as being above or below any specific threshold. I am optimistic that the emerging AI technologies will eventually allow it to be replaced with far better tools, but they will still just be tools, giving human reviewers hints and suggestions, and a starting point for a deeper investigation. -- RoySmith(talk)15:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Queue 4: Igor Stravinsky (nom) I'm out of time at the moment, but my first impression of Igor Stravinsky is that there are problems with copying from several sources and unattributed quotes. I'll do a deeper dive when I get back later today to evaluation how serious the problem is. -- RoySmith(talk)18:04, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: was at 40% - I put several phrases in my own words - and ran earwig again and it jumped to 98.3%. I will have to check for mirrors. Bruxton (talk) 18:19, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Wow, that's weird. No clue why it didn't come up in my original scan. In any case, it's abundantly clear that constantinenache.wordpress.com copied from us, on many subjects; Alan Rickman and Ben Whishaw are two others I checked. Look under the "Arhiva Digitală" menu for many more examples.
But, that's not what I'm concerned with. I'm seeing lots of other similarities to other sites, but from what I can tell, they all copied from us as well, going back as far as 2014, so I think we're actually fine. -- RoySmith(talk)20:38, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
@Schwede66 and Bruxton: The relevant text in the DYK rules is that It is also ineligible if it has, within the year prior tonomination, appeared as a boldlink In the news (ITN) (emphasis mine). The DYK nomination occurred in Special:Diff/1144428326 at 18:32, 13 March 2023 (UTC). It became a bold link at ITN in Special:Diff/1145110045 at 09:46, 17 March 2023 (UTC). 17 March 2023 is after 13 March 2023. As such, it is not the case that the article was a bold link on ITN in the year prior to its nomination for DYK. I don't understand where the confusion is coming in. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)20:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
At least to me it seems that the spirit of the rule is not to have the same thing run as a bolded OTD item and a DYK within the same year. I doubt this odd case was particularly thought of when the rule was made. I'd say this nomination should be rejected under probable legislative intent. Hog FarmTalk20:24, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
And, for what it's worth, the conversation here, which led to the change, is pretty explicit about it being a 1-year moratorium on nominating an article at DYK when it appears as a boldlink at ITN, OTD, or TFA. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)20:33, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I'm with Hog Farm on this one, I think the intention behind that rule change was to not have articles run on the MP as bolded links multiple times in one year. Eddie891TalkWork20:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Ok. In that case, can the text of the rules be changed to clarify this? Something like It is also ineligible if it has, within the year prior to hook running on the main page, appeared as a boldlink In the news (ITN) would implement what it seems like you and the other folks here are saying. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)21:07, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I might leave it as a footnote, since it's an odd edge case – the reason we talk about nomination date, and not run date, is because we don't want a scenario in which someone takes an article that was an ITN blurb on 2021-06-01 and nominate it at DYK on 2022-05-20, trusting that it'll be over a year by the time of run. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:09, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Fair enough. It is also ineligible if it has, within the year prior to nomination or the year prior to the hook running[footnote], appeared as a boldlink In the news (ITN), with the footnote pointing to this conversation seems reasonable. — Red-tailed hawk(nest)21:12, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived early yesterday, so I've created a new list of all 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 9. Including the two nominations on the Approved page that can’t transclude there due to length limits, we have a total of 252 nominations, of which 130 have been approved, a gap of 119 122 nominations that has increased by three in the nine days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 17:29, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
Oldest nomination on the board and both myself and Cielquiparle were involved. Needs an uninvolved promotor to review. Bruxton (talk) 19:45, 16 March 2023 (UTC)
Requiring at least 3 spot checks of citations during QPQ review
In order to encourage more thorough checks during the initial QPQ review – for potential copyright violations per WP:C, for close paraphrasing per WP:CLOP, and for unverifiable information per WP:V – I would like to propose the following wording change:
Current wording:
Check that the article does not contain plagiarism or close paraphrasing. The Earwig tool can be helpful for this, but reviewers should be aware that the tool has many limitations and is no substitute for a manual spot-check.
Proposed wording:
Check that the article does not contain plagiarism, close paraphrasing, or unverified information, by performing a spot-check of at least three (3) citations within the article. The Earwig tool can be helpful for this, but reviewers should be aware that the tool has many limitations and is no substitute for a manual spot-check. If three spot-checks are not possible, please state the reason for this in your review.
If we do something like this, there probably ought to be something about the nominator providing quotes or scans from sources upon request, in order to provide both something for the reviewer to point to if the nominator pushes back, and to help out in situations where few sources are freely available online. For instance, once I get William Y. Slack through GA, I'll probably send it to DYK. Of the 36 unique citations in that one, only the single ref to Stewart is freely available online. Prushankin and Bridges are from the wikipedia library, but not everyone knows about that and/or can access it. The others are to dead trees sitting on my shelves, except for Eicher, which a wiki-friend provided me the relevant quotes from. Hog FarmTalk20:05, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
The proposal has good intentions, but I feel like it will confuse and scare away newbies. Checking for plagiarism is difficult enough for experienced editors. Flibirigit (talk) 23:41, 17 March 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there's an easy answer to this. The more rules there are about "how to check for plagiarism" etc, the more likely people are to follow those rules to the letter and do nothing else. With the proposed wording, for instance, I feel like reviewers would simply check the first three citations in the article, or the three most easily accessible, which isn't necessarily the best approach. The real problem is that spotting CLOP and V issues requires a certain skillset which some reviewers just don't have. I think simply trying to get as many eyes as possible on each nom, and continuing to make reviewers aware of their mistakes, is the best that we can do within the current system. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 08:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
What would be nice is if we had copyright specialists hanging around DYK and making spotchecks; the problem is that CCI simply doesn't have the bandwidth to do that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:12, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Queue 5: 2022 Joe Biden speech in Warsaw (nom) MOS:LEADCITE says to provide in-line citations for all direct quotes, even when they appear in the lede. Also, while the cited WaPo source does say "nine ad-libbed words", that's not actually mentioned in our article. We say, A Biden administration official stated that this remark was not part of the prepared speech, and leave it to the reader to count the nine words in "For God's sake, this man cannot remain in power." I'm not sure if that complies with The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article.
I added the citations quotes in the lead. Regarding the 9 words, I think the readers put it together base on article's "words had not been part of the prepared speech". Bruxton (talk) 02:24, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
oh, RoySmith, i hadn't realized that about mos:leadcite! (my weakness is apparently forgetting to remove the citations in the lead once i expand the article body and repeat what has been stated in the lead, so i was somewhat proud of myself that i had remembered to remove the citations this time. oops.) anyway, Bruxton was able to correct my error before i could. also, that's a really interesting point regarding the word count. admittedly, i don't know either, but i have now added a sentence to the body explicitly mentioning the count. thanks, RoySmith and Bruxton! dying (talk) 03:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Queue 5: Jewish quarter (Barcelona) (nom) The Boulder Jewish News says "Barcelona has one of the oldest synagogues in Europe", but then we equivocate with "considered to be..." and in the hook we go back to stating it as established fact, i.e. "is one of the oldest". It would be better if the tone was the same between the hook and the article (i.e. get rid of the weasel words).
Hey @dying, @Ravenpuff, and any other WP:MOS sticklers out there. I thought the title before the name pretty much guarantees that it is capitalised, per MOS:JOBTITLES? Even if it's arguably also descriptive (especially with the country name modifying the title)? So, US President Barack Obama, New Zealand Prime Minister Robert Muldoon...etc....even though you would leave it uncapitalised when you say Robert Muldoon was a prime minister of New Zealand. (Please tell me if I'm wrong because this keeps coming up, and even gets switched back and forth at WP:ERRORS when we have people complaining with different opinions?) Cielquiparle (talk) 17:55, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
OK, I see now that the main page has Russian president Vladimir Putin with a small "p"...but how exactly is this rule for this explained? (And which part of MOS am I missing?) Cielquiparle (talk) 18:08, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
I think we would capitalize if it were "Prime Minister of New Zealand Robert Muldoon", assuming that "Prime Minister of New Zealand" is the title. We leave lowercase "New Zealand prime minister Robert Muldoon", thinking that "prime minister" is the job and "New Zealand" is a modifier. The relevant MOS:JOBTITLES example would be "Richard Nixon was President of the United States" vs. "Mao met with US president Richard Nixon in 1972". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:16, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
"New Zealand" is a modifier, so "New Zealand prime minister" is not considered a title, but a description. similarly, "Russian" is a modifier, so "Russian president" is a description. mos:jobtitles is really confusing, though, and admittedly, it took me years before i understood it well enough to try to conform anyone else's text to that guideline. in fact, i wouldn't be surprised if Ravenpuff responded to this to correct me. dying (talk) 18:26, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Yes, this is indeed correct; the proper job titles here are "President of the United States" and "Prime Minister of New Zealand", and hence they take title case. Any rephrasing to use adjectivals counts as a "description", which takes sentence case by default. I might also add that Prime Minister of New Zealand Robert Muldoon, while strictly correct, is quite unwieldy since it separates the essential part of the title ("Prime Minister") from the name. If it be desired to preserve the title in full, I would suggest "Robert Muldoon, Prime Minister of New Zealand". To be honest, I doubt many editors or readers care much for such fine points of style, but this is what the MOS technically calls for. — RAVENPVFF·talk·23:58, 18 March 2023 (UTC)
Is there a limit on how soon the same article can be nominated to DYK?
Nominated Seongsu Bridge disaster when it was seven days old (set to appear on DYK in 2 days) and its just gotten through GA review...would it be within reason for me to submit another hook or would that be against the spirit of DYK? :3 F4U (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)
@Freedom4U, you could have submitted additional hooks before it had appeared and asked for approval/for people working preps to swap a new hook in, but they'd be considered part of the same nomination/same appearance. No need for even slight embarrassment, we have a lot of policy here. :D Valereee (talk) 20:48, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
Hahaha yeah...I've technically been here since 2014, but I've only really started getting going 2 months ago. (Yeah, was born in the States, and lived a significant portion of my life in Korea - I'm quite shit at typing it though. The only way I can really type quickly in Korean is with those 9-key Korean keyboards) :3 F4U (they/it) 21:08, 20 March 2023 (UTC)
"Yuan" is more or less generic for "currency" in Chinese, you can say "3 yuan" and mean either 3 Hong Kong dollars, 3 Euros, 3 renminbi, ... Usually the currency is clear from context. Kind of like a lot of currencies are just called "dollars" in English. —Kusma (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
In modern English-language sources (like those cited in the article), unqualified "yuan" means renminbi. The other currencies used in Chinese-speaking areas are usually referred to by other names in English ("dollar" or "pataca"). —Mx. Granger (talk·contribs) 16:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
As for the SZA hook, the relevant source is actually at the end of the paragraph: "... the only song that features the stern but kind voice of Norma, SZA’s late grandmother who we became so familiar with through CTRL. (...) one can’t help but feel Norma’s presence linger on the track as someone to which SZA is also directing and expressing her intense devotion. When her grandmother passed in 2020, the event, SZA said, sent her into a deep, deep depression." BorgQueen (talk) 16:33, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks. On a side note, SZA and CTRL showed up in a crossword puzzle the other day, and had me totally stumped because I had never heard of either of them. Had I only reviewed this nom a few days earlier :-) -- RoySmith(talk)16:54, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
Hey, @Paul2520 and @Cielquiparle, this is from ten days ago, just saw it while paging through the stats page, but for future reference, the review was marked as NA for image, and I don't think this image was clear at scale. You have to click on the image to see it full-size to even see the quarantine station we've described as being pictured, and even at full size it's a few tiny building with no detail. At scale, you could barely even tell there was an island in the image. Valereee (talk) 11:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee What does that mean, "NA for image"? I'm not seeing where it was "marked"? (On the day it ran, we received feedback that "(pictured)" appeared in the wrong place, but that was fixed.) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:34, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle, I don't know if you use a review template, but there are lines that ask about each aspect of review. For the pic it asks "picfree=" and this was marked NA, which is what you are supposed to insert if there is no suggested image. If there is a pic, you mark y, and it asks you a few more questions about the pic -- like whether it's clear at at scale and used in the article. If you open the edit box you'll see what I'm talking about. Valereee (talk) 11:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle @Cplakidas @OnegreatjokeQueue 7: Abbas ibn Abi al-Futuh (nom). Would it be possible to write a shorter/simpler hook. It's technically within the 200 character limit, but it's so complicated it's hard to read. It tries to say too much. How about just " ... that Abbas ibn Abi al-Futuh assassinated his step-father, and was overthrown after murdering caliph al-Zafir?"
Good flag. Proposing instead (as on closer inspection, the article text doesn't use the word "assassinated"):
... that Abbas ibn Abi al-Futuh deposed his stepfather, and was overthrown after the murder of caliph al-Zafir?
(I think there is an issue here with ordering the murders vs. carrying them out, and the words used to describe those actions.) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
I like the idea, but the sentence structure is confusing. It initially reads like "both" means "He ordered the assassination of this stepfather, and also ordered the assassination of his predecessor". -- RoySmith(talk)16:17, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
Personally I also feel ALT-N+1 is the winner. Agree with what Narutolovehinata5 said, plus it's a double hook that invites you to click the first proper noun and the last proper noun in the question. Cielquiparle (talk) 12:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
In my defense, I only changed the wording from UndercoverClassicist's hook to avoid using gerunds (murdering and dismembering → the murder and dismemberment). DigitalIceAge (talk) 16:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
I need to put my hands up for that one: I'd (wrongly) assumed that simply replying would ping the nominator, and I inadvertently introduced the factual error. UndercoverClassicist (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
My apologies, both, I was unnecessarily snippy. :) I was rushing out of the house and didn't have time to rein myself in. Valereee (talk) 17:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
No problem. I should've caught the error at the time, but as the case was particulary gruesome my eyes must've glazed over that detail. DigitalIceAge (talk) 18:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for being understanding about me being snippy. :) Next time just ping the nom. I'd seen that the hook was approved and hadn't realized there was discussion happening afterward. Valereee (talk) 18:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)
Sorry @Kiril Simeonovski and Bruxton:, I made a mistake. the 44th Chess Olympiad can't be approved for DYK because as the rules state "It is also ineligible if it has, within the year prior to nomination, appeared as a boldlink In the news (ITN)" and the article was at ITN on 10 August 2022. So, I believe that a rejection is necessary. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)
evrik, I had outstanding questions about the nomination's hook sourcing. Any chance you could put the hook back in WP:DYKN, or do you yourself have the answer to the question? Either works for me. Thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
"The union, if formed, would be a first for Tesla, which up until now has managed to avoid unionization at its U.S. facilities unlike other major automakers." I can pull it if you have questions. I thought it was clear ... --evrik(talk)06:04, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Eh. It's not super clear to me: does it mean that every other U.S. car manufacturing plant owned by a major automaker is unionized, or that every major automaker in the U.S. has at least one unionized plant? Does it even mean "every", or is it just a general-case statement? But if it works for you, all good, keep it. I will say that foreign automakers don't have unionized factories in the U.S., something the hook could be more clear about. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:21, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
I'm reading it as every major automaker in the U.S. has at least one unionized plant, and Tesla has none. The set is done, but if you want to tweak the hook, go for it. --evrik(talk)06:36, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron it means that every US automaker has at least ONE unionized plant. Everytime an auto company like General motors, Ford opens a new plant, it is not unionized by default. And the union density varies at all US plants anyways, but Tesla is notable for having a 0% union density in terms of succesful union elections or bargaining coverage) till now. I am content with the hook as is, and added extra sourcing to increase confidence over reliability. Hopefully my Twitter account does not get shut down 🤣 ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:41, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
@TheleekycauldronThe 5.3 million-square-foot Fremont, Calif. factory is the only U.S. assembly plant owned by an American automaker that is not represented by a union. Workers for foreign automakers with U.S. plants generally do not have union representation. per USA Today. (Added to article now to make it clearer)
The hook does? Because VW is a German auto manufacturer, which is why the qualifier “US auto manufacturer” is mentioned as opposed to “only non union Auto…” ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Specifically this hook would be correct:
... that Tesla, Inc. is the only major U.S. auto manufacturer with no unionized American plants? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 21:49, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 3: Tesla and unions (nom), the hook says "no unionized American plants". The article says "only major American auto manufacturer not represented by a union in the US". I guess that's the same thing, but bringing it up here to confirm. Also, I don't think "manufacturer not represented by a union" is the right way to phrase it. It's not the manufacturer who is represented, it's the manufacturer's employees. But maybe that's just the common phrasing in the labor world? RoySmith(talk)15:50, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Done. There are now three separate noms: Template:Did you know nominations/The Last of Us (franchise), Template:Did you know nominations/Untitled The Last of Us game, and Template:Did you know nominations/The Last of Us: Escape the Dark. Since the original nom included a review of all three, I included most of the original in all three, and added an explanatory note at the top of each. Notifying Rhain, Epicgenius, and theleekycauldron who nominated/reviewed/commented. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)
BorgQueen (talk) 05:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
,
. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:30, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
.jpg)
Like I used to be a Facebook addict... BorgQueen (talk) 04:27, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
— PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 15:20, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
BorgQueen (talk) 07:00, 18 February 2023 (UTC)
Great!@Theleekycauldron: that does describe me. :) Bruxton (talk) 16:44, 16 February 2023 (UTC)
.svg)
BorgQueen (talk) 13:14, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
This might make a good quirky hook.(?))! Bruxton (talk) 21:46, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
Bruxton (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
The dictionary definition of a camel is a horse designed by a committee at Wiktionary. Bruxton (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Template talk:Did you know nominations/Pete Sutherland § Photo. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 15:29, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
Thanks for this, Rabbitson2001! paul2520 💬 02:42, 17 February 2023 (UTC)