Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

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

alternative pages of approved nominations

as wp:dykna has now exceeded the peis limit (and i acknowledge that i am partially responsible), i wanted to follow up on my earlier suggestion of creating twelve alternative pages each transcluding approved nominations from a specific month. i thought i might provide some code to show how this could be easily implemented. to avoid cluttering this page, i have placed my code in an invisible comment underneath this bunny: .

if this seems like a good idea, i think it would make sense to create these pages at locations such as "Template talk:Did you know/Approved/07" or "Template talk:Did you know/Approved/July", and have an informal navigation box near the top of wp:dykna and the monthly pages to provide links between them. (the box might not show up if the template is placed at the bottom of the page.) there probably shouldn't be much else in the monthly pages, in case any of them are in danger of breaching the peis limit.

i recently realized that we could also easily transclude all the nominations from the most recent week into one page, and do the same for the second-most recent week, and so on. sample code to implement this idea is in an invisible comment underneath this hamster: . this idea seems to have less of a chance of breaking the peis limit, as the alternative pages only include nominations from one week. it also seems to address the problem more directly, since the nominations that might not show up on wp:dykna are the most recent ones. i admittedly don't have a good suggestion for what to name these alternative pages, though. dying (talk) 04:49, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Sounds sensible to me- though does this need a change in the bot code to move the approved noms to the specified pages rather than WP:DYKNA? If so, I imagine there will be some work required (as the bot would need logic added to know which page to put them onto). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:43, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Joseph2302, no, i do not believe any change to any bot code is required. wp:dykna will still work as it normally does, with the bot moving approved nominations to wp:dykna as usual, and the alternative pages will simply transclude nominations from wp:dykna. note that the process of transclusion does not involve moving code around; nominations that would normally be found on wp:dykna will stay on wp:dykna, and the code i am proposing would simply copy a subset of them to the alternative pages to get around the peis limit.

accessing the alternative pages is completely optional; no one's workflow will need to change if this option is offered. if the option is available, then whenever wp:dykna hits the peis limit, you can simply click on, say, the alternative page that transcludes the nominations from the most recent week, in order to review just those nominations if they are not showing up on wp:dykna. just earlier today, wp:dykna was not showing the nominations from the last few days, so the option of clicking a link to review just the nominations from the most recent week, or just the nominations from august, would have been useful. however, if you prefer to not use the alternative pages, you can continue to use whatever method you have been using so far to view those last few nominations, or simply continue to ignore those nominations if that is what you have been doing so far.

note also that the code i am proposing does not require a bot to update it. the code for the proposed alternative page for july simply copies over all the nominations filed under dates from july, and the code for the proposed alternative page for the most recent week simply copies over all the nominations filed under dates from the most recent week. i think, if you copy the sample code i posted in the invisible comments above and preview it in your sandbox, you should get a better idea of how this code would work.

anyway, please let me know if there is anything else in this proposal that could use some additional clarification. thanks for raising the question. dying (talk) 10:54, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

Eh, I think going above the PEIS limit is a problem that is always rather quickly resolved, and anyway as a promoter I prefer to focus on the older hooks, not the newer ones affected. Obviously, there's nothing stopping you from creating the pages, but I honestly don't think they'll be used that much. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:22, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

The core problem here is that we have more submissions than we can handle. The solution to that is to be more selective about what we accept. Working around the WP:PEIS limit just kicks the can down the road. Eventually we'll need to switch to two sets a day to work through the backlog if we aren't willing to be more selective about which submissions we accept. Given that we barely have enough bandwidth to process one set per day, switching to two per day isn't a good plan, so we need to start rejecting submissions that aren't good enough. RoySmith (talk) 13:00, 8 August 2023 (UTC)

yes, RoySmith, this idea admittedly merely kicks the can down the road, but seeing that no one appears to have proposed an acceptable way to deal with the issue for years, i thought it would be better to kick the can rather than have us trip over it every so often. if you can think of a good way to limit what we accept, i would be on board. meanwhile, i thought this workaround could be useful. i'm not sure i understand what your stance is regarding this proposal. would you rather the option not be offered? dying (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

you're right, AirshipJungleman29, i could probably just create the pages, and no one would likely complain, but i thought it would be a good idea to get feedback first. i don't know if i will be the only one using these alternative pages, but as i review approved hooks not only to promote them, but also to try to catch any issues that may have been missed, i thought these alternative pages might be helpful to others that do the same.

working through the actual details of implementation, i am thinking of creating four pages, each with one week's worth of nominations, and naming them "Template talk:Did you know/Approved/week", "week-1", "week-2", and "week-3". to link to them from wp:dykna, i was thinking of using something like the notice below, to be placed immediately below the lead and above the hook count template.

due to how the wp:dykna page is implemented, this code would be added to {{DYK nomination header}}. i was thinking of implementing it in a template called {{DYK approved overflow nav}}, to conform with the names of other templates in the category "Wikipedia Did you know navigational boxes". a simplified version would be placed on the alternative pages themselves. would anyone object to such an implementation? are there any suggestions for improvement? dying (talk) 02:04, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• i have now implemented the alternative pages. note that i ended up naming the navigation template {{DYK recent approved nav}}, as i realized that this was a more appropriate name whenever wp:dykna did not exceed the peis limit. also, i was having trouble getting the {{notice}} template to appear only on wp:dykna, so i ended up emulating it with a div instead. please let me know if you encounter any issues. thanks, all! dying (talk) 02:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

How to pull a hook?

Could we add something to WP:DYKAI which describes how to pull a hook from the main page? Based on today's pull of Pigache, I'm guessing it's something like "If feasible, replace it with another hook, but it's also OK to just delete it and run one hook short. But if you're deleting the image, that always needs to get replaced with another image"? RoySmith (talk) 21:18, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

It's not really something that's made clear. A lot of admins like to replace any hook, but WP:DYKA isn't set up to log that change. That puts the hook that gets swapped in at a disadvantage with respect to the stats tables and leaves inaccuracies in the log. On the other hand, pulling a hook without replacement might leave the Main Page off balance. I'm personally more sympathetic to "replace as little as you have to", because we don't have a way of alleviating the logging concerns at the moment and the Main Page is frequently off balance anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:30, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I assume by "off balance", you mean "DYK has fewer errors than the other sections"? :-) RoySmith (talk) 21:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion on the replace/don't replace spectrum, but if we do pull together instructions, it would be good to remind administrators not to add images until they've been protected at Commons. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 21:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

I would prefer that a hook, if it is pulled, is not replaced because it adds an extra step that might delay or break the process. Running 7 hooks for a couple hours is not a huge net-negative. Adding this to the instructions (and maybe putting a hatnote to the instructions on top of the DYK section in WP:ERRORS?) would be a good idea. Z1720 (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

@Z1720: In this case it was the image slot, does that change anything in regard to replacing? Bruxton (talk) 23:28, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

having a backup image is ideal, but I don't think there are enough candidates for that. Lemme go on a dive and see... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:35, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Okay, it does seem like most sets have at least one non-image hook with a freely licensed image somewhere in the article that I would feel comfortable putting on the Main Page. So that's a good solution, if it can be wrangled, but it does have to either be locally uploaded or protected on Commons... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:44, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

It might. Would it be good to have a bank of 3-5 hooks that could be used in the image slot in case this happens? Perhaps we can put together some hooks from GAs that did not appear on DYK so that no one gets short-changed when their hook is used to replace the image slot, or pick popular image hooks from the past 5 years. Z1720 (talk) 23:38, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

The problem I see with replacing a hook is that the new one doesn't get the same level of scrutiny as it normally would (i.e. Next DYK and Next-but-one DYK). It would be sub-optimal to replace a defective hook with another defective hook. RoySmith (talk) 23:46, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's what I would suggest:

• Step 1: Pull the hook.
• Step 1a: If it's the lead hook, pull the image that goes with it, too.
• Step 2: If you have time, use a hook that ran a month ago to fill the gap.
• Step 2a: If you pulled the photo, use a lead hook from a month ago but protect the photo first before you post it.

With regards to this particular case, I wasn't sure why we didn't just substitute with one of the other approved hooks. Substitution should always be considered first. Schwede66 04:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm curious why you would want to recycle a hook from a month ago? I remember this happened with Dorothy Olsen; apparently for main page balance by Vanamonde93. I don't see any evidence it replaced a pulled hook. Were things just done differently back then? RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Replace "one month" with your chosen length of time. Recycling hooks has these advantages:

• No checks needed as that was done previously
• it’s not fair on a new hook to run for just a few hours
• if you do run a new hook as a replacement, it muddles the stats

Schwede66 18:29, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

running an old hook as a replacement also muddles the stats, but if we did that and somehow had a <!--noStats--> tag, I'd be happy (except that'd be very difficult to make standard practice). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:34, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It's easy to tell from the Template:DYK history if a hook was added as part of the original hookset promotion or if it was added later. No need for magic HTML tags. RoySmith (talk) 19:19, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

@RoySmith: Sure, but then, what's the point of having an archive page at all? Let's just let people dig through the history of that template for everything. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:35, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

When I was more active at DYK I would routinely recycle hooks; sometimes to replace pulled ones, but more often to deal with whitespace below the DYK section, sometimes but not always in response to a post at ERRORS. My reasons for using an old hook are all the ones Schwede mentions, and I'll emphasize that at that point there were quite a few conversations about "fairness" with respect to hours on the mainpage that made me not want to risk using a new hook. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:22, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

Is every qualifying article "entitled" to be on DYK even if there's nothing hooky?

I am not as active at DYK as I once was. I rejected a hook at Template:Did you know nominations/William J. Ennis. The submitter (User:Ergo Sum) objected on grounds that "I think it is implicit in the structure and rules of DYK that every article is eligible by virtue of that article being notable for inclusion on WP" even if it is "a relatively uneventful article, as this one is." In the end, Ergo Sum came up with a hook that appears to be accurate ("...that William J. Ennis was the first vice principal of Loyola School in New York City?"), but the proposed hook is terribly mundane. Am I wrong in thinking that we enforce the hookiness requirement? Or is Ergo Sum correct that every qualified article is entitled to be featured on the Main Page even if it is "relatively uneventful"? Cbl62 (talk) 15:20, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Right then, everyone to their battle stations; ready the supplementary guideline cannons; study the manuals of previous skirmishes (the seven million battles of classical music and the three fisticuffs of other stuff); and three, two, one, FIGHT! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

For sure, the rule is that hooks need to be interesting. I think I'm in the minority in that I can't get too worked up over that. My personal opinion is that DYK exists to promote our best new articles, and it's unfair to gate that based on whether the nominator is good at writing catchy hooks. With the current example, I would write:

... that William J. Ennis only lasted two weeks as prefect of studies at Loyola College in Maryland?

Which I suspect people will find hooky. But just because I was able to come up with some click-bait doesn't mean the article is any more or less deserving to be showcased on the front page. It's a well-written article. Probably wouldn't have any trouble at WP:GAN. I'm totally uninterested in Catholic education, yet I still found enough while reading the article to hold my interest. It would be a shame if it was kept out of DYK just because somebody didn't write a catchy hook. RoySmith (talk) 15:43, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

That might actually be a good hook compared to the previous proposals. However, the original point still largely stands that not every article is a good fit for DYK and if there's nothing suitable for a hook, there is no shame in letting nominations fail or even not nominating them for DYK at all. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:45, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

As someone who has had a painful experience before of an article being rejected for lack of a hooky hook, the ideas of "every article fits DYK" and "we must nominate every article we create/expand/improve to GA status no matter what" have to die with the force of a thousand suns. Technically speaking, Ergo Sum is right: there's nothing in the rules that says that no article is explicitly banned from being featured on DYK just because it is mundane. However, we do have a particular DYK criterion (which I may add we reached after thousands of characters of discussion and a whole RfC): The hook should include a definite fact that is mentioned in the article and likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest. Admittedly, there can be a wide interpretation on whether or not a hook is considered specialist or not, but the point is, there is already a mechanism in the rules for rejecting articles if no suitable hook exists. We already reject nominations for failing other rules like length or creation date, or even sourcing and paraphrasing issues, so why ignore the "no specialist hooks" criterion?

The main point is: not every article is a good fit for DYK. An article could be newly created/expanded/promoted to GA status, be long enough, be free from close paraphrasing, and be properly sourced, but if the material is just not there to make a good hook, don't bother. Don't try to squeeze a hook out of it. Don't try to force every single article you write onto DYK even if it is tempting and even if it is on a subject you are passionate about. Focus all that effort instead on an article that has an actual possible good hook. DYK is already backlogged as it is, and trying to nominate articles that are not a good fit can make the problem worse than it already is. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:37, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

• Amen, though hookiness should be viewed very liberally. In 15 years of reviewing hooks, I've not previously rejected one on hookiness grounds, but even under the most liberal interpretation, the fact that someone was the first vice principal of a high school (even one in NYC) seems unhooky. Cbl62 (talk) 15:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• IMO "hooky" is entirely subjective, I don't think we should make a judgment about what the larger community will find noteworthy. If someone is unique enough to receive the sort of significant coverage which would make them notable then presumably there is something at least vaguely hooky that can be said about them. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:59, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  In theory that would be a good idea. In practice, not so much. In my years of reviewing DYK nominations there have been several nominations whose hookiness objectively doesn't make much sense outside of experts or fans. I would even be the first to admit that some of my own hooks in the past have been guilty of this and sometimes I still regret making those hooks. Basically, from experience, not every article has something even "vaguely hooky" about them. There are articles that are just simply bad fits for DYK, and this is not necessarily the fault of the creator or the article, or even the subject, but it could just be due to the sources and information available.

  As for the "not every article has something even vaguely hooky about them" point, unfortunately, this does mean that there are some subjects, particularly technical or niche ones, that are at a disadvantage since they may involve themes, terms, and context that may not be widely known or understandable to laypeople. This of course does not mean that these subjects are a bad fit for DYK or even that it is impossible to make hooks about them, but how technical or specialist they are can admittedly put them at a disadvantage when it comes to making good hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Personally, I'm much less bothered by hooks that may take the reader into unfamiliar, very technical or obscure areas than ones that run "The fooist Fred Foo did [something that's exactly what one would expect a fooist to do] in date/place". Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  If it "doesn't make much sense outside of experts or fans" then it is by definition "unusual or intriguing" and hook worthy. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Maybe we have different interpretations of how "unusual or intriguing" is meant to be interpreted, but based on experience that to some extent have been backed up by view statistics, hooks that don't make sense to non-specialists have tended to vastly underperform among readers. That does not mean we should not have hooks that focus on unfamiliar topics, but making them as obtuse or as specialist as possible doesn't seem to help. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:46, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• We can have a discussion on what the answer to that question should be, maybe in a more well-structured way somewhere down the line (I have some ideas that I think will be win-wins for nominators and curators), but the answer as a matter of current guideline is "no", and the current nomination should proceed under that assumption. The interestingness criterion is just as binding on every nomination as the newness criterion, and if a nomination can't pass it, it can't go forward. There have been a good many nominations that have, in the past, been rejected for lack of a viable hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:41, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• WP:DYKCRIT says

  The hook should...likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing...

  —Bagumba (talk) 17:53, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
• I agree with the general sentiment that the answer to "Is every qualifying article entitled" is a clear no. I will often deliberately avoid nominating otherwise-eligible articles when I feel that they are too specialized or technical to have content or hook that could interest a general audience. Most recent example: BIT predicate, promoted to GA yesterday. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  ...that the German–British mathematician Richard Rado used the BIT predicate to construct the infinite Rado graph? would be an example of a Johnbod hook, because the average reader (and those within three standard deviations of the mean) won't know what a BIT predicate or the infinite Rado graph are, but it will definitely take the reader into unfamiliar, very technical or obscure areas. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:15, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  Indeed - go for it! Johnbod (talk) 20:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't think there's anything wrong with featuring niche topics on DYK and in fact I will be the first to defend them from the idea that DYK should never include them. It is just a fact that they're often at a disadvantage when it comes to possible hooks. Having said that, the line between "just technical enough to raise curiosity" and "so technical/obtuse it drives away readers" can be pretty fine and experience shows there's no concrete answer as to where that line is and when one hook is appropriate and another isn't. It's all very subjective. About one thing many can agree on is that, as pointed out by Johnbod above, hooks that are basically "Did you know that this person, who is a [job], did [something mundanely job-related]?" are often not very good. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:08, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

• No opinion on this specific article, but I frequently do not bring otherwise-eligible articles here because I don't believe they have anything hooky in them. Not all topics have enough detail to make that possible (our reams of short bios, species accounts, and geography articles come to mind) and we should be okay rejecting an article based on that without it reflecting badly on the reviewer or the nominator. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:28, 16 August 2023 (UTC)

  Simply seconding this. I've held back on sending a number of pages. (One of them was WUBC, which is actually now linked from my WVIR-TV hook which is interesting...) In part this is because I recognize my station hooks tend to behave strangely, but also it's because there are stations that, once you write them, turn out boring. (WLAX, for instance.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 03:54, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Promoted hook for Berit Lindholm - Nomination in Now in prep 3

The nomination was Storye book's and Narutolovehinata5 reviewed and approved the hook - and this am I promoted it. I find it hard to follow multiple conversations across three pages regarding the hook in the Nomination. I am putting this here to have one spot we can respond to and evaluate or workshop a hook. Pinging the involved: @Gerda Arendt, Storye book, and Narutolovehinata5:

Relevant conversations

• One here on Rosiestep's TP
• One on my talk page
• One on Storye book's talk page
• And of course one in the Nomination.

I needed a biography for prep 3 and this one fit. I am now seeing if other editors think we should yank this out of Prep 3. Bruxton (talk) 02:35, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Today is the anniversary of the first performance of Götterdämmerung:

Marie Lehmann,
one of the Rhinemaidens
at the first Bayreuth Festival
(13–17 August 1876),
sang the soprano solo
in Beethoven's Ninth Symphony
for the groundbreaking
of the Bayreuth Festival Theatre.

13 August 2018

(from User:Gerda Arendt/Stories)

Please look at the nomination first if you want to comment. If if had not been closed - prematurely if you ask my - no other discussion would have happened. - I have to work now on Renata Scotto, and her article looked even worse (yes long, but no citations) than Lindholm's was. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:48, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• Speaking as the reviewer, I have no idea where this idea that the hook wording is "offensive" comes from. As Bruxton mentioned on their talk page, the talk about "bottom" was referring to Lindholm's voice, and the full quote shows that, far from being offensive, it was intended to be a compliment. It's worth noting that Storye book said on her talk page that, even if there was indeed a double entendre with the quote (which I somewhat doubt and feel that suggesting it was one may be assuming bad faith), SB also said that Lindholm would have probably not thought of it as offensive either and may have even grinned. My point is that I don't see the hook as offensive at all. Finally, I should note that the hook was proposed by SB herself, so if Gerda has an issue with it, she should discuss it with SB too. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:38, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I can see Gerda's point but I think the context of her being a musician, and its wikilink to vocal range, makes it clear what was meant. I would argue it might be hookier to end it at "extension", but this is otherwise fine.--Launchballer 08:59, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• I read the se Wikipedia article and think that Berit Lindholm was the first to perform as Wagner's Isolde in the Soviet Union in 1971 Source: https://www.svt.se/kultur/operasangerskan-berit-lindholm-dod could be the basis of a hook. TSventon (talk) 09:07, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) First of all, my apologies to Gerda Arendt for the offence of drawing her attention to the vulgar second meaning, and my apologies to Bruxton for not striking out the hook myself. This mess is all my fault, because I should never have written ALT1 - or - having written it, I should have struck it through immediately. It was there for fun, but it has upset Gerda, and that is no good. Yes, it is true that those without British humour would not notice the vulgar double entendre. The whole point of a double entendre is that those who do not wish to notice a vulgar second meaning will not be looking for a vulgar second meaning, therefore they will not notice it. My sin was to let Gerda notice it.

I cannot understand why the other two ALTs were struck out - there is nothing wrong with them in my opinion - but I am the nominator and not the reviewer, so I have no say in that matter. I would like to see (1) the ALT1 hook removed from prep 3, (2) ALT1 struck out on the nom page, (3) the other two ALTs un-struck on the nom page, and (4) we start again, with either the two remaining ALTs or a new ALT. I feel awful about the fact that my silly bit of fun has caused distress. Let us please try to rescue what we can from this. Storye book (talk) 09:22, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@Storye book: I do not blame you for anything and no apology is needed. Noting that we have seen similar problems when Gerda's articles are nominated by a party who does not have the actual power to act as a proxy. I think we would be better served if Gerda nominates her own articles. We have too many moving parts and drawn out hook tweaking sessions. Just thinking out loud. Bruxton (talk) 04:21, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Given the issues with ALT0 and ALT0a, having them unstruck is a non-starter. As expressed in the nomination, both hooks were too specialist and how intriguing/hooky they are isn't obvious to a non-opera fan. To paraphrase what Johnbod said in another thread on WT:DYK right now, hooks that are basically "The fooist Fred Foo did [something that's exactly what one would expect a fooist to do] in date/place", which what ALT0 and ALT0a basically boil down to, rarely make for good hooks. If anything, TSventon's suggestion might work better if there really is an objection to ALT1. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:44, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

This feels like a Michael Scott reading of the hook. But if others agree that it is problematic we can explore another hook. Bruxton (talk) 15:49, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

• @TSventon: I'd be open to a hook based on the Isolde/Soviet Union thing, but it's not currently mentioned in the article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)
• @Narutolovehinata5:, I have added the fact and reference to the article. TSventon (talk) 00:39, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. Can you propose a hook on that and see if the nom and article creator approve? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:09, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  • ALT2: ... that soprano Berit Lindholm was the first to perform as Wagner's Isolde in the Soviet Union in 1971?
  • Rephrase it it you wish. Gerda Arendt? The citation in the article checks out. Storye book (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

    This good Bruxton? This sounds good to me. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:21, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Narutolovehinata5: I probably would not click on it, but it may be the best we can do. And at least it is slightly better than: "The fooist Fred Foo did [something that's exactly what one would expect a fooist to do] in date/place". Bruxton (talk) 23:27, 18 August 2023 (UTC)

  The hook idea is good. I couldn't believe it because the Soviet Union existed since 1922, but Storye book explained well. However, we either link soprano or dramatic soprano, not an Easter egg. We would usually not link Wagner but perhaps it's needed for the Main page. Also I like to show off his new infobox. What do you think about his wife not having one? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:15, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  The citation in the article is fairly weak for a "first" claim. —Kusma (talk) 08:37, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Kusma: What are your grounds for saying that the citation for "first" is weak? Storye book (talk) 16:18, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Storye book: The obituary of a Swedish singer is not a particularly great source for the claim that Tristan und Isolde was not performed anywhere in the entire Soviet Union before 1971. Generally, for the claim "A was the first person to do B" I prefer sources that study B and mention that A was first to sources trying to make A sound like an exceptional person. Such sources often exaggerate claims or leave out important context. —Kusma (talk) 17:52, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Kusma: There are times when we have to show good faith. Can you demonstrate that such a performance actually did take place in the USSR between 1920 and 1971? Can you demonstrate that the source of the citation has a history of wilful dishonesty? If not, then I'm afraid we must accept secondary, peer-reviewed sources in good faith, as per WP guidelines. Storye book (talk) 18:10, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Storye book: are we looking at different sources? I am talking about SVT, which seems to be a news site. Experience shows that "first" claims in news sources are incorrect about half of the time. I am assuming good faith (so I assume the SVT authors believe the claim), but doubt that they really fact checked this thoroughly enough. "First" claims are wrong very often, so we should source them to impeccable sources for the claim. In this case, we should have a source that can be trusted to know opera in the Soviet Union in detail. —Kusma (talk) 18:24, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

• Can anyone please explain to me why the link bottom extension has been removed from the hook? Without its original context, the phrase doesn't make musical sense without that link to vocal range. Storye book (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Hopefully @Ravenpuff: can explain the change here. TSventon (talk) 10:51, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Storye book: This was a slight case of MOS:EASTEREGG: the link goes to an article about vocal range in general and not about "bottom extensions". It's preferable not to surprise readers with link targets that don't quite match the text, and I judged that the meaning of "resonant bottom extension" would already be clear enough from the hook, plus the bolded article is always available to readers to find out more. But the foregoing discussion seems to imply that the link would be useful to avoid misinterpretations on the Main Page, so for that reason I would be happy to keep it – although in general we should best avoid using links in that manner. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:29, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you, Ravenpuff, for agreeing to replace the link, although, as I write, it hasn't been replaced yet. I disagree that the link to "Vocal range" would be an easter egg, though. The "bottom extension" in this hook is an extension of the vocal range.

  To put it simply, within the vocal range of all the regular operatic singers, (bass, tenor, alto, soprano) the soprano sings high to very high. But Lindholm has extended the bottom of her vocal range so that she can sing much lower notes in a useful manner as well. For example, many sopranos could sing most of the tenor Pavarotti's famous songs (such as the football favourite Nessun Dorma), but not good and loud like he could. However Lindholm could probably do that. So she had a bottom extension of the vocal range, i.e. she could sing some of the low notes that a tenor could sing.

  So that link is an explanation, not an easter egg surprise. The misinterpretation that we want to avoid here, is the inappropriate idea that we are talking about Lindholm's fanny. We are not talking about fannies, we are talking about vocal range - aren't we? Storye book (talk) 14:04, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  @Storye book: Yes, that was indeed what I gleaned from reading the hook and article myself. I've now re-added the link (and also included the preceding word "resonant" for a bit of extra clarity, which I hope you'd be fine with). In general, a link shouldn't perform the function of explaining on its own (see e.g. the parton example in MOS:EASTEREGG), but I think an exception can probably be justified here for the reasons above. Thanks! — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:38, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

  That works. Thank you. Storye book (talk) 16:47, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

• Ravenpuff's changes improved things, but we're still - less blatantly now, but still - making a juvenile pun. If you take away the specific terminology used, we're saying she has a good vocal range. But that isn't any more interesting than any of the other suggestions. The thing that makes it "interesting" is the double entendre. Please, let's not do that to someone who recently died. (for transparency, I was made aware of this by Gerda.) --Floquenbeam (talk) 14:41, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• @Storye book and Kusma: I have found an interesting obituary here in Tidskriften OPERA, which says that Lindholm was proud of being the first Isolde in the Soviet Union and that her first director famously asked ”Vad ska jag göra med den där j-a folkskollärarinnan?” "What shall I do with that damn public school teacher?" via Google translate, however folkskola seems to be primary school, so
• ALT3: ...that opera singer Berit Lindholm was described as "that damn primary school teacher" by her first director? TSventon (talk) 19:38, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
• @Gerda Arendt and Narutolovehinata5:, see also Lindholm's autobiography, Hovsångerska - eller vad ska jag göra med den där jävla folkskolelärarinnan? here. TSventon (talk) 20:35, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  I like the Isolde in SU idea, but think the quote says much more about that director than about her. How would it hook someone to learn about her? - I am also not sure if he was director of the opera house, or the stage director of the Mozart opera, please clarify in the article. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:42, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Lindholm, or at least her publisher, seems to have thought that the quote would get people to buy her book. I have clarified that Gentele was the director of the opera company. TSventon (talk) 20:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

  Given issues with "first" hooks and considering the sourcing seems to be stronger for the primary school teacher quote, I think we should go with this hook instead. I actually think it's better and more eyecatchy than the bottom extension hook if you ask me. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  To avoid the issue with "first":

  ALT2a: ... that the Swedish dramatic soprano Berit Lindholm was proud to have been the first performer of Wagner's Isolde in the Soviet Union in 1971?

  which leaves the "first" to her perception, on top of that it seems to be true, and is quite some information. also about culture history of the SU. The director quote could probably be repeated for hundreds of beginners, - what does it tell us about her, and why put him to shame? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:41, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• Because this discussion looks likely to continue for a little while, and per Floq, I've pulled the hook from prep. Discussion can continue at Template:Did you know nominations/Berit Lindholm. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thank you. Can you perhaps copy the new alts there, with just a link for context? - What I came for is: TSventon , can you please add to the director's article that he managed the Royal Opera? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:55, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  Was already workin' on that, now  Done :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 06:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

  wow i feel understood, on this page! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:58, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Special date request

A suggestion was made on the nomination page that the article could run on August 30, the date of Lindholm's funeral. Would this count as sufficiently special for a special occasion hook? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:10, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron thank you for promoting, I have added a hidden special occasion note. TSventon (talk) 09:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Post-promotion hook change notifications

Each DYK nomination nowadays contains the text: Post-promotion hook changes for this nom will be logged at Template talk:Did you know nominations/XXX; consider watching this nomination, if it is successful, until the hook appears on the Main Page.

Considering that post-promotion hook changes are a fairly rare occurrence, does this deserve a mention in every single DYK nom? Also, considering that if you add the nom page to the watchlist as suggested, you would anyway see the change in watchlist even if the bot didn't post a message to the talk page. So, does it make sense to instead have the bot log all such hook changes on a central page which can be watchlisted once? (Ping @Theleekycauldron as botop.)

In any case, I'd suggest removing the small-text message as it doesn't seem important enough, and likely confuses newer users. Nominations created via DYK-helper/DYK-wizard are automatically added to the nominator's watchlist. – SD0001 (talk) 21:15, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

That was meant to be a temporary notification – it's totally something we can remove if we want to. The intent of it was to make sure users didn't remove pages from their watchlists when noms are promoted. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:52, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Fairly rare occurrence? That can't be true; I probably trim a not-insignificant proportion of all nominations I promote. I had a look at one random prep set (not by me)—the first two hooks have been modified.≈ ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

I reckon nine out of my 34 hooks in the last nine months have been edited post-promotion.--Launchballer 23:06, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

It's actually quite easy to look up how often GalliumBot creates nomination talk pages for documenting hook changes. And when you look at that list, it becomes very clear how frequently that happens. Schwede66 23:39, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Is it not possible to automate "watching" a DYK nomination at the point of creation? Cielquiparle (talk) 02:29, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Under Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-watchlist, check "Add pages I create and files I upload to my watchlist" RoySmith (talk) 02:39, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

What I meant is: Is there not a way to force all submitters to "watch" their DYK nominations by default? (Also... Why is it that users aren't automatically notified/pinged when their articles are nominated?) Cielquiparle (talk) 02:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Because Mediawiki. RoySmith (talk) 02:57, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

It should be possible to include watching the nomination in the helper scripts that most nominators use. —Kusma (talk) 17:58, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

And a notification for article creators. —Kusma (talk) 10:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Cielquiparle: I'm pretty sure nominators do watch their noms, by virtue of having created the page... as for automatic notification, that doesn't seem too difficult. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:06, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Cielquiparle, i don't know for certain, but i am guessing that this is because a notification is generally sent to a user when an edit which includes a new link to that user's user page is signed by an editor using four tildes, and the script that automagically creates dyk nominations does not include such a signature, opting instead to include a link to the nominator's user page and talk page, and a timestamp. i assume that a notification of the nomination can be sent to an article creator if a signature made using four tildes is explicitly included somewhere in the nomination, but i have never tried this myself.

perhaps it would be a good practice to simply add a comment like "courtesy pinging the article creator. ~~~~" in the comment field of nominations where the nominator is not the sole creator. dying (talk) 03:20, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Global perspective on the main page

There's a thread at WP:VPR#Global perspective on the main page which folks here might be interested in. RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The gist of that thread is that yesterday's DYK was overly US-centric. RoySmith (talk) 00:20, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

What is US centric is subjective but I checked the first three queues and found US hooks in Queue 2 4 to 7 and Queue 4 4 to 7. TSventon (talk) 00:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I've shuffled Q2. BorgQueen (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

I shuffled Q6 – i can do reshuffles of sets before they hit the main page, too. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:47, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Urm...

What happened to the idea of leaving at least half of the last prep area empty? All preps are currently full. BorgQueen (talk) 14:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton BorgQueen (talk) 14:04, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@BorgQueen: I usually fill a couple slots in the last set if all preps are full. Some other editors filled in the rest. We have some eager prep builders at the moment and that is a good problem to have. I appreciate all you do for this section and I understand your concern. Bruxton (talk) 15:02, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@Bruxton I've pinged you because you're the one who filled the pic slot of the last prep, which was supposed to be left empty. But anyway, pinging @AirshipJungleman29 too. BorgQueen (talk) 15:25, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

BorgQueen I put the fire basket hook in because the set was already full and that one had been at the nominations hook since May. Apologies if I should've waited. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:38, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@AirshipJungleman29 no apology needed. But if we're to scrap this rule, perhaps it needs to be said clearly. @Theleekycauldron any input? BorgQueen (talk) 15:41, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

The rule is fairly recent, and it wasn't rare at all to see all preps built out before it. It was sometimes a problem, but I don't know if it was that big of one. More generally, at the moment we have many noms coming through from the successful GAN backlog drive, but prep-to-queue promotions are only just recovering, so it'd be expected we have a lot of preps built. Vaticidalprophet 15:48, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

@BorgQueen and Vaticidalprophet: This became standard practice largely at the request of promoting admins, who wanted to be able to have a backup place to move hooks when issues arise (i.e. special occasions or errors).

Speaking with my prep builder's hat on, I think it's a pretty hacky solution; anything that makes us have to bug new preppers with unintuitive social norms isn't a great workaround. What I would like is a psuedo-prep set with indefinite length. This would pretty much address admin concerns about needing a place to dump hooks, plus it would let preppers separate the verification step from the prep building step of actually putting the set together, plus it allows the prep building team to store surpluses when we have more editor-hours than we need (instead of just letting the preps be full). Leaving the back prep set half-empty, though, is current best practice until the community agrees to a better solution. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:07, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

My solution is "double the number of preps", but a lot of people and I have been on that for a while. (I'm not super clear on the use case of the pseudoprep compromise -- the fun part of prep building is building preps, a staging area lacking that just seems like DYKNA 2.) Vaticidalprophet 22:11, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

@Vaticidalprophet: I'd actually be fine with that, honestly. The pseudoprep isn't really DYKNA to, because you have to verify a hook to move it from DYKNA to the pseudoprep. From there, the same promoter or anyone else can schedule it how they like. I personally don't really prefer one step to the other – putting sets together is fun, having to do it at the same time as verification isn't. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:15, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Licensing of photographs of copyrighted sculptures

I am planning on nominating a hook about a (presumably) copyrighted sculpture on display in the US, and I believe it would be a good image hook. In short, it appears to be unclear whether (a) as the copyright holder, the sculptor can choose to authorize the licensing of specific derivative works (photographs not taken by the sculptor) under a CC license, while still retaining otherwise unlicensed copyright on the original work, and (b) if this were the case, those photographs would constitute free images that can be uploaded to Commons and used on the main page.

Perhaps this is better suited for Commons, but there has been previous discussion here too. See Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 184#Copyright violating image in prep 4? and c:Commons:Village pump/Copyright/Archive/2015/07#Sculptor wishes to donated images of copyrighted sculpture for some more in-depth discussion of this. I'm asking again since it seems that none of these discussions have come to a definitive conclusion. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 18:52, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

In general, we assume that it is possible because it works out better for everyone and we get more images that way. It's also common to have screenshots of copyright software donated this way as well. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 19:50, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

In that case, if they were to agree, how should the copyright owner indicate to VRT the specific circumstances? As far as I can tell, c:Commons:Email templates and the release generator only cover the case where the copyright holder would be licensing the entire work, which is not correct. They would merely be authorizing a specific derivative work. Is it sufficient for them to explain that situation in an email? —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 20:22, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

Einebillion, that's a rather interesting copyright question. I wouldn't call the photo a "derivative work" but that's just a technicality (and maybe I've got that wrong anyway). As a copyright expert, do you have time to think about this and provide a perspective? Are you still on annual leave or has your busy job sucked you in again? Schwede66 22:58, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

My understanding is that with 3D works, the angle of the photo, lighting, etc. constitutes sufficient originality to be considered a derivative, at least in the US, but by no means am I an expert either and could be wrong.

In thinking about this further though, US law only provides new copyright protection to the new elements of a derivative work. The elements from the existing work are considered part of the derivative but don't get any new copyright. So, that makes me wonder if it would be insufficient to just get the authorization of the derivative, since the photographer can license the "photographic elements" but there is still unlicensed material (the actual work that is the sculpture) in the photo. Would it then be necessary for the sculptor to freely license the specific expression of their own work (which seems unreasonable)? I may be completely missing something here, though, that would make this unnecessary and make just the derivative's authorization sufficient. Maybe this is a bit pedantic, but at the same time, this image would be appearing on a highly visible page and I would obviously like to avoid the possibility of any potential hook getting pulled as much as possible. Would greatly appreciate any opinions from Einebillion or anyone else who has more expertise in this area. —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 01:16, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Per Commons:Copyright rules by territory/United States, sculptures and other works of art have copyright protection, so assuming the work is still covered by copyright, then a photo of a sculpture will have *2* copyrights, the sculpture artist's , and the photographer's. Now, if I as a Wikipedian took a photo and uploaded it to en.wiki, I can license my photo under a free license - it still means the image is copyrighted due to the sculpture, but when that copyright is expired, then the entire work has a free license. So if the sculpture can be photographed in a public place, then we expected per NFCC#1 that we want a freely licensed photo of the sculpture to be used even though it remains non-free until the sculpture is out of copyright. Masem (t) 01:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Hm. I think that's probably the correct interpretation – that, absent the licensing of the sculpture and even with the sculptor's permission for a "freely licensed" photograph, the photo would not be considered free. I guess the next (last?) question to ask is whether the sculptor could license just the rights to reproduce the copyrighted material depicted in the photo, but not to allow derivatives of that material. Clindberg makes the argument that there's no reason why that shouldn't be good enough for Commons, as it's basically the same as if the photo were taken under freedom of panorama (I'm guessing an FoP image could run on the main page, even though not fully "free" in the sense of allowing derivatives of the underlying 3D work). —⁠PlanetJuice (talk • contribs) 03:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Reopen nom

Hi, please let me know if I should post this elsewhere.

I had a nom for an article rejected previously, and I wanted to try reopening it now that I've gotten it up to GA. Please see Template:Did you know nominations/Budae-jjigae. I made a post on its talk page too. toobigtokale (talk) 17:56, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

nvm solved by opening a new request toobigtokale (talk) 18:17, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Prep 4: Philip Sherman (cantor) (nom)

If you're reading this, this set or hook should have finished its appearance on the Main Page – if it has, please consider archiving this thread :) thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:41, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• ... that Philip Sherman was one of "America's Top Mohels"?

@Longhornsg, Narutolovehinata5, and Bruxton: this'll need some kind of attribution per WP:INTEXT. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:34, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

How's this:

• ... that the Jewish Telegraphic Agency named Philip Sherman as one of "America's Top Mohels"?

Longhornsg (talk) 19:38, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

works for me :) swapped in. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:40, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Much less fun but doable. See relevant discussion. Bruxton (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

We are above 120!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Template:Did you know nominations/Feel It (MJ Cole song)

There are currently some issues with the article regarding sourcing. Specifically, the hooks proposed so far are reliant on audio broadcasts that currently are not archived anywhere and cannot be accessed by an independent reviewer. The nominator, however, has vouched for their reliability, has listened to said broadcasts, and states that the relevant information was indeed mentioned there. Given the earlier discussions we've had about encouraging offline sources to include the page number for verification purposes, can we AGF the reliability of the broadcasts used as sources in the article, or given that they cannot be independently verified, they are not sufficient? Courtesy pings to nominator Launchballer, reviewer UndercoverClassicist, and discussion participant RoySmith. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

AGF only goes so far. It's one thing to believe that the nom is being honest about what the reference says. But normally in an AGF situation, you can ask the nom to go back to the source and provide additional context, or a quote, or an English translation, or verify that they read (or heard) it properly the first time, etc. But we can't even do that here; the source was completely ephemeral. This clearly fails WP:BURDEN especially in a WP:BLP context. RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

What's the nature of the broadcast? If it's an interview of some kind, and the information is essentially sourced right to piri & tommy, then that's one thing. But I can't imagine that broadcast talk radio is a reliable secondary source. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:12, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

For context, it's the 5 April 2023 broadcast of Tinea, and it's an interview with Piri. The interview started at around 8pm (i.e. halfway into the broadcast), and took up around 25-30 minutes, with Updown being played in the middle; they talked Updown in the first half and Feel It in the second. The BBC offer archived radio programmes for £60, so I'd be very surprised if Kiss don't do the same.--Launchballer 08:41, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I've asked about this at WT:RS#Can listening to a radio broadcast be a RS?. RoySmith (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

If a reader cannot access the "source", it isn't considered published for Wikipedia purposes, and isn't a source at all. It isn't necessary that the source be available online, or that it be free, but it does have to be available. Jc3s5h (talk) 14:06, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, it must be verifiable in order to constitute a RS. --Orange Mike | Talk 14:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure it's safe to assume that because the BBC archives its programs, a for-profit entity would do the same. I can't find a website for it; this only goes to 2015 for Tinea. Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 14:05, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

If you made a recording of the broadcast yourself such that you have the appropriate timestamp and direct quotation, and you can confirm (say via email or screenshot) that the BBC indeed has that particular broadcast archived and available for purchase, or else you have yourself purchased an archived copy (and note it may also be available at a London library if you dig around; once you think you've found a library you can email the reference librarian and later, if missing the timestamp, request a local get it on WP:RESOURCE), then you should present all of that detailed information at the respective article's talk page. This is not so unusual -- emails, screenshots, photos and the like are sometimes presented in discussion pages to demonstrate that such-and-such object exists for purpose of verifiability or copyright release. It's more between you and the other editors of the article to agree whether in the end that's all sufficient for verifiability for the article. If several editors on the subject matter agree, then I'd personally say that's sufficient for DYK. SamuelRiv (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I didn't think to record it.--Launchballer 13:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I second Jc3s5h and Orange Mike. Per WP:Verifiability, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. But per WP:SOURCEACCESS (if applicable), "Do not reject reliable sources just because they are difficult or costly to access. Some reliable sources are not easily accessible."

Emphasis, it should be a reliable source. Regards, Thinker78 (talk) 01:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I knew there was a policy that said "do not reject", but couldn't find it. I would describe an interview with Kiss as reliable.--Launchballer 13:18, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't matter what you would describe it as. What matters is whether it meets the requirements laid out in WP:RS, specifically, an archived copy of the media must exist and you have not demonstrated that. RoySmith (talk) 13:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Then my suggestion of ALT3: ... that the "Feel It" guitarist Tommy Villiers is the great-great-great-great-grandson of the British Prime Minister John Russell, 1st Earl Russell? stands - that hook, minus "Feel It", was approved at Tommy Villiers, and its offline source definitely exists (I read it at Fulham Library).--Launchballer 14:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Nancy Reagan's alleged hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia

I've listed 668 St. Cloud Road at WP:ERRORS and suggested that it be pulled for wider discussion. The hook is "... that Nancy Reagan was hexakosioihexekontahexaphobic?"

There are/were several potential problems with this:

• Unless WP:MEDPOP applies, it's problematic for us to ascribe a phobia to a religious-based dislike of a number without strong WP:MEDRS sourcing.
• "Hexakosioihexekontahexaphobia" is virtually unknown among readers. While its unusualness makes for a sensational DYK hook, it also means that it's not an appropriate descriptor within the article itself. That means that DYK would be using a word that's not found in the article.
• The sources supporting the use of this particular word/disorder were not in the article at the time of its DYK promotion. Some were later discussed in the DYK nom without being cited in the article directly (WP:DYKHOOK).

The promoting editor Bruxton spoke to what I've put as bullet point 1 above: "I still have difficulty giving a person any sort of medical diagnosis like this based on a journalist's opinion. I hesitate to say someone who is religious and fearful of the number of the beast has a disorder. If I promote it it may end up at errors. So be ready to defend the diagnosis." Ed ^{[talk] [majestic titan]} 13:42, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 5

If you're reading this, this set or hook should have finished its appearance on the Main Page – if it has, please consider archiving this thread :) thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:36, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Imsil Cheese Theme Park (nom)

• ... that a cheese theme park (event pictured) opened in South Korea on November 21, 2011?

@Prodraxis, TenPoundHammer, and Lightburst: The fact that there is a cheese theme park is pretty hook, but I'd like to see the fact around that try a little harder. Maybe talk about its cost? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:02, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Perhaps "... that a cheese theme park was created to boost tourism in Imsil County in South Korea?" (source: https://n.news.naver.com/mnews/article/001/0004816420?sid=102) might work out. — Prodraxis {talk • contribs} (she/her) 13:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Better! How about:

• ... that Imsil Cheese Theme Park (event pictured) cost over ₩39 billion to build?

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I think that would be good. Way better than the original hook from the nomination. #prodraxis ^connect 19:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC) If you get confused as to who is replying or anything right now, I changed my signature fyi. This is still Prodraxis commenting here.

IRC themed? that's really cool :) I'll swap it in. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:26, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Felicia Schroeder (nom)

• ... that when Felicia Schroeder signed to play soccer for the University of South Carolina, the school did not have a sign-language interpreter available for her?

@Significa liberdade, Sammi Brie, and Bruxton: I'm not sure that a quote from the subject in a school newspaper constitutes enough due weight to be included in the article, but if it does, both the article and the hook will need to be fully attributed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:09, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, the article seems to be heavily sourced to school newspapers. I would think that a BLP should probably rest on stronger sourcing? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:11, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

If the school newspapers don't state contentious or uncontroversial information, I don't see why it's not acceptable in this case. For all we know they may have been the only ones to cover her in such detail. That wouldn't establish notability of course but that shouldn't rule them out as sources information. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:07, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Assuming that I'm not going to be able to convince the entire project that school newspapers aren't the most fit to cover school athletes per an inherent bias, I'll let that one go :) But that doesn't cover due weight or attribution. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:05, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Found a Journal and Courier article that says she did not have an interpreter at South Carolina. Source is now in article. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:07, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Works for me :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:14, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, @Sammi Brie! Significa liberdade (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

KELO-TV (nom)

• ... that the founding owner of a South Dakota TV station was "a helluva salesman"?

@Sammi Brie, Premeditated Chaos, and Lightburst: this'll need some kind of attribution per WP:INTEXT. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:35, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

Actually, it seems best to go with something else entirely. Repeating the claim of an advertisement without secondary significance seems pretty dodgy to me. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:43, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

• @Theleekycauldron: maybe... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

... that the founding owner of a South Dakota TV station became nationally known for industry ads calling him "a helluva salesman"?

@Sammi Brie: Hmm, well, I don't think a local paper is a strong enough source to make that claim. Is there another source for the notoriety? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:48, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron [1] (added to article too) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:28, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

@Sammi Brie: I'll AGF that the source is reliable, noting that either i'm too tired to read correctly or the English of the source is very poor. But it doesn't say "national notoriety" as much as it just says that it was a thing he's known for, if that's a hook you want to write. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:14, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Let's try... Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:38, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

... that the founding owner of a South Dakota TV station became known for industry ads calling him "a helluva salesman"?

@Sammi Brie: works for me, thanks! swapped in :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:40, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Eko Patrio (nom)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Abortion in Taiwan (nom)

• ... that while abortion in Taiwan is legally accessible, it is still a crime under the country's penal code?

@MSG17, Epicgenius, and Bruxton: Since, in the United States, abortion mostly tends to be legal in some cases but not others (without broad allowance for case-by-case exceptions), I think there should be some clarification that abortion in Taiwan is legally accessible in nearly any case, but there are still technically criminal penalties. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:37, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

Alternate phrasing suggestions:

... that abortion in Taiwan is still technically a crime despite being broadly legalized?

... that despite being legally available in most cases, abortion in Taiwan is still criminalized under the penal code?

MSG17 (talk) 00:54, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll swap in the second suggestion, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 01:01, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 5: Abortion in Taiwan (nom) @Bruxton, Epicgenius, and MSG17: I think I've convinced myself that the sources support the hook statement, but given that anything related to abortion is a third-rail topic, I'd appreciate additional eyes on this to make sure we've got it right. RoySmith (talk) 14:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Indeed, I also welcome more feedback on this topic given how sensitive it is. (Also, here is a link to the specific section of the ROC Criminal Code on abortion.) MSG17 (talk) 14:56, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 3

If you're reading this, this set or hook should have finished its appearance on the Main Page – if it has, please consider archiving this thread :) thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC) @Z1720: hooks 2, 4, 5, 6, and 8 all seem to be U.S.-based – could hook 5 be swapped with a non-U.S. hook, preferably a biography? Courtesy pings to Bruxton and Lightburst, who built the set in prep. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:45, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done I've moved hooks around, please check to ensure that everything is good. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Q3 looks good :) P2 now has a couple bios next to each other, but we'll cross that bridge when we get to it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 6

If you're reading this, this set or hook should have finished its appearance on the Main Page – if it has, please consider archiving this thread :) thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Marc Tay (nom)

@Kingoflettuce, Sammi Brie, and Bruxton: The lead of eye surgery seems to imply that eye surgeons and ophthalmologists are distinct; was Tay one or the other? Also, is there a reason the fine amount for the non-disclosure isn't included in the article? I'm also not the most comfortable with the amount of sourcing to The Straits Times (WP:RSP yellowlit), since his coverage seems to relates to military service and sports (two places where governments quite like to look good). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:04, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Harvey Meyerhoff (nom)

• ... that the names of Harvey Meyerhoff, Elie Wiesel, and Bill Clinton are carved into the cornerstone of the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, according to Meyerhoff's daughter?

@Longhornsg, Kingoflettuce, and Bruxton: The Baltimore Sun attributes the hook fact to Meyerhoff's daughter, Lee Hendler; we'll need to do the same in the article and hook. Also, ref 5 appears to be a WP:BURL, could that be tightened up? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Hook edited above, attribution added to the article. Unfortunately couldn't find another RS that we could use without attribution. Longhornsg (talk) 18:35, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Longhornsg: thanks, i'll swap it in :) in the future, please do copy/paste to preserve the original in the discussion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

And I see that the BURL has been fleshed out, so we're good to go on that :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:39, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Tolui (nom)

• ... that a Mongol army commanded by Tolui was alleged to have killed three million people in less than two months?

@AirshipJungleman29, RAJIVVASUDEV, and Bruxton: I think boiling down the estimates to three million falls flat for me. Getting to the three million requires relying entirely on the account of Juvayni, who was writing a few decades after the fact – contemporary chronicler Ibn al-Athir offers a lower estimate for Merv. On top of that, "was alleged" is really only appropriate where the allegations are still considered credible. The fact that these estimates have fallen out of favor is something the hook needs to at least allude to. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• Yes, according to Juvayni, three million people were killed in six weeks. Specific attribution can be made to that effect (al-Athir's contemporaneousity is somewhat irrelevant, as he lived 2000km to the west and relied just as much on reports as Juvayni did). I am unable to find any support for what you have said "alleged" means theleekycauldron—could you please provide a dictionary definition to that effect? All those I have looked at include "without proof" as a central point of the definition. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:19, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  @AirshipJungleman29: The "alleged" thing is mostly a consequence of DYK's use cases. We usually say "alleged" for pending, credible allegations (which have yet to be proven or unproven), because WP:BLP prevents us from going any farther than that. To say "alleged" for something that has been proven false would undercut that. How about:

  • ... that one 13th century estimate found that a Mongol army commanded by Tolui killed as many as three million people in less than two months?

  theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 19:02, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

• I fail to see the relevance of BLP theleekycauldron, as these estimates were made eight hundred years ago and have not been conclusively disproven. Your proposed hook is fine; I would substitute in "a contemporary chronicler estimated" for "one 13th century estimate found that"—simpler. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:06, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

  Okay, I'll swapped in:

  • ... that one contemporary chronicler claimed that Tolui's Mongol army killed as many as three million people in less than two months?

  theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:17, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks to theleekycauldron and AirshipJungleman29 for your help in concluding the issue. I think we can wrap it up here.RV (talk) 02:25, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived minutes ago, so I've created a new list the first 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 11. We have a total of 288 nominations, of which 132 have been approved, a gap of 156 nominations that has decreased by 10 over the past 9 days even as the total number of nominations has increased by 48! Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations; we’re still behind.

More than two months old

• May 31: Template:Did you know nominations/Charlotte Haining
• June 1: Template:Did you know nominations/House Gospel Choir
• June 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Updown
• June 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Froge.mp3
• June 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Nice 2 Me
• June 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Christian "Chrigel" Maurer

More than one month old

• June 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Cameron Cutie
• July 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Composite miniature painting
• July 19: Template:Did you know nominations/World constitution
• July 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Harris Turner
• July 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Saints Peter and Paul Seminary

Other nominations

• July 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Horror aequi
• July 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Maisi
• July 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Deshong Art Museum
• July 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Helene Ollendorff Curth
• July 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Masquerade (Khachaturian)
• August 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Li Sin-heng
• August 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Mihai Iștvanovici
• August 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Kingstree jail fire
• August 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Inferno (Counter-Strike)
• August 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Lotharian legend
• August 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Your Choice
• August 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Freedomland U.S.A.
• August 7: Template:Did you know nominations/No Saint
• August 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Hanania
• August 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Montgomery Riverfront Brawl
• August 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Solution and EU Party
• August 8: Template:Did you know nominations/Baaj Nwaavjo I'tah Kukveni – Ancestral Footprints of the Grand Canyon National Monument
• August 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Eternal Blue (album)
• August 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Montgomery Brawl
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Mark Fabish
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Commanding Right and Forbidding Wrong in Islamic Thought
• August 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Godalming
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Art Rooney Jr.
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Stripping (textiles)
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Missy Gregg
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Yunus Emre power station
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Discharge printing
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Walid Hamdiya
• August 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Medway Branch

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:25, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Heads up, I just split Charlotte Haining in two, so I've taken the liberty of adding House Gospel Choir here.--Launchballer 08:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Nomination?

Is someone interested in nominating this? I can't as an IP.

"... that before Lindsey Halligan became a lawyer in a criminal matter, she was an insurance lawyer?" "... Lindsey Halligan, a Florida insurance lawyer that handles residential and commercial claims....".

If you think this is OK, please submit it and I will do a qpq. Many thanks.

2603:7000:2101:AA00:CCC9:7E7B:26A9:1834 (talk) 19:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

 Done.--Launchballer 19:52, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! --2603:7000:2101:AA00:CCC9:7E7B:26A9:1834 (talk) 21:28, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 7

If you're reading this, this set or hook should have finished its appearance on the Main Page – if it has, please consider archiving this thread :) thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Kabwe mine (nom)

@Larataguera: regarding the crystals, does a modern source verify that there actually were crystals found at the mine, or was it just contemporaneous accounts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

They are discussed in this 2019 source (and others). Larataguera (talk) 20:47, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

coolcool, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:49, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Thai typewriter (nom)

• ... that when Edwin Hunter McFarland could not fit all letters into the first Thai typewriter, he left out two consonants, eventually making them obsolete?

@Paul 012, BorgQueen, and Bruxton: this cited source doesn't seem to be willing to go as far as the hook, saying that the typewriter "aided" in the process. Is there a reason that the hook and article use stronger language? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:50, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, the wording might have been an oversimplification. The two consonants had seen a long gradual decline in use, and lack of inclusion in the typewriter is usually regarded as the final nail in the coffin that made them completely obsolete. It's sort of implied in the article, but I can see that the hook's lack of further context could mislead the reader into thinking that it's the sole reason. Would changing to "contributing to their obsolescence" be better? It's more accurate, but does carry less of a punch. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Paul 012: Hmmmm. If we wanted to make it punchy, we could do something like:

• ... that the first Thai typewriter left out two letters, which eventually became obsolete?

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:20, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron sounds good to me. BorgQueen (talk) 21:23, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

(E/C) That's also good. I guess it could also work with the original construction:

• ... that when Edwin Hunter McFarland could not fit all letters into the first Thai typewriter, he left out two consonants, which eventually became obsolete?

which gives a clearer image of the alphabet having too many letters to fit, but your suggestion is punchier. I'm fine with both; whichever fits better in the queue. --Paul_012 (talk) 21:29, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron, I think you might have forgotten to implement the change? --Paul_012 (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Paul 012  Done BorgQueen (talk) 13:38, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Tan See Boo (nom)

• ... that Chinese missionary Tan See Boo moved to Singapore to work for the Presbyterian Church, but later returned to China to persuade Christians to leave the Presbyterian Church?

@Kingoflettuce: I should ask, is "become the Chinese cathechist of the recently-established Saint Andrew's Church Mission, which was supported by both Presbyterian and Anglican missionaries" the same as "work for the Presbyterian Church"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Yep, I'd say so and multiple RS explicitly state that he "worked for the Presbyterian Church." KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 00:15, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

2013 Midwestern U.S. floods (nom)

• ... that during the 2013 Midwest floods, a lightning strike accompanying the heavy rainfall-producing thunderstorms struck a US Airways plane at the Indianapolis International Airport?

@Tails Wx, Ergo Sum, and Bruxton: "WTHR-TV reports that officials at Indianapolis International Airport say a lightning strike damaged..." (source) is pretty different from "a lighting strike damaged..." (article and hook) as far as sourcing goes. Can attribution be added? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron, I think this hook should work:

• ...that during the 2013 Midwest floods, officials at Indianapolis International Airport stated that a lightning strike accompanying the heavy rainfall-producing thunderstorms struck a US Airways plane?

I've added the attribution, thanks for bringing this up! Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 21:03, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tails Wx: works for me, but it's a bit long. Any objection to me shortening it to:

• ... that during the 2013 Midwest floods, a plane got struck by lightning on the runway, according to officials at the airport?

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

No objection, but which airport? And I'd tweak "got" to "was". Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 21:10, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

@Tails Wx: doesn't really matter for the purposes of the hook? If the readers are curious, they can click through to find out.

• ... that during the 2013 Midwest floods, lightning struck a plane on the runway, according to officials at the airport?

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. The hook's good! Tails Wx (they/them) ⚧ 21:12, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll swap it in :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:13, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Bad rule wording

WP:DYKNEW says that an article is "ineligible if it has, within the year prior to nomination, appeared as a boldlink at In the news (ITN) or in the prose section of Selected anniversaries (OTD), or as Today's featured article (TFA)".

So, according to this, an article is DYK-eligible as long as you nominate it before it hits the Main Page elsewhere, and we could end up with an article appearing on DYK at the same time as, or shortly after, it's on ITN.

I had left a note on Template:Did you know nominations/2023 Tver plane crash based on what the rule is supposed to say, and CJ-Moki correctly replied that the article actually is eligible according to the existing rule wording (even though it's currently an ITN item). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:56, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Considering the opposite possibility (TFA or OTD shortly after DYK) is totally within-bounds and has the same consequence, and that the purpose of the newly-current wording is "minimum viable bureaucracy to avoid discouraging articles that are more likely than chance to be interesting", this seems fine to me. I guess I might not be representative going by that nomination, though. Vaticidalprophet 21:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Taking a step back from what the rules say, I think the intent is (or at least should be) that the limited and valuable main page real estate be parcelled out to as wide a variety of our content as possible. If you look at it that way, then it's dumb to run the same article multiple times, just because the rules aren't worded quite right to prevent it. RoySmith (talk) 22:43, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

We can change it to: It is also ineligible if it has, within the year prior to nomination or between nomination and promotion, appeared as a boldlink at In the news (ITN) or in the prose section of Selected anniversaries (OTD), or as Today's featured article (TFA). A nomination must go on hold if the article has pending nominations to appear at any of the same. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:59, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

The one thing I'm intentionally leaving open is that if we go through the entire approval and promotion process and then someone successfully submits it to ITN, that's not our problem anymore. Other sections of the Main Page should be making leeway for DYK too. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:00, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

So basically, if an article is on ITN and has already been promoted to a prep/queue, that's okay and we don't need to pull the hook anymore? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:06, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

"Not our problem" seems like a sub-optimal way to manage the main page. We're all in this together. RoySmith (talk) 02:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

In this hypothetical, either:

1. the hook sitting in a prep/queue was promoted before the ITN nomination started
2. or the hook was promoted after the ITN nomination.

If 2, then yes, we should pull the hook under tlc's new rule formulation. If 1, then I agree "we're all in this together" and I'd be likely to pull the hook, but I'd probably follow up with a discussion with the ITN folks about instituting something like this proposed rule so that there's some reasonable symmetry. Maybe we should start that conversation now? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 02:21, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm wondering if we're straying into solution-in-search-of-a-problem territory here. Are there any past examples of DYK-approved articles appearing on ITN that wouldn't be covered by the proposal? --Paul_012 (talk) 02:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm rethinking. Considering how slow DYK can move, it probably makes sense for ITN items to go ahead. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:14, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

(E/C) I think the intent is quite clear that should an article appear on ITN first it should become disqualified for DYK. Maybe adjust the wording to It is also ineligible if it has, within the year prior to nomination and until it appears on DYK, appeared as a boldlink... We shouldn't discourage starting DYK and ITN noms at the same time, as plenty of ITN noms fail with comments that it's better suited for DYK. ITN moves much faster than DYK, so in the majority of cases, by the time a DYK review is begun it will already either have passed or failed at ITN. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:08, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Theleekycauldron's wording is of course clearer, and should already cover the majority of cases. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:11, 24 August 2023 (UTC)

Last November's RfC about whether to relax the ITN/OTD rules was closed as follows: There is broad consensus that we should relax this guideline, but nearly all !voters mentioned concerns about the exact timeframe and which MP appearances should be included. I suggest a followup RfC to gain consensus on these issues. Looking at the discussion, there wasn't any that specifically suggested eliminating the previous requirement that an ITN appearance renders a current DYK nomination that hasn't hit the main page ineligible. While it can be disappointing not to have a DYK run because of an ITN appearance, the fact remains that the article will typically get longer play at ITN. It's regrettable that the revision to the rules after that RfC was not as clear as it should be, but there's no time like the present to fix it and give our regrets to the nominator for the lack of clarity; I think that a prepped or queued DYK should still be pulled if the article goes up at ITN absent an actual consensus that it shouldn't, so a modification of theleekycauldron's proposed rewording is in order, perhaps something like or prior to its scheduled DYK appearance on the main page rather than or between nomination and promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:08, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: if the previous guideline provided that we always pull if it appears on ITN, I'm happy to just slot the your modification of the rewording in right now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:58, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

That sounds good to me. I was surprised to discover what the current wording allowed, and the suggested revision seems to adequately take care of it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:38, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Below 6 preps/ queues

Three days after moving to 2 a day, we have 4 queues and 1 filled prep, so we will need to switch back to 1 a day soon unless more preps can be filled. There are 139 approved hooks, so hopefully that will not be necessary. TSventon (talk) 12:37, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I've promoted a prep to the queue, but that doesn't help the overall count. I will renew my oft-stated objection that since we don't appear to have the bandwidth to support it, moving to 2 sets per day is a bad idea. It just results in a rushed scramble to keep up which inevitably introduces errors. RoySmith (talk) 15:10, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

We were doing OK before the switch, but over the past few days the number of preppers has dwindled. If an editor is thinking of trying this out, now might be a good time. Z1720 (talk) 15:19, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I built a lot of July's but have been busy this month. Will go pick some up. Vaticidalprophet 15:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

And I'll renew my suggestion of "more than eight hooks". My maths says there are 300 sets currently in this year's Wikipedia:Recent additions, so 2400+ hooks, which it's taken 237 days to run, and there's usually a gap of varying sizes at the end of the Did you know section.--Launchballer 15:45, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

We're now in the enviable position of having six full preps with part of a seventh; it would be great if an admin or two could promote some of these to queues. Pinging @DYK admins: in the hopes that this can happen soon. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I can pull some in in the UTC early morning :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:38, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Felicia Schroeder

Queue 5: Felicia Schroeder (nom) @Bruxton @Dwanyewest @Sammi Brie The hook uses "sign" in two different ways: to sign up for a team, and to use sign language to communicate. This is clever, but I think it makes the hook jarring to read. I had to stop and go back to make sure I understood what was being said. Maybe this would work better in the quirky slot? The hook fact also isn't supported by the article, which says the school hired an interpreter for her. RoySmith (talk) 14:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

I had to bolster it with a second citation for sourcing reasons. Maybe some rewording would be a good idea... Quirky possibility:

... that Felicia Schroeder signed with South Carolina, but they had no one to sign for her?

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 15:34, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

According to the source South Carolina had no signers when they had no deaf students and recruited one when they recruited their first deaf student, so the hooks are a bit misleading. The source also says the signer had to drive for three hours, hopefully not each way, so they may not have been at their best when they started work. TSventon (talk) 15:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

The Buffalo Club

Queue 1: The Buffalo Club (nom) @Bruxton @TenPoundHammer @Sammi Brie The hook verifies, but could I interest you in something like:

• ALT1: ... that music industry executives were buffaloed into reviewing a new band from Nashville?

RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

• • Not a bad option... Might not be as immediately interesting though. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:55, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Carlos Alberto Sonnenschein

Queue 1: Carlos Alberto Sonnenschein (nom)@Lightburst @Krisgabwoosh @Onegreatjoke This needs an end-of-sentence citation for the hook fact. RoySmith (talk) 18:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

There's no single sentence in the article that this hook is derived from. For that matter, all sentences containing information mentioned in the hook: his three elections ("easily prevailed"; "a position he won"), lack of attendance ("missed ninety-eight percent of all sessions ..."; "Sonnenschein, who?"), have end-of-sentence citations. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:31, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Piri Reis map

Queue 1: Piri Reis map (nom) @Bruxton @Rjjiii @ITBF The hook says "likely contains", but the article states that as fact in wiki voice. That needs to be clarified. RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Also, Earwig lights up like crazy. I've pretty much convinced myself it's OK; i.e. just some quotes that are properly attributed. But Earwig links to baixardoc.com/documents/out-of-place-artifact-conservation-and-restoration-pseudo--5cb63b7698151, which I suspect is some crappy SEO fodder site, so I'm not too worried, but still, somebody else should take a look just to make sure. RoySmith (talk) 18:42, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

@Roy Smith: Regarding the hook, I would say that sources most clearly support the first DYK option and the content of the article; there are excerpts from the sources in the DYK page.

Regarding Earwig, part of the similarities come from quotes but there are quite a few sites engaging in copyright violations. Earwig should highlight many older parts of the Wikpedia article (still existing and present when the violation occurred). I broke down a section of the lead in the GA review. If there are other sections highlighted by Earwig that you would like me to break down, let me know. I can go through any parts that you feel concerned by on the talk page and ping you when done. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 19:23, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

User:Roy Smith the "likely contains" is a judgment call made by the promoter and was not in the original hook, the sources used in the article don't hedge their bets and clearly attribute Columbus as a source - as stated in my review I would prefer the original hook. With regard to the Earwig issue, this was looked at in the GA review here and I feel has been adequately explained as an issue with Wikipedia mirrors. ITBF (talk) 07:24, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@ITBF, Roy Smith, and Rjjiii: I see an educated guess in the given source, and equivocation with the language of "diverse claims", and that is why I suggested "may be" but I am happy to be wrong. Bruxton (talk) 17:49, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

On the copyright/mirror stuff, I'm totally satisfied we're OK. On whether to say "likely", my inclination is that there's enough uncertainty in the sources that we should say "likely", so the article should be changed to match the hook. RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

@Roy Smith: I have changed the reference in the article. Hopefully this is less confusing: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Piri_Reis_map&diff=1172398713&oldid=1172125042 Rjjiii (talk) 20:52, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not going to be able to provide a satisfying answer. I'm (far from) an expert on this subject matter, and my scanning of the references and other literature that I could find leaves me unclear what the right answer is. RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Sienna Shaw

Queue 5: Sienna Shaw (nom) @Bruxton @The Baudelaire Fortune @Ergo Sum also @Vacant0 who did the GA review. I'm concerned about the large amount of of direct quoting, vis-a-vis WP:OVERQUOTING. Somebody who is better versed in WP:MOS than I am should take a look. RoySmith (talk) 14:46, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Fix Vacant0 ping. RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

the lengths of the quotes are fine to me, but taking a closer look, it's a violation of MOS:PQ to quote box information that's already in the article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:47, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Although I'm not the contributor, I've removed pull quotes from the article. Vacant0 (talk) 11:19, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

That should work, unless the nom objects :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 11:35, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

moved back to Prep 6, since it doesn't feel right to move all the way back to DYKN despite no response. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:25, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

The first rule ...

In Prep 6: ... that the metacognitive explanation of the Dunning–Kruger effect states that low performers overestimate their skills because they are unable to recognize their incompetence?

Nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Dunning–Kruger effect

The nominator's first hook – ... that "the first rule of the Dunning–Kruger club is you don't know you're in the Dunning-Kruger club"? – is clearly hookier, but the relevant passage has been deleted (and restored and redeleted) from the article, for now.

I would like to request that this be removed from prep and the nomination put on hold until Talk:Dunning–Kruger effect#To quip or not to quip is resolved. (And if the current hook is used, I think the first part should be removed because, let's face it, lots of people will just stop reading it once they hit "metacognitive".)

Since this is about a quip, pinging our resident quipmeister for his opinion. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:42, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I like this hook per my essay on attribution at DYK (shameless self-plug!). I also think the quip belongs in the article: on the most basic level of "does this thing help the article", I think it neatly sums up a very complicated idea for readers in an engaging way. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:44, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

I participated on the article's talk page. In a nutshell: I prefer the promoted ALT as it is a good article we are talking about and I think putting the quip in the article may be fun but is not encyclopedic. Bruxton (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I also participated on the article's talk page. I'm undecided about including the quip in the article (in terms of whether it improves the article or makes it worse), but as far as hooks go the quip is much catchier. The promoted hook describes an interesting phenomenon but is rather wordy and kind of requires the reader to think about what it means, which doesn't seem like the best approach to get people to click the link and check out the article. TompaDompa (talk) 00:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

• I restored the quotation using a source attributing it to Dunning himself, together with context making the meaning clear. ALT0 is now supported just right. Meanwhile, I reached into Prop 6 and pulled the old hook out by the roots. Hope I didn't break any of the crockery in the process. EEng 06:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Great, we get quip-hook after all. We have to slightly adjust ALT0 since the quip from the interview-quote is worded a little differently. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  I already took my melatonin so my lids grow heavy. What's the difference? EEng 08:11, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  previous quote: the first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don't know you're in the Dunning-Kruger club

  current quote: the first rule of the Dunning-Kruger club is you don't know you're a member of the Dunning-Kruger club.

  Phlsph7 (talk) 08:18, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Roger, thanks. Funny I missed that since I've always considered myself better than most people at spotting differences. A fluke. EEng 08:24, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks @EEng: that works. I am looking for the hook in our preps but I cannot see it. Is it moved from prep 6? Perhaps it was de-promoted? Bruxton (talk) 14:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  I pulled it out of Prep 6. Not sure I did it right though. EEng 14:45, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  I don't about the correct prep area procedure. The consensus seems to be that the following should be the hook:

  ... that "the first rule of the Dunning–Kruger club is you don't know you're a member of the Dunning–Kruger club"?

  I guess it qualifies as a quirky hook for the last spot. Phlsph7 (talk) 14:50, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks @EEng:. I will put it in quirky Bruxton (talk) 14:52, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

  i've conformed the hook with the source. dying (talk) 17:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Transcluded text

Does the partial transclusion in Virtual Dining Concepts count for the bytes of readable prose? Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:58, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

No, and it requires the rest of the text to be five times its length per WP:DYKSPLIT. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Sammi Brie: No, and it arguably makes the article ineligible per WP:DYKSPLIT. The text does need to be new. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:03, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I thought not. The article has a real weighting issue anyway. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:06, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Help?

I'm trying to nominate a DYK for plant, but Template:Did you know nominations/Plant already exists (it failed review). What do I do? Thanks in advance! Cessaune [talk] 02:07, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Pinging SD0001, this is a thing that does keep coming up. @Cessaune: the best thing to do is continue as normal, and when the script throws an error, copy and paste the text to Template:Did you know nominations/Plant (2nd nomination) and transclude that to WP:DYKN. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 02:20, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Done. Thanks! Cessaune [talk] 03:34, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Query

On 19 August, one of the DYK hooks stated "that the crusading movement defined concepts of warfare throughout medieval Europe". After I requested a quote from the article's text to verify the hook ([2]), AirshipJungleman29 who proposed the hook answered that "Literally the entire article verifies the statement, as is apparent to all who read it and not cherry-picked parts." ([3]). According to the relevant DYK rule, "The hook needs to appear in the article with a citation no later than at the end of the sentence." Can we indeed interpret this rule that it allows readers to present their impression about the whole article in a hook instead of verifying it by a quote from the article's verified text? (Let's forget that in this specific case the hook contradicts section "1.1 Christianity and war" that makes it clear that the Catholic concepts of warfare developed before the start of the crusading movement. Now, we can also forget that the hook is unclear as it can be interpreted as if the crusading movement had defined concepts of warfare not only in Catholic Europe, but also in the Orthodox and Islamic states in Europe.) Borsoka (talk) 03:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Queue 2

If you're reading this, this set or hook should have finished its appearance on the Main Page – if it has, please consider archiving this thread :) thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Gauthierite (nom)

• ... that the mineral gauthierite (pictured) has only been found in one location, and only on very few specimens?

@Klaproth and Pbritti: Large parts of this article seem to be unsourced? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:46, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I'll also ping AirshipJungleman29 for a nitpick on the hook: do we have any source in the six years following discovery that says we haven't found any new samples in other mines? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:49, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: I went through the article and checked uncited statements when I initially reviewed. I remember finding all material being present in the references, if not cited in the body; given the brevity of the article and the requirement that only the hook be cited, I figured that this article didn't meet the GA standard of every statement cited (which was a rule I think you pushed for, for which I thank you!) but that it was sufficiently verifiable to be featured as a DYK. If you'd like, I can go through and provide citations for those statements that lack them. That's not that big an ask but I really don't have expertise in the subject area so, if asked, I'd appreciate someone verifying I did it correctly. ~ Pbritti (talk) 18:12, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: I am sure it all does verify :) the GA standard does pretty much match WP:DYKPOL these days, so we'll need end-of-paragraph citations. Once that's cleared, we'll have to take care of the hook, but that should be all. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:41, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Would you mind taking a second look? I think it should look a tad better now, but I did have to remove some content that I could not locate in my limited access versions of references. ~ Pbritti (talk) 20:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Pbritti: that looks good, thanks! I think the earlier point still stands, though: the paper announcing discover can't verify that no further specimens have been discovered since. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Lil Tay (nom)

• ... that nine-year-old rapper Lil Tay called herself the "youngest flexer of the century" during a three-month period in 2018 and had 2.4 million followers on Instagram?

@TDKR Chicago 101, Tails Wx, and Bruxton: I am... a little grumpy about the quality of the sourcing on this very negative BLP, particularly Insider and TMZ. I also can't make heads or tails of this quote, much less why it's the second sentence of a two-line lead. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:56, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

bumping to a later prep on lack of response. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:24, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

actually, since the preps are filling and I'd like this thread to be archived when the set appears, I'll be pulling it. When it's fixed, I'll put it back myself. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:26, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Thelma Bates (physician) (nom)

• ... that when Thelma Bates established the first palliative care team at a British hospital, her colleagues tried to dissuade her from "ruining her career"?

@GGT, Kingoflettuce, and Bruxton: it seems from the source like "ruin her career" is not a quote from her colleagues, and the narrative tense of the hook seems off – they warned her right when she established it? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:00, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Hi Theleekycauldron. My understanding is that much of the warnings were during the consultation phase, and after they saw the effects they retracted their opposition. We could rephrase it as "when Thelma Bates was establishing" or "was working to establish". And frankly I'm not sure why it's an issue that the "ruin her career" may or may not be a direct quote from her colleagues - clearly that's the general tone of the warnings she's received. We can remove the quotation marks if you're concerned about giving a false impression but... I think we're splitting hairs too thinly here. GGT (talk) 09:08, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Well, I do think we should generally try to avoid the use of quotes around things that aren't quotes. How about:

• ... that Thelma Bates' colleagues tried to discourage her from establishing the first palliative care team at a British hospital, saying it would ruin her career?

that is technically CLOP, but i'm too tired so I'll just call it WP:LIMITED. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:14, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

But it is a quote from the BMJ. Anyway, what you're proposing is also fine, I'm easy. GGT (talk) 09:15, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

all righty. I'll make the similar to the article and swap this in :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:17, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron is there some reason this hook is indented? RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 13:40, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

well, it was 1am local, so there's your reason :) looks like BQ fixed it up. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:43, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Unrelatedly, I've turned Thelma Bates into a dab page, I don't think the character is the ptopic. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:22, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

Had been on my to-do list for a bit, thanks for that. :) GGT (talk) 09:27, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

WVIR-TV (nom)

@Sammi Brie: I'm sure you're right, but was there a source for the fact that the Greensboro station was WUBC? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:09, 27 August 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted the offending bit from the article for now, so this can go through. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Fulton Street station (New York City Subway)

Queue 3: Fulton Street station (New York City Subway) (nom) @Bruxton @Epicgenius @Onegreatjoke The hook verifies, but isn't the usual style to attribute quotes to the paper rather than to the reporter? I.e. "... The New York Times said the station ..."? RoySmith (talk) 00:10, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

KYOU-TV

Queue 3: KYOU-TV (nom) @Lightburst, Sammi Brie, and Siroxo: I know I've said this before, but we're really running too many TV station hooks. RoySmith (talk) 00:13, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/August 2023 has passed on average one TV station GA a day. Sammi writes fast, but she doesn't usually go that fast, so I imagine there'll be a slower pace once all the drive GAs run through. Vaticidalprophet 00:19, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

I have held back from sending any other pages to DYK except for a timely topic (Wendy McMahon (television executive)) and an AfD rescue 5x (KAGI). I have exactly two more to send (KHNL and 1989 South Florida television affiliation switch), and then I have, at this moment, no pending GANs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 00:36, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Hanhart syndrome

Queue 3: Hanhart syndrome (nom) @Bruxton, Etriusus, and Soman: The hook says "diagnosed", the article says "reported in literature". Those are not the same thing. I see this was discussed in the nom and noted as "fixed", but it doesn't in fact appear to have been fixed. Am I missing something? RoySmith (talk) 00:23, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Diamandi Djuvara

Queue 3: Diamandi Djuvara (nom) @Vaticidalprophet, Dahn, and Krisgabwoosh: There used to be a rule about not having hooks for their shock value. I'm wondering if this violates that rule. I can't find the rule now because the supplemental rules got rearranged and I haven't found my way around the new organization yet :-( RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:DYKINT: At the same time, excessively sensational or gratuitous hooks should be rejected.? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:34, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, that one. RoySmith (talk) 02:44, 28 August 2023 (UTC)

Note the alt. Also: the man was a ruthless killer and was ruthlessly killed. Such was the era. Dahn (talk) 05:03, 28 August 2023 (UTC)