Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM

Error reports

Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

DYK queue status

There are currently 5 filled queues – all good, for now!

Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Current time: 20:01, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

Update frequency: once every 24 hours

Last updated: 20 hours ago(

)

Shortcut

WT:DYK

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20
21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30
31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40
41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50
51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60
61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70
71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80
81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100
101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110
111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120
121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130
131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140
141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150
151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160
161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170
171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180
181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190
191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200
201

• 2011 reform proposals
• 2020 RFC LT Solutions
• All RfCs

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by when more than 5 sections are present.

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

Seven day limit: can we talk about WP:DYKSG#D9?

D9 says The "seven days old" limit should be strictly enforced only if there is a large backlog of hooks. In my experience, the limit is rarely strictly enforced although we always have a large backlog of hooks. Otherwise nominated article may still be approved if it were created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations. As the oldest unapproved nomination is usually a few months old, this limit is patently ridiculous. Should we

(a) define what a large backlog is and enforce more strictly?
(b) codify the current practice that nominations are accepted up to three days late when the nominator asks nicely, independent of the backlog
(c) replace the "oldest date listed" thing by something typically shorter, like "two weeks" or "four weeks" ?

Simply rejecting old nominations for missing the deadline could help against the backlogs. —Kusma (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might be worth noting that nominations that are beyond the deadline are occasionally approved on a case-by-case basis, particularly if the nominator is new to DYK and unfamiliar with the 7-day requirement, but that IAR exemptions by experienced nominators for nominations beyond two or three days usually need to be requested at WT:DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. Can we put that into the guidelines? If people are happy with the way things are currently run, we should update the DYKSG so they say what we actually do instead of referring to things we don't care about (length of backlog / age of oldest open nomination). How about replacing D9 by

Slight extensions of the one-week limit are usually granted, especially for nominators or article creators who are new to DYK. Exceptions for experienced nominators who miss the deadline by three days or more can only be granted by consensus at WT:DYK.

or something in this direction? —Kusma (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the system works fine as it is and we don't need to spell it out. --evrik ^(talk) 15:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just worried that people could mistake the written guidelines for the actual rules. —Kusma (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought it should be 10 days, and a potential to allow if it's a couple days over if the nomination is in good faith. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think extending the hard deadline to 10 days is a reasonable idea given that we already have a baked-in "we tend to approve noms late by a day or two" practice. On the other hand, if the deadline is extended to 10 days, I'd be less enthusiastic about one/two-day exemptions being granted without discussion since 10 days is already pretty long and reasonable by itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think 7 days is plenty, with possible/likely extensions to 8 or 9 days (14 if a first-timer) fairly typical these days. Extending to 10 days would invariably include a similar flex, so it's adding three days of eligibility when we're already overwhelmed with nominations. I would be greatly in favor of deleting the "oldest date listed" sentence, since it was codified over a decade ago when the Older nominations section stretched back a couple of weeks rather than months; no one allows a two-month-old nomination these days, or would even consider anything beyond a couple of weeks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So would you be okay with my 14:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC) suggestion in green above? I think I'm trying to say more or less the same thing as you are, but there is probably a better way to say it. —Kusma (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the old wording hasn't been applied in practice in years, I've gone ahead and boldly replaced it with a rewording of Kusma's suggestion above (I changed some wordings to reflect actual practice). D9 now reads: Slight extensions of the seven-days limit are usually granted upon request. The seven-days requirement is sometimes waived for nominators or article creators who are new to DYK. Exceptions for experienced nominators who miss the deadline by three days or more can only be granted by consensus at WT:DYK. If there are any concerns or questions about this rewording, feel free to ask here or edit the page as necessary. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset: Since the rephrasing was reverted, what should be the ideal wording here? How can the wording be further worked on? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) I have reverted the new wording, which I find to be unnecessarily detailed and fussy—I'm sorry that I didn't reply to Kusma sooner, as that might have headed this off. I wasn't fond of the new level of bureaucracy in the Exceptions for experienced nominators who miss the deadline by three days or more sentence—the reason to come to this page would be a disagreement as to whether an exception be granted. We've typically allowed IAR exceptions for first-time DYK submitters of up to an extra seven days, but more than a day or maybe two to anyone else without a good reason doesn't make sense to me. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't trying to make a rule, just trying to write down the rule we currently use (having written rules that don't actually apply is unfair to the sort of people who would like to follow the rules). I'm surprised that you think the old text referring to the backlog is a more accurate description. —Kusma (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm surprised that you think I said that or thought that, since I didn't. I'll see if I can come up with something that works in the next few days. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've been toying with wording for some days now, and after getting too detailed, I ultimately simplified it down to the following: D9: The "seven days old" limit can be extended for a day or two upon request. If the nominator is new to DYK, a seven-day extension may be allowed. I'm sure, even with this in place, there will be requests for additional leniency per IAR or special circumstances, and those will probably end up on this page if there's a disagreement about whether to grant them. Thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It may be a good idea to codify the "IAR exemptions beyond the specified extensions can be requested at WT:DYK" part at least. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If it's codified, it is not IAR. —Kusma (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Works for me. Sorry about mis-characterising your motivations, getting reverted still annoys me after almost 18 years of Wikipedia... —Kusma (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Side discussion

No such discussion can be complete if I don't ritualistically repeat my longstanding position that the whole new-content pretense be junked in favor of running just plain interesting stuff, of whatever age. But actually interesting. E Eng 04:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
There are Twitter feeds that do that, but not many other places celebrate content creation. —Kusma (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
When any editor adds something useful to any article, that's content creation, and when something worth highlighting is added to an article (new or old), that's worth celebrating. Somehow we've got stuck in this rut about new articles specifically, which (as I've pointed out a million times) means we keep sticking onto the main page our least developed, least worthy articles, as if our readers will somehow overlook that because they're "new". E Eng 20:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's why we also allow fresh GAs and 5x expansions. (I wouldn't be too opposed to allowing smaller expansions, possibly while increasing the minimum length). —Kusma (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
But it doesn't explain while we still exclude millions of far-more-worthy articles containing more interesting facts that could be featured. For some reason everyone's hypnotized by this new-content mantra ("DYK features new content DYK features new content DYK features new content") when our readers don't give a shit about that. ("Hey, Myrtle, check out this new content?") They'd like to be directed to articles worth reading with something interesting in them, not inchoate stubs often offering strained trivia about celebrities' dogs. E Eng 16:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay EEng, I'll bite! How do we define "interesting" in a way that can get consensus and be enforced? Or do we just go with the word itself as the criterion and work out whether something is interesting enough on a case-by-case basis? If the latter, wouldn't we need more than one set of eyes before any given hook could be approved? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just happen to have a proposal here in my pocket. <rummages about> Wait, hold on. <checks coat> Ah yes, here it is, buried among these old Long Island Rail Road timetables: WT:Did_you_know/Archive_129#How_to_quickly_and_easily_decide_which_hooks_are_interesting,_and_cut_review_workload_in_half_at_the_same_time. E Eng 05:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. At one point, in the discussion linked, I seem to have said, honestly, I'd kill 2/3 of moms, but I'll settle for 1/2. Just to be clear, I am not advocating the wholesale slaughter of moms; I believe noms is the word I intended.

I'd love to add a thumbs up/down vote on hooks similar to the vote done for ITN, and I agree that it needs to be done before the review is done. Unfortunately that'll never fly here. valereee (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Defeatist. E Eng 16:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What would the queue look like if it were only GAs and no new articles, and hook review was part of the GAN? Levivich 13:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich: right now, there are 13 approved and 3 unapproved hooks that are nominated because of its good article status (and not because the article was created or 5x expanded). I also know many articles that are expanded/created for DYK also become GANs in the future. However, if DYK only highlighted good articles, I would suggest that the number of articles in each prep set is reduced so that DYK does not run out of hooks. Z1720 (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Imagine if all the effort now being expended on reviewing just-born stubs was instead redirected at getting articles to GA! We'd have 1/4 as many articles to run, but they'd be so much better, and articles would be permanently improved, not just rubber-stamped as not completely embarrassing. E Eng 16:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Except if it's a true stub, it's not currently eligible anyway. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever. Just-barely-more-than-stubs. E Eng 01:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

At present there are two quality requirements for a DYK article:

Articles must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose (2a)
Article must contain at least one citation to a reliable source for the hook (3b), and each paragraph and direct quote. (WP:CITE)

Believe it or not, that already puts DYK articles in the top 20% of all articles on Wikipedia. Gradings below GA are handled by the projects, but to meet Milhist's B class criteria, an article needs to:

be suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations;
reasonably cover the topic, without obvious omissions or inaccuracies;
have a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content;
be free from major grammatical errors; and
contain appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams

Note that we already come close to this at DYK, since we demand articles be fully referenced (B1), which is the biggest quality hurdle out there. We could considered extending out quality requirement to bring articles into line with MilHist B. Note how close this is to GA; the differences being that instead of B2, GA requires broad coverage of the main aspects of the topic; instead of B3, it requires compliance with the MOS guidelines for lead sections and layout; and instead of B4 it demands that the article be "well written". Meeting MilHist B would put articles in the top 10%; meeting GA would put them in the top 5%. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure where you get that Gradings below GA are handled by the projects -- various projects have their own criteria, the the WP-wide criteria are at WP:Content_assessment (not that they're much different from your list above). E Eng 19:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be opposed to increasing DYK requirements to B-class equivalent (or really to anything). It would be unfair to many topics whose sourcing may not ever be able to reach those standards. In addition, increasing standards could be unfair to newer editors who may be less familiar with all of these guidelines and standards. DYK is quite overwhelming as it is, the last thing we need is to make it even more overwhelming and difficult. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I would not support that. The DYK hurdle is high enough. Imagine if we'd have to assess article whether they really meet B-class criteria. I predict it would be be a nightmare. No, thanks. Schwede 66 11:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I think the B-class checklist is excellent, as it is usually clear what to do when an article fails one of the criteria. The criteria are not harder to assess than it is to fact check the hook. —Kusma (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK hurdle is high enough – High enough for what? The main things in the WP:Good_article_criteria not in the DYK requirements are that the article be

clear, concise, and understandable;
address the main aspects of the topic; and
stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

Thus the articles DYK puts on Wikipedia's main page allowed to be badly written, confusing, woefully incomplete, and/or bloated and discursive – and they often are. Unless you think that's OK, then you'll agree DYK should require articles to meet GA.

Or maybe you think DYK hasn't been presenting badly written, confusing, woefully incomplete, and/or bloated and discursive articles? In that case, DYK's articles already meet GA and it's no real change for DYK to require GA.

I'll be very interested to hear your answer on this. E Eng 19:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You are vastly underestimating how much effort the current DYK standards are. Many nominations from new editors fail because they don't meet the requirements. Either they were nominated too late, or their expansion wasn't five-fold. A new article with proper references and 1,500+ characters may seem easy especially to a veteran editor, but in reality it's not.

As for requiring GAs, I think doing that would worsen our existing systematic biases. Many subjects simply don't have the information or sourcing available to have their articles to reach GA (or even B) status. Setting a lower bar gives a chance to lesser-known or more obscure topics. If we only required GAs, many swaths of the world would become even more underrepresented than they currently, and I cannot in good conscience accept a scenario like that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: not to belittle the GA project, but when I started reviewing at GA, I used DYK standards. There were complaints, because GA standards are not as nitpicky as DYK. They only have six criteria (WP:GACR), and very simply stated. Why would there be two projects with the same criteria? I don't think we should combine them into one. And quite frankly, I think the GA bunch would pitch a hissy fit if we tried it. It would bring back that old argument that DYK should be abolished, and the Main Page space given to GA. — Maile (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog mode

I have added a new heading so the backlog mode discussion can be found more easily when it has been archived. TSventon (talk) 06:47, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's worth noting that this is not because we have few DYKNs coming in, but because DYKN is seriously backlogged. I heard a suggestion to give DYKNs WikiCup points (2.5 for submitting, 2.5 for reviewing, to avoid people who create DYKs getting "free" points for QPQ) and I think something like that would be good to try. Maybe even a DYKN backlog drive, in the style of GAN backlog drives? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:18, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Trainsandotherthings, if you are interested in the question of backlog drives there was a discussion about them earlier this month here. TSventon (talk) 01:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That discussion wasn't all that fruitful and now the backlog is even larger with 207 hooks needing to be approved and 63 approved hooks. SL93 (talk) 01:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think one issue is that most of the "delayed" nominations are noms that are quite difficult to review, either due to being mostly reliant on technical sources, or due to their subject matter (usually politics). A backlog drive would be nice but given the circumstances a backlog was probably inevitable. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:42, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have a mechanism all set up for dealing with large numbers of unapproved nominations per the RfC last summer and subsequent discussions: extra QPQs for experienced DYK nominators. The suggestion of a GAN-style DYK backlog drive was roundly panned at the time. Pinging EEng, who worked so hard to devise the process and shepherd the RfC to completion, to help get it rolling for real. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Me and my big mouth -- I've been dreading this day for the last 12 months. Yes, we came to a policy decision as BMs describes, but what hasn't been done (I think -- haven't been watching DYK) is to set up the automation that will identify editors subject to the new requirement. We may need to use the honor system temporarily. Give me a few days to review where we are and recruit technical firepower. E Eng 06:37, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: I'm happy to help :) fools rush in, etc. I think the most straightforward way is to add a note to the {{NewDYKnomination}} template. Something like "effective 30 May 2022, DYK is in "unreviewed backlog mode". All nominations made by editors with 20 or more prior DYK nominations will require an extra QPQ." That way, it'll appear on all new nominations (but not currently open nominations) until we remove it, and timestamps itself. Beyond that, we already use the honour system anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 06:48, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What I'm vaguely remembering is we needed some new machinery for counting "credits" or whatever we called them. E Eng 14:28, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng: You mean like User:SDZeroBot/DYK nomination counts.json that @SD0001 mentioned below? —Kusma (talk) 15:41, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

EEng, you were quite insistent that "credits" were to be a thing of the past; the only thing that mattered was nominations, which were set as the determinant going forward. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:42, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said " new machinery for counting credits or whatever" -- I remembered there was to be some change in what was counted, just couldn't remember what the change was. (I'm not Superman, you know, despite appearances.) Now that you mention it, that's exactly right. I've been reviewing the two big archived threads and there's a lot to it. It seems they ended with intentions to install new apparatus (template behavior at when new noms are saved etc.) and from other discussion some thought or work has been put into that, but not clear what still needs to be done to make it seamless. It actually sounds like others are more up to speed on the current status than I am, though I'm happy to help once I've got my sea legs again. E Eng 12:47, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to add a note on the DYK script that most editors use? It also doesn't support natively adding multiple "reviewed" pages without manually typing, say, {{subst:dykn|ArticleA}} and {{subst:dykn|ArticleB}} in the window. Some editors might miss this otherwise. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The DYK-helper tool is maintained by @SD0001, so that feature should probably be taken up with them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:13, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There should be a page from which DYK-helper can get to know if backlog mode is currently active. For instance, we can adopt WP:Did you know/unreviewed backlog mode to read enabled or disabled as the case may be – which could then be used by templates/scripts. Let me know once this is created – I'll then update the script accordingly. – SD0001 (talk) 13:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If a switch like that is added, it should also be used to conditionally display a backlog notice at the top of Template talk:Did you know. —Kusma (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:SDZeroBot/DYK nomination counts.json is already in place that records nom counts and is updated in real-time, which can be read by {{subst:NewDYKnomination}} to determine if the current user needs a 2nd QPQ. (For 9 months now, server resources are being wasted on keeping that page up-to-date despite zero use – maybe that will change now :)) – SD0001 (talk) 13:17, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SD0001: oh, that's actually incredible, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:34, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

is there a page where the nominations themselves are available? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:35, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What would be needed to actually start the 2 QPQs per nomination rule? SL93 (talk) 03:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have added a backlog tag to at least alert people. —Kusma (talk) 06:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If something like this is added to the WikiCup, I'd rather go for 4/1. A DYK review isn't like half a GA review. —Kusma (talk) 07:57, 25 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If I may be honest, I have some skepticism as to whether the planned backlog mode (i.e. two QPQs for editors with 20+ nominations) is going to help out much in the long run. One reason is basically simple arithmetic: if the number of nominations being made exceeds the number of QPQs being done, it doesn't matter if nominators are providing one or two QPQs, a backlog will still build up over time. Secondly, not all nominators meet the 20 nominations requirement: many nominations are done by editors who have 6-19 nominations and so would be exempted from this requirement. If they too make nominations without more work being done on the backlog, the backlog would still get bigger and bigger. Finally, the way I see it, it's not that people don't want to review nominations, or not enough people are doing them. The backlog isn't necessarily anyone's fault. The issue is that many nominations are controversial from the get-go owing to their content. For example, I cannot blame anyone from being discouraged from reviewing any nomination that has to do with Israel-Palestine considering how much of a hot potato that topic is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of nominations are made by people with over 20 nominations. Just Gerda, Corachow, Epicgenius, Sammi Brie, Z1720, you and me together have something like 25 nominations on the page right now. 25 extra QPQs done would significantly reduce the number of unreviewed noms, and I would expect the number of affected noms to be closer to 50. I take your point that some nominations are more attractive to review than others, but I don't see how we can change that.

The question is what else can we do? We could fail all nominations that haven't been reviewed after four weeks (like at FAC) or reject nominations where the QPQ is provided late, but (unlike the proposal) these would not change the fundamental issue that we need more reviews than people are required to provide as QPQs. —Kusma (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully the planned backlog mode is a short term measure and won't need to be used too often. theleekycauldron posted a chart here, showing that the number of unapproved nominations went down to below fifty in August-September in both 2020 and 2021. DYK depends on some editors reviewing more nominations than they need to, offsetting nominations by new editors that do not require a QPQ, and hopefully backlog mode will encourage them to help. Backlog mode will probably also encourage prolific contributors to divert some time from nominations to doing reviews which can be used later as QPQs. If some of those reviews are of more difficult nominations, they will still be useful. TSventon (talk) 10:48, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]
I generally think we should encourage people to do QPQs before they nominate articles. Currently I count seven nominations by highly experienced nominators lacking a required QPQ, needlessly making the backlog worse. Personally I find it much less stressful to use one of my stack of QPQs than to have to scramble for one at nomination time. —Kusma (talk) 11:10, 26 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Has a bot reminding editors about late QPQs ever been considered? For example, if a nomination doesn't have a QPQ and one hasn't been provided after seven days, a bot will leave the nominator a talk page message reminding them to do a QPQ. Of course, that's only if the nominator actually needs to be a QPQ. I imagine it could be a bit tricky to code, but it could help I guess. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:51, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kusma Good luck with that. I just brought up the QPQ issue at the nomination of a major DYK nominator and they asked why I have it in for the nomination. SL93 (talk) 20:08, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: Ugh. I think a time limit is reasonable, and another week is plenty. (Personally I usually just do not review noms that lack a required QPQ). —Kusma (talk) 20:26, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Technical stuff from the old discussions

I may be way behind the times, but I believe WT:Did_you_know/Archive_182#Start and End (and following section) is (or was) a key starting point for technical implementaion ideas. Who are our techies on this? Wugapodes, for startes? Wug, can you ping other techies involved? Possibly this is entirely obsolete but it's where my brain left off, anyway. E Eng 03:50, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping Wugapodes. TSventon (talk) 04:31, 28 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes did you see this? Who else needs to be involved? TSventon (talk) 01:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@TSventon and EEng, sorry I missed these pings. What's needing done? Implementing a "some people need two QPQs" system? SD0001 had some ideas in that previous thread but to my knowledge no one's worked on anything yet. — Wug·a·po·des 03:19, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's probably best if we both go back to the top of WT:Did_you_know/Archive_182#RfC_Discussion:_Details_of_implementing_EEng's_propsal_"Unreviewed_backlog_mode" and review forward from there (maybe skimming it all first to see what early stuff was obsoleted by later parts of the discussion). Then we can compare notes. I don't think there's anything too hard in there, but that's easy for me to say since I'm assuming you're volunteering to do all the work (bless your heart). Shall we start that way? Oh yes, first question: What happened to moving everything out of Template space (which, some may recall, I predicted would never happen)? E Eng 03:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like the main things are (1) a way to keep track of "backlog" mode and (2) a way to note how many QPQs are needed for a nomination. The first we can do pretty easily by having WugBot update a page on-wiki with the number of untouched nominations. The second is slightly harder and not something I know much about. We'd need the on-wiki templates and lua modules to get the content of that page and parse it appropriately. I'm not sure how to do that. Substing the page into the template? As for moving out of Template space, I was looking today and WugBot has code to handle it, but I don't think anything's moved on that front. — Wug·a·po·des 05:02, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can handle (2) – all that's remaining is to edit Module:NewDYKnomination to read the nom counts and the "is backlog active?" page and show a message accordingly (the module is used in a substed template so no performance issue).

As for moving to template space, there was agreement in the last discussion that it should be done, but some insisted that a formal RFC should be held – we're waiting for someone to start that. – SD0001 (talk) 05:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like data on other pages can be accessed via lua which is good to know. I'll look into modifying the module this weekend and see how far I can get with lua. — Wug·a·po·des 07:46, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So you think this new "untouched" category of nominations is feasible? Right now we've got (courtesy of your hard work) a separate page for unapproved vs. approved. Would we move to three pages, or just have the two kinds of unapproved ("unapproved, untouched", "unapproved, touched") remain on a single page? Offhand I don't see clear plusses or minuses either way (other than inventing a third page is probably more work than leaving just two pages). E Eng 16:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I imagined keeping our current two-page system. The page WugBot would update would just be a counter, kinda like the next queue counter. So it wouldn't distinguish the modified from unmodified nominations on the page, but doing so is feasible for WugBot if that would be helpful. Adding a third page is extra complexity for no clear benefit, so I'd rather try page sections before moving to a 3-page system. — Wug·a·po·des 23:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@EEng and SD0001: I've modified the module and it seems to be working. Check out the module sandbox and examples in my sandbox. I still need to modify WugBot so to update Template talk:Did you know/Unmodified nomination count, but after that everything should be good to go on this. — Wug·a·po·des 16:56, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The state of the stats page, and proposed changes

Hi, y'all! I've put a crap ton of work into the WP:DYKSTATS page over the past few months, and I want to both update the wider community on how that's been going and propose some changes for the future. If you don't want to read the infodump that's about to go down, the proposed changes are in bold.

See, the current way the monthly stats pages work is that if your hook gets over 416.6 views per hour while on the main page,^[a] your hook gets added to a table at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders.^[b] In ye olden days of DYK, this updating was done manually and arduously – past stewards of the page include Yoninah, Gerda Arendt, Cbl62, and anyone else who wanted to add their own hook to the page. So, in a sense, the "bar" for a hook to make the stats page was somewhat out of necessity – there can be anywhere from 224–496 hooks in a month, and adding each one to a statistical archive page would have just represented a waste of time. By 2015, somewhere around 13–15% of hooks would have cleared this bar. Today, that number is up to 23–25%.

Fortunately, time of manual updates has essentially passed. Instead of manual checking and insertion, updating the stats page these days basically amounts to clicking a button.^[c] In addition to the button updating the stats page with more hooks, it also collects collated statistics on every month's hookset and notifies credited users when their hook has been featured on the page. Because of a lack of a BRFA, this is done semi-automatically instead of automatically, so my first proposal is that a bot be allowed to update the stats page.

But the information that's contained on the stats pages can actually be pretty useful. I generally want to know how my hook does, whether it makes the stats page or not – and just as the stats page, as it currently stands, serves as a guide for how to write clever and interesting hooks, nominations that don't make the stats page can be valuable for their guidance on what qualities might be undesirable for one who wants their hook to perform well. Cbl62 did the same when they compiled their list of some of the lowest-performing hooks. For that reason, I think that the monthly stats pages should include a record of every hook. Now, well-performing hooks do still deserve recognition – as I mentioned above, my script leaves a template on users' talk pages when their hook makes the page. It's actually pretty nifty, it looks like this:

		Hook update
		Your hook reached 10,000 views (416.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2022 – nice work!

As long as we keep that going, nominators will still have a reason to celebrate the performance of their hook, while not necessarily providing an incomplete record for those who want to make their own tables. Sigh, my apologies for the length of this; I wanted to share a lot more, but this was unspooling, so I did my best to keep it on topic. Look forward to hearing your thoughts! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Happy with both of your suggestions. —Kusma (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think a bot would be great! valereee (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Might as well list all of them. The current standard for inclusion is so low that it's almost meaningless. It's more like a participation medal. 98.186.217.255 (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Leeky! I appreciate your work! Bruxton (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that's a great idea. When assembling prep areas I would often consult the list, trying to guess what hooks people would like to see. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks, all! I'm in the process of updating the stats pages; I'll let discussion continue for a little while longer before going to BRFA. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

^ which comes out to either 5,000 views for a 12-hour cycle or 10,000 views for a 24-hour cycle
^ it used to just be Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics, but I moved everything to subpages because it was proving to be pretty clunky.
^ Followed, from experience, by the button sometimes not working, and having to figure out what went wrong in 300+ lines of code, and cursing out theleekycauldron for not just doing it manually before finding the misplaced parenthesis in the code or the bad manual formatting in the stats page.

Prep 5: Expansion (sculpture)

... that sculptor Paige Bradley broke her sculpture Expansion (pictured) on purpose, and with the pieces created what is thought to be the first bronze sculpture to be illuminated from within?

A couple of queries regarding this. (1) the hook seems slightly misleading, as it suggests that Bradley smashed the bronze sculpture and then reassembled it, while in fact (according to the article) it was a wax cast that she smashed, and she only then fashioned the bronze sculpture from the pieces. (2) aside from the usual issues with saying "thought to be" (which is a violation of WP:WEASEL, and needs attribution), I'm slightly sceptical whether the "first bronze sculpture illuminated from within" can be fully verified. The source used is from a gallery which sells these sculptures and is therefore almost a primary source with a commercial interest in promoting the piece, and therefore a slightly dubious authority on whether it really is the first such or not. Plus, a quick search reveals items such as this statue of Jesus: [1] which can also be said to be a bronze sculpture illuminated from within. Who's to say there haven't been numerous other such lamps or ornaments produced over the years? With a better source I could accept this, but probably does need that Pinging @Bruxton, Gerda Arendt, and SL93: — Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that "first" is not even needed to make it interesting, but a description might work. Trying:

... that the bronze sculpture Expansion (pictured) is lit from within, after Paige Bradley broke its wax model intentionally and assembled the cast pieces leaving cracks? - Better wording welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that sort of thing could work, thanks Gerda. Will wait to see what others think. — Amakuru (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with Gerda's wording. SL93 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru Do you think that removing the gallery sentences entirely is an option? Though it would need to be expanded somewhere else due to the article only being 1395 characters long after that. SL93 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about saying (only in the article) that the gallery claims it's the first? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think that could work. SL93 (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not related to the hook issue, but I've tagged the image as no permission on Commons. It was uploaded by an account with very few edits and no proof that they are the copyright holder. We would need confirmation through VRT that the artist released the sculpture under a free license to be able to display the image without a claim of fair use. Spicy (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

??? @Spicy and SL93: Stop the madness. I wrote to the artist and she uploaded the photo. The image is 100% artist upload. Grrrr. Same thing I did with the Dancing with Dandelions [File:Dancing with Dandelions at Night.jpg] on commons. Artist upload Bruxton (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's fine but the permission needs to be documented through WP:VRT - otherwise there is no way for anyone to independently verify that without emailing the artist themselves. Spicy (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Spicy: Do you realize the kind of work it takes to go through weeks of emails and managers and handlers, and then insist the artist upload a photo herself and share it with the world for free? There are enough hoops to jump through already. I am officially ruffled. Bruxton (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My helper for image licensing is GRuban. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Yes, what Bruxton writes is completely correct, it often takes multiple emails back and forth before the image owner releases the image to VRT (formerly OTRS) satisfaction, and it can be frustrating. But as someone is questioning that the uploader is the image owner, that is what needs to be done. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator is usually the most effective hoop to jump through, but still sometimes requires more. A possibly easier solution is that the artist post the image and "Released under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" on a page on https://paigebradley.com/ but all too often our article subjects don't know how to edit their own websites. --GRuban (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt and GRuban: Thanks you both for your support. Gerda you are a treasure and I appreciate you. In the case of this image, there is no evidence of a copyright issue. If I understand the issue, one editor is suspicious based on the artist's edit count. WP:5P4 comes to mind here: Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. I will keep on keeping on and I will look forward. I am putting this in the rear view mirror. happy Thursday everyone! Bruxton (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also be very suspicious based on the copyvio deletion history of the uploader. If the file doesn't have documentation, it doesn't have documentation, but there are other issues here with the image licensing: did the artist also take the photo? If not, it needs the photographer to freely license their photo AND for either the artist to, I believe, do something that gives up copyright of the design elements OR the image to have been taken within the parameters of freedom of panorama, which indoors (as it is) rarely is. I don't think this is going to be resolved quickly at all. Kingsif (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Kingsif: That sounds like a different issue than the rationale presented above. In any event our viewers will just have to google an image. I won't be pursuing the licensing for this image, I went deep enough into this rabbit hole. Bruxton (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Bruxton: Would you object if I were to write Paige Bradley at her website and request that she provide the release by email or web page? If she uploaded herself she may be interested enough to send an email or edit a web page as well. It is a beautiful image, might be worth a bit of white rabbit following. --GRuban (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@GRuban: Sure, there is a contact on her website. That is how I started. Bruxton (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the contact on her page wrote back:

Hello George,
Paige Bradley cannot release the image if this is how is what must be agreed to:
I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.
Her works are copyrighted and she does not want anyone to use the work without her permission. This has been an ongoing issue for several works, most notably, Expansion. We are appreciative of the wonderful article on Wikipedia, but cannot allow the image to be published.
Keli for Paige Bradley
Paige Bradley Fine Art

So we should remove the image. Sorry.

--GRuban (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was a 180 degree turn around from this:

Hello Ted,

Paige reviewed the Wiki page you created for Expansion and very much liked everything.

We can provide an image of Expansion for the page, but wanted to inquire first if there is anything else required.

All the best,

Keli for Paige Bradley

Paige Bradley Fine Art

My message after they said they could license an image:

That is great news! Perhaps someone from your side can upload it to Wikimedia Commons. As I said no freedom of panorama in the United States for sculpture, so it would have to be uploaded by the one responsible for creation of the sculpture and image. I hope to have this on the main page of Wikipedia sometime this month and having a photo would certainly get much more interesting.

Hello Ted,

We have uploaded an image of Expansion. Here is the link from Wiki

File:Expansion third(DarkPatina).jpg

Expansion, Bronze Sculpture with Electricity by Paige Bradley

HTML link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Expansion_third(DarkPatina).jpg

We are happy to allow use of this photo.

Thank you,

Keli Pharaoh

And it was not the image I wanted to use. Bruxton (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing she just wanted to give us her image, but not the world. However we need to make our content free for everyone to reuse and edit, including her image. So it goes. --GRuban (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

My thoughts don't matter right now. It can't be on the main page with the tag. SL93 (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Though I thought it wouldn't matter in this case because the artist themself uploaded it under their account. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

See my comments above: if the artist isn't also the photographer, then it's not freely licensed, nor does it seem to be valid because of FoP. Kingsif (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There are two creative works here: the sculpture and the photograph. Since the sculpture doesn't appear to be in a public place, and therefore potentially covered under freedom of panorama, both creative works would need to be freely licensed. Even if the same person authored both works, limited permission for use by Wikipedia is not sufficient to satisfy a CCBYSA license. GMG ^talk 11:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I moved it out of prep 1 to prep 5 in a non-image slot. SL93 (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the hook to Gerda's wording above and I changed the tagged part in the article. SL93 (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Susanna and the Elders in art (nom)

Seems that valereee and I are having a bit of a disagreement in this nom; I think that the sexual nature of the art puts it under WP:GRATUITOUS, and as such, a work shouldn't be featured in the article unless it's illustrating a specific bit of cited prose discussing that work. I don't want to misrepresent valereee's position, but my read is that she contends that galleries aren't a DYK issue, and they're useful to provide lots of examples from various eras. I'm happy to go with consensus on this one; anyone want to weigh in? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, my feeling is that the inclusion of multiple examples in the article (both over time and across the work of individual artists, which is discussed at length in the article) is useful for the reader. The reason I nominated this was to encourage art editors (which I'm not) to the article. I don't see a WP:GRATUITOUS issue at all (and am not really sure why the talk page even needs the WP:NOTCENSORED banner, though I'll let that slide) but my primary motivation is to get art editors' attention to an article I created in an area I have almost no expertise in. I also don't see the gallery question as an issue for DYK. I do think whichever hook needs the image. valereee (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are depictions of the "Susanna and the Elders" story, and the gallery allowing the reader to compare how it was depicted through the ages is an excellent encyclopaedic illustration of the topic. I can't see anything gratuitous about it. Nude (art) contains galleries of nudes; this one contains galleries of Susanna. —Kusma (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Shortcut

WP:DYKIMG

DYK Image guide doesn't cover how many images should be used. It's a moot point. A lot of the artists of that era couldn't seem to paint women unless the woman was nude. I vaguely remember that years ago, we had a lead hook of a painting of a penis - talk about gratuitous! — Maile (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: what I do see here, and I wish you luck in going this route, is to eventually put it in a list form and nominate it at FLC. — Maile (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66, List of images of Susanna and the Elders? Interesting! There literally are dozens. I don't think I've created more than a couple of lists. Probably they were about food. :D valereee (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Seriously, I think you should give it some thought. WP:FL doesn't seem to have a lot of entries under Art, so this would be different. They seem (at times) to be loaded with lists re musical artists and their output. But this might be a refreshing change. Never mind anyone else's opinion here. Follow your own muse.— Maile (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yuk, no! An article with text and context is far better. Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Any reason why there shouldn't be both? The reason I ask is that I've not been able to find coverage for some images, other than that they're identified as portrayals. Especially modern portrayals. Again, knows very little about art ---> valereee (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We have literally hundreds on Commons, once you include prints and sculpture - it's a pity, but typical, that the article doesn't mention any of these. The prints in particular rather undercut the timeline the article gives. Then there's stained glass, which I think I'll just imagine... Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

No reason - It just depends on how you work it. You know how to create both styles. — Maile (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

As the article says, the depiction is, especially from the Renaissance onwards, normally sexualized, & I don't see how this can be avoided. I certainly don't agree that "a work shouldn't be featured in the article unless it's illustrating a specific bit of cited prose discussing that work". Nothing about that in MOS:VA, nor is it our usual practice at all. And, no, the galleries aren't really a DYK issue. I think the pictures could be rearranged (the earliest Tintoretto appears 3 times, as does the 1610 Artemisia G) and the gallery sizes upped from the too-small default. Some should probably be moved from galleries to next to the text. The level of illustration seems fairly typical for Category:Iconography, to which I have added it. Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: To be clear, I'm not talking about the image appearing DYK, I've approved that; I also don't think that it's an MOS issue, and I definitely think there should be illustrations in the article (galleries are fine, too)! My question is whether every image (in the article) should basically be treated like it's fair use- use as few as necessary, to illustrate discussions about that work, and only if its exclusion would be detrimental to the prose. Seems like consensus is leaning against that, in which case i'd be happy to tick the article as is. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think we should impose fair-use rules on public-domain images? What would be accomplished by doing so? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

it's just the analogy I like to use for WP:GRATUITOUS – Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene, or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Compare that to to WP:NFCC#8, which reads Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. It seems to me that while this article clearly does need some, or a lot, of illustration to properly explain the topic, I don't think it would be significantly detrimental to play it closer to the vest. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In an article that is literally about artworks, illustrating a bible story, I think being a prudish bluenose is an inappropriate attitude to take. And in any case it is not an attitude that is supported in any way by DYK rules, our purpose here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This editor has been criticized in the past for allowing through things that others found offensive. Let's give them a break if they maybe sometimes overcorrect. valereee (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7 11 June

Template:Did you know nominations/Aleksey Semenenko and this at ERRORS which caused it to be pulled from queue and swapped into P7. valereee (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've changed "Kyiv" to "Ukraine" which probably reads a bit awkward but is less wrong. I hope this will be improved further before it returns to queue. —Kusma (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt has started a discussion below, suggest the rest of the discussion happen there. valereee (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksey Semenenko

The hook for the violinist from Odessa teaching at a German university has been discussed in the nomination and on ERRORS. I'll keep this short. At present we have:

1 ... that German violinist and professor Aleksey Semenenko was stranded in Ukraine for a month because Russia invaded Ukraine the day after his performance?

Probably my English is too limited, but "stranded" seems a bit too casual for being kept because of being an able-bodied citizen, and passive. He made camouflage nets in Lviv, played concerts for children and their parents, and an online concert as charity for colleagues. Look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also: do we need Ukraine twice? Precisely it was Lviv. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It might be too difficult to explain all those things in a hook, they could always be mentioned in the article. Unless you want to propose a hook specifically about the making of camouflage nets. Valereee also proposed the following hook in the ERRORS discussion, which is another possible option:

2 ... that after performing in Kyiv the day before Russia invaded, violinist Aleksey Semenenko was prevented from leaving Ukraine because he'd left his German passport at home?

As for the hook mentioned above, given that two mentions of "Ukraine" in quick succession seems too much, the second mention could be changed to "the country" (I'm not sure why it was changed to Ukraine in the first place, it was originally "the country" to begin with). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You misunderstood me completely, sorry. I didn't mean to mention any of the details. I just dislike to picture him passive, "stranded".

I also dislike to picture him as forgetful, which is about all that hook 2 says about him. - What does "Russia invaded" mean, - isn't it people who invade? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

From 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine's lead: On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, in a steep escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War that began in 2014. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) "Russia invaded Ukraine" is how the invasion is described in sources. Yes, technically it's the people of a country (and sometimes their allies) who invade another country, but it's usually on the order of the government of said country. So saying X invaded Y is a useful shorthand (for example, "Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.") As for the forgetfulness thing, I don't think Valereee or anyone else thought of him as forgetful because of it, and I doubt most readers would think so either. It was suggested because it's what's in the sources. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so the hook is back in prep. We have a number of possible options. The original hook (Gerda's ALT0) was unsuitable as there were issues with the preciseness of the word "held" and the circumstances of the "holding". Thus we have the following options (I've labeled them as ALT1, ALT2, ALT3, and ALT4). ALT1 is the status quo: the hook currently in prep, albeit with the second mention of "Ukraine" being replaced with "the country". ALT2 is Valereee's proposal. ALT3 is my rewording of Gerda's original hook; I have also added an alternate version of ALT3 that mentions his university. ALT4 is a hook originally proposed by SL93 on the nomination page. So now, what hook should we use? To reiterate: for reasons I have already mentioned earlier, the original hook in the nomination is not an option.

ALT1 ... that German violinist and professor Aleksey Semenenko was stranded in Ukraine for a month because Russia invaded the country the day after his performance?
ALT2 ... that after performing in Kyiv the day before Russia invaded, violinist Aleksey Semenenko was prevented from leaving Ukraine because he'd left his German passport at home?
ALT3 ... that after being unable to leave Ukraine for a month following Russia's invasion of the country, professor and violinist Aleksey Semenenko played a tour in Germany later that April?
ALT3a ... that after being unable to leave Ukraine for a month following Russia's invasion of the country, Folkwang University violin professor Aleksey Semenenko played a tour in Germany later that April?
ALT4 ... that Aleksey Semenenko, a professor of violin at Folkwang University, played a video concert in Ukraine to help colleagues who were bombed out?

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging those involved in both the ERRORS discussion and the nomination: @Schwede66, Maile66, Levivich, Evrik, SL93, Fram, and Gerda Arendt: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Of those choices, I think ALT2 is most interesting. Levivich 16:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... but are you sure it's true? It's not in the article (because I am not sure of the exact rules). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not right now, but it could always be added in the article. For what it's worth, the previous discussion suggests that, rather than leaving the German passport at home, he simply did not have it at the time and his wife had to submit it later. It might be better to ask Levivich about since since they were the ones who brought up the passport thing in the WP:ERRORS discussion, or perhaps Valereee as the proposer of the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I don't believe any of these details are encyclopedic and essential for his biography. Semenenko is a living person, and I still wish we say something about what he does, not some circumstances beyond his control. I understand that even when the German passport was submitted he wasn't set free, but don't know enough about these things to write about them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Levivich and Valereee: Since you two were involved in ALT2's proposal (both the information being brought up and the hook being proposed), could either or both of you add the necessary information to the article so that ALT2 can be suitable? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

.. unless you follow what I tried to explain above. Will this detail be encyclopedic in 10 years? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would, since it was an important part of his life. Much like how Liva Järnefelt performing in Wagerian roles as well as Carmen remains encyclopedic long after her death because those roles were part of her life, so was Semenenko being unable to leave Ukraine (even if it wasn't his fault). Yes he's still living, but that doesn't mean that important events need to be left out of his article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

We are not together, I'm afraid. The fact that he was unable to leave for a month is in the article, because of course important for his life as he said in the interview. However, the detail of the German passport - which he may have left at home intentionally or unintentionally, we don't know - is not, imho. I'm still not happy with the idea of having "Russia" active in the only sentence readers may get to know about him (because the majority will not click), but him just as a passive victim of politics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5, I've updated the article and I think it now supports ALT2, but it would be good for someone else to check that para, especially someone who speaks German. @Gerda Arendt, I do think it's worth including. The man seems to have had more coverage for this incident than he's had for the rest of his career put together, so yes, IMO this is a noteworthy incident. In fact I'm tempted to expland the para to include the fact his wife had tried to talk him out of the trip. Then she had to submit his German passport because Ukraine wanted him to stay and fight? I can only image how hard I'd've been biting my tongue. valereee (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are also not together. ALT2 makes it look - my view - as if it was just his forgetfulness, which I believe is not the right thing to say about a living person. But have it your way. I'll listen to his music again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Given that the hook is now on the next prep to move to Queue, we probably need a final decision on whether to stick with the status quo hook or to change it to ALT2 (which seems be preferred by two other editors). As I reviewed the nomination I don't think I'm the best person to decide. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not with the violinist, but with the conductor: Ukrainian peace music is "on" today! I use that hook with more enthusiasm than the passive "stranded" I better forget. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Kreuzstab

In Prep 7 we have:

... that the first recording of Bach's Kreuzstab cantata was a 1939 Dutch live broadcast by Mack Harrell, 25 years before the 1964 German recording by his protégé Barry McDaniel?

(I nominated it, but then unwatched the discussion.) I don't think that our average reader, having no idea what Kreuzstab may mean, and that we talk about a solo cantata for the bass voice, will associate that "by" doesn't mean the conductor, but the singer. If that doesn't matter, leave it as it is. I also said before that "the first recording" is an Easter egg, leading to a list of several recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56 discography

I'm puzzled that you are trying to intervene here; as pointed out by User:Fram, your recent problematic "Odessa Professor" DYK still has to be reworked for later: "Did you know ... that German violinist and professor Aleksey Semenenko was stranded in Ukraine for a month because Russia invaded Ukraine the day after his performance?"

The hymn/chorale for BWV 56 had the hook

"Did you know... that the 1653 hymn "Du, o schönes Weltgebäude", about renouncing the world, contains the stanza "Komm, O Tod, des Schlafes Bruder", which Bach used to conclude his cross-staff cantata?"

It did not mention that the cross-staff cantata was for solo bass with a chorus only at the end. Perhaps "easter egg" has some kind of German connotation, but the DYK in the queue concerns two well-educated American singers from Texas and Kansas, with no connotations. In the cantata article, "Kreuzstab cantata" is wikilinked to the article; but nowhere in the 1653 hymn. In books and magazines, the term "Kreuzstab cantata" is used, not "cross-staff cantata". The Template above shows time stamps; the ALT1 proposal could never run because there were at least 4 publicly available recordings by Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau (1950, 1965, 1967, 1983); since you stopped watchlisting the Template (despite being pinged by me), it's unhelpful to intervene in this way, applying double standards to the 1653 hymn and the discography. Any further discussion, if needed, should be directly with User:Narutolovehinata5 and me (or an administrator here). Mathsci (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry that you misunderstood me completely, which is probably my fault. My concern is that a recording "by someone" normally means a recording "by a conductor", not a singer. I believe that readers might understand better that a singer is the focus if they knew that the cantata is for a solo singer. But never mind if you don't think that matters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If readers don't know what the Kreuzstab cantata is, they could always read the linked article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. I'll remind you next time you tell me that a hook about an opera singer requires too much background knowledge ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know. I'm tempted to quote from Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In. Mathsci (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

There really should be page numbers for the three book references at Warring Kennedy. Pinging nominator Z1720, reviewer Esculenta, and promoter theleekycauldron. SL93 (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I see there is nothing in the rules about it, but it appears to be one of those dreaded unwritten rules. I found a 2011 discussion about hooks being pulled due to there being no page numbers. It really should be written if it's a rule and I remember Yoninah as well as others mentioning it. SL93 (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Although not required and not specified in the DYK rules, I have added the page references. In my opinion, unwritten rules should be severely eliminated (or entirely erased) because it causes an elite group to become gatekeepers and puts up barriers to new users from becoming involved in the process. Z1720 (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I mentioned this because of the multiple times that editors got on my case about it. I thought that it was a written rule. SL93 (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just found a 2020 discussion about this issue that I participated in and forgot about. From that discussion, it looks like the consensus for such a thing was divided with it more leaning toward page numbers not being needed. SL93 (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Help:References and page numbers. I've been through Peer Review, GAC, FAC, FLC and DYK. To my knowledge, none of them specify the page numbers in their rules, possibly because it's basic Wikipedia standards. But if you don't have page numbers, you will likely be required to add them before the review is passed. You might want to put Template:Wikipedia referencing on your user pages. — Maile (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I've occasionally found that when I'm accessing a book online, there aren't page numbers. valereee (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Promotion request

Just seeing if someone can promote Template:Did you know nominations/Ana Štěrba-Böhm. I reviewed it and it's one of the oldest approved nominations. SL93 (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I shall look it over and promote. Bruxton (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thoughts on hooks and sourcing

Just looking for thoughts about the hooks and sourcing at Template:Did you know nominations/In the ploughed field. Spring because the nomination is over a month old. SL93 (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Request to update Template:DYK tools for QPQ check

Hello. Template:DYK tools needs to be updated with a tool that counts all of the nominations by a nominator, not only the nominations that passed. This is due to the new update for the QPQs at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria. For example, User:SDZeroBot/DYK nomination counts.json could be used instead. The current QPQ check tool only counts the nominations that passed. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@MrLinkinPark333 This will be resolved by the version currently in Module:NewDYKnomination/sandbox. The template will print out if the nominator is exempt from QPQ or if they need to do extra. If neither of those are present then one QPQ is required. — Wug·a·po·des 22:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even simpler! Would this include the special case when there's a backlog, users with over 20 nominations need 2 QPQs? Thanks :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, that's the main reason for the change. — Wug·a·po·des 23:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

List of United States Military Academy First Captains

List of United States Military Academy First Captains.

@Szmenderowiecki: I have reverted your promotion - that's the final step in the process. I am not a reviewer on this nomination. I am one of the nominators and one of the creators of the article. You - or someone else - needs to give it a review tick. Then the bot will move it to the appropriate date on the Approved list. Another editor will eventually select it from there and promote it to prep. That's how our system works. But since we have had this misunderstanding, perhaps a more experienced editor should do the review. And I think perhaps you could use some guidance about the DYK process.@Theleekycauldron and BlueMoonset: I'm a little bit conserned that you might not understand our complete process here. — Maile (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I don't know if you've ever seen Did you know/Reviewing guide, but more is involved in a proper review, than the dialogue on the above. — Maile (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maile, Szmenderowiecki may have been confused by this edit, where you ticked the ALT1 hook with the edit summary tick alt1 per reviewer's OK. A DYK tick means that the nomination is approved, and should only ever be placed by a reviewer—the bot sees a tick and moves the nomination to the Approved page. I was confused myself until I went through the edits to the page one at a time.

The key thing is that there hasn't been a reviewer here: no one has commented on the article length, newness, neutrality, freedom from close paraphrasing/copyvio, etc. Szmenderowiecki certainly shouldn't be giving a tick without a formal and full DYK review, and a reviewer is never allowed to promote the article they have ticked. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I ticked it because he asked me to, which I misinterpreted to be he just wanted me to clarify Hawkeye's and my preferred hook. My error - I should not have done that. I took it out before the bot could act. But I agree, there has not yet been a real review done on the article. — Maile (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, let's move on. I was confused, everything is clarified by now, we are waiting for the reviewer. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've reviewed the nomination now; discussion can continue at Template:Did you know nominations/List of United States Military Academy First Captains. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:38, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination for June 11

Hi all. I am kindly asking you guys to give me some input regarding my self-nom of Gheorghe Pintilie, since the main hook (the more interesting, IMO) is tied to June 11; it's already June 5, and nobody seems to want to touch the nom. Any feedback would be appreciated. Dahn (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Dahn, your nomination has been approved by Sammi Brie. I have changed the title to highlight the date issue. Sammi, I have moved it into the Special occasion holding area. TSventon (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Than you both! Dahn (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 6 - Palestine, POV and ArbCom restrictions

This hook needs replacing in Queue 6 because the article has a NPOV tag and is not stable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

... that Khirbet el-'Ormeh is said to be the biblical Arumah, where King Abimelech resided according to Judges?

Pinging @DYK admins: . SL93 (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That was added after approval, so now that is gonna have to sit and wait a bit. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The promotor of that article has been pinged several times, see Talk:Khirbet el-'Ormeh, but has not responded. There are several deeply problematic issues with this article presently, see the talk-page, Huldra (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you want the promoter to do. Only an admin can remove the hook from the queue and the promoter isn't one. SL93 (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I am not that familiar with DYK-procedures. Anyway, as I said: the hook is (as of now) deeply flawed; there is discussions on the talk-page, but I doubt we will reach a consensus any time soon, Huldra (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DYK admins: @Huldra, SL93, Cwmhiraeth, and Sammi Brie: Temporary solution here. I swapped Khirbet el-'Ormeh from Queue 6 into prep 3, and moved "317a and 317b mummies –" from prep 3 into Queue 6. So Queue 6 is still a full set, and you all can decide about completely pulling the other one from Prep 3, if you think it's required to resolve the hook issues. — Maile (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There certainly seem to be several, of a type I would not have caught and that will require some significant work to fix. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Huldra, SL93, Cwmhiraeth, Sammi Brie, and BlueMoonset: FYI, articles on Palestine are under ArbCom restrictions: WP:PIA. What that means in real time, I think, is that POV is a possible factor. And I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about the area to notice POV slipped into an article about countries in that region. — Maile (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That is definitely my problem. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same here. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know enough either. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In light of the above POV concerns - as well as Palestine, POV and ArbCom restrictions - I have pulled the Khirbet el-'Ormeh nomination altogether, reverted its template close, and put it back under Articles created/expanded on April 30. Move it, if I put it under the wrong date. The nomination needs more discussion. — Maile (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@BlueMoonset and Wugapodes: I guess I did the revert incorrectly, but I don't know what I missed. I reverted the template back to the unapproved state 1, and relisted it back at April 30. Wugbot moved it back to Approved. 2 3. — Maile (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to also remove the File:Symbol confirmed.svg which is what WugBot looks for to decide whether to move. I don't remember the specific criteria beyond that off the top of my head but I'll look and tell you more later this evening. — Wug·a·po·des 19:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pulling it. In view of the fact that this article is on top of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Hot articles presently, I suspect we have quite a lot of work before it becomes DYK-worthy, Huldra (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The approval tick has been superseded (we shouldn't remove earlier icons), and the nomination moved from Approved to Nominations page. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Now I see what I missed doing, which was adding the subst:DYK?no tick you put on. — Maile (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 22. We currently have a total of 273 nominations, of which only 115 have been approved, a gap of 158, down 22 over the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than two months old

~~March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/AK-47 (cannabis)~~
March 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Hydroelectricity in Turkey

More than one month old

~~April 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Detention of Pavel Pernikaŭ~~
April 21: Template:Did you know nominations/2021 ban of Palestinian human rights organizations
April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/John D'Orazio
~~April 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Environmentalism of the poor (second opinion needed for hooks) Done~~
April 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Atomitat
~~April 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Nogizaka Kōjichū~~
April 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Suwałki Gap
May 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Serenidus of Saulges (three articles)
~~May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Lettieri~~
May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Ernest Muir (doctor)

Other nominations

~~May 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Jim Reeves Sings~~
May 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Yosef Shenberger
May 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Willem Thomas de Vogel
May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Squatting in Myanmar
May 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Subneolithic
~~May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/History of the Jews in Innsbruck~~
May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Mixed cities
May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Giuseppe Mariani (doctor)
~~May 13: Template:Did you know nominations/The Dakota~~
May 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Betts, Hall, Leavell and Trucks
~~May 14: Template:Did you know nominations/R2K: The Concert~~
~~May 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Ich lobe meinen Gott, der aus der Tiefe mich holt~~
May 15: Template:Did you know nominations/Robert "Sput" Searight
~~May 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Baltimore Transmission~~
May 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Eri Yukimura
May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Fest i hela huset
~~May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Yumi Nu~~
May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Enkeli-Elisa
May 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Diana Tishchenko
May 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Italy
May 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Kaoru Genji
May 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Hausman Baboe
~~May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Bob Neuwirth~~
~~May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Gheorghe Pintilie~~
May 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Auf dem Weg durch diese Nacht
~~May 22: Template:Did you know nominations/RockyNoHands~~
May 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Irving L. Branch
May 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Where Heaven and Earth Meet

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) 16:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What happened here?

I used the promoter tool by theleekycauldron to promote Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Sweden riots and it promoted the hook to the prep, but the page didn't update. The nomination page also showed "{{subst:DYKsubpage |monthyear=April 2022 |passed=yes |2=" before I even promoted the hook. I don't know how to fix it manually. SL93 (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: there was no closing tag on the {{DYKsubpage}} template- I've fixed it up for you. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I'm still confused on why that partial template was there before I even edited the page. SL93 (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, usually this means that the closing braces ("}}") that go at the bottom of the nomination page—they're initially placed on the bottom of the line immediately before the commented-out Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line. line—have been accidentally deleted by an editor at some point. Another cause can be someone using the {{DYK checklist}} template, but omitting its closing braces, so the nomination is short a pair of closing braces because of that. If you should ever see a DYKsubpage line floating above a nomination on the Nominations or Approved pages, take a look inside the nomination template for the missing closing braces; once you've added them back, the DYKsubpage line display should disappear. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only vaguely remember Leek mentioning this tool. Or I imagined it. Anyway, now I don't know where that tool is located. — Maile (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:Theleekycauldron/DYK promoter. SL93 (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thank you. I have seen this before. Just never tried it. — Maile (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Had no idea there was a promoter tool! I will have to give that a try! Thanks, Theleekycauldron! valereee (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

James F. Kelley

Does anyone know how to fix Template:Did you know nominations/James F. Kelley? The nominator used the GA review template instead of the tick, and now the nomination template wasn't closed right. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:47, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
- Done. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:16, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

prep 4

@Dunutubble and SL93:

... that Israeli diplomat Yosef Avidar (pictured) met his future wife after a grenade accident?

The article only says "Avidar lost his right hand when he was learning how to use grenades, which popularized his nickname "Amputee."[4] He was sent to Vienna for treatment where he met the future Israeli children's book author Yemima Avidar-Tchernovitz,[4] who at the time was studying at the University of Vienna." This does not say this was his wife. Perhaps clarify this in the article. — Maile (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66 I had nothing to do with that hook and I didn't know that the nomination was promoted until now. SL93 (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Yosef Avidar says you promoted it. — Maile (talk)

Crap. Sorry. I could have sworn you said Template:Did you know nominations/Avtar Singh Jouhl, but that nomination had been on my mind. Plus this is my first edit after waking up. SL93 (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Maile66 I fixed it per the reference. SL93 (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved Thanks. I've also had those "first edit after waking up ... oh, crap!" experiences. — Maile (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article was too short (1428 prose characters) after recent edits, so I've pulled the nomination from prep until the article can be expanded to required length. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

BlueMoonset I see that it became too short after I removed this uncited sentence - "Avidar was born in 1906 as Yosef Rochel in Kremenets in the Russian Empire and in what is now modern-day Ukraine." It would be 1541 characters long with that cited and I left a note on the nominator's talk page about it. They have been editing since then so hopefully the nominator can fix it. SL93 (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved --evrik ^(talk) 17:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can move it back into prep if BlueMoonset approves. SL93 (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

SL93, I'm happy with the reviewer's approval of the new sourcing and the restored material sourced by it. I think I've done enough edits to the article that I shouldn't be giving the approval myself. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nakodaji in Prep area 5

The hook Template:Did you know nominations/Nakodaji has an image attached. However, the image is not part of Prep area 5 queue. Could we please have this hook with image? Thanks and regards Pratyk321 (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, @Pratyk321, we get many more nominations with images than we can use at DYK. Most suggested images will not receive the image slot. valereee (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the image because there were quite a few building image hooks on the approved nominations page and the temple isn't even mentioned in the hook. SL93 (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Help with building preps

Can we get some help building preps? I built the last several of them and theleekycauldron is on a wikibreak. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll do one first thing tomorrow. I want try out this promoter tool! :D valereee (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It's so much better than doing it manually. SL93 (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who hasn't seen me trying to learn a new tech thingie, bring popcorn. valereee (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have fell on mostly deaf ears. SL93 (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I filled 2 preps. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have resisted doing any of the promoting in the past, because the last time I tried it, I came under withering fire from a couple of people. However, I saw an opportunity today, so I tried it again. I just filled Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. Please feel free to review what i did and improve upon it. --evrik ^(talk) 16:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nice job, evrik! a couple notes:

Pooja Sharma: the "haunted" part of the hook isn't in the prose of the article, but the citation title; my understanding is that the hook needs to be contained within the prose.
KBLE: Sammi Brie's been testing out removing the call signs from her hooks- Sammi, do you want to try that with this one or leave it alone?
Frayed at Both Ends: The hook part needs to be cited right at the end of the sentence, which it isn't here.

That's all I've got (although my dive was a little shallow)- really good work! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

KBLE kind of needs the call sign because the hook is about it — this is one of a few that need to "burn off". Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I made adjustments. --evrik ^(talk) 02:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"that Pooja Sharma (pictured) started a bakery in a reputedly haunted mansion that employs 150 women?" reads odd. Suggest "that Pooja Sharma (pictured) started a bakery that employs 150 women in a reputedly haunted mansion?"--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds reasonable. --evrik ^(talk) 21:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A huge thanks to those who helped build preps. SL93 (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

More queues are needed

We are down to one filled queue. @DYK admins: SL93 (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Load those preps up! We now have 4 filled queues. and 5 empty preps. Woohoo! — Maile (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! SL93 (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Maile66: I see that there are now five filled queues, and all the preps are full. --evrik ^(talk) 16:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1: List of United States Military Academy First Captains

I'm reopening the nomination page, so discussion can continue there.

Moved to Template:Did you know nominations/List of United States Military Academy First Captains

— Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

... that the 2021–22 West Point's Corps of Cadets First Captain Holland Pratt (pictured) is a Rhodes Scholar who will pursue two master of science degrees at the University of Oxford?

I assume, given that she doesn't have an article, Ms Pratt is not actually a notable individual. As such, it seems strange to be putting her in the picture slot and also to be focusing on her choices of university study. I mean it's obviously great that she achieved First Captain status, and then to achieve a Rhodes Scholarship, congratulations to her, but I do have a sense of "so what?" about it even so. If she were the first woman, then definitely would be significant to feature, but in fact she's the seventh so not sure that angle is necessarily compelling either. Pinging @Hawkeye7, Maile66, Narutolovehinata5, and SL93: who were involved with the nom. — Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is, if we go with a hook not mentioning her name, we'd have to drop the image, and Maile disagreed with the idea of dropping the image entirely. Otherwise, a possible back-up option could be a variant of ALT2 without mentioning Pratt, something along the lines of: "... that West Point's Corps of Cadets First Captains have included John J. Pershing and Douglas MacArthur?" Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the story of Casper H. Conrad Jr. might make an interesting hook? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Not a notable individual? Is this a gender issue? I've pinged Hawkeye7, hoping they can make you people understand. This woman has been "responsible for the overall performance of the 4,400-strong Corps of Cadets, and her duties include implementing a class agenda and acting as a liaison between the Corps and the administration" First Captain is not some low-level commission. John J. Pershing was First Captain. How many people are a Rhodes scholar, pursuing two degrees at once? Read the Comments in the list. I went to all these days/weeks of running down the data and sourcing for the Comments column, to help you all understand that these people were ALL remarkable and notable individuals. This is not high school, or some civilian fraternity/sorority club. She IS the CURRENT First Captain. How many of you here at DYK have ever been in charge of 4,400 individuals? — Maile (talk)

I'm sure she's a wonderful and accomplished person, but does she meet notability guidelines? Has she been covered in reliable sources, and has such coverage been lasting? For that matter, this has nothing to do with her sex or gender and the same question would have probably arose even if the named person was male (for the record, I actually thought her Rhodes scholarship was interesting, although coming from an academe background that could just be my personal bias). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if she is significantly notable to meet GNG, (which I'm not necessarily convinced about at the moment) then why not start an article for her and run a DYK with the image hook from that one? As I said above, she has a very accomplished resume, but it does seem like we're presenting a somewhat banal fact about her purely for the purpose of using her image on the main page, rather than because it's the best hook available for this particular article. And don't get me wrong, Rhodes Scholarships are incredibly impressive; I studied at Oxford myself and I knew one or two of them at the time, clearly they're elite and accomplished individuals even amongst students at Oxford; but as the article states, there were 101 of them last year so it's not on the same level as winning a Nobel prize, and personally I'm not convinced it's that hooky a fact to present. If others disagree, then so be it. — Amakuru (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

You really need Hawkeye7's input here. He's the primary author of the lead, and is on the other side of the world from where I am, so please give him time to see this and respond. — Maile (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is about this article, not some other, hypothetical article. Whether she is notable enough for GNG is irrelevant. It is customary for an article on a position to include an image of the incumbent. WP:NLIST: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. We have a half dozen editors who believe that the hook is fine, and my experience with similar image hooks is that it will attract a reasonable number of page views. The other ALT is available (and uses no image) but the image hook is our preferred hook. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that GNG isn't a factor- that's more of a sideshow. The issue is, as Amakuru points out, that achieving interestingness through raw impressiveness is hard, and even very impressive people still don't quite get to having that accomplishment be hooky. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) @Hawkeye7: As far as I can tell, the discussion of whether or not she is notable is relevant. In fact, it seems that Amakuru's objection isn't even the image, it's Pratt being mentioned in the hook at all, or indeed the actual hook fact itself (i.e. Pratt being a Rhodes Scholar). They seemed unconvinced that the hook was appropriate because they had doubts on if Pratt was notable enough to be the focus of the hook in the first place (image or no image). As the reviewer, I do think the hook was fine and appropriate (I have no opinion on the image and I would defer decisions on that to the promoter). I would just like to clarify that the discussion about the image did not seem to be Amakuru's intention, but rather, if the hook was appropriate to begin with. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC there was an agreement here that unlinked names were not appropriate for hooks. I think I proposed this be incorporated into C1, but this was never implemented. So the question then isn't actually whether someone is notable precisely, but whether they have an article (redlinks not being allowed). CMD (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I oppose it being a firm rule because some interesting hooks would not work as well without the red-linked person being mentioned. I guess it could be at most a guideline, where it's generally discouraged but not outright prohibited. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru, Narutolovehinata5, Maile66, and Hawkeye7: Holland Pratt was created recently by Billmckern – someone want to assess DYK eligibility for a double hook, maybe? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with a double hook, but if we go with some variant of the original wording, it will need to be reworded to avoid a sea of blue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

With that said, that would still depend on whether or not Pratt actually meets notability guidelines. Given some of the concerns raised above, an AFD discussion to test consensus may be worth considering. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I would be fine with a double hook, but otherwise have a COI in regarding reviewing the nomination - evidenced by the List article history. I would also like to say something here. We at DYK tend to discuss anything and everything in long threads. Some who participated come to believe this or that thing was agreed upon. Inbetween yesterday and today, I went through all three of our rules dictates: Introduction and rules, Supplementary rules and Reviewing guide. I found nothing in any of those to back the above complaints. If you believe otherwise, please link where it is.— Maile (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)I can propose a new double hook, but I need someone to pull the article from the queue first. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@DYK admins: This is in Queue 1. — Maile (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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.

Renomination

I recommend that a DYK nomination that is subsequently amended with an entirely different hook should be treated as a new nomination, effective the date of the amendment. Per WP:DYKCRIT, nominations must be made within seven days of an article creation, but allowing different hooks to be considered after the original nomination date allows the amended hook to be published long after it became ineligible, or even relevant for main page inclusion. I find this episode troubling.[2] soibangla (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hooks are not nominated, articles are. Hooks being revised or even replaced is completely standard. I recommend reverting your edit, all that does is mess with an archived page. CMD (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what's going on here. --evrik ^(talk) 15:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The article literally ran yesterday, removing it from an archive of a page won't change that. Whether it should have run or not is a different, but now irrelevant, question. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
WTF, indeed. --evrik ^(talk) 15:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if editors address the recommendation I've made to prevent a future DYK from reaching the main page that was ineligible on the date it was nominated, as noted in bold at WP:DYKCRIT, and should have been closed on the spot. The original hook was rejected as trivial and unworthy of main page inclusion, but editors chose to ignore this in bold policy to, a month later, significantly change the hook to a questionable statement about an individual that can be misconstrued by many readers (that they were her own words is irrelevant). If some are unfamiliar with the subject of the article in question, she was subjected to an intense smear campaign, including allegations she is a leftist disinformation agent who was appointed to run a government agency to spy on Americans. This should have never happened and should never happen again. soibangla (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Soibangla:, looking at Template:Did you know nominations/Nina Jankowicz, it was two days late. That has been an acceptable margin in the past. Someone decided to go ahead and review it. The edit you made here was akin to vandalism. It's time to Wikipedia:DROPTHESTICK. --evrik ^(talk) 16:45, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There must be a reason the policy is in bold. That was my second edit to this topic, as a follow up, to keep the topic on track. I am not bludgeoning or seeking to create a conflict, so please do not tell me the drop the stick. But seeing as you have now raised the temperature of this discussion, I will now drop it. soibangla (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A technical term is not jargon, or Q7

I replied to a thread "The use of technical terms and jargon in hooks", fell asleep over the wording, and woke up to it archived.

I'm still unhappy about the equation of technical term = jargon. Technical terms are the professional way to speak about a thing, and using unprofessional wording has a tendency to make a thing awkward. To stay with the example: the professional "created the role" was not used but "originated the role" for Theo Lebow, now in Q7. The phrase "originated a role" seems to be commonly used for play and musical. In opera, professional books use "created the role" [3], sometimes a few times on one page (including "of Carmen"). Our own File:Henri-Lucien Doucet - Carmen.jpg says so. A proper technical term is a good term to be used, it's not jargon. Please change. In this case, "in the world premiere" was even added, avoiding possible misunderstanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the term "created" in this sense is listed on some dictionaries, it's not the most commonly-known definition of the word. As Chipmunkdavis said, the term "create" has a much more commonly-known meaning (i.e. to start or invent something). Insisting on using the term "create" in the sense of "first to portray" could cause confusion among readers who may be unfamiliar with this sense of the term. As for the mention of the world premiere, I don't think that helps much. Readers could assume that the role was invented for that particular world premiere, as opposed to simply Lebow being the first to ever play that role. It would be like saying "Lin-Manuel Miranda created the role of Alexander Hamilton in the premiere of the musical Hamilton". True according to that particular definition of "create". However, readers unfamiliar with that sense of "create" might (wrongly) assume that Miranda invented the character of Alexander Hamilton for the musical's premiere, which is not the case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This comment really betrays a one-dimensional understanding of the nature of the performing arts. The fact is that a role (in an opera, say) isn't brought into being by the composer and librettist only. They set out the words and the music, but at the point the role is still just on paper, in a state of suspension, waiting to be brought to life. It is only when the performer (called -- bear in mind -- an "artist") first gives breath to the role, and an audience first hears it, that the process of creation is complete:

Dorothy Sayers, in her excellent book, The Mind of the Maker, divides creative activity into three stages: the idea, the implementation, and the interaction. A book, then, or a computer, or a program comes into existence first as an ideal construct, built outside time and space, but complete in the mind of the author. It is realized in time and space, by pen, ink, and paper, or by wire, silicon, and ferrite. The creation is complete when someone reads the book, uses the computer, or runs the program, thereby interacting with the mind of the maker.

(That's a personal hero of mine, Fred Brooks, writing is his classic The Mythical Man-Month.) The first artist to take on a given role typically establishes a benchmark against which subsequent performances are measured. Their performance is in a real sense part of the creation, the invention, of the role. E Eng 18:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In sports, would you say the common term should be avoided and replaced by a word from let's say business, because some readers might misunderstand? - I think "in the premiere" is clearly different from "for the premiere". We can educate readers. (On top of that we don't have to say it all in a hook, - leave room for the article.)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

That's right. Music hooks can't say that a song was a "hit", because there's no actual striking involved, and can't that an athlete has "scored" because there are no scratches or incisions involved. E Eng 03:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In hooks in general, I would say that if a word - any word - were a technical term so obscure as to be inconveniently ambiguous, you would need to either link it to an explanatory article (or Wiktionary?) or not use it. If "create (the role)" and "originate (the role)" are found to be problematic for whatever reason, then what about "premiere" (the role)? It's not English at its most elegant, but the general reader would understand it to mean that the performer was the first to perform it on stage, but it carries no suggestion that the performer wrote the piece.

Note: the hook being referred to here is ... that tenor Theo Lebow originated the roles of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Pablo Picasso in the world premiere of the opera 27? As I write, it is in Q7. So an improved hook might be: ... that tenor Theo Lebow premiered the roles of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Pablo Picasso in the first performance of opera 27? Storye book (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I disagree. "premiered in the first performance" is redundant. If "created" seems a problem - which I don't think it is - we could use the wording from the article "appeared in the world premiere". We should not use "originated" because that is not professional when talking about opera roles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How about simply "... that tenor Theo Lebow performed the roles of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Pablo Picasso in the world premiere of the opera 27?" It basically has the same idea as the original hook, except it replaces "create" with the intended meaning in a more obvious way (i.e. that Lebow performed these roles at the opera's world premiere). It also gives the main idea in a less ambiguous way. Admittedly it does lose some context: it doesn't say outright that Lebow was the first to ever play these roles. But given that "world premiere" is already given in the hook, it can probably be easily inferred. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
that's another good solution, thank you - just for next time: opera singers also don't "play", another unprofessional term --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Goddam it, this micromanaging of hooks as if they're article text is really beginning to piss me off. Hooks are allowed to be puzzling, intriguing, slightly outside the reader's understanding. Created the role is perfectly good wording for a general audience anyway, but even if it was somehow unknown to some segment of our readers, THAT'S OK. They'll click to learn more. EEng 14:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense EEng#s Bruxton (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I try to say that but you are much more expressive! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Well said. Can we put this in the rules, to expand/supplement 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 – as long as they don't misstate the article content. MB 14:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What's wrong with using "performed the role in the premiere"? Sure hooks are allowed to be slightly vague if it's to entice readers, but it shouldn't come at the expense of causing confusion. If "create" didn't have any other meaning and its only official definition was the one being described here, then that would be no problem. The problem is that "create" already has a well-known definition, and using it with a less well-known definition could cause confusion. Using "performed" in this sense resolves the ambiguity. We want our hooks to be as easily understandable as possible, not make them baffling. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
What wrong with it is that we're wasting editor time, dumbifying the hook, and denying the reader the chance to learn a new connotation of create, all because of a baseless concern.
it shouldn't come at the expense of causing confusion – what confusion? If this was an advertisement for a performance, and it induced people to pay for something that wasn't what they expected, that would be confusion. But this is a hook designed to induce people to click. OK, so they click and learn a new meaning to a word. Big deal.

not make them baffling – Seriously, it's OK for a hook to be baffling (in the sense of perplexing). Some people like stuff like that. And maybe some people don't, but it's up to the hooker to balance those possibilities.

This talk of create having a well-known definition or an official definition is just gibberish. What's "official"? Words have multiple denotations and connotations, and we employ them in the beautiful, rich full range of those. This isn't Simple Wikipedia. As long as a hook is not false on its face to a reasonably intelligent and informed reader, it's OK.

It's called a "hook" by analogy to a fishhook -- baited to get the fish to bite. Obviously the fish doesn't know what he's getting when he does that. Surprise! That's how it's supposed to work. Now please stop all this handwringing. E Eng 17:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly: in this particular hook, we have space for "performed the roles in the world premiere" (we need "world" because "premiere" alone is more ambiguous than "create"). However, in a longer hook, it would be preferable to just say "created the roles", several characters shorter, and those who don't get in the hook what is meant will see in the article, as EEng said so well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been stated that there are two meanings of "created" so there is no error with the original hook. SL93 (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Jesus, what a waste of time this is. E Eng 17:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Nutshell

This has grown to interesting (and long) by now. No to the ~~current~~ hook:

Theo Lebow]] originated the roles ... in the world premiereN - the term is not common for opera, rather for musical and plays
Theo Lebow performed the roles ... in the world premiereY - as suggested by Narutolovehinata5
Theo Lebow created the rolesY ... - most concise
Theo Lebow appeared as ... in the world premiereY - also concise
Theo Lebow premiered the roles ... in the world premiereN - redundant information, and "premiered" alone is not common for opera singers, used for works and productions
Theo Lebow played the roles ... in the world premiereN - the term ignores that they mostly sing
Theo Lebow sang the roles ... in the world premiereN - the term ignores that they also play

We found an admin for this time, - it's now "performed", but this may be helpful for the next round. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Slight wording change in lead hook for Q6

Before it goes live, can we change the "that" in the lead hook (about the US infant formula shortage) to "who" so it sounds less impersonal? Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds like a good idea to me. SL93 (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I linked to this at ERRORS and it has been taken care of. SL93 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Atomitat and Mechanitis

Hello all, I am a bit flummoxed regarding the Template:Did you know nominations/Atomitat... It was in, then it was pulled out by an admin, then it was back in, now it is in some kind of nowhere land. It seems to me there is agreement to proceed on a hook but maybe it needs some kind of additional green tick? I also have another languishing hook, Template:Did you know nominations/Mechanitis. I know we say there are WP:DEADLINEs but that is just an essay and I do not think it applies to everything on the project. We do have deadlines - like our 7 days to nominate deadline. I have started to say "I withdraw" on hooks because they are in some kind of limbo for too long. Anyway, that it my hump day rant. Have a nice day everyone! Bruxton (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, I think people are a bit scared of reviewing nominations that have a lot of text in them. I think the reviewer for the Mechanitis nomination has been busy, so I went ahead and reviewed it. If you're sure you'd like to withdraw that one, you can let me know and I'll undo my review. The image is stunning, though; would be a shame if we didn't run it. Urve (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes sometimes the ones I think are great for DYK get stuck. The look of that chrysalis was the whole reason I expanded that article. Regarding Atomitat, Amakuru can you help the process by reviewing the hook? Bruxton (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Empty prep set?

Per this old thread [4] it was requested that prep builders leave the last one empty and hold off building for a while if five are full, I think to give room for any swaps that need to be made etc. Currently Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3 is the last prep set and is completely full, so just wanted to check if the above is still the guidance, and to remind prep builders about it if so. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it is a hard and fast guideline; it is just a common consensus which prep-builders usually follow. Occasionally, there is no harm in filling/half-filling the last prep. Especially when a lot of times, we have many empty queues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

[1] which comes out to either 5,000 views for a 12-hour cycle or 10,000 views for a 24-hour cycle

[2] t used to just be Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics, but I moved everything to subpages because it was proving to be pretty clunky.

[3] Followed, from experience, by the button sometimes not working, and having to figure out what went wrong in 300+ lines of code, and cursing out theleekycauldron for not just doing it manually before finding the misplaced parenthesis in the code or the bad manual formatting in the stats page.

[a]

[b]

[c]