Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Valereee (talk | contribs) at 23:44, 28 January 2023 (→Hook for Elena Manistina Nom: +). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
IntroductionWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
GuidelinesWP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructionsWP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an articleWP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approvalWP:DYKN
ApprovedWP:DYKNA
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
Holding areaWP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Prepper instructionsWP:DYKPBI
Admin instructionsWP:DYKAI
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
History
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
Archived setsWP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wrapsWP:DYKW
AwardsWP:DYKAWARDS
UserboxesWP:DYKUBX
Hall of FameWP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominationsWP:DYKNC
... by promotionsWP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and botsWP:DYKSB
On the Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins{{DYK admins}}
Shortcut

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

Farmer

Regarding The Farmer (song) hook, is anything more needed RoySmith. I am unsure if your questions about the hook were answered or if Ritchie333 provided clarity regarding the question you had about the hook. It is set to run next in Queue 4. Bruxton (talk) 20:10, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody's fixed the problems, so it needs to be yanked. But I'm getting back into grumpy mode because I'm looking at the preps to find something to swap it with, and so far I haven't found anything that verifies. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:45, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Can you change it to match the language of the article and reference? Bruxton (talk) 20:47, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've swapped it out with a prep. The problems can be worked on there. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: I forgot that I had added three references to the talk page which could be used in the article. One of them, this biography of Thin Lizzy's Philip Lynott states 283. I just knew before promotion that I had confirmed the hook's claim of 283. This record collector's guide also states 283 (500-217=283). Since we have not been able to reach Ritchie after two pings to this page, I will add the references to the article. Bruxton (talk) 22:03, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Doh, I also just remembered why I did not add them. I am unfamiliar with the citation style. Bruxton (talk) 22:04, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have on more than one occasion stated that enwiki should adopt one uniform reference style. I keep getting shouted down. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:07, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I sort of figured it out. "anyone can edit" means any style too I recon.  Done Bruxton (talk) 22:15, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I've been having a life outside Wikipedia :-/ ... what's the status on this? I've seen the 283 copies in multiple sources; I note that Bruxton has added one, and I've got another one somewhere. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:20, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This hook is now in Queue 6. I've verified that it is sourced to Thomson 2016, which supports the 283 statement. So we're good to go. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

International Women's Day March 8

I wonder if we can have a special holding area for a prep set which can appear on that day. We can hopefully have a varied list of articles to choose from. Or some other means for us to get ready to run a full slate of hooks for that day. Rather than our occasional last minute scramble? Bruxton (talk) 23:50, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bruxton I added a special holding area on the Approved page. — Maile (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok thanks Maile66, how can I or someone else put items in that section? Bruxton (talk) 02:32, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Items are moved over there after the review is completed and passed. Usually, it's the reviewer who moves it there. Prior to approval, all nominations remain in the regular nominations list, according to date nomination is created. — Maile (talk) 02:36, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to break anything but I have two candidates so far. If they are not used on that day we can use them after. Might be good to have a bunch to choose from so they are varied. Can someone move them there? Template:Did you know nominations/Beverly Robertson (businesswoman) and Template:Did you know nominations/Joanna E. Schanz. Bruxton (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
March 8 holding area I moved the two nominations to that March 8 area. Both are US based. I hope we can all identify and save hooks to that section, hopefully varied geographically and otherwise. 14:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)Bruxton (talk)

@Theleekycauldron and Dr Salvus: would you please have a look at Beverly Robertson (businesswoman) and make sure the final tick is in the correct place. It was green ticked, then questioned. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:51, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Salvus ticked the hook as "needs more work", despite nominally approving it. Both times, without comment. I'm not sure what's up there. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:23, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination would make a good addition to that set. There's no reviewer for it yet. Schwede66 22:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: Refresh my memory on the QPQ procedure. I look at what is listed as a QPQ, and @Chocmilk03: did indeed do a lot of review on Jamie Beaton (entrepreneur). But they didn't give it a green or blue-gray tick at the end. Does this count as a review for QPQ? Don't know if she was reviewing, or commenting otherwise. Resolve that, and I'll complete the review of Pania Newton, which I agree is a good one for International Women's Day. — Maile (talk) 00:05, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Maile66: Yeah, that counts; a full review need not find approval immediately to count as a QPQ. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! It's a little late in the day where I am. But I'll do a review tomorrow. — Maile (talk) 02:55, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: Pania Newton was reviewed and is now on the approved Special Holding for March 8 — Maile (talk) 15:26, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Excellent. Thanks! Schwede66 17:15, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

SOS Technical expertise needed

@Tamzin, Theleekycauldron, and BlueMoonset: We've got a glitch that I think might be caused by one of our bots. On the talk page, up near the top in the "prep area notice" section, this (on my browsers, anyway) is slapped across the page with a gray background:

{{if|||{{ifeq|2|Expression error: Unrecognized word "w".|{{notice|This is curre

I cleared this up a week or so ago, but now can't remember how I did it. Seems to me that a bot either removed one extra character, or inserted an extra character. What ever is causing this error to repeat, we need to figure out what is causing it. Anyway, any help in resolving this would be good. — Maile (talk) 02:13, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maile, that's not a glitch. that's the code i proposed. <syntaxhighlight> displays code with a gray background. sorry for the confusion! dying (talk) 07:31, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4

Pshaw is not working for prep four. Who broke it? Bruxton (talk) 19:07, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also 82 verified hooks ATM. Bruxton (talk) 19:11, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: Please try again now. BorgQueen (talk) 19:28, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
BorgQueen it was a quirky and I parked it in 5. Bruxton (talk) 19:30, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton... so still not working? BorgQueen (talk) 19:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I moved on to other areas of need but I shall return later. Bruxton (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thumbs up Great! now thanks Bruxton (talk) 20:04, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

busted again BorgQueen Bruxton (talk) 23:56, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I did a manual promotion. Bruxton (talk) 00:35, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton and BorgQueen: the set is missing a blank credit slot where there's a blank hook. That's probably what's busting PSHAW's chops. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:19, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When you shuffle hooks, do the credit slots need to be shuffled in the same order? Cielquiparle (talk) 08:21, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Depends – sometimes yes, sometimes no, not really keen to find out. Best practice is to keep the credits neat 'n' aligned. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:24, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. (Confession: I have shuffled hooks within sets and not shuffled the corresponding credits, and it didn't seem to break anything, but will try to follow best practice in future and/or leave the shuffling to others.) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:33, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, when you shuffle, if you put the credit slots into the same order, it helps in the move-to-queue process. It's not a huge deal, but because the target article in the credits is often not the same as the bolded text in the hooks, I definitely appreciate it when they're in the same order as it makes my life easier. Valereee (talk) 22:00, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK retransclusion bot?

What would we think about GalliumBot automatically transcluding lost noms in the correct place (including automatically determining the earliest eligibility date before nomination), rather than having DYKHousekeepingBot nagging editors to get on it themselves? In addition to being a neat thing, this would make it much easier for me to implement a "pull hook" function in WP:PSHAW. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:18, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I can’t think of any downside to this. And I was looking for that pull function recently; would be great to have that. Schwede66 17:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LGTM. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:11, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What if the nominator is intentionally taking their time with the nomination? Shubinator (talk) 04:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good point. Yeah, that would be a problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:33, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Shubinator: I mean, I don't think that's a very big issue, if only because nearly all nominations are transcluded automatically. The only ones that aren't transcluded through DYK-helper are technical mishaps and unfinished pulls. Also, I'm not convinced that letting nominators pull their noms into limbo is such a good idea the first place. They can always ask reviewers to hold their horses, and I think it'd be more transparent if noms were placed where all could see them. As a side note, if a nomination does remain intentionally unlisted, it would be invalid if it were transcluded past the seven-day mark. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, as long as it's nominated in time, we have treated it as valid even if the transclusion is done well after that. (It's the nomination page creation date, generated when the page is made and placed on the "Created by"/"5x expansion by"/"Improved to Good Article status by" line, that is typically used by reviewers.) I've been dealing with these "lost" nomination pages for some years now—getting a list of them every month or two—and some are closed, some are transcluded, and some are deleted depending on a number of factors. A fair number come from Wiki-Ed nominators who don't stick around anyway. That said, I don't think nominators should be allowed to deliberately game the system by hiding their nominations from reviewers, but it hasn't been a problem—untranscluded nominations seem to be from people who either can't be bothered to finish the process or mess up and don't seek help. It's those first, who also ignore the bot message on their talk page, whose untranscluded noms typically get removed or closed in the fullness of time. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:34, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: Fair enough, but I was responding to Shubinator's point about people who intentionally don't list their noms. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:50, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Queue/3 Jan 23

I'm trying a new process here. I'll make a sub-section for each hook that has problems, to make it easier to track when each one is resolved. Please strike out the sub-section head when you've fixed something.

Judith Marquet-Krause

Suffers badly from WP:PARAPHRASE, possibly to the extent that WP:G12 applies. earwig finds a few exact mactches but as I read deeper, it's really sentence-for-sentence from Jewish Woman's Archive

Judith Krause was born in 1906 in Ilaniya in Israel. Her father, Eliyahu Krause (1876-1962), was an agronomist who was appointed director of the experimental agricultural colony there in 1901 by Baron Edmond James de Rothschild. In 1914 he became director of the Mikveh Israel agricultural school and the family moved.

Marquet-Krause’s father, Eliyahu Krause (1876–1962), an agronomist, was employed by Baron Edmond de Rothschild and appointed manager of the training farm in Sejera in 1901. In 1914 he was appointed director of the Mikveh Israel agricultural school, where his family moved together with him.

As you go through the article, it's much the same paragraph-by-paragraph, down to the section headings. I'll leave this for somebody else to look at, but I think this will take extensive rewriting to fix.

Maybe Nikkimaria could take a look. Schwede66 17:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree - suggest pulling this until it can be reworked. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Nikkimaria thanks for your help. I'll pull this and and see what I can find to replace it. Normally I would just swap it out with a prep, but this seems like a case where it needs to be unpromoted, so I'll do that. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Eighth Avenue South Reservoir

The second sentence of the lead ("The fort was built on Kirkpatrick's Hill ...") makes no sense. I'm guessing it's supposed to be "The reservoir was built..."?

Fixed. Copying Bruxton as an FYI. The article was edited by a lot of people over time, so appreciate the re-read and flag. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:13, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Cielquiparle, they all look to be positive edits. Bruxton (talk) 20:01, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard Parrington

The hook fact matches a sentence in the article, but it needs an end-of-sentence citation. I assume it's one of the three later in the paragraph, but I can't verify because I don't have access.

I was able to see it in the next reference, but in a snippet view on Google Books. I fixed it. SL93 (talk) 20:24, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tarn Wadling

The hook says the lake was was famous as a liminal place where the spectre of Guinevere's dead mother appeared to her and Gawain, but the article only talks about it being famous for it's carp. It's possible that all the bits and pieces needed to verify are there, but I can't find them all. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:38, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would reword it to "... that the now-drained lake Tarn Wadling in Cumbria, England, was famous for its carp and pike and beetles, and is a liminal place where the spectre of Guinevere's dead mother appeared to her and Gawain in a poem?. The information is under the Arthurian literature subsection. I read the word "as" wrong. I added more to the hook to clarify that it is from a poem. SL93 (talk) 20:10, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see the first half was removed. I guess, "... that the now-drained lake Tarn Wadling is known as a a liminal place where the spectre of Guinevere's dead mother appeared to her and Gawain in a poem?" SL93 (talk) 20:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY So fixed. Kind of. 😀 BorgQueen (talk) 03:24, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice! I was waiting for a subsection system :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:17, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So does my suggestion not work? SL93 (talk) 01:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 5

Template:Did you know nominations/Agua Fria High School

SyntheticSystems Prosperosity

I don't know what "when students began spreading mercury among themselves" means, and I can't get to the source for this. Valereee (talk) 21:30, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering about it too actually. Spreading mercury...? Like, spreading butter on your toast...? 😀 BorgQueen (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
From the nom, which mentions the source includes:
Two boys sitting in front weren't paying attention. One was a junior, the other a freshman. They had noticed a plastic bottle on the open shelf next to their desks. They removed the screw cap, looked inside, and swirled around a metallic liquid they did not recognize.
Curious, they poured some onto the floor to see what would happen. The boys liked how the liquid balled into tight beads. The freshman scooped it up from the floor and put it into an empty Gatorade bottle.
I'm thinking maybe we could go with something like:
  • ... that a mercury spill occurred at Agua Fria High School when students discovered and started playing with an unsecured supply of the element?
Valereee (talk) 21:48, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is reminding me of a thermometer I broke in my parents' kitchen probably in the early 1970s. Pretty sure we just threw the little bead of mercury into our kitchen garbage can, thereby contaminating the Dayton, Ohio, city dump. Valereee (talk) 21:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ever read The Disappearing Spoon? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have not, but I've now ordered it from the lib. Valereee (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yup. Sounds about right. BorgQueen (talk) 21:56, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll wait until the nom/reviewer check in. Also {{u|Bruxton}} apparently has access to the source. Valereee (talk) 22:05, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Dammit @Bruxton Valereee (talk) 22:06, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I like the new ALT as proposed. I only have access to excerpts with third party sites: Another excerpt of two paragraphs that follow those above are from that same AZ reference about the teacher, "Byers walked over to see what the boys were doing. Looking down, she thought the droplets on the floor were small BBs and swept them into her hand. She dropped the mercury into the trash and told the boys to get back to work.
Byers did not realize the freshman still had both bottles of mercury, which he slipped into his backpack. After class, the boys each took a container and went their separate ways, unaware they were carrying a dangerous substance." I guess " spreading" is implied, or mentioned later in the story, but I am ok with the new proposed hook. Bruxton (talk) 22:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY So fixed. Honestly spreading doesn't make sense as mercury isn't some virus. 😀 BorgQueen (talk) 03:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Guess what...

People love Mercedes-Benz... 😀 BorgQueen (talk) 03:41, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Deaths of Arnold Archambeau and Ruby Bruguier (nom)

Is there a reason why the active promoters have been skipping over this one? If there are objections (even those kinda vague not-based-on-criteria i-don't-like-it obejctions), I'd like to hear 'em, 'cause I can't promote this one... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You mentioned special occasion so I thought it was to be promoted for some specific date. 😅 BorgQueen (talk) 08:52, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ah, yeah, I forgot about that one. I thought it'd already passed – I'll move it to the right header. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
... except that the requested date is over six weeks away, so WT:DYK consensus is needed to approve it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I figured that the special occasion date would have been requested already by the nominator. SL93 (talk) 10:09, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It's been sitting around long enough, and the special date is out of range (and was really out of range when approved a month ago). Just promote it now; there's nothing special or compelling in the hook to have it wait for a particular date. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

One a day?

We're down to 60 approved hooks. Per WP:DYKROTATE we should now move back to 1 set per day. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:15, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nice... less workload 😂 BorgQueen (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, I should add that this sprint went very smoothly. I was dubious that we'd be able to keep up the pace, but lots of people stepped up to help so everything just worked. Good job. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:17, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be good to publish the monthly summary of hook promoters and set promoters/admins, so it's transparent (rather than relying on the "all-time stats" table). Cielquiparle (talk) 16:25, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it's fewer than 60 that's the trigger, not 60 on the nose. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:28, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. Bruxton (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever. Check back in 10 minutes. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: I'll publish a bit in my DYK wrapped, then :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron Cool beans. Is there a way we could advertise your DYK wrapped a bit more, so that the broader DYK community sees it? It is incredibly entertaining and informative...feels like a Wikipedia best-kept secret. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:02, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SIGNPOST? -- RoySmith (talk) 19:20, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle and RoySmith: It's come up before – I'd be happy to do a ping list, if there were an interest in that, but I don't really want to grow the audience all that much? I do like being able to write "under wraps"; it allows me to publish things that are looser and more fun instead of tight summaries for a broad audience. I'm glad you like it, though :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron Maybe you were already doing this...but maybe just post something to this Talk page when you've posted a new monthly wrap and/or pin a notice to the top of this Talk page like "Check out the monthly wrap for January 2023!" which then disappears after a week...? Cielquiparle (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The wraps are always published here :) I'd be happy to pin something to the top as well? And they're always available through the DYKbox. Accessible, but not flashily so. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:07, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special occasion hook in Queue 2

To return to the potential change in frequency (we're currently back up to 68 approved), there is one special occasion hook, currently in Queue 2, that needs to run on 26 January starting at midnight that day: the third one, about the Capture of Wejh article. Since it's already the 25th, I'd like to suggest that we not change to one a day until after Queue 2 is promoted 20 hours from now, even if we do dip below 60 in the interim. Of course, if we're still coasting at 60 approved or above, we won't change to one daily until later. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:01, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe split up two paintings which will run consecutively?

Maybe not a big deal but Queue 2 and Queue 3 each have fabulous paintings as the lead: maybe we might want to split them up? We could move the queue 3 image down if anyone thinks it is an issue. Bruxton (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of all 28 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 16. We have a total of 194 nominations, of which 61 have been approved, a gap of 133 nominations that has increased by 12 in the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:59, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Queue/6 Jan 24

Mercedes-Benz CLK GTR

The article attributes the "most expensive" description to the Guinness Book of World Records, but in the hook that's stated in wiki-voice. WP:RSN seems to have a poor view of GB of WR, so I think we need to add the "according to..." attribution to the hook as well.

checkY Done. BorgQueen (talk) 19:58, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Faces of War Memorial

The source just says ...will perform "missing man" flyovers. We state it as fact that the flyovers were performed. We need a better source for that. For all we know, the weather was bad and the planned flyovers were cancelled.

@Aoidh: BorgQueen (talk) 20:00, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It had two flyovers. The Dunwoody Rotary Club said so. I will add this reference. Bruxton (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: thanks for adding that. This paper in the article also describes the helicopter flyover though it doesn't use the word "flyover" to describe it, which can be attached to the sentence as well if need be. - Aoidh (talk) 20:39, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Resolved. BorgQueen (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Polystoechotites

The article states that the single known specimen was "poorly fossilized", and "Do to the poor preservation of the fossils, it wasn't possible to tell...". That doesn't really support the hook statement, which implies that the poor fossilization is the cause of the classification.

@Kevmin: BorgQueen (talk) 20:01, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Poor preservation (a lay term covering incomplete fossils, and low quality fossilization) of all the fossils is the reason they are placed within the paragenus Polystoechotites, and the authors rational for using a paragenus (detailing this) is explained in the paragraph I noted in the nomination. Almost species placed within PolystoechotitesPolystoechotites are there do to lack of important details on the fossils, due to various preservation issues. The one exception P. sp 1 is there due to one fossil being missing, and the other being incomplete. If they were better preserved, they would not be in Polystoechotites.--Kevmin § 20:46, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Thank you. I suppose it's resolved. BorgQueen (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

A Pickle for the Knowing Ones

A couple of nits here. First, the article says "Dexter seems to be complaining". That seems like an odd supposition to be made in wiki voice. Also, I think a hook based on the next sentence in the article, "Dexter published a second edition in 1805, this time containing pages full of punctuation in the appendix" would be much more interesting, perhaps in a quirky slot. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:54, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@MyCatIsAChonk: BorgQueen (talk) 20:03, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith Thanks for your suggestions, I'm relatively new and still getting used to the tone. I've since rewritten that sentence. As for the hook, here's some ideas:
Personally, I prefer ALT 1 due to its detail, but I do recognize that it's over 200 characters. This image of the cover and this of the punctuation would both work well. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) 20:42, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Is it only punctuation, or even mostly? my texts exhibit lots of punctuation, but I don't think i'd be called quirky for that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:47, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a little bit quirky. Bruxton (talk) 00:42, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@MyCatIsAChonk: So fixed. I shortened it to pass the 200-characters hurdle. And no, those images don't look good at 100x100px. BorgQueen (talk) 18:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Resolved. BorgQueen (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did a little more trimming -- RoySmith (talk) 19:10, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator reverting edits to their own hook in a prep

I think this revert by Onceinawhile (talk · contribs) is inappropriate, since they had nominated it themselves.

Discussion is welcome. BorgQueen (talk) 00:02, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say the trout score is 1-all. BorgQueen for not pinging the original author on a hook edit, and Onceinawhile for reverting without discussing. Now, let's all have a group hug and move on. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this was ever clarified, but I'd argue that GalliumBot's darn protocol would preclude the requirement to ping nominators these days, so that would put BorgQueen in the clear in that respect.
Imho, though, neither "allegedly" nor "probably" is the right adverb for a statement of importance, since one has the wrong connotations and the other puts the statement in wikivoice. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks all. When I noticed the change I looked here to see if there had been a discussion, but I couldn’t see one. I figured the revert would notify BorgQueen so a discussion would be opened if we disagreed.
As to the right adverb, "probably" is exactly the word used in a specialist source on Islamic shrines on the region. No higher quality source could credibly exist on the subject.
Onceinawhile (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
While the source uses the word probably, I thought saying it in wiki voice was a different matter. But of course, if the consensus supports that, I have no problem with that. BorgQueen (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It would be a different matter – there are two different issues here. The first is how sure the source is of the importance – that's for the source to sort out. The second problem, which is more pertinent to us, is how comfortable we are repeating a claim about importance in wikivoice, and I'd argue that claims of importance are almost never made in wikivoice. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence is incorrect. Just a few examples that come to mind: "second holiest": Al-Masjid an-Nabawi; "most important": Kaaba; "holiest site": Temple Mount. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile, now I'm curious. Why does the source say probably though? It sounds uncertain and certainly not comparable to the examples you cited, as their importance has been well-established. BorgQueen (talk) 01:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ditto BQ, and i'd argue there's a semantic difference between "holiest" and "most important" as far as scholars are concerned. As in, claims of importance to Islamic liturgy are more easily put in wikivoice, given enough scholarly consensus, than claims of importance to Islamic history and cultural impact. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:12, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi both, thanks for your interest. The source is Prof Petersen's "Muslim Shrines in Palestine", a review of the primary Islamic holy places in Israel-Palestine. It’s an easy statement because there are very few Shi’a in Palestine, and he shows a very small number of shrines of any particular significance to that population (only two relating to the whole Shi’a population). Two quotes to help illustrate:
  • Overview: "SHIA SHRINES: Given that most of the events concerned with the development of Shia Islam took place in Iraq, it is not surprising that there are no major Shia shrines in Palestine… Also, the fact that the majority of the Muslim population in Palestine have been followers of Sunni Islam, even during the short period of Fatimid domination in the tenth and eleventh centuries, has meant that there are only a handful of Shia Muslim shrines. Despite their limited number, the Shia shrines are of considerable historic and religious significance."
  • The only other shrine relevant to all Shi’a: "Nabi Yusha: Unlike the shrine of Husayn's head, which has considerable historical documentation but no surviving ancient structure, the shrine of Nabi Yusha has a large ancient structure but very little historical documentation."
Onceinawhile (talk) 07:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: Very well... after reading the quotes I'm probably ok now with the word probably. 😀 Unless someone else has further objections, I'll go with it. BorgQueen (talk) 08:03, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we please add editnotices to the preps that heavily discourage nominators from editing their own hooks in prep? It's been discouraged by practice for years now, and they keep doing it... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:13, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I've noticed that... sigh. BorgQueen (talk) 00:14, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Building on the above, I have noticed in recent months an increased frequency of DYK hooks being edited post approval. It is very hard to keep track of this as an editor, even when there is explicit discussion on this talk page (which is better than no discussion at all) because it is separated from the original discussion page. Sometime the same discussion will take place elsewhere, like on Main Page Errors. When trying to track back in hindsight why a hook ended up the way it did, it can be a very convoluted process, and often later discussions aren’t able to get the benefit of the prior threads. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Onceinawhile: Any hook edited post-promotion is logged on the talk page of the DYK nomination – e.g. Template talk:Did you know nominations/Shrine of Husayn's Head. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:30, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, that is helpful. Ideally it would link to the actual discussion threads. Recently I had a hook discussed in one place, with no changes, then a similar question raised elsewhere, again with no changes. It felt quite inefficient. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:38, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Leeky, I just noticed your reference to the “darn” protocol precluding the need to ping. I have done 69 dyks, and I didn’t notice the existence of this bot until you mentioned it. When a hook of mine is approved I usually remove the closed discussion template from my watchlist and move on, and even in cases where I don’t remove it, I don’t see the bot edits because I have bot edits disabled on my watchlist. Onceinawhile (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, I had no idea that was a thing. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Crap, needs more advertising – I'll add a notice to Module:NewDYKnomination, and remove it in a month or two. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've also got bot edits hidden from my watchlist, which I guess explains why I never knew about this. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron I definitely noticed the GalliumBot thing from before! I like the Module:NewDYKnominaton notice... Could we maybe also advise them to follow ERRORS as well? I think the sooner you have DYK nominators following ERRORS, the faster they learn why reviewers and other editors can be so "difficult" in the lead-up to the Main page (and hopefully are more receptive to feedback when warranted). PLUS it helps short-circuit the disconnects when an issue gets flagged with a DYK hook, rightly or wrongly, without pinging the nominator. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: I think we'd have a hard time convincing nominators to follow ERRORS for their hook, it's a very active page. In general, we should be pinging people at ERRORS, instead of having them attempting to find it themselves. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:45, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming my bot ever gets approved, one of the things I've got on my bucket list for the API is to add a summary of involved users. That'll make it easy for any tool to grab a pre-formatted hunk of text and slap it down in an edit summary or elsewhere to ping all the interested parties. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
PS, if we've got any SQLAlchemy wizards (alchemists?) out there in DYK-land, I've got some issues I'm scratching my head about and could use some help. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Tonan Maru No. 3

I nominated the above for a special occasion hook to run on the 17 February anniversary of its sinking (that's why I stated the full date in the hook). I see it's scheduled to run tomorrow. I appreciate perhaps not all special occasion hooks can be run but I thought this one quite pertinent. Any chance it can be held back? - Dumelow (talk) 08:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I'll swap it. BorgQueen (talk) 09:06, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Moved it to Prep 7 for now. BorgQueen (talk) 09:23, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled it from Prep 7 and placed it in the special occasion section on the Approved page. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Dumelow I missed that. Bruxton (talk) 16:20, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
checkY Resolved. BorgQueen (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Queue/1 Jan 25

WJXX

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.

It's the paragraph beginning A date of April 1, 1997, was eventually fixed... and ending ...agreed to accelerate the switch from April 1 to February. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 17:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]

Manuel María Gálvez Egúsquiza

On November 6, accused of having disobeyed said order, Gálvez was arrested along with President García Calderón needs an end-of-sentence citation.

@2x2leax: ping. BorgQueen (talk) 18:33, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Banu Kalb

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Al Ameer son... ping. BorgQueen (talk) 18:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

-ussy

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)[reply]

@AviationFreak: ping. BorgQueen (talk) 18:32, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
I've updated the hook in the queue to match. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:40, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is prep-set building getting harder?

I've noticed that we have significantly fewer filled prep sets now than we've had over the past few weeks. Not long ago, people were complaining there weren't enough empty slots to park hooks that needed to get shuffled around. Now we've got two full sets, two mostly-full sets, and 3 blank sets.

Is the problem that when we get down to the number of approved hooks we currently have, it's harder to find material to fill a set? I know from my own experiences when I was doing a lot of prep building, when we were down at this level, I would often go looking for a hook that met all my needs (say, non-US, non-biography, not another of whatever hot topic we're been running too many of lately, and something that I hadn't approved myself), there would often be nothing left. If that's the case, then maybe our "60 or less" threshold for switching is too low.

Or is it just prep builder burnout, which is totally understandable.

BTW, how is the "# Verified" total computed in the "Count of DYK Hooks" table? If a hook gets a tick, and subsequently gets un-approved because somebody raised a new query, does that get dropped out of the count? I suspect not. Looking at October 27, for example, the table claims we've got 1 verified hook. That would be Template:Did you know nominations/Nikke: Goddess of Victory, but as of right now, it's not actually good to go. If that's a significant issue, than maybe it's not that 60 is too low, but just that it needs to be computed more accurately. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:49, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In the past, it has been harder for me to fill a set. I'm not sure how it is now, but my online classes started recently and I returned to work yesterday. SL93 (talk) 21:48, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think my burnout has been accelerated by learned experience. We always tell new promoters not to worry, you pick it up as you go along, so it's fine if you make mistakes. What we don't tell them is just how much you pick up over the length of your tenure. The number of obscure rules and procedures and precedents you keep in the back of your head makes promoting hooks really difficult – plus, if you spend hours poring over stats pages, you start to get reaaaal picky over hook choice. Finding hooks that are both solid criteria passes and things you want DYK to feature only gets harder as you develop your radar in both of those areas. I tried to do a run yesterday – after two hours and a 1:2 promotion:tag for further work ratio, I just gave up.
in the end, i think it's reviewers who need to be more experienced and more aggressive, especially about hook sourcing and interestingness. But the diversity of reviewers makes it difficult to shepherd them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:56, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Leeky, and I see one that I and theleekycauldron stopped for issues but it was promoted anyway. I am questioning the promotor on their talk page. The hook was for the article Bot Sentinel. Bruxton (talk) 00:10, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
To answer RoySmith's question above, "# Verified" is calculated from scratch each time DYKHousekeepingBot runs (every half hour): it tallies the nominations in the dated sections of the regular Nominations page and the Approved page, and if the final icon within a nomination template is one of the two ticks, it adds that one to the # Verified total. It doesn't care which page the nomination is on, it just cares about that final icon. I'm puzzled about why you would have seen October 27 with a 1 in both columns. I'm looking at the Count of DYK Hooks table that was active when you posted, and it doesn't show anything in the # Verified column. As best I can determine, the last time it did on for October 27 was just after midnight UTC on 8 January, when there were 2 total, of which 1 was verified (the other nom was then promoted, leaving Nikke still unapproved). Nikke never has been approved so far as the bot has ever seen (the tick for ALT2 was superseded by the ? for ALT3 in the same edit way back on October 28). BlueMoonset (talk) 02:08, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No clue, but I'm pretty sure there was a "1" in that box when I looked at it earlier. I suppose I could be mistaken. I'll keep an eye on it closer and grab a screenshot the next time. BTW, what does the red background mean in the top part of the table (From Oct 27 to Jan 18)? -- RoySmith (talk) 02:23, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The white background shows the "Current nominations"—those that are likely to grow since they're in the seven day "new" period for DYK nominations. The red means that they're "older" nominations, past the seven days. We've had occasions where someone has manually added a future date, and those show up as red: it's only the current date (UTC) and the previous seven days that are displayed in white. At the moment, that's 26 January back through 19 January. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, good to know. I've been wondering about that for probably 3 or 4 years now :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 02:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now time to switch to 1 set per day

The special occasion hook for 26 January is now on the main page and we are down to 56 approved nominations. Now would be a good time to switch from two sets per day to one set per day.

Pinging @DYK admins: please, one of you change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400 as soon as possible, preferably well before 12:00 UTC. That will accomplish the switchover. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:14, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Let me know if I broke anything. Special:Diff/1135667178 -- RoySmith (talk) 02:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good to me. Thank you! I've checked the unpromoted special occasion hooks, and there's one for February 1 that will need to go directly into Queue 1 now that we've switched to one set per day: Death of David Glenn Lewis will need to displace a hook in the queue, which can be placed in one of the preps. Another admin-only task, when someone has the time to do all the usual checks for promoting a nom. Thanks to whoever takes this one on. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have time and can do the checks and swap. Schwede66 04:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I've reviewed this and it's mostly fine. Some notes:
  • Just recording that I prefer the original hook, but slightly tweaked:
  • hit-and-run looks better with hyphens than without (is that just me?)
  • I absolutely detest the term traffic accident, which is almost always inappropriate and certainly in this case, where there is a residual chance that it was deliberate
  • For that reason, it's best to add "apparent" to the hook as we cannot be entirely sure
  • Next thing is that the lead can be left unreferenced if the material is cited in the body. There are three words ("albeit behaving uncharacteristically") in that uncited paragraph that I'm not sure are contained in the body. Given that this is going live in a bit over 18 hours, I shall delete those words. Heads up to Daniel Case as nominator; see whether you want to do something about that.
  • Lastly, although I prepped Q1 the way I believe it should be prepped, PSHAW is refusing to let me specify Q1. When I click "load prep/queue", it jumps to the bottom prep set. Leeky, any hints why it's doing that?
I'm around later on so can promote then. If need be, I'll do it the good old-fashioned way. Schwede66 05:37, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll see what I can do about those three words ... maybe be more specific.
I've gone with "incident", rather than "collision", which is sort of redundant when used with "hit and run", as I used it in ALT2 and as we seem to use in categorizing these events. It strikes me as broad enough to encompass all causes of death, and is closer in sound, anyway, to "accident", still the common term.
Anyway, thank you very much for recognizing that this hook had been left out of the set for the date requested and taking appropriate action. Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried again and PSHAW is now working. I'm happy with your tweaks, Daniel Case. Schwede66 10:27, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
At least in some domains, the words "accident" and "incident" have clearly defined meanings, with accident being the more serious of the two, based the type of injuries and damage. So I think changing "accident" to "incident" is not appropriate here. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:56, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kimmo Leinonen (nom) and Old-Fashioned Cupcake (nom)

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.

My understanding of our rules is that a hook should be likely to draw readers into reading the article, because that's what it says on WP:DYK. Am I missing something? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:30, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
I more so mentioned what seems to be a contradiction with what is being said here. SL93 (talk) 04:49, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Flibirigit from Template:Did you know nominations/Kimmo Leinonen, who has been an editor since 2005. SL93 (talk) 04:35, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • (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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
  • 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
Transformed? I was one of the most active DYK admins in 2008-2009 and even back then we got complaints like this. Nothing is new lol. BorgQueen (talk) 00:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Urgh...

Just noticed that one of the latest page-view entries is a... negative number? @Theleekycauldron: what's going on? 😆 BorgQueen (talk) 03:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@BorgQueen: hah! Looks like it got more views the day before its DYK date than it did on the actual date. Happens sometimes :) we'll see if tomorrow gives it some balance. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:46, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen: With the entry of the pageviews for the following day, it's been moved up into the positives. :P theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:31, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Prep 4 Cycling in Turkey

@Hawkeye7 Had been hoping to use Cycling in Turkey hook for a future quirky slot...as it's worded like one. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:18, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

First entry under 5 January

Someone tried to split the first entry under Template talk:Did you know/Approved#Articles created/expanded on January 5 into three, but since it is in the Approved pile, no QPQ reviewers are going to look at them. I suggest that someone close the nomination and create three new, separate nominations. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:34, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
 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)[reply]

Hook for Elena Manistina Nom

Ugh...

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)[reply]

@Bruxton: I'd say to see Template talk:Did you know nominations/Elena Manistina – BorgQueen made the changes, looks like Storye book was fine with them as nom theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:53, 26 January 2023 (UTC).[reply]
It was Gerda's request. I'll find the diff. BorgQueen (talk) 20:57, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Here we go. BorgQueen (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt... ping. BorgQueen (talk) 21:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(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)[reply]
I find it maddening that Gerda continued to obsess over the hook and get it changed through errors. Bruxton (talk) 21:04, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
through errors? That's a blatant end-run around the entire process. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:12, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Do you want me to revert it? BorgQueen (talk) 21:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
(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)[reply]
checkY Done. BorgQueen (talk) 21:19, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm finding this very troubling. Valereee (talk) 23:44, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

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. Schwede66 05:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: did you get any clarity from Taung Tan about this image? Bruxton (talk) 21:51, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
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. Schwede66 23:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bot Sentinel

I know this may be taking a walk with Darth Vader, but in Prep Area 1 we have a hook for Bot Sentinel that mentions Prince and Princess Harry. If we added a pic of them to the article eg File:Prince Harry and Meghan Markle.jpg then the hook could be run in the picture slot, and attract many more page views. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the pic would only be tangentially related and might not get the article more clicks. Bruxton (talk) 19:28, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Bruxton. That image is only marginally related to the topic of the article, and would basically be clickbait. We're not in the clickbait business. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:45, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ditto what's been said here – running images of celebrities whenever we bring them up only diverts views from the bolded article, and cheapens the value of our image slot. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:38, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with all, but am surprised that a tangential pic is (rightfully) rejected, but tangential hooks seem what is wanted. See conversations with Amakuru and Ipigott. I discussed stats with Story book, - you'll find it. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:45, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Cathedral of Our Lady of Seven Sorrows, Suzhou

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)[reply]

Template:Did you know/Queue/3 Jan 28

Execution of Majidreza Rahnavard

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".

@Onegreatjoke, Afddiary, and Fad Ariff: nominators and reviewer Bruxton (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Henrietta Bruckman

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.

Robert Parker Coffin Bridge

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.

Pinging the article nominator and reviewer. SounderBruce HueSatLum Bruxton (talk) 17:37, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Fletcher

The hook is cited to an interview in The Big Issue. I'm not at all convinced this is a WP:RS for a statement like that. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:21, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Page moves while on main page

Didn't we have a discussion of this recently? Valereee (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it was Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 188#Move protection. TSventon (talk) 21:30, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith and I plan to work on that bot after his current project clears – breath-holding is not advised. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:32, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No breath-holding, just wondering whether I'd misremembered. Or dreamt it or something. :D Valereee (talk) 23:38, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Doug Coldwell followup

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#User:Doug Coldwell. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:47, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Oise amber

Template:Did you know nominations/Oise amber is now approved by the reviewer, but it is not in WP:DYKNA, it hasn't been moved to a prep or queue, and isn't even in WP:DYKNOM. It was approved before the seven-day deadline, moved into a queue, removed from the queue and unapproved due to problems with the article. Now all problems have been resolved. What is the best course of action to take here? ‍ ‍ Helloheart ‍ ‍ 23:24, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Helloheart I have added it back to the approved page, which I should have done when I unpromoted it. It is always a good idea for the nominator to keep an eye on their nominations, as they are most likely to notice when something goes wrong. TSventon (talk) 23:42, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1136146364"