Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Dying (talk | contribs) at 12:32, 14 March 2023 (→‎Prep 3: Millennial pause (nom): add comment). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

Samuel Iling-Junior and Dean Huijsen

The Samuel Iling-Junior article needs to be approved, its last comment was written two weeks ago and no one could/wanted to approve. Can anyone do so?

The Dean Huijsen article was approved on 24 February but hasn't appeared yet on Main Page. What problems does Huijsen have? Dr Salvus 11:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dr Salvus, DYK is only publishing one set a day at the moment, so it takes longer for nominations to move through the system.
Template:Did you know nominations/Samuel Iling-Junior was approved (given a green tick) on 19 February, the next step is for it to be promoted to a preparation set. A delay of two weeks between approval and promotion is not unusual. The nomination includes an image and each preparation set only has one hook with an image, so it may take a little longer to promote.
Template:Did you know nominations/Dean Huijsen is in Template:Did you know/Queue/7 and should appear on the main page on 7 March, or sooner if we move to 2 sets a day before then. The preps and queues are listed at Template:Did you know/Queue. TSventon (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr Salvus, it's not unusual for hooks to take weeks or longer after approval to be slotted into a prep. You can see at Template_talk:Did_you_know/Approved#Approved_nominations. Valereee (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance requested for a hook wording for a nomination

Template:Did you know nominations/Ywet Nu Aung is currently stuck owing to issues with an appropriate hook wording. The nominator is having difficulty in proposing a hook that would satisfy reviewers. As such, assistance with coming up with a suitable hook would be appreciated. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:04, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5 Looks like we have a new hook from CMD that is both central to the story and avoids the minefields of the previous hook candidates. Could you please review the new hook inside the template? Cielquiparle (talk) 09:25, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This was only a request for help, I was not intending to review the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:10, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7: Hurricane Henri (nom)

This is rather boring hook, mostly because for virtually every hurricane, it's true that workers came from other states to help put the power grid back together. All the utilities (power, phone, etc) have reciprocal agreements with each other to send workers and equipment to other areas to help out in emergencies. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:37, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pings to @Tails Wx, RAJIVVASUDEV, and Bruxton – back to the drawing board :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Alrighty then. The dictionary definition of a camel is a horse designed by a committee at Wiktionary. Bruxton (talk) 01:01, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How about ALT2: During Hurricane Henri, a tree fell on a 300-year-old home in Auburn, Massachusetts? NBC Boston
Not sure if this is a good hook, though... so I'll throw in ALT3 as well:
During Hurricane Henri, Central Park set a hourly rainfall record of 1.94 inches? New York Times Tails Wx 01:07, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
IMO ALT2 is more interesting. RV (talk) 02:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i thought i might offer an alternative take of Tails Wx's alt3.

alt3a: ... that Hurricane Henri, a minimal category 1 hurricane, set a rainfall record in New York City's Central Park?

dying (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith@Dying@Bruxton FWIW, I like alt3a proposed by dying. Cielquiparle (talk) 16:10, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thumbs up Great! Bruxton (talk) 16:58, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith Will you be able to update this hook at Queue 7 before it goes live in less than three hours, or do we need another admin to do it? Cielquiparle (talk) 21:15, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. My apologies for the delay; I've been operating on a restricted wiki-schedule recently. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:19, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a while ago, so I've created a new list of all 26 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through the end of February. Including the 69 nominations on the Approved page that can’t transclude there due to length limits, we have a total of 305 nominations, of which 186 have been approved, a gap of 119 nominations that has decreased by 15 in the past couple of weeks. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:36, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Move protection discussion on WP:VPR

In the course of getting approval for my move-protection bot, the question came up as to whether there is broad enough consensus to do this at all. Please see WP:VPR#Move protection for WP:DYK articles?. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prep set 6

I downloaded the DYK tools and I added three hooks to prep 6. I thought it best to come here in case someone wants to check my work. Thank you all. Lightburst (talk) 20:39, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome @Lightburst to the wonderful world of DYK hook promotion! Cielquiparle (talk) 00:48, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Cielquiparle: ! I am sure I will need some help but I am checking the hooks and sources and doing a second review in the process. And wow - the tools for checking DYK eligibility and the promotion tool are super! Lightburst (talk) 00:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the words of Axl Rose "Welcome to the Jungle". Bruxton (talk) 02:54, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Lightburst Points for awe of the tools! We have @Shubinator to thank for DYK check and the multi-talented @Theleekycauldron for PSHAW, without which #visualeditors like me wouldn't participate in hook promotion. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:16, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3 Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study

Moving this query from my user Talk page:

Sorry to trouble you, Cielquiparle, but I had a question about Template:Did you know nominations/Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study now in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3; is there a problem with the image for that article? Or the caption? If so, please let me know and I'll do my best to fix. HLHJ (talk) 00:24, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@HLHJ Submitting an image to DYK does not guarantee that it will run. Cielquiparle (talk) 00:36, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, okay. I hadn't had that happen before. It's a pity, in some ways that image is more representative of the article subject than the hook is. Thank you for the reply. HLHJ (talk) 00:55, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HLHJ At this point, I would just be grateful that the DYK submission wasn't rejected after lingering for four months – it's really thanks to @Flibirigit's patience and willingness to re-review in such detail so many times that it finally got over the line. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:58, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. If I'd known how much work it was going to take, I would not have nominated it. HLHJ (talk) 18:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HLHJ Some topics are more challenging than others. Thanks for your hard work as well. On the bright side, maybe it's a shorter path now to GA...! Cielquiparle (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Cielquiparle! I've been meaning to do a GA sometime, just to learn best practices... I thought I might start on something non-controversial, like pavement light. I've got too much else going on just now, but I'm sure your advice is good! HLHJ (talk) 18:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Stats queries

Lisa holding a sketch book

Hi, and hoping it's the right place, this may be the first time I had to post any questions re. DYK. Two linked queries about understanding how well a hook did, no urgency, just when someone doing stats has a moment:
1) I had a nomination reach the Main Page for Women's Day yesterday, Template:Did you know nominations/Lisette Olivera, and it is now posted to STATS. But the link alongside it in the statistics table gives one number (21,211 views, I think), while the table shows another, is it 20,571. Just out of interest, is this because of some difference in time zones?
2) The nomination was approved as a text, non-leading, item, and appeared that way for the first 12.5 or 13.5 hours. Then, for some reason, it was moved up to the lead slot, and its picture brought into use for the remaining part of the day. In terms of long-term recording (which I see is split between Leading and Non-Leading hooks), how is it considered?
Thanks, SeoR (talk) 13:52, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

hey there, SeoR! The difference between the two viewcounts is background views – some articles, particularly articles on popular topics, will attract some viewers to the page independently of the DYK spike. To adjust for that in determining the final viewcount, we look at how many views the article gets in the days surrounding its Main Page appearance, and subtract those out from the total. What's left is, presumably, roughly the number of views it gets as a function of DYK. The function that maintains the stats page, vandyke, only looks at the set as stored in the archives – so in this case, it'd be counted as a lead slot hook. There's not really any difference, except that lead hooks tend to have a much higher viewcount. Thanks for the question! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:31, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, theleekycauldron, that's a comprehensive answer, and now that you mention it, I remember something about this average background viewing deduction from when I restarted with DYK a year or two back, I just had not quite seen how it worked in reality (I don't always check my DYKs' views). And thanks for your advice on that nom; it had a good run, and it was a nice fit for the 8th of March. SeoR (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
SeoR, the original picture hook had to be replaced as there were concerns about licensing of that image that only arose after it had been posted. Hence the swap partway through the day. Schwede66 22:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that, good to know, and I certainly have no objection, the article I offered had a good image with a clean licence, so I am glad it was able to step in. The other image was striking but appeared to be a digital rendering of a photo or some such (it still showed the edge of some surface), so I guess it had some copyright complexities (that whole area is a nightmare I avoid, but I do know someone who works the image permissions queue, a tough gig, as even people willing to donate apparently don't always get it right). SeoR (talk) 23:46, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't jump to conclusions that might not be right (appeared to be a digital rendering of a photo or some such (it still showed the edge of some surface)), SeoR. The photo that appears to have been the basis for the painting (this was linked to in the discussion) does not have the edge that you are referring to. As it happens, I'll be staying at the artist's place over the weekend; I shall ask her what the backstory is. If I remember correctly, this artwork hangs in her living room; I've stayed with her before. Schwede66 00:29, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'll strike out that speculation, not my business / area of knowledge. I was not aware of any discussion (nor who was involved), only that sometime late in the day things had changed with my submission, and when I looked back I saw the timing. When I first checked the main page, I noticed that rather striking image, but it was only an impression re. its nature, and again, all respect to the artist / contributor(s), I'm sure all was done in the best of faith. I know how thoroughly DYKs are checked, and so the action was precautionary, given the exacting standards of the main page, and not in any way conclusive. Thanks again, SeoR (talk) 00:45, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Time to move to two sets a day

We are supposed to switch DYK from one main-page set per day to two when we reach or exceed 120 approved nominations and also reach or exceed 10 filled queues and preps combined. At the moment, there are 6 filled queues and 5 filled preps, and the Count of DYK Hooks table shows 241 hooks, 124 of which are Verified/Approved.

In actuality, the Count is an undercount, since we have so many approved nominations on the Approved page that they are only being transcluded through February 26; the 58 approved nominations that can't be transcluded because doing so would exceed the maximum length of the page aren't counted by the bot. The Count should be 299 total hooks, 182 of which are approved.

The changeover needs to be done shortly after midnight UTC and not before—if you do it immediately, the bot will promote the next set immediately, which would be very bad. I haven't seen any special occasion hooks that need to be moved: we had a big batch of them on March 8, and the next ones in the special occasions section aren't for another two weeks. To do the changeover, an admin needs to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200. Thanks in advance to the admin who does this eight hours (or more) from now. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:14, 9 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Please say if anything needs a reshuffle. Schwede66 00:22, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you @BlueMoonset and Schwede66:. Is there any way of dealing with the impact of the maximum length of the Approved page? Could we increase the maximum length? Could a bot count all the approved hooks including untranscluded ones? Should the issue be mentioned at WP:DYKROTATE? TSventon (talk) 08:06, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, it's a bit annoying when the page gets overloaded. It stops working beyond a set number of transclusions; that's hardcoded into the Wiki software, I believe. Schwede66 09:23, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is not the number of transclusions per se, but the "post-expand include size", which is indeed hardcoded. If we wanted to work around this, we'd probably need to stop putting everything inside {{DYKsubpage}}. —Kusma (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not a tech expert, but it would probably help a lot to replace the call to {{category handler}} inside {{DYKsubpage}} by a direct if statement that places the category if and only if we are in the talk namespace. —Kusma (talk) 09:42, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith, BlueMoonset, Kusma, and Theleekycauldron: who were involved in a previous discussion of the transclusion problem in January at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 189#Update to rotation rules. TSventon (talk) 11:05, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
My take on this is that our process is sub-optimal in two distinct ways.
First, smashing all the nominations together into one big pile isn't the best way to present the menu of possible hooks to prep builders. When I'm building a prep, all I really want to see (at least for the initial pass) is a summary of each approved nomination. The article title, approved hooks, possibly an image, some filtering information (i.e. biography, US-centric, quirky), and any special information like "hold for a specific date". There should of course be a one-click way to see the full nomination if you want to dive into the detailed discussions.
Second, if we're going to adjust our publishing cadence, we should do it based on some logical editorial criteria. It would be reasonable, for example to aim for no nomination languishing for more than N weeks after being approved. What's not reasonable is having an arbitrary software limitation drive our editorial decisions; "We need to publish more because if we don't, transclusion breaks". That's like a newspaper deciding to increase the page count because they've run out of room on the loading dock to store newsprint. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:32, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder if there should be a separate "quarantine" area for nominations that have been approved once but still require additional work (on the hook, the article itself, or both). We currently clog up the "Approved" page with hooks that are essentially unusable for the time being. Cielquiparle (talk) 14:43, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they should definitely be filtered out. That's part of what I was heading towards with DYK Tools, but got distracted by the move-protect project. On the bright side, it's looking like that distraction will resolve itself soon. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Shouldn't they be moved back to the unapproved nomination page? CMD (talk) 14:47, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis Are we supposed to move them back to WP:DYKN manually if they were approved once but still require more work before they can be promoted? I've only ever noticed @BlueMoonset moving the templates back, so I wasn't sure. (There's a grey area as well, with some articles at "Approved" where issues are actively being addressed, where I definitely wouldn't bother moving back and forth.) Cielquiparle (talk) 15:23, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That is my understanding. It makes life easier for the promoters, as it leaves DYKA with only the ready to go hooks as intended. CMD (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Chipmunkdavis, while it would definitely make life easier, I don't think there's any understanding, written or otherwise, that promoters or reviewers should be spending their time doing that manually. That's probably something that can be bot work. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:06, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Wugapodes could add the moving back from Approved to WugBot, which currently does the moves to Approved. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: I think we've floated that before, but Wug's pretty busy these days. The code is MIT licensed, I could always clone it and run it in reverse on GalliumBot? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:04, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, it'd probably be easier if I forked the whole thing, but i dunno. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:05, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
So, I've been looking at implementing this. Turns out, my existing code has been mis-identifying approved nominations because I've been relying on pywikibot's Page.imagelinks(), which it turns out doesn't do what I thought it did. Looking at the WugBot code, I see Wug used a different strategy which seems to work better.
We really need to move towards having a standard library of reusable components which work on DYK objects such as nominations. Then we won't have each bot author needing to roll their own code to do stuff like parse nomination templates.
Anyway, I'm going to update my code to match Wug's strategy and take a whack at something that moves unapproved nominations out of WP:DYKNA back to WP:DYKN. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What's not reasonable is having an arbitrary software limitation drive our editorial decisions. What a good thing that this wasn't the reason we changed at all: we went to two per day because we had exceeded the agreed-upon limit of 120 approved nominations while having ten or more full sets on the queues page, a situation that, by consensus, indicates that such a change takes place. And when we drop below 60 approved or six full sets, we'll change again, regardless of whether the transclusion issue on the Approved page has resolved itself. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:00, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Or maybe not. Removing the category handler didn't seem to do much, assuming my purges did indeed work. Strange. Any transclusion experts? —Kusma (talk) 14:50, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added a sentence to WP:DYKROTATE: The approved nominations page (WP:DYKNA) has a maximum size limit so it will sometimes not display or count the latest nominations. Please improve (or remove) as necessary. TSventon (talk) 11:10, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Judith Marquet-Krause

Could someone please promote Judith Marquet-Krause to Prep 4? (The article was previously demoted after close paraphrasing was discovered with an article which turned out to have been translated into English from non-English Wikipedia, but has been since reworked and checked.) Cielquiparle (talk) 12:29, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle:  Done Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:05, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Private Peaceful

Could someone please promote Private Peaceful to the last slot remaining at Prep 6? Cielquiparle (talk) 02:44, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Cielquiparle: Done Lightburst (talk) 02:59, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3 ... ... is not a mistake

... ... it is deliberate use of the little-known "double ellipses" in the quirky hook slot, discussed in epic detail in Template:Did you know nominations/Millennial pause where @dying was pushing boundaries in exploring every typographical option available on wiki ... props to @Hameltion who suggested it, the sharp-eyed @BorgQueen for being the first proofreader to question it and to @Theleekycauldron for commenting it in so that we can minimize further proofing wars... which may very well start all over again when it hits the main page ... Cielquiparle (talk) 08:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh gawd. It's a WP:ERRORS complaints magnet. BorgQueen (talk) 08:35, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
we'll leave a similar message at WP:ERRORS before anyone gets there, and I've left a comment in the wikitext. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:57, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, we should increase the protection level so that other admins can’t balls it up. Schwede66 15:02, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can't wait to see what kind of hook we get for Gen Z shake. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
haha, yeah, i was trying to figure out how to get css text animation to work in a hook, but couldn't figure out how to define keyframes on wikipedia. hook alt1a was my attempt to emulate the gen z shake statically. dying (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced by the article itself, though. It could really be a dictionary definition for a bit of trivia, much of it is conjecture, half of it isn't actually about the subject, and it uses the phrase "zoomer" five times without defining it. Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Highway that is still under construction

Is it OK to publish an article about a highway that is still under construction on the main page? Large public infrastructure projects that are "in planning" or "in development" seem like political footballs...and there is always the odd project that is either abandoned or isn't completed for decades. Or is it case by case? Anyway, I wasn't comfortable with the proposed hook for: Antananarivo–Toamasina toll highway about the benefits in terms of reduced travel times (without any qualification or hedging). Cc: @Red-tailed hawk @Juxlos Cielquiparle (talk) 13:13, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is. I don't see why the subject matter itself would not warrant the main page; this is something where ground has already been broken and construction is already underway. The shortening times are derived from the fact that the road will be paved (as opposed to the current dirt roads) and that there will be a relatively high speed limit; none of this seems particularly exceptional. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:18, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
OK, then at minimum it would need a hedge – "projected to be" "expected to be" - etc. It's not confirmed until it's confirmed and the reduced driving times shouldn't be guaranteed in wikivoice "will". Cielquiparle (talk) 13:19, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've proposed a new hook. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 13:28, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Cielquiparle that we should change "will" to "expected to". After all, it's about 3 years until it opens, and things could change in that time. Expected to is consistent with how most articles on future events are written on Wiki. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:35, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption suggestion: Del Riley

Template:Did you know nominations/Del Riley (clerk) has seen no action since February 22, and the nominator has not edited since. Hopefully someone is willing to help. It would be ashame to reject the nomination when it needs only minor work, and a citation for birth and death. Flibirigit (talk) 15:25, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption successful. Flibirigit (talk) 20:15, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1 Gimix

Could someone please promote Gimix to Prep 1 if it looks ok? (Bruxton reviewed and then I wrote a new hook, which was approved by another editor.) Cielquiparle (talk) 16:02, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done, I will check it out. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a limit on how soon the same article can be nominated to DYK?

Nominated Seongsu Bridge disaster when it was seven days old (set to appear on DYK in 2 days) and its just gotten through GA review...would it be within reason for me to submit another hook or would that be against the spirit of DYK? :3 F4U (talk) 19:48, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:DYKCRIT 1c, "An article is ineligible for DYK if it has previously appeared on the main page as bold link at DYK." Eddie891 Talk Work 19:50, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oop thank you, I thought I read something about this somewhere before. Slightly embarrassed for asking now. :3 F4U (talk) 19:52, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! We're all learning here Eddie891 Talk Work 20:06, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3: Millennial pause (nom)

@dying, Hameltion, and Cielquiparle: Black Kite's comment about the issue with this page seems to be serious, but isn't getting page traction, so I'll repost it in a new section:

I'm not convinced by the article itself, though. It could really be a dictionary definition for a bit of trivia, much of it is conjecture, half of it isn't actually about the subject, and it uses the phrase "zoomer" five times without defining it. Black Kite (talk) 19:24, 12 March 2023 (UTC)

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:33, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it's a great article, but as far as I can see, it meets DYK standards. Many of the sources are marginal, but there are enough solid ones that I can't imagine this getting deleted at AfD. I added a link for zoomer. Many of the citations use {{cite web}} when they should be using {{cite news}}, but that's not a DYK fail. I tried to fix the citation to "The Times" to add location=London, but was stymied by the use of {{R}}; the documentation therein asserts that it makes the citations easier to read and maintain, which apparently uses a meaning of "easier" that I was previously unaware of. But that's also not a DYK fail. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:58, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
as a technicality, if the article is tagged with {{Content}}, that does constitute a DYK fail – if the article goes into excessively irrelevant detail, that would be something that needs to be fixed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:27, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Am I missing something? I'm not seeing a {{Content}} tag. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:51, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(Reviewer here) There was a {{Coatrack section}} tag added by another editor during the review - I removed it because comments by the nominator, and my own rereading, seemed to address the concerns. I realize it may have been out of order for me to do both things, but the section seems harmless enough to me. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:10, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i am presuming that "conjecture" refers to the "Theory" section. from what i can tell, it's not much different from the explanations included in other wikipedia articles about phenomena, and the two theories i described are widely reported in reliable sources, so i thought it would be inappropriate to leave them out of the article. the "Millennials online" section, which is the section that previously had a coatrack tag, was added after i realized that virtually all reliable sources that discussed the millennial pause in depth also mentioned a number of other online behavioural habits associated with millennials, so not expanding on this seemed to be doing a disservice to our readers.
i originally had a footnote defining zoomers, but another editor removed it; following Black Kite's comment, i've restored it. dying (talk) 04:39, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Question - Are there currently any outstanding concerns that should prevent Prep 3 (which includes this) from being promoted to Queue 3? - Aoidh (talk) 08:08, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aoidh: in general, we don't hold up the whole queue when one of the hooks in prep has an issue – either it gets pulled, bumped to a later prep, or pushed on through to queue with faith that it'll be fixed before showtime. In this case, I'm not sure how this is going to play out yet, so I would recommend either the second or the last option. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron: Thanks, I looked at it and I didn't see anything super glaring so I've gone with the last option, but I don't mind if someone comes behind me and adjusts that. There were 2 empty queues and 0 empty preps but I wanted to check before acting on it. - Aoidh (talk) 08:20, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just another thing - it says " The practice of including such a pause is generally ascribed to millennials, a group often defined to include people born in the 1980s or 1990s" and yet one of the two images is of Jennifer Coolidge, who was born in 1961! Black Kite (talk) 10:00, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Black Kite, i'm glad you noticed! that was actually intentional, to quickly show readers that the term readily applies to pauses in videos by people other than millennials, and to emphasize that "generally ascribed to" does not mean "only exhibited by". did it have the intended effect? would you have done it differently? dying (talk) 12:32, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Review needed on four-month-old nomination

A review is needed at Template:Did you know nominations/Woman to Woman (campaign). The nomination is almost four months old, has a hook that has not had a review, and two sections were added to the article since the initial review. Flibirigit (talk) 02:03, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Done - gtg. I will use the QPQ tomorrow. Johnbod (talk) 02:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3: Swivel weave

Queue 3: Swivel weave (nom)

  • @RAJIVVASUDEV, Mindmatrix, and Cielquiparle: I was checking through Queue 3 and noticed that the reference doesn't quite seem to match the hook. The hook is "... that the origins of swivel weaving can be traced back to the Ming dynasty of China?" but the reference just says The weavers of Ming times...mastered a swivel weaving method (zhuanghua) making use of... it doesn't say anything about the technique having originated from that area or time period, just that they mastered a version of the technique. Am I overlooking something in the reference? - Aoidh (talk) 08:38, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch @Aoidh. (And huge congratulations BTW to Wikipedia's newest admin!) Proposing as an alternative:
Cielquiparle (talk) 09:50, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Heinz Schwarz

My focus on Recent deaths has worked nicely so far, but Heinz Schwarz was not successful - they wanted more detail of his achievements but - these having been in the 1970s - I couldn't find much. He could go to DYK, I think, created 7 March, having been one of two people who attended all his party's conventions from the first ever in 1950. qpq Template:Did you know nominations/Scaramouche (Milhaud). Help welcome, as the next two are already waiting. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1144572665"