Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Schwede66 (talk | contribs) at 04:08, 19 June 2024 (→Thank you all: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

DYK error rate

May 2024 errors

May error rate:

  • 93% error-free overall (18 errors / 276 hooks)
  • 95% error-free before MP (15 / 276)
May 2024 errors
Date Hook Error
May 5 that cosplaying as a character from the New California Republic (flag pictured) could potentially lead to accidental arrest due to mistaken suspicion of carrying a bomb? failed verification (report, queue fix)
May 7 that opera composer and librettist Joseph Redding (pictured) was also a chess polymath and lawyer who won a landmark decision before the United States Supreme Court? failed verification (report, MP fix)
May 7 that Kooraban National Park provides a habitat for more than twenty endangered animal species, including koalas? failed verification (report, MP fix)
May 7 that sisters Joanne, Lynette, Amy and Jenny McCarthy were all gymnasts and ten-pin bowlers? failed verification (report, MP fix)
May 7 that the production team of the TV series The Falcon and the Winter Soldier created a highway more than five miles (8 km) long to capture visual effects for a truck action sequence for the episode "The Star-Spangled Man"? hook didn't specify it was a "digital" highway (report, MP fix)
May 8 that even though about 100,000 bombs fell on Le Touquet during World War II, making it "the most mined city in France", it was the first resort in northern France to open its beaches after its liberation? failed verification (report, queue fix)
May 11 that when the Bukharian-Jewish Soviet newspaper Bajroqi Miⱨnat switched to the Latin script, it did not use capital letters, following Jewish writing rules? hook did not specify that it "initially" did not use capital letters (report, queue fix)
May 14 that William F. Fiedler was the only American fighter pilot to become a flying ace in the P-39 Airacobra? failed verification (report, MP fix)
May 15 that Oophaga solanensis frogs can be bought for $3 in their native Colombia and sold for up to $1,000 overseas? hook didn't convey illegality (report, MP fix)
May 17 that the comedian Jonny Pelham is one of only 200 people in the UK to suffer from popliteal pterygium syndrome? "only 200" failed verification and MEDRS (report, MP fix)
May 19 that winter wonderland fairs have become a celebrated annual British tradition – but often for the wrong reasons? "wrong reasons" not in article and not NPOV (report, MP fix)
May 21 that Spider began making alternative music because she felt that not enough Black women were doing so? link to set index article (report, MP fix)
May 22 that the U.S. Army Air Corps were so unimpressed by the Estoppey D-8 that one member stated that he would rather use "nails and a wire"? attributed one person's opinion to entire US Army Air Corps (report, MP fix)
May 24 that actress Nellie McCoy (pictured) suffered a mental breakdown after her theatre performance was criticized, leading to her being committed to a sanatorium? "after her theatre performance was criticized" not in article (report, not fixed)
May 24 that Axel Downard-Wilke (pictured) led a campaign in 2020 to have macrons used in Māori place names in Wikipedia articles? COI (report, MP fix)
May 24 that women were 33 percent more likely than men to search for clown pornography in 2016? "on Pornhub" not specified in hook fact (report, MP fix)
May 26 that during the "trial from hell" Matthew Charles Johnson and his co-accused hurled abuse at the judge and threw human excrement at a member of the jury? certain hook details failed verification; BLPvio (report, MP fix)
May 29 that Israel's systematic destruction of trees and farmland in Gaza has been described as an ecocide? "systematic" in wikivoice instead of attributed (report, MP fix)

June 2024 errors

June error rate (through June 16):

  • 92% error-free overall (11 errors / 140 hooks)
  • 94% error-free before MP (8 / 140)
June 2024 errors
Date Hook Error
June 4 that Barron Trump signed for D.C. United Academy as a midfielder? notability and BLP concerns (report, MP fix)
June 6 that despite "C U in da Ballpit" being Camping in Alaska's best known song, the band says they all hate it? "best known song" failed verification (report, MP fix)
June 8 that the Tang-dynasty politician Fang Yi'ai was put to death and his wife Princess Gaoyang was forced to commit suicide after their failed rebellion against Emperor Gaozong? "put to death" not in article; possibly unapproved/unverified hook promoted (report, MP fix)
June 9 that Carrie Swain was possibly the first woman entertainer to perform in blackface? "first" fails verification (report, MP fix)
June 10 that the ancient Greek game polis is one of the world's oldest strategy games? didn't specify "oldest known" (report, MP fix)
June 10 that dance teacher Mary Ann Wells, despite being in the "I AM" movement, did not enforce rigid technical standards on her students? Pulled for SYNTH (report, queue fix)
June 12 that Professor Layton and the New World of Steam is planned to be the first main entry since 2013 in the series Professor Layton, despite it being its developer's most popular media franchise? failed verification (report, queue fix)
June 13 that Arthur Fulton, his father and his son all won the Sovereign's Prize for rifle shooting? hook fact not clearly in article (report, queue fix)
June 15 Chinese characters DYK image image not in article (report, MP fix)
June 15 that although it was never built, Lynn Conway notes that IBM's ACS-1 would have been the premier supercomputer of the era? not a definite fact (report, MP fix)
Jun 17 that Zombie Plane cannot take flight from Chuck Norris? confusing; not a definite fact; WP:DYKFICTION (report, MP fix)

Error rate discussion

Anyone should feel free to update the table. I didn't list everything that was at WP:ERRORS, e.g. I didn't list simple copyedits like changing "$" to "US$". Overall, 93% or 95% error-free ain't bad, but IMO given the visibility, it really should be 99%, i.e. less than one per week. It's not ideal to have to rely on people fixing things at WP:ERRORS multiple times per week. Levivich (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought that if a hook ran for more than six hours and turned out to have a serious error, we should issue a retraction in the next set. A basic retraction policy underlies most honest sources of information, there's no reason we shouldn't have one as well – we're not like the rest of the project in that you can just edit stuff and it'll be fixed going forward, nothing is on the page for more than 24 hours. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1. Ironically, one of the ways that we judge whether a source is reliable is by looking at whether it prints retractions, yet we do not print retractions. I would go further and say that there ought to be a "retraction box" on the main page, where we post as retractions everything that ends up having to be fixed on the main page. In other words, every fix made at WP:ERRORS should be noted in the retraction box on the main page (not just DYK). I have a vague memory of this being discussed and rejected by the community at some point in the last 5 years or so but I don't remember where. Levivich (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do like the idea of being transparent about errors, but it feels tricky. Maybe 'Corrections' instead of 'Retractions'; retraction seems like it should be for something possibly harmful that was factually incorrect. Like, I wouldn't want us to say we'd 'retracted' that Trump signed as a midfielder.
And really I'm not sure it's a fix to have Trump appear a second time at the MP with us noting the hook was pulled for the article being a BLP vio and questions being raised as to notability and we regret the error, that seems worse than the simple pull. Valereee (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would a reader be more likely to encounter a retraction box at the bottom of the main page? Or at the talk page of the linked article? The second would be fairly easy to implement. Online, some newspapers don't offer anymore than a "published" and "corrected/updated" date on the article's page.[1] Rjjiii (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: I think we'd mainly want to use a corrections/retractions box for errors of the hooks; while we can and do pull hooks for article issues, we generally don't maintain a retractions log on articles. I was just thinking something more like:
  • In the second DYK set on June 8, 2024, it was claimed that Jane Doe invented the flywheel. However, multiple inventors have credible claims to the flywheel, some predating Doe by up to 20 years.
theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That would work for me Valereee (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I think there's different levels of error. A poorly worded hook that should be rephrased is bad, but not as bad as something being actively not in the source stated. Lots of those above seem to be that the hook is the thing that isn't covered by the citation - perhaps that is the thing to stress to both reviewers and set promoters - to check that the source being used explicitly states the info being written.
As much as the rest of the article is important, the hook itself is the only bit that is given such high visibility. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 23:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I object to the Spider error – WP:DYKG doesn't mention SIAs, because they're articles, not DABs. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There was a reasonable argument at ERRRORs that perhaps that page should be marked as a disambiguation—Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a perfect measure but I'm using "changed at WP:ERRORS" as basically the definition of "error." I think there's an argument to be made that this particular one might be a de minimis example, like changing "$" to "US$" or adding a wikilink to "George Washington" but I included it because I thought it fell into the category of "clearly against some DYK rule." I'm no expert about DYK rules so maybe that one isn't against any actual rule? Levivich (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The most concerning errors are the failed verification ones, sadly they seem the most common. Focusing on those would make the most difference both to quality and to the error rate. CMD (talk) 08:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I find the fact verification seems to be a chronic problem concerning, but for me the most concerning is BLP issues. Levivich, it looks like the May 8 Le Touquet hook was pulled before it hit the main page, is that an outlier in these tables? (That is, I'm seeing most of the reports at ERRORS were in Current DYK, which I'm assuming means most actually made it to the main page?) Valereee (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I included it because it was caught at WP:ERRORS and not by "internal" DYK error-correction processes. I think "next DYK" ERRORS should "count" as "DYK errors," e.g. something that DYK "missed." (It's true that most are current-DYK and not next-DYK, but isn't that a bug not a feature?) Levivich (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, I just wasn't clear on what the inclusion criteria were, and I do think we should be aiming for all errors to be caught before a set hits Next-but-one DYK. But it would also be interesting to understand how many errors actually made it onto the main page. The vagaries of transclusion and date stamps make my head spin...is there an easy way to note which errors were fixed after the hook moved onto the main page? Valereee (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And IIRC some were flagged as next-DYK but fixed after it hit the main page (due to length of discussion); I think that's the only one that was fixed before it hit the main page, going from memory. That can be checked by looking whether the "fix" link is to the DYK template or a queue. Levivich (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Can you give the clueless an example? :D Er, one that even I can understand? Valereee (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes of course! Okay, so the "mouse" is that little plastic thing with buttons on it next to your keyboard that kind of looks like a mouse with no tail. Now when you move the mouse on your desk, it'll move the arrow on your screen, and if you hover over one of the links and press the left mouse button... :-D Just kidding, it's a good catch, I can update the list in two seconds later today when I get to a desktop and differentiate between fixed-at-current-DYK and fixed-at-next-DYK. Going from memory there is only one "next" and the rest are "current" but I'll double check and update the table to clarify this. Levivich (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My mouse is wired, so kind of looks like it does have a tail...does that still count? Valereee (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
lol, somebody please get val a WMF tech grant for a wireless mouse. (On the other hand the tail might make it easier to find.) Levivich (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found my TV remote in the fridge the other day. Valereee (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"Tell me you're a stoner without telling me you're a stoner" 😂 Levivich (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and to actually answer your question, if you click the "fix" link for the May 8 entry, it takes you to a diff of an edit to one of the queue templates; the other "fix" links go to a diff of the actual DYK template that's transcluded on the main page -- that's how we know those were live when the diff was made, whereas the queue template diff means it wasn't live yet (still in the queue). So ERRORS report + DYK template fix = fixed when it was already on the main page, while ERRORS report + queue template fix = not on main page yet. Levivich (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OHHH. God, I can't even claim not enough coffee. Thanks! Valereee (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, they're all now updated to specify "MP fix" or "queue fix," and my memory was wrong: there were three queue fixes. I'll note though that there are examples where the error was reported to WP:ERRORS before the item hit the main page, but due to the length of discussion or admin response, the error wasn't actually fixed until it hit the main page. So, for example, the Kooraban error was reported on May 5 as a next-but-one error 2 days before going live, but wasn't fixed until May 7 when it was already live. So just because something is an "MP fix" doesn't mean it wasn't caught until it hit the MP, but it does mean the error hit the MP. Just thought I'd mention this wrinkle. Levivich (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This seems quite good. I still support efforts to raise standards, especially at the main page, and to use DYK/GA/FA to promote higher standards, but studies have consistently found that most published news articles contain errors.[2] Many of the errors noted above are also somewhat minor rather than outright bogus. Rjjiii (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not just newspapers – see Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Levivich (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"First" hooks

We had yet another "first" hook shown to be wrong on WP:ERRORS today. Looking at the lineup right now, I see a bunch more "first" claims:

Queue 6 ... that the first model of cosmic inflation was formulated by a Soviet physicist but initially remained unknown outside the Soviet Union?

Queue 2: ... that Professor Layton and the New World of Steam is planned to be the first main entry since 2013 in the series Professor Layton, despite it being its developer's most popular media franchise?

Prep 3: ... that Pujol and Quintonil are the highest-rated restaurants in Mexico's first Michelin guide, with two Michelin stars each?

Prep 5: ... that George Kunkel (pictured) portrayed a mountaineer in The Chalice of Courage (1915), the first film to depict assisted suicide?

Prep 6: ... that the Henry Street salamander tunnels in Amherst, Massachusetts, were the first amphibian tunnels (example pictured) in the United States?

Prep 6:... that Joe Shield was the first person from Vermont to be drafted into the NFL and then make a team's roster?

Maybe we want to take a closer look at these before they go live? These kinds of hooks really are problematic and we should stay way from them. It's really hard to prove that something is the first of its kind, and all it takes is one earlier example to show that we're wrong. RoySmith (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree about a blanket ban, but I do agree with a closer review. The recent problematic first hook was not a typical first hook because it included "possibly", and it should have not been promoted. SL93 (talk) 18:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked at the one in queue 6. If the hook is true, the article Starobinsky inflation should probably mention it. Sgubaldo. SL93 (talk) 18:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I would not mind having a blanket ban, with exceptions possible for rock-solid cases. Schwede66 18:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the one in prep 6 about the salamander tunnels, this journal article says "one of the first" and this environment organization says "possibly the first". Pinging nominator Bruxton SL93 (talk) 18:19, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I see sources which say these were the first, but I also see sources which equivocate and say things such as what @Bruxton quoted above. We should go with the more conservative bunch and not claim a "first" that we can't back up. RoySmith (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think you mean SL93. I made it clearer. SL93 (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
RoySmith I see two alts. Maybe one of those could work. SL93 (talk) 18:47, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1 isn't bad, but how about a terser version of it:
ALT1a: ... that before the Henry Street tunnels (example pictured) were built, volunteers carried spotted salamanders across the street in buckets?
What I don't like about all of these, however, is that we're talking specifically about the Henry Street tunnels but the photo is of some other tunnel. That seems distinctly sub-optimal. RoySmith (talk) 20:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like this ought to be an extremely easy photo to get, too. Msact, Daderot, Ncnorie, Faolin42, Kithira have all taken photos in Amherst and have edited en.wiki recently. Valereee (talk) 12:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I got some pictures. Will upload tonight. Faolin42 (talk) 18:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Faolin42 Awesome, dude! RoySmith (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've added the images at Category:Henry Street salamander tunnels Faolin42 (talk) 22:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Cool. File:Henry Street southern salamander tunnel west entrance, Cushman MA.jpg would be perfect, but for some reason when I try to add it to the article, the editor won't let me. I'm guessing it's just some kind of cache or index delay problem, so I'll just try again later. RoySmith (talk) 22:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wow @Faolin42:. excellent. I got interested in these tunnels last year when I saw a toad tunnel in a post office parking lot. I am excited to see the article run. So glad you have such great images of the HS tunnels. Bravo! I never even thought to see if a WP editor lived near. And sorry I have been MIA for a few days. Bruxton (talk) 04:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That is awesome! Great photos, too! Valereee (talk) 12:26, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Glad I could help! Faolin42 (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is now in Prep 6 with the original "first" hook. I've recently edited the article to add that this emerging-traveling-mating is an event common among amphibians and known as a "Big Night" (sourced to Audubon). In addition to ALT1a, we could also use:
ALT2 ... that salamanders in Massachusetts use purpose-built tunnels under a road to get to their Big Night?
Ping to Bruxton. Valereee (talk) 15:36, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
According to WP:DYKMOS, we're not required to start hooks with "that". So, we could do:
ALT3: ... why salamanders cross the road? RoySmith (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like that one, too! Valereee (talk) 17:06, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like that too but I'd suggest "how salamanders cross the road". Levivich (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, even better! Valereee (talk) 18:29, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Valereee, I am ok with any hook - the buckets one interested me as well. Regarding the original "first" hook, I imagine that somewhere in the US, amphibians used culverts prior to the Henry tunnels. And if we cannot prove these were the first I am ok with other hooks. Also I uploaded my pics of that toad tunnel and it is decidedly less impressive than the pics by Faolin42 of the tunnels under Henry. Bruxton (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bruxton, great. Can someone please approve:
ALT3a: ... how salamanders cross the road (pictured)?
It would also make a good quirky, but I like the image a lot. Valereee (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've promoted ALT3a to Prep. Schwede66 21:35, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I liked your pictures, especially that there was a sign and a little house. I went back over the articles for the Henry Street tunnels and realized there is a salamander sculpture/path on the Cushman Common, inspired by the Henry Street salamanders. See https://www.waymarking.com/waymarks/wm115XV_Crossroads_Salamander_Amherst_Massachusetts and many other references. Cushman is the village in Amherst where the tunnels are located. I have good pictures of the installation that I took 11 years ago, similar to the above link, but probably can't upload them because of copyright :-(. Faolin42 (talk) 00:47, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Faolin42, because the art is under copyright? I think we can upload images of US public art, like here? Valereee (talk) 00:58, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I will upload, and we'll see how it goes... Faolin42 (talk) 01:02, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I tried to upload an image of the Crossroads Salamander public sculpture, but the Upload Wizard stopped me because 'someone else's work is visible in the work' I'm submitting. I'll read through the FAQ's and take it to the Village Pump tomorrow to see if I can upload it. Faolin42 (talk) 01:20, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I keep imagining a salamander traffic report: "Well, the Big Night is finally here, and traffic at the Henry Street Tunnel is backed up for yards. Tonight's forecast, coming up right after the news." Levivich (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: Imagine the slippery creatures before the bucket-brigade and the tunnels... oh the humanity! By the look of Faolin42's pictures, the Salamanders got a lot more attention than the filthy wart-ridden toads. File:Toad tunnel entrance.jpg. They do have a playful sign and a mini toad-house at the site File:Davis Toad Tunnel entrance.jpg. "Toad Hollow". The salamander tunnels are more impressive than this toad tunnel - I do not even know how a toad would find it. As I remember it took me a while to locate it! And then media outlets mocked the effort. Checking now, it was the Daily Show in 1999. Bruxton (talk) 01:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the source I used for my hook, which states that the 'first inflationary model was developed by Alexei Starobinsky'. It wasn't known as 'inflation' yet because the term was coined later and this is mentioned in the article. This other source present in the article also states that 'There had previously been suggestions by some theorists that the universe might have undergone a period of rapid expansion early in its life, but the first to come up with a convincing scenario was Russian cosmologist Alexei Starobinsky...' Sgubaldo (talk) 18:22, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't referring to the nominated article, but rather the wikilink Starobinsky inflation. SL93 (talk) 18:26, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I realise that the Starobinsky inflation article should mention it. I was replying to the top comment since taking a closer look at each of the hooks was mentioned. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:28, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for not understanding. SL93 (talk) 18:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No worries at all, I should've been clearer. I've added a sentence about this to Starobinsky inflation. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:40, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "there had previously" statements that you quote re Starobinsky make this too dubious to state definitively as a first in DYK. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understood it as others had previously suggested such a possibility, but no one had ever formulated a proper model. The other source definitively states that it was the first model. If it's considered too dubious, then I won't object to its removal from the queue. Sgubaldo (talk) 18:52, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
W/r/t the Swain hook that was pulled today, I noticed the review says "hook verified AGF". I don't understand why a hook would be AGF and not verified when the hook source is available for free on the Internet Archive (courtesy ping reviewer Dahn). My two cents: DYK doesn't need a new rule about "firsts," it needs to actually verify hooks. I don't mean to brag here and I know it's kind of a jerk thing to say, but to drive the point home: y'all can look at my contribs and see that in 15 minutes I was able to google the title of the source book, find it for free on the archives, read the relevant page, see that the fact failed verification, make the appropriate edits to the article, and post an explanation with quotes and links on the article talk page. I only say this to point out that it doesn't necessarily take long to verify hooks. Levivich (talk) 20:29, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Btw here's an idea for a new rule: get rid of "AGF verification." If a hook can't be verified by at least two people (nom and reviewer), it doesn't go on the main page, period end of story. We have enough verifiable hooks in the pipeline that we don't need AGF verification. Levivich (talk) 20:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And in doing so you enforce systematic bias on Wikipedia, for obvious reasons. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, avoiding systemic bias does not require not verifying hooks. Take this Swain hook for example: the topic is an American woman and the source is written in English; no systemic bias here. Or, rather, despite not verifying the hook, this hook perpetuates systemic bias (it's about Americans). Levivich (talk) 20:48, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Systematic bias is rather larger than one hook. See e.g. Wikipedia:Systemic bias#Availability of sources may cause bias. Your proposal would see all hooks cited to offline references and most cited to non-Englih sources rejected. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(It's "systemic" bias, not "systematic.") As WP:SBEXT says, "Availability of sources may cause bias," emphasis mine. That doesn't mean that we must have inaccessible sources to fight systemic bias. And it doesn't mean that inaccessible sources that fight systemic bias must be sources that only one person can verify. It's possible to find two people who can both speak a foreign language or access an offline source. Of course, not AGFing verification makes it harder to fight systemic bias, but it doesn't mean we "enforce" (your word) systemic bias by requiring actual verification. It's about balance and trade-offs. I'll take verification over unverified when balancing the two, even if verification means more systemic bias. And there are third-way compromises, such as the one suggested by Bagumba below. Levivich (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The specific bias that this would cause (not just hypothetically) is Wikipedia:Recentism. I have on multiple occasions gone physically to a large academic library to find material for Wikipedia articles, or requested material from them by interlibrary loan, because that was the only way to find those sources. It is relatively easy for me to do so because I work at a university. It would be less easy to others. I don't think it's reasonable to expect DYK reviewers to do so, any more than it would be to turn Wikipedia or DYK into an encyclopedia of only things that can be found online. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:10, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not require the nominator to at least quote the relevant sentences that support the hook? —Bagumba (talk) 20:56, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1, it would make verification easier and faster, and buffer against systemic bias because the nom could quote otherwise-difficult-to-access sources (e.g., offline, in another language, etc.). Levivich (talk) 21:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
+1 to having the nom provide a translation. RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When I nominate hooks, I nearly always include relevant quotations—or explanations if the relevant passage isn't particularly quotable—whether or not the source is online, offline, paywalled, etc., just for accessibility to the reviewer, so I would be supportive of an expectation that nominators include supporting quotations to verify hooks cited to sources the reviewer is not able to access because of a material or language barrier.
I would, however, oppose a blanket elimination of AGF verification. I'm inclined to share AirshipJungleman29's concerns on that matter, and I think Levivich understates or under-recognizes the potentially wide fallout such a change to DYK praxis would have. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have nearly always included the quote and the translation in offline or paywalled sources I used for my hooks. Dahn (talk) 03:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I often see nominators just link the source without a quote, contrary to the nomination form instructions:

You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting the hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

—Bagumba (talk) 04:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
DYK helper prompts for the source quote. Valereee (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But its often not provided, and reviewers should ask for it as part of as AGF review. —Bagumba (talk) 04:46, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Levivich: Is the question here why I didn't go checking for a source online when there was no reason to assume it was free or archived? If there had been a link to in the text, I would have clicked it. That said, I don't really see what the problem was with the hook: an author arguing that someone gave probably the fist female blackface performance or the like is a definite fact, inasmuch as this is far as the process for identifying facts can take us. This whole section looks rather pedantic, and creating mountains out of molehills. Dahn (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that the author of the source did not argue that someone gave probably the first blackface performance. The claim to "probably first female performer in blackface" was the product of a simple misreading of a (confusingly-written) source. (See the article's talk page for details, and recent edits to the article for the solution.) I don't like to come down hard on any fellow editor for any single mistake -- I've made many myself -- but your response concerns me. "No reason to assume it was free or archived"? What? Why would you have to assume that? If I'm reading your response correctly, you're saying you did not even try to verify the hook simply because there was no link in the reference? Is that seriously the extent of your inquiry? No link = AGF it's fine? It doesn't appear you asked the nom if the source was available, nor for a quote from the source, nor did you google the title to see if you could get it. To me, googling something is like the minimum reasonable effort to find something; it takes seconds. People misread all the time, people make mistakes all the time, that's why it's important to have two sets of eyes on anything important, like on factual claims on the main page of one of the world's busiest websites. I haven't really participated in DYK in years, but it would be both alarming and disappointing if it turns out that DYK reviewers are doing nothing to verify hooks -- as in zero attempt to check the source, which unfortunately seems the have been the case here. Is that normal? Levivich (talk) 04:21, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: I don't want to get dragged into this for too long, so here's the gist of it: 1) the original claim made against the hook was that it the phrasing was not about a definitive fact, but rather an indefinite fact (an objection I regard as frivolous); now that claim is that the source doesn't verify the hook, something which I could not verify myself, since I did not check the source; 2) why didn't I check the source? Because there was absolutely no reason to assume that a source published in 1984 is online -- the likelihood that it would've been uploaded on Internet Archive was zero, and the actual uplading there is a likely breach of copyrights. Dahn (talk) 05:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the likelihood that it would've been uploaded to Internet Archive was greater than zero, since it's uploaded to Internet Archive. FYI, along with many other books from the 1980s and other time periods. Also FYI, whether the Internet Archive's lending of books violates US copyright is the subject of an ongoing court appeal; they're under a court order, which they say they comply with. So for the moment, it appears they are under court supervision, complying with the court orders, and not doing anything illegal, at least pending the appeal. Levivich (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Clearly the expectation that I should explore all probabilities that are less than zero is ridiculous. Dahn (talk) 05:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich: Wait, I've just "checked" the IA version of the source. It doesn't break copyright, because it is subscription-walled, meaning that I cannot check it -- I can only read two pages of it. To take you up at your own game: Why didn't you bother checking if it was actually accessible or not before lecturing me on my mistakes as an editor? Dahn (talk) 05:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "subscription" is free; yeah, you need to register an account to borrow the book. Levivich (talk) 05:12, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OMG, why didn't I assume it was made available on some site, and then created an account on that site just to see if I can then verify a hook in a nom that should occupy no more than 0.0000001% percent of my time on wikipedia? Instead of assuming that the editor has access to the print source and has cited it properly? How could I possibly be this unreasonable? Dahn (talk) 05:16, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you should have had to register an account at a website if you don't want to, even if it's free. But I think you should have asked for a quote or a link. I think reviewers should spend the time it takes to verify hooks whenever possible. Levivich (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is frankly illusory to assume the quote is worth more than the paraphrase. We may be asking editors to render quotes they copy by hand from print sources, when a hook may summarize a quote that goes over 2 or 3 pages. I know this to be the case, since I have volunteered immense quotes from print or paywalled sources, with translations, for my own DYKs, and I know how much of a hassle this is. Also, it is still unclear to me: was the claim in the hook actually not in the source, at all, or was this merely an objection to "perhaps" and "probably" not including a "definitive fact"? Dahn (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify what I mean: a hook may summarize in three words info that the author can detail over three pages, without including the specific wording that the hook uses, but outlying the same idea to anyone reading it in good faith. In that instance, while quotes are surely welcome, the very fact of having had access to the three pages in the original print counts as AGF verification. Dahn (talk) 05:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, here is the source in question. Biruitorul Talk 07:47, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At any rate, the problem is not that the source was inaccurately quoted in the hook; it was the usual problem with "first" hook sources, that they missed someone else who was firster. So the issue of AGF verification is a complete red herring. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:05, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is very typical to see things like this: an article about Carrie Swain mentioning she may have been the first woman to perform in blackface. The people writing that article cared about Carrie Swain and wanted to write something exciting about her, so they may not have done super extensive research that would have destroyed their thesis of her being the first. Generally, an article about "women in blackface" would be a much better source to confirm "first"ness than an article about one specific woman who may or may not have been the first woman in blackface.
We see this all the time, especially with things like local newspapers where the author wishes to promote their local hero and either exaggerates the claims or omits necessary context ("first woman to perform in blackface while on a unicycle"). "First" hooks should have sources that are more independent from the article subject than what we usually expect. —Kusma (talk) 08:15, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The claim that "there was an earlier case" should be based on a reliable source specifically stating the claim about someone else. It should not be based on wikipedians doing their own original research and arguing that they know of earlier cases (WP:SYNTH? WP:TRUTH?). In that sense, the hook was entirely valid, particularly under WP:AGF. "We see this all the time, especially with things like local newspapers" -- except this was an expert source, not a local newspaper. Dahn (talk) 09:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong claims require strong sources. When the source is shown to be weak or unreliable because editors turned up other evidence contradicting its claims, we should treat the source as unreliable and not run its claim. We should not bury our heads in the sand and insist that they are reliable, despite our external knowledge. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's absolutely no way in which this approach can degenerate into a college of self-appointed censors using only the sources/parts of the sources that they feel are reliable. Dahn (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But thats what the guideline WP:CONTEXTFACTS expects:

The very same source may be reliable for one fact and not for another.

—Bagumba (talk) 04:55, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As compared to other sources, in some cases that are rather clearly defined there (and that do not make the claim in the source uncitable, just likely to be challenged by another source). The recommendation there is not to get stuck up on a source if another source contradicts it with another, opposite claim -- one can cite both, and the fact will become relative. It certainly doesn't meant that editors should perform OR to "factcheck" the source! Dahn (talk) 07:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reviewed the Kunkel hook and I saw the "first" fact in the source. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Q2 "... that Professor Layton and the New World of Steam is planned to be the first main entry since 2013 in the series Professor Layton, despite it being its developer's most popular media franchise?" is not really a "first" hook as we have under discussion, it's "first since 2013", a very different claim. Of course, it has "main entry" as a qualifier as well due to a 2017 game. Mostly not too excitingly worded but not untrue.
P3 "... that Pujol and Quintonil are the highest-rated restaurants in Mexico's first Michelin guide, with two Michelin stars each?" has its first being related not to the subjects but to the Michelin guide, and this claim seems to hold up with the source given and the relevant primary sourcing. CMD (talk) 01:11, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Layton hook's verifiability is question at ERRORS, and nom says we can just pull. Valereee (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • TLDR in full, but one cautious solution might be to add "claimed/said to be" before a "first" claim, taking it out of Wikipedia's voice. This would I think work for examples 5 & 6 above. Johnbod (talk) 17:21, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

... that the ancient Greek game polis is one of the world's oldest strategy games?

This is currently being discussed on WP:ERRORS. It's really another example of the "first" problem. Any kind of superlative (first, biggest, oldest, etc) is almost impossible to prove unless you're talking about something that comes from a finite, well-known set. I can be confident when I say that Neil Armstrong ws the first man to walk on the moon, because there's only been a small number of people who have done that and it's trivial to tell which of those was first. But the set of strategy games is open-ended, so there's no feasible way to list all such games that have ever existed and figure out which is the oldest. In this case, it's particularly embarrassing because we just ran the couter-example a few days ago. RoySmith (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is remarkably contrived. The hook is about the game being one of the oldest, not the oldest, and refers to it being oldest from among those known. It being "among the oldest" also covers the situation where it is together with other much older games (say, Sumerian), since they are not as new as the other ones. I'm not even a fan of the "first" hooks, but this is a fabricated outrage if I ever saw one. Dahn (talk) 18:53, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. SL93 (talk) 21:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "known" was only added after it was complained about at WP:ERRORS. RoySmith (talk) 21:48, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
With or without that word, the meaning was already clear, as is any statement about "firsts" in the distant past. I wasn't even referring to it being present/added to the hook. Dahn (talk) 00:15, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anything can be among the oldest, you just have the put the line for "oldest" at a convenient point in the timeline for the claim. I'm coming around to supporting a ban on superlatives (highest another one I've seen at DYK), it'll catch some probably good hooks but it might bring about more hooks which tell us more about the topic. "... that ancient Greek sources refer to a game called Polis, but the rules have been mostly lost?"? There are a few more hooks I'd try, but currently unsure due to situations like the article saying both "Many aspects of the game are unknown, such as the shape of the board" but also "the pieces moved in all directions on a square board". CMD (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Viriditas (talk) 03:25, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose such an unnecessarily wide prohibition on using phrasing that appears in reliable and independent secondary sources. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 18:11, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is not if "you put the word oldest etc.", but if the source does. That said, I am sure other, even better hooks can be found for all such situations, but any "ban on superlatives", particularly when they refer to phrasings that are not actually superlatives (but "seem" to be), risks creating more problems than it solves, by giving any overzealous reviewer a carte blanche to shoot down valid hooks. Dahn (talk)
Note that we are already dealing with the Q2 and P3 examples above, in which the supposed problem with the "firsts" isn't even present -- but they were cited anyway, as "bad examples". Imagine what a ban on phrasing would entail, when we're already on this level of overbearing callousness. Dahn (talk) 11:02, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I should clarify that I am not defending a personal agenda over here -- I don't recall ever submitting a "first" (or "most" or etc.) hook in my entire contribution. I am just speaking out against a trend that I see as an overreaction, and against attempts to elevate reviewers into a position of discretionary privilege, where pet peeves become written norm. Some "first" hooks are bad, some are not, and they should all be evaluated for their own merits, without prejudice. Dahn (talk) 13:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this is a reply to my comment, I noted that this would be a wide net but I don't see it being harmful at all. Other hooks are possible, and I'm not sure DYK has ever faced the issue of rejecting too many hooks. CMD (talk) 13:50, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Swain

It looks like this was pulled from the main page by Theleekycauldron at WP:ERRORS under a somewhat odd complaint raised by Andrew Davidson. The hook fact that was pulled comes from one of the few historians writing on Swain in a published history book (and the most detailed research in an academic publication on Swain currently in existence). That hook fact is probably the most significant thing about her as a performer. It's what makes her encyclopedic. If we can’t state the fact making the subject of primary interest to researchers/historians, and the fact that makes them principally encyclopedic I think we have lost our way at DYK. I think it was a bad choice, particularly since it’s a fact not likely to change given the age and subject matter. Since it was pulled, it needs to be re-opened and put back into the review process so a new hook can run at a different time. That should have been done at the time the hook was pulled from the main page. 4meter4 (talk) 18:51, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that hook fails verification and have made edits to the article and posted an explanation and quote on the article talk page. (cross-post from WP:ERRORS) Levivich (talk) 20:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, hooks pulled from the front page are not put back into the review process. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:46, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Why not? Why can't this article get nom'd with a different hook? There are other possible hooks for this article. Levivich (talk) 20:49, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't know, but I suspect that it comes down to the fact that if it (or other pulled hooks) do run again, they'll have been on the main page for longer than others, because there was a mistake in them. That seems an odd course. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I left a note on the talk page. I disagree that the hook fails verification, and think the source is being misread by the other reviewer; particularly when one knows the timeline of women in minstrel shows (they were barred from appearing on the minstrel stage and did not appear at all until the 1870s, and even then usually not in blackface parts). Regardless, there should have been a good faith attempt to replace this with a suitable hook from something else in the article which was pointed out by others at the ERRORS discussion. @ AirshipJungleman29 I've seen hooks in the past get returned to review so I don't agree with that assertion that it doesn't happen. Is there a written policy to that effect? 4meter4 (talk) 00:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There have been various cases (especially in similar ones where the pull is questionable) in which hooks pulled from the front page are added to the front page in the middle of a DYK cycle, at around the 'same time' they were pulled, as a last hook so that the ultimate total amount of time the hook spends on the front page is not more than that of other hooks. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:38, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I had the same thought about women not appearing in minstrel shows, 4meter4, but it looks to me like Anne of Denmark legitimately was cast in the minstrel show she devised at least once. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:50, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron That is not correct. Anne of Cleaves participated in masques which was a common form of entertainment in European courts of the 16th century and has nothing to do with either the European minstrel or the American minstrel show. Also, these are two completely different and unrelated art forms with two very different styles, formats, and repertoire. The European minstrel flourished during the medieval period, with the troubadour being the best known example of the minstrel of that period. The minstrel show being referred to here in the Carrie Swain article began in the United States in the early 19th century and is considered the first original form of theatre that arose specifically from American culture in the United States and which did not come from Europe. It was exported from America to Europe and elsewhere globally through traveling American minstrel troupes and through that some non-American groups adopted its style. However, it remained predominantly an American form of entertainment, that was not widely practiced outside of the United States. Anne of Denmark was long dead by the time the minstrel show first came into existence, and could not have possibly been involved with the American minstrel show, and she was born long after the decline of the European minstrel in the 14th century. Best.4meter4 (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What's all this kerfuffle about minstrels and their shows? The hook just refers to entertainers. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29 It's tangentially related. The definition and origins of blackface is somewhat debated. Some scholars define blackface as not simply the practice of darkening ones skin through the use of makeup, burnt coal, etc. but also the accompanying racist caricatures that originated within the American minstrel show of the 19th century. The minstrel show had a whole set group of racist stock characters such as the Mammy stereotype (see Category:Blackface minstrel characters). They define blackface as being invented by lower class white men in America in the early 19th century and being a concept that came specifically from the minstrel show. Others however, take a broader view and argue the practice should be dated earlier to English Renaissance theatre to plays like Shakespeare's Othello where you had a white actor having his skin darkened to portray a black character. And of course there are racist statements in Othello. However, Othello was not a stock character, and its difficult to find patterns in blackface performance in Europe of the period, as opposed to the systematically racist structure of the American minstrel show where the majority of the cast was in blackface, there were set blackface parts consistent in the minstrel show format and structure in all of the afterpieces/plays from troupe to troupe, and it was intentionally parodying and denigrating African-Americans through racist tropes. Others date blackface even earlier to the mystery plays in Europe where religious plays were staged by the church in which actors playing demons and devils who were painted black. All of this to say, its impossible to separate blackface from the minstrel show. As for women in blackface, I think the writer was specifically defining blackface as practice within the minstrel show. The minstrel show barred women from performances until the mid 1850s, when a stock white woman character was added into the mix. No women appeared in blackface roles in the minstrel show until the 1870s when Swain began performing. Women were also barred from the stage in English Renaissance theatre. Best.4meter4 (talk) 20:31, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Levivich and AirshipJungleman29: if we catch it early, sometimes it goes back into circulation without a hitch. Otherwise, once a hook gets pulled, that's generally the end of its life. DYK has only so many editor-hours, and I don't think they're well-spent on articles that already have taken up a bunch of review time and then turn out to have even more holes. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:45, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I could see how a nom might feel that practice was punitive (although I'm sure nobody intends the practice to be punitive). But I also question whether re-running pulled hooks actually requires significantly more editor-hours. For example, if DYK re-ran every single pulled hook in May, that would only be 3 hooks, or 1% of the 276 hooks that ran in May; 1% is hardly a huge extra load on the pipeline. Further, aside from the hook mistakes, these 3 have already been vetted against other WP:DYKCRIT; basically all of WP:DYKCRIT#Articles is done, so a re-review, of just the new hook, would take less work than the first review or any average DYK review, meaning re-running all the May hooks would be less than 1% extra work. So I don't think conserving 1% or less editor hours is worth the cost in terms of discouraging noms, or the cost of not promoting (for the full duration anyway) articles on the main page that otherwise should be promoted, or the cost of not presenting the readers with a good DYK hook (on the second run). I would allow pulled hooks to be re-run, because they are so few and far between. Levivich (talk) 04:36, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note to self: write an iffy hook with crap sourcing. Cross fingers that it doesn't get much scrutiny before hitting main page. At 400 hours, log into OutragedReader account to complain loudly at ERRORS about the idiots at DYK having done it again. At ~ 1200 hours, start insisting the hook be pulled. Next morning log back into main account. Apologize profusely; the source was in another language and the machine translation was at fault. Come up with an alternate, and this time brilliant, hook to run again. Cha-ching, probably three dozen editors have worked on the article because of the brouhaha, it appeared for a cumulative 40 hours on the MP, and the hook ends at the top of the month's stats. Win-win-win! :D Valereee (talk) 13:03, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"I don't always WP:GAME the system, but when I do, it's 3D chess." 😂 Levivich (talk) 13:52, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we can’t state the fact making the subject of primary interest to researchers/historians, and the fact that makes them principally encyclopedic I think we have lost our way at DYK. I think it was a bad choice, particularly since it’s a fact not likely to change given the age and subject matter. I'm inclined to share OP's sense of things here. This matter feels kind of like straining at gnats (the couching of "possibly the first" not being good enough for DYK) while swallowing camels (perpetuating systemic misogyny in Wikipedia's biographical coverage of humans by reducing the visibility of biographical articles about women), howsoever inadvertently. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 03:42, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do think it's bad when we have to reduce the visibility of women at DYK. But, to paraphrase Tamzin at a recent Signpost article, this problem can be avoided by not printing falsifiable statements about women. Someone can't be "possibly the first" if they weren't the first, and I don't really see a way around that. Now, would it be maybe more fair to have found a different hook in the article or from the nomination? Maybe. But the priority is trying not to get things wrong, and if we force admins to waste time coming up with a viable alternative on an article that has at least one problem, we're going to make more mistakes and get less done. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
if we force admins to waste time: While I suspect this in unintentional on your part, it seems unfortunate to frame 'helping improve the visibility of women's history content on Wikipedia by making a good faith effort to replace the hook' as 'wasting time', as if reducing systemic bias on Wikipedia isn't a worthy use of time and should only be done when absolutely convenient. Editors are, with narrow exceptions, volunteers, yes. Still, within that we make choices about to what we commit this voluntary time. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:18, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That seems a very uncharitable reading of theleekycauldron's comment. No alternative hook was available, and they would not be able to propose and approve a new hook on their own. No other hook was presented at ERRORS, which is open to all volunteers, even non-admins. CMD (talk) 04:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) A few months ago one of Piotrus hooks was pulled and we let it get a second life for the hours it missed - I think it was added on as a ninth?. I think if we can fashion a new hook it may be best to let this run again. 4m4 is a conscientious contributor here and it was an honest mistake missed by a reviewer, a promotor and an administrator. Lightburst (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the above comments that this should not re-run. Sure, it wasn't an intentional error, but it would set a strange precedent to say you can get more than a full day at DYK by introducing hooks that don't comply with the rules...  — Amakuru (talk) 09:06, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The notion that someone would intentionally nom a bad hook in the hopes of getting the article more than a full day on DYK is, in my view, so preposterous that it's not something Wikipedia need worry about. Levivich (talk) 16:24, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What did it say? Because the nominator seems to be disputing your reading. Dahn (talk) 05:43, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To clarify what I mean: a hook may summarize in three words info that the author can detail over three pages, without including the specific wording that the hook uses, but outlying the same idea to anyone reading it in good faith. Dahn (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even clearer: does Shirley Staples, the expert authority on blackface, say something to the tune of Swain being "possibly the first" etc.? Or does she say something else? Because, if she does say that Swain was "possibly the first", and if wikipedian reviewers are "sure" that they know of earlier cases, if the hook was pulled on these grounds, then the problem is not one of hook and source, but on misinterpreting wikipedia guidelines at a reviewer level. Dahn (talk) 06:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
All of these questions about what the source says can be answered by reading the source, which is available for free online, or at least by reading the quote from the source on the article talk page. Again, in short, the source doesn't say she was the first, or possibly the first, female black face performer. It says one newspaper wrote that she was among the first. You can read the quote on the article talk page for yourself. Levivich (talk) 16:26, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes well I have since read the excerpt provided by Biruitorul above, and not only is this a claim advanced by the author (not a newspaper cited by the author, as you claim), but, in at least one reading of the claim, it also verifies the hook, as per the nominator. Others here may be right that the phrasing is not sufficiently clear, but that is certainly something else than the theatrical lamentations about how the hook is not verified etc. Dahn (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure what words in that excerpt convey to you the idea of "possibly first female blackface performer" (as opposed to "among the first"), but I guess that means that even if you had attempted to verify the hook, you would have deemed it verified. Nevertheless, I think it'd be best if reviewers verified hooks. Levivich (talk) 19:00, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The "may have been the first" part, and what comes after, clearly rendering the author's opinion. Dahn (talk) 19:14, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"may have been the first woman to attempt the acrobatic comedy typical of male blackface work" in absolutely no way means "may have been the first woman to perform in blackface," because "acrobatic comedy typical of male blackface work" is not the same thing as "blackface." Similarly, as to what comes after, "among the first women to put burnt cork on her face" does not mean "possibly the first woman to put burnt cork on her face." Levivich (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The phrasing preferred by the author is enough to make me, and I suppose the nominator as well, unsure about the meaning. If your interpretation is correct, neither me (even with full access to the book) nor the nominator should be expected to have replicated it. Dahn (talk) 21:07, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In talking over the Staples source at the talk page on Swain, we came to the meeting of minds that the source language is not clear on the hook fact because of the way the writer made so many side remarks around the hook fact. It was confusing, and it’s better to err on the side of caution. Basically it came down to whether she was referring to blackface in general or a specific type of blackface role in which Swain was possibly the first, and it wasn’t clear which. So for that reason I agree that the hook fact was rightly pulled. We agreed that source could at least rightly say that she was among the first group of women to wear blackface. That could be be the modified version of the hook. Best.4meter4 (talk) 06:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That meeting of minds about ambiguities in the source is entirely different from an allegation that the nominator has produced WP:OR in creating the hook. Dahn (talk) 09:52, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It seems that the original hook overlooked some qualifiers in the source, i.e. Carrie Swain may have been the first woman to attempt the acrobatic comedy typical of male blackface work The hook saying that she was "was possibly the first woman" is similar to "some people say" from MOS:WEASEL, when the source only said that the claim was from one newspaper: One newspaper described Carrie Swain as among the first women to put burnt cork on her face —Bagumba (talk) 03:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Inasmuch as the author believes that blackface acts required more than putting soot on one's face (as in: an acrobatic performance as well), and if this all that can be read in the text, Swain is, under that definition, "perhaps the first". If this is indeed the case, then anyone wanting to challenge that claim would have to come up with another author, using another definition of blackface, specifically saying that "the first blackface act by a woman was/may have been this" -- and not simply "look, I read it in another book that this lady living before also wore blackface". I wouldn't have imagined this would be under any sort of debate. As for the newspaper: that fragment clearly refers to another primacy there -- the painting method (not the act), and it is that claim that is attributed to "one newspaper". I feel that a lot of time is being wasted here to distract from the fact that, while the hook may have been questionable (under clearly AGF terms), its pulling out was justified by the reviewers' own OR, something which should absolutely not be allowed to proliferate. Dahn (talk) 10:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, nothing in WP:OR forbids the use of editorial discretion to omit a questionable claim, even if an otherwise-reliable source makes it. Nor does it forbid discussing on talkpages or project-pages whether or not a seemingly reliably-sourced claim is actually true: indeed it specifically says that This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards!
Secondly: Inasmuch as the author believes that blackface acts required more than putting soot on one's face (as in: an acrobatic performance as well), and if this all that can be read in the text, Swain is, under that definition, "perhaps the first". Is this just counterfactual speculation about how the source might have meant something completely different to what the parts Levivich quoted say, or can you actually quote where the source says that "acrobatic performance" is a "required" part of a blackface act? Because the natural reading of "typical" would be suggest that the author in fact thinks it's not required! Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is a possible reading of the text, which the nominator made in good faith. It is perhaps correct to say that other parts of the source make the reading questionable, and therefore make the hook replacable; however, what apparently was done here is an interposing of reviewers between the claim, taken at face value by them as well, and what should go on mainpage, based on their OR. If the reviewers have been able to dig up other acts that precede Swain, they should also be able to come up with a source saying "another woman was probably the first to do blackface" (whatever the definition of the act); otherwise, it is them performing an editorial voice on wikipedia. Dahn (talk) 13:28, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hopefully everything reported to WP:ERRORS was a good-faith mistake. That doesn't oblige us to keep it on the front page once there is reason to think it is a mistake.
If the reviewers have been able to dig up other acts that precede Swain, they should also be able to come up with a source saying "another woman was probably the first to do blackface" This is an absurd position to take. You cannot seriously be suggesting, for example, that if someone found a source saying "In 1836, Jane Doe performed a blackface act" you would consider it original research to conclude that as 1836 is before 1878 a blackface performance in 1878 cannot have been the first. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 13:45, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am actuallysuggesting that, because: a) if the source says that, it should presumably also say something about the significance of that act, thereby satisfying the criterion; b) you may think it is not a big deal to do it in this case, but consider what precedent is created -- when users can argue with published sources by freely interpreting other sources. Dahn (talk) 14:09, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Also note that WP:WEASEL is an editorial guideline for editors, on wikipedia, not usable for invalidating critical judgements by the authors and the sources -- which we may use and render verbatim, or in paraphrase, without this being a problem. Dahn (talk) 11:04, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
"was possibly the first woman" was a poor paraphrase of what the source said—namely, that one newspaper made the claim. —Bagumba (talk) 12:49, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No. It was a paraphrase, poor or not, of Swain being arguably the first woman to perform the "acrobatic" act that the author (not "a newspaper") apparently considered the actual definition of blackface. Dahn (talk) 13:19, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how "the acrobatic comedy typical of male blackface work" can mean that acrobatic comedy is the actual definition of, or even part of, blackface. (Similarly, I don't see how "among the first" can mean "possibly the first," to me it means not the first.) Although I'm starting to understand how this passage might be confusing to someone who isn't familiar with what blackface is (blackface is not acrobatics or comedy, even if acrobatic comedy was typical of male blackface performers at a certain place and time in history). Levivich (talk) 13:48, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is what blackface is to the (expert) source. Again: pull the hook because it is (arguably) ambiguous, but not because reviwers "know better". Dahn (talk) 14:01, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The point is what blackface is to the (expert) source. Despite your repeated assertions the expert source does not say that an "acrobatic act" is part of the "actual definition of blackface". Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:31, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I get it that this your reading. I get it that another reading may be erroneous. The issue of it "not really saying what it was taken to mean" is legitimate, and may validate the hook being pulled (though not other proclamations about how other reviewers are necessarily wrong); but if did say or had said that, we do not argue with the expert source by substituting ourselves as experts. That is the main point I am making here, and which keeps getting danced around. Dahn (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list of older nominations was archived about twelve hours ago, so I've created a new list of 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 23. We have a total of 231 nominations, of which 86 have been approved, a gap of 145 nominations that has increased by 34 over the past 10 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than one month old

Other nominations

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) 02:13, 12 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 6

User:Bernanke's Crossbow, User:evrik, User:SL93 ... that making manganese nitride alloys requires a sponge? I don't think that claim is in the article, not stated that broadly. It says " A sponge is essential to Mn2N synthesis:", but the article also says there are other formulas besides Mn2N that can also be called manganese nitride. And the next paragraph appears to describe an alternate way to make manganese nitride that doesn't mention a sponge. Art LaPella (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added that word. Art LaPella (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The words "sometimes" and "requires" are contradictory. The issue arises because the article's structure and title is confusing. The name "manganese nitride" is used here for a family of compounds with a variety of formulae, properties and methods of synthesis. The title of the article should be changed to "manganese nitrides" to make it clear that it's talking about a collection rather than a single compound. And whatever hook we end up with should make it clear exactly what compound it is talking about. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly one of the wildest weasels in Wikipedia history

Here's a superlative sighting from yesterday's main page:

  • ... that the ZX Spectrum is one of the best-selling British computers of all time?

This uses the popular weasel "one of the best..." which takes a superlative and weakens it with "one of" to make it fit any also-ran. The actual facts seem to be that the Spectrum was certainly outsold by the Amstrad PCW and the Raspberry Pi. And nowadays, general purpose computing devices such as the iPhone sell more every year in the UK than the ZX Spectrum sold in its entire history.

A good way to test these weasels is to see if they are more definite when the word NOT is attached. For example:

  • ... that the ZX Spectrum is NOT the best-selling British computer of all time?
  • ... that Carrie Swain was NOT the first woman entertainer to perform in blackface?
  • ... that the ancient Greek game polis is NOT the world's oldest strategy game?

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:59, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, I brought up concerns about the hook above at #ZX Spectrum but no one responded. Courtesy ping to nomination participants @Jaguar, Panamitsu, and AirshipJungleman29:, as well as to discussion commenters @Z1720 and SL93:. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:33, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No, your concerns were that it wasn't surprising enough. I'm just confused as to why Andrew is so bamboozled by a fairly common phrase that isn't actually listed at WP:WTW and which any person who understands English is perfectly able to comprehend. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:10, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, the 'weasel word' guidance in the Manual of Style seems to encourage this kind of bamboozlement. Language that academic sources and other encyclopedias use to identify relative exceptionality without necessarily guaranteeing universal and total exceptionality gets treated on Wikipedia as a repugnant, disinforming injustice. But which phrasing is actually more confusing? that the ZX Spectrum is one of the best-selling British computer of all time? gives even a reader unfamiliar with the history of British computing a sense that ZX Spectrum is pretty up there and appears to have been an influential device. Meanwhile, Andrew's test, that the ZX Spectrum is NOT the best-selling British computer of all time? is confusing and gives the reader little sense of the ZX Spectrum's place in history. Did it not sell at all? Did it sell averagely? Did it sell pretty well but not the best ever? While one of the best gives a typical reader a good sense of general place in history, the 'test' communicates little of meaning.
All this to say—this seems like a lot of sound and fury from OP about a hook fact that is fine. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:21, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel like there are more interesting things to say than 'best-selling'.
... that Clive Sinclair did no market research before launching the ZX80 because he "simply had a hunch"? Valereee (talk) 13:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew, have you read the hook properly? Are iPhones British computers? ♦ JAGUAR  12:53, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Two other such devices were mentioned in this comment, and adding the DYK’s subject still makes it one of the best-selling British computers of all time. I fail to see the error. Interestingness could be a different issue with other such computers, but that isn’t what the complaint is about. SL93 (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • The hook seems fine. "The actual facts seem to be that the Spectrum was certainly outsold by the Amstrad PCW and the Raspberry Pi." So it's still in the top three. Viriditas (talk) 00:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which one of the top three? First best, second best, or third best? Be specific. If it's the third best selling British computer of all time, just say that, instead of a much more vague "one of the best". Just like it's better and more specific to say that someone won an Olympic bronze medal, rather than just describing them as an "Olympic medalist". The latter is not wrong, per se, it's just more vague. Be specific. Seraphimblade Talk to me 06:29, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Avoid vague language" might be the answer to most of our problems on Wikipedia. Then again, there are stylistic choices editors make where vague language might be preferred (not saying I agree, but it is what it is), and this even crops up in the writing of guidelines and policies where vagueness is intentionally used. I recall reading somewhere that vagueness was a preferred writing style at one time, but my memory is hazy on this point. Viriditas (talk) 19:26, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And there may be times it's actually the best we can do. If we know the first known examples of a widget were independently developed at A and B around 500 BC, but we don't have any more exact dating than that, then both the A widget and the B widget are "one of the first known widgets", but we really don't know for sure which actually is first. So, "one of" is as specific as we're able to be. But generally speaking, if we can be more specific, we should. Seraphimblade Talk to me 21:17, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    There's been times when I've been deliberately vague in an article because the specific nature of a single point can go either way, beyond this or that, true or false, or first, second, or third. Perhaps this is because the point is challenged, controversial, or debatable (per the sources), so using a kind of directed, general vagueness in the main text (while giving specificity in a footnote or elsewhere) allows concision where otherwise using specificity would require a lengthy explanation or tangent. In this regard, I can see how vagueness can help keep a hook brief, which is why it is often used. Viriditas (talk) 21:56, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    EEng taught me that "an ounce of imprecision can save a pound of explanation." As for "one of the best," sometimes that's as precise as one can get. Is Oxford the best university in the world, or the second, or the third? I don't know, but it's definitely one of the best. Not everything is ranked like Olympic medals. "Best selling" is one of those things, it depends on what you mean exactly. Most gross revenue? Most units sold? Etc. Levivich (talk) 23:58, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, my usual formulation is: "An ounce of imprecision saves a ton of explanation." I plagiarized that somewhere, of course. While I'm pontificating, here's another favorite: "Perfection is finally attained not when there is no longer anything to add, but when there is no longer anything to take away." EEng 00:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Often shortened as "omit needless words". Viriditas (talk) 00:29, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But inappropriately, because it refers not just to words per se, but also points of argument, lists of examples, and so on. 03:36, 15 June 2024 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs)
    But, perhaps it is appropriate given the context? Saint-Exupéry was talking about engineering airplanes (I think?), while Strunk & White were talking about engineering language. Accurate or no? Viriditas (talk) 03:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Careful: that's possibly one of the wildest weasel in Wikipedia's history. Levivich (talk) 04:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nabisco Shredded Wheat Factory

Hi all, upon rereading the sources and consulting with RoySmith I no longer believe the Butterfield's reference supports the ALT0 hook. I made this change to the article in response.

Would it be possible to swap to a modified version of ALT1, "... that the Nabisco Shredded Wheat Factory was used as a marketing tool, with its image printed on cereal packets until 1960?" Perhaps even "... that the Nabisco Shredded Wheat Factory was used as a marketing tool?"

These ones are supported by p.136 of Butterfield. Pahunkat (talk) 18:59, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For reference, p.135 talked about visitors being invited to the factory with in support of marketing on its cleanliness, but doesn't state they were tourists. Pahunkat (talk) 19:00, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for following up, Pahunkat. Where is the alt hook in the article? Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 23:33, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rjjiii, should be there now (diff). Pahunkat (talk) 13:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pahunkat: It's supported by Butterfield 1999, pp. 135–137? That source should be at the end of the sentence containing the hook per WP:DYKHFC. Rjjiii (talk) 15:21, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rjjiii Yes, specifically p.136, I've added the reference to the end of that sentence. Pahunkat (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pahunkat: Awesome. I'm about to replace the hook fact. Would you be okay with "... that the Nabisco Shredded Wheat Factory was used as a marketing tool, with an image of the factory on every cereal packet until 1960?" The proposed wording "its image printed on cereal packets" seems a bit close to the source's wording "its image was printed on every packet of cereal" which isn't an issue with the wording in the article itself. Pinging SounderBruce as well, Rjjiii (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Rjjiii, thoughts on a slightly modified "... that the Nabisco Shredded Wheat Factory was used as a marketing tool, with an image of the factory on every cereal packet it produced until 1960?" Pahunkat (talk) 22:30, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a bit clunky, but it's also closer to the hook that SounderBruce approved. I've put it into Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2. Are you all good with this hook, Pahunkat & SounderBruce? I see it present in the article, cited to a reliable source, and verified by the source, Rjjiii (talk) 23:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good, thanks for the help! Pahunkat (talk) 14:29, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 7

George Webster (presenter)

@AirshipJungleman29, Valereee, and Launchballer: Do we have any WP:BLP issues putting his medical condition on the main page? RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't see any myself. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:02, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Me neither. I don't think having a learning disability is a negative aspect of a living person (I have Asperger syndrome myself), and this is in most of the sources so isn't really undue. Was there another BLP concern you had in mind?--Launchballer 16:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hm. Fair question. We could consider:
ALT1: that CBeebies presenter George Webster (pictured in video) was discovered by a Sky UK television crew while volunteering at his local Parkrun?
Valereee (talk) 16:25, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It could work, although I find it less interesting.--Launchballer 16:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do not see any BLP issues. In general, we should (in my opinion) avoid inspiration porn, so juxtaposing disability and achievements should be done with extra care. The original hook is probably OK here, but it is worth discussing. —Kusma (talk) 18:03, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think being an extrovert is an achievement.--Launchballer 18:23, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

DYK bingo?

Is there some special award we get if every hook in a set gets dragged to WP:ERRORS? I think we're in the running today. RoySmith (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I award you with this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You're winner! In all seriousness, of the five that made ERRORS today, I count one courtesy ping, two non-errors, and one typo. Only one of them actually resulted in a pull. We ought to be more careful than that, but this isn't as bad as it looks.--Launchballer 20:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We've still got almost 4 hours to reach our goal :-) RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am doubtful about the source for the Alexandru Talex hook, but it is a bit late to do anything about it. TSventon (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are in the running for it today as well! Schwede66 07:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The various discussions at Errors about today's DYKs come to 2585 words. Surely, that must be a record! Schwede66 22:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Admins: all queues are empty!

Pinging @DYK admins: as all queues are currently empty, in the hopes that we can get some preps promoted to queue. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:02, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've promoted one set and am in-progress on checking them. —Ganesha811 (talk) 12:13, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, I encourage (goad, spur, exhort, beg) some of the DYK regulars who are not admins to get a mop. @BlueMoonset I would be happy to nominate you. RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Balance - Template:Did you know/Queue/6

Probably not a major concern; just a note to say the next set in the queue Template:Did you know/Queue/6 is less than 800 characters so even with nine hooks in the set, it will leave empty space. Bruxton (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more worried about the fact that manganese nitride is a redirect. I do wonder if it's worth having some sort of character counter in each set for precisely this purpose. What is the optimum number of characters?--Launchballer 20:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect bypassed. RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Launchballer: With the ellipsis 1000-1100 is near the right number. For reference, the set now is 1134 and seems to work well. Bruxton (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When we had the 400+ character multihook last month, I promoted several very short hooks and I managed to get it down to 1100 characters, not including ellipses or (pictured). The April Fools' set had ten hooks. We shouldn't be afraid to adjust the number of hooks if they all happen to be very long or very short.--Launchballer 20:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we should stop counting hooks and start counting column-inches. As The New York Times says[citation needed], "All the hooks that fit, we print"" RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Typesetters! We can sell the extra space for ads. Bruxton (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When the revenue starts rolling in, you guys will finally appreciate my copyediting, eh? RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a big problem either way. If the left column is too short, we'll nuke an OTD entry. If it's too long, we'll add an OTD entry. Simple! Schwede66 23:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it too late to submit a DYK for the article "Gezer"?

@DYK admins: In March of this year, I worked extensively to improve/expand the article Gezer, but for reasons unbeknownst to me - perhaps even because of the vicissitudes of work on other topics, I downright forgot to submit a DYK on this article. Is it possible for me to receive a waiver to submit a belated DYK on this article, even though 3 months have now passed?Davidbena (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no, three months is a fair bit too long. Perhaps the article could pass GA? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree; GA is the route to DYK for you. Schwede66 00:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's also got significant referencing issues, so is not oven ready for a DYK run...  — Amakuru (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Plus issues with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Summary style, both of which are part of the Good Article criteria. GA would be the path to DYK, but the article needs a bit of work. Davidbena, if you do the GA route, it may be wise to request peer review first, and to leave a link to the peer review request at WT:GAN. Rjjiii (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I'm in favour of removing the time restriction on DYKs altogether but until then, rules are rules WaggersTALK 11:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3 - bios

Prep 3 has five biographies, and three of them are in a row. This will need to be fixed. SL93 (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kicked back the one in the middle.--Launchballer 07:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

1940 NFL All-Star Game (January)

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/1940 NFL All-Star Game (January))

This hook seems very misleading to me... when I think of an "all-star game", that implies that teams are selected from the entire pool of players in the league, and that if all the Green Bay Packers players were picked, this was an extraordinary achievement, in that every one of them was deemed better than players from other teams. In fact, though, when we look at the article, it just turns out that due to the format of the day the Packers team was one of the two competitors in the event, as league champions, with only the opposition taken from other teams. This format of champions vs all-star team remained in place for several seasons after this, so is not even particularly remarkable as a one-off. I'd suggest a hook focusing on something different would be appropriate here. Pinging @Gonzo fan2007, DrOrinScrivello, and Hey man im josh:. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: I raised similar concerns at the review and probably should have stuck to my guns, apologies. What about something like,
ALT1: ... that the Green Bay Packers once defeated a team of all-stars chosen from the rest of the league?
DrOrinScrivello (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, isn't that the point of WP:DYK and "hookiness"? We have hooks that run counter to prevailing thoughts but do so in a technically correct way. Is this hook wrong or incorrect in anyway? No. I mean come on, we had a hook recently that said "DYK ... that 69 is 'nice'?" The purpose of the hook is to draw the reader into the article. I don't see anything wrong with the hook, nor does it go against any DYK criteria. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is fine. It's a little easter-eggy, but just a little, and that's what DYK is about. The sources all seem to use the term "All Star", so we're OK doing that too, even if it differs from the modern usage of the term. RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely not fine. Hooky doesn't mean misleading readers and stating something run-of-the-mill as if it's remarkable. I'd be fine with DrOrinScrivello's alternative suggestion FWIW. Otherwise maybe we reopen the nom.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Amakuru, with respect, you are not in charge of WP:DYK. If you are uncomfortable with it, while at least 4 others are ok (I proposed it, DrOrinScrivello originally approved it, Hey man im josh promoted it and RoySmith supports it), then maybe move on to other noms? You aren't conveying any criteria this is going against and the hook is not "misleading", as the statement is a true fact. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is a hook on Main Page right now that says "DYK ... how salamanders cross the road (pictured)?" This is the same thing, the wording is unique and ambiguous to pull readers into the article. Do all salamanders on earth cross using this salamander tunnel? No. Does that make the hook misleading? No. Because the reader satisfies their interest by reading the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I feel strongly that we should not run this hook. The salamander and number hooks cited were not actively misleading readers. This hook gives the clear impression that all of the Packers players were specifically selected, not that this was an automatic entry as a league champion. Yes, we've run misleading hooks in the past but this is a practice that really needs to stop. Hog Farm Talk 17:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I was in favor of running this (despite us being in an NFL-heavy phase) because I thought the objection was to calling it an All-Star game. But if the objection is to the "all of the players ... were selected" part, yeah, I can see that's a problem. BeanieFan11's proposed alt might work better. RoySmith (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Would the alt proposed at the nom be any better? ... that the entire Green Bay Packers team was chosen to play in the 1940 NFL All-Star Game? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For me, that's close to the same thing and still carries the connotation that there was something remarkable about them being "chosen" for this game, as if it were an open field if selection in which the entire squad was deemed worthy of choosing. But in reality they were "chosen" because that was the format of the day, no other reason. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, exactly. It's not misleading at all and nowhere does it say that the ALT has to clearly state everything. That is the point of "hookiness". All Pro Bowl selectees are chosen today based on the format of the day. The fun part of the hook is that a normal reader says "wow! Really? Let me read more about that" and then finds out more about a niche topic that isn't well known, even in NFL history circles.
Let's look at some more of today's hooks: :"DYK ... that Drake discovered an ancient Chinese city?" Please, tell me what makes this a good hook? Is it a good hook because it purposefully misleads the reader, knowing full well that "Drake" is way more well-known on the English Wikipedia as Drake (musician) (Drake (musician) has 450k views in the last month, Frederick Seguier Drake has 222 views). I mean come on, this is the exact purpose of DYK. If the purpose is to not mislead, this hook should read as "... that Frederick Seguier Drake discovered an ancient Chinese city?" « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Even ChatGPT got fooled when I asked it "Who is Drake?", it came up with several paragraphs about the musician. When I corrected it with, "No, not that Drake", the best it could do was "It sounds like you might be referring to a different Drake. Could you please provide more context or specify the field or context in which this Drake is known?" RoySmith (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, some of this is frustration from constantly getting "your hook isn't hooky enough" on NFL articles. I finally have a good hook and now its too hooky. I still look at it as not misleading, but begging the question for more information, which is the purpose of DYK. To get people to click on the link from our new or greatly expanded content. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that we're running hooks that read, e.g. "DYK ... that Drake discovered an ancient Chinese city?" – which are 100% obviously meant to be misleading (and arguably even more misleading than this), I see no issue with this hook, considering it is factually accurate (the Green Bay Packers were chosen to the NFL All-Star game). BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru, RoySmith, and Hog Farm: thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Drake hook is IMO highly problematic as well and is far worse than this one. Running one bad hook we shouldn't have doesn't mean we should run this one also. DYK is turning into a clickbait farm of unencyclopedic/misleading information as everyone just chases views which is why I'm finding myself less and less inclined to participate in the DYK process Hog Farm Talk 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I think since we haven't come to any agreement on this, it's going to be a case of pulling it from the queue and reopening the nom page for fresh ideas. I wouldn't mind something that says the Packers played the all-stars or whatever, something factual, but not this trick line that the whole team was chosen. I don't have a strong view on the Drake thing in fact... in my "what comes to your mind" universe, Sir Francis Drake would be at least as significant as the singer anyway. But either way, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't going to magically make this hook a good one for our readers or acceptable for the main page. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've pulled the hook. I'll finish up the backend stuff in a few minutes, but I'll leave it for somebody else to find a replacement (or maybe we can just run with 8). RoySmith (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For clarity, the point wasn't "this one hook exists, so this one is fine too" but rather that this is the routine process for DYK. This is what makes hooks interesting and unique. RoySmith, just go with DrOrinScrivello ALT1 above. That's fine. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've pulled the hook. Please build consensus for a new version on the nomination page, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphysics

  • ... that metaphysics may have received its name by a historical accident?

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Metaphysics)

This seems to be not compliant with the guidelines at WP:DYKHOOK, which say that "The hook should include a definite fact". If it may have received its name thus, then it's not definite is it. Also, the line in the article saying "it is often suggested that metaphysics got its name by a historical accident" is an unsupported attribution, we need to be saying who suggests this. And the next line saying "his editor may have coined it" is also rather vague. I'd suggest we need a more thorough detailing in the prose as to what the issue with the name actually is, and reasons as to why it may or may not have been a historical accident, with quotes if appropriate. @Phlsph7, Generalissima, and Launchballer: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Amakuru and thanks for raising this concern. I'm not sure what the right interpretation of "definite fact" in WP:DYKHOOK is. If it means that we cannot state common opinions (in the academic discourse) as such, then it is not a definite fact. If it means that the claim is well supported by reliable sources and "unlikely to change", then it is a definite fact. My experience with this type of meta-discussions is that there is usually no simple way to resolve them so unless you find what I've said so far convincing, it might be best to save ourselves the trouble and go for ALT1 instead.
As for the passage in the article, I don't think it's feasible or desirable to provide a representative list of all philosophers that have suggested this common opinion. I agree that vagueness should usually be avoided but there are cases where it is fitting and this may be one of them. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we wanted, we could ascribe the view to Mumford 2012, who uses the exact term "historical accident". This might give the false impression that this is a view advanced by a single philosopher. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Hi @Phlsph7: and thanks for your response. I'll leave it for DYK regulars here to comment on the issue of whether facts that may not be true but whose "possible" status is well-attested and frequently said are valid at DYK - I'd lean towards saying not myself, simply because there are many things that "may" be true, and if they're not necessarily true then such facts aren't generally going to be very remarkable. As for the second point, however, I think this definitely does need to be addressed before the hook goes live. Unsupported attributions are contrary to guidelines at WP:INTEXT and WP:WEASEL, and while I wouldn't expect you to list every philosopher who's ever said it, we need to provide enough information that readers can infer the state of research on this and the likelihood that it's true. This will need to be remedied before the hook goes live. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I reformulated the passage to include attribution. Does this change solve your concern? Phlsph7 (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Phlsph7: yes, that's great now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are multiple problems with this hook. Mumford's claim that this was an accident seems to be nonsense and, as discussion of the matter goes back millennia, reference to him would be WP:RECENTISM. The OED has an extensive etymology and the word "accident" does not appear in it. Here are some of its key points:

Asclepius in his commentary on the Metaphysics says that Aristotle thought that ontological philosophy should be taught after natural philosophy, and that this explains why the work is entitled μετὰ τὰ ϕυσικά ‘After the Physics’. Asclepius does not say who first gave the work that title; modern scholars sometimes assume that the title goes back to Eudemus of Rhodes (later 4th cent. B.C.), who, according to Asclepius, produced an edition of the work. The explanation which Asclepius offers for the title of the work receives support from the fact that, as Porphyry (3rd cent., in In Aristotelis Categorias Expositio) and some later writers make clear, Aristotle's Categories was sometimes called πρὸ τῶν τοπικῶν or πρὸ τῶν τόπων ‘Before the Topics’.
...
The title came to be used as the name for the branch of study treated in these books, and hence came to be interpreted as meaning ‘the science of things transcending what is physical or natural’.

So, the word has a likely origin while its later meaning is something of a false etymology or semantic change. Such shifts in meaning are a natural part of language. For example, "science" originally meant knowledge in a general sense from the Latin scientia but has developed over the centuries to its modern meaning of formal and systematic disciplines such as physics. This is not accidental; it's just a consequence of the way the word and the world have developed over time.

Anyway, as there seem to be different ways of presenting this and there's some conjecture involved, it's not a definite fact.

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrew and thanks for weighing in. I agree with your concerns about attributing this claim to Mumford. This was mainly done because of the repeated explicit requests above. Mumford 2012 is a high-quality reliable source, so I would be careful about dismissing it as nonsense. There are usually different ways to present or describe a passage of events. I don't think that anything in the text you quote contradicts that this passage of events can be accurately described as a historical accident.
For more high-quality sources supporting this claim:
  • [3]: "The use of the term 'metaphysics' to denote these topics is a historical accident"
  • [4]: "Indeed, it is largely just an historical accident that metaphysics is called what it is..."
  • [5]: "It is a historical accident that gave us the expression ta meta ta physika for certain writings of Aristotle..."
These sources support a stronger claim than Mumford 2012. We could make the hook more "definite" by changing it to:
  • ALT0a: ... that metaphysics received its name by a historical accident?
However, it's not my intention to get into a lengthy discussion on this. It seems that you two are convinced that this claim is inappropriate as a DYK hook. Would ALT1 be acceptable to you? Phlsph7 (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be good to consider alternatives. The current ALTs are:
My impression is that ALT1 is about a local development in British philosophy and that the division between that and continental philosophy is not adequately explained.
ALT2 has a blatant weasel and so needs to be more specific.
Browsing for ideas, I find a good aphorism that "There are arguments in metaphysics, not facts." An especially astounding example is given and that might make a good hook:
The article already mentions this in a couple of places and it's easy to find more sources such as this and that.
Andrew🐉(talk) 09:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadie O. Horton

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Sadie O. Horton)

Several issue with this... Firstly, the first source for this - [6] - attributes the fact to Horton's son, so shouldn't really even be there as a reliable source for that fact... As for the other sources, [7] is flagged at the bottom as "The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive", although who the actual author is isn't mentioned... so not sure if this is reliable or not? The third source, [8] says "Thanks to the tireless efforts of her son Don, Sadie would eventually become the first recognized female veteran of the Merchant Marine during World War II"... although this one doesn't directly attribute the claim to the son, it does rather sound like they're repeating something that he asserted rather than having independently verified this. And finally, what does "recorded" mean? That would suggest to me that there's some record of it anywhere, not just officially recorded by the military or anything like that... and some of the sources here say "recognised" rather than "recorded". Clarity on exactly what this refers to seems necessary. There are other sources that list different women who served in the Merchant Marine, for example Mary Collom Kimbro, who was killed in June 1942, the same month that Horton enlisted, and in the same article Clara Gordon Main, who became a POW and later received a Merchant Marine Meritorious Service Medal. So are we sure Horton was the first? For me, hooks which assert something as the "first" or "only" need to be more watertight than this, but happy to hear other views. Pinging @SL93, CSJJ104, and AirshipJungleman29:  — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would read the third source as saying her son led the campaign to have her recognised as a veteran, rather than saying he made the claim. Reading it again I would agree that this should say she is the first to be recognised, rather than recorded. CSJJ104 (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I’m fine with this being pulled. SL93 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found a copy of her discharge certificate. It's a DD 256, not a DD 214. I don't know much about these things, but a bit of searching shows they're not quite the same thing. There's enough questions here, I'm going to take SL93's suggestion and pull this. RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the nomination can be withdrawn. I see nothing else that might work as a hook. SL93 (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Stainmore

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Stainmore)

  • ... that the events following the Battle of Stainmore have been called the end of the first Viking age in England?

If we're going to say a topic "has been called" something, then the article needs to attribute in the prose who called it this, per WP:INTEXT. I wonder if we need to add something about this to the DYK checklist, because these issues come up a lot... @CSJJ104, Soman, and Hey man im josh: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting @Amakuru. I'll see what I can find later today. If there is a source which states "Historians have called this...", or even one willing to outright state this was the end of the first Viking invasion, would that be acceptable? CSJJ104 (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Noted, I'll keep this in mind in the future when moving hooks to the prep area. Thank you for the feedback! Hopefully CSJJ104 gets this sorted out shortly. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was not able to find a source to attribute the statement, and I have removed it. Thanks for drawing my attention to a policy I had not fully appreciated the application of. Is it too late to suggest an alternative hook? Possibly "...that Eric's death at the Battle of Stainmore ended the independence of Scandinavian York?" CSJJ104 (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@CSJJ104: sure, that would be fine I think. @Soman and Hey man im josh: what do you think?  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think that sounds pretty neat, so I support that alt hook. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, but put Eric Bloodaxe name in full linked in hook. It's a pretty cool name. --

Ella Scoble Opperman

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Ella Scoble Opperman)

  • ... that American pianist Ella Scoble Opperman, the first dean of the Florida State College for Women, was praised for growing the college into a credible school of music?

So firstly, it should say "creditable", not "credible", since that's the word used in the source.[9] I have fixed this in the article already, we can also fix it in the hook once we have a final version. But additionally, since this is a quote, it should be a quote in the hook, we're not saying in Wikivoice whether the school was credi(ta)ble or not. And secondly, as per the Battle of Stainmore above, the quote is unattributed. The source itself also has this down as a quote, attributed in footnote 37, but that's a footnote I don't have access to via the Google Books preview so not sure if anyone does know who originally said this? @SL93, Innisfree987, and AirshipJungleman29: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru I was able to see it as being from "Campbell, University in Transition". I looked it up at and it refers to Doak S. Campbell, who was once the president of the college, so that won't work as a hook. I will suggest some alt hooks.
Amakuru Do either of these work? I can suggest more. SL93 (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @SL93: Sorry for delay, back for a look now. I'm not sure the second one here is terribly interesting... Having a painting inside your own namesake hall would be quite a normal outcome. The first one's probably OK. I would remove the quotes from legacy, since the later quotes already mean we're not talking about a WIKIVOICE truth. @Innisfree987: as approver, do you have an opinion?  — Amakuru (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kekerengu

Template:Did you know nominations/Kēkerengū

OK, so technically the article does not directly say he was an "international fugitive", it says "Incurring massive debts, Tetley fled to Uruguay"... that would probably OK as a paraphrasing, except that the cited source [10] doesn't mention Uruguay anywhere. The article on Tetley himself also says that the Uruguay story is only a possibility, and that he also might have been in England. Probably just need to tidy this up a bit and make sure that source(s), article and hook are all in agreement. As a minor aside, the article also doesn't say that he herded sheep, it merely says he was a sheep farmer. Perhaps it's obvious that a sheep farmer herds sheep, but I prefer it if hook facts are definitely stated rather than just implied myself! @Generalissima, Silver seren, and Hey man im josh:  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

List of historic places in Gore District

@Hey man im josh, Generalissima, and SL93: The cited source[11] doesn't appear to verify any of the facts in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith It's there. Clicking Detailed List Entry will show the information. SL93 (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: Click on "Detailed List entry" near the bottom of that page. There's no way to link to just the entry, sadly. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Had I not already been on that site for a related featured list nomination I wouldn't have known the exact spot to find that information either. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh. I suggest you use the "at=" parameter (see Template:cite web#In-source locations) to describe how to find it and/or quote=. RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, added. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Human (film)

@Hey man im josh, TheSandDoctor, and Chris Woodrich: I don't see where the article says anything about a "conversation starter". RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: I can work that in but I thought that was just a more concise way of saying "The documentary film has subsequently become the topic of screenings and expert panel discussion". The film was screened and then the panels would discuss the science/technology, ethical issues, answer questions from the audience etc. TheSandDoctor Talk 16:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's how I interpreted it as well. If this is not acceptable then I'll keep this in mind in the future when adding hooks to the prep area (new to it and dipping my toes in). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Not to worry, we appreciate the help. RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dagmar Skálová

The nominator of Dagmar Skálová, Evrik, has been temporarily blocked (for 30 days, roughly 27 days remaining); I'm not sure what the protocol is here. Does the nomination stay open until they're unblocked so that they have a chance to respond, or will it be closed due to inactivity? And if the nomination closes without being promoted, does it still count as my QPQ for Brunel University lecture centre? Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 17:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least as far as the QPQ goes, the credit is for doing the review, regardless of what happens to the nomination after that. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
When it comes to Dagmar itself, it depends on the circumstances of the nomination. If another editor is willing to take over the nomination in Evrik's absence, it can probably continue. As for the QPQ, it does not matter what happens to the original nomination as QPQs refer to the review itself. Even a nomination that fails or rejects the article can still count as a QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Evrik nominations

While we're here, it might be appropriate to list Evrik's open nominations to discuss what to do with them in his absence.

Should these nominations be allowed to continue in his absence or should they be closed? The Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra nomination is probably the one here that needs the most attention as it has an open AFD discussion and is also missing a QPQ; given it was nominated on the 13th, a QPQ would need to be provided by the 20th (or the 27th if we give our usual extension) for it to proceed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Xenophon nom has not produced a sourced interesting hook. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't an argument either way, just an observation, but it'd be a real shame if the Dagmar one is closed considering I think its ALT1 hook would do pretty well. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 05:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Anyone who wants to adopt a nom is free to do so; everything else should be getting closed if reviews turn up issues that require evrik to be resolved. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gary Orfield and Lookwide Camp would at the very least need new hooks. For the nominations where evrik nominated the work of others, reviewers could ping those writers, who may be open to participating. CMD (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've pinged the major contributors to the Dagmar article - we'll see if it gets picked up, I guess. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 06:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can't renominate for DYK after the article was improved for GA

I tried to renominate Joy (dog) for DYK with the status "Improved for GA" but got an error that the duplicate nomination can't be created. Please advise how to resolve this issue. Thanks, Jacob0790 (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should have got an error message saying 'please copy the following substituted template'. I've created it for you at Template:Did you know nominations/Joy (dog) (2nd nomination). I'll leave it to you to add it to T:TDYK.--Launchballer 19:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Launchballer! Jacob0790 (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A modest proposal: vital-only BLP hooks

Just a temperature check: what would people think of limiting BLPs on DYK to vital-class articles only? I just feel a lot of the books we get about living persons are relatively boring about people with general notability but not an established history—so their hooks often involve evaluative quotes that aren’t exactly facts (like did you know that American soprano Samantha Adams was called "one of the finest talents under twenty?") and really routine facts that wouldn’t exactly raise any eyebrows (like did you know that Quincy Smith holds the record for fastest lacrosse faceoff in a nationally-ranked tournament qualifier?—someone has to hold that record, I guess). The hooks and articles relating to BLPs also often have the problem of seeming quite promotional, especially as recentism means that a contemporary figure may receive lots of contemporary praise that would not be repeated in a historical source representing their legacy twenty years later.

I know this isn’t exactly a prepared proposal, and if the response isn’t an immediate “hell no”, I’ll put together some examples and evidence to support my thinking. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 03:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Without examining the overarching merits, on a practical level this would effectively ban most BLPs by limiting BLP DYKs to GAs and x5s, as the vital article wikiproject juggles existing articles. CMD (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There is no snowball's hell in chance of such a proposal ever happening, but regardless, for the record I'd be opposed to this. For one thing, it would be deeply unfair to our contributors, many of whom are interested in improving BLPs and want to be acknowledged for their efforts. A blanket or even limited ban on DYK would likely discourage a not-insignificant number of our editors from contributing. I've said this multiple times already in discussions here: the issue isn't BLPs inherently being difficult or problematic, but rather our enforcement of rules and quality control are lacking.
Another issue is systemic bias. Requiring BLP nominations to be vital articles would likely cut off much of the world's people from DYK. We already have an issue with systemic bias (i.e. a focus on the Anglosphere), and doing such a thing would only increase said bias rather than counter it. Most of the world's people would never reach vital article status especially outside the Anglosphere or Europe, which means our already limited pool will become even more limited.
I get where the proposal is coming from, but these efforts to restrict or limit BLP nominations all have their own issues and would arguably do far more harm than good. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
really routine facts that wouldn’t exactly raise any eyebrows (like did you know that Quincy Smith holds the record for fastest lacrosse faceoff in a nationally-ranked tournament qualifier?: Maybe we're operating under different senses of routine, but that doesn't seem that routine. I certainly don't hold that record, and most people don't. "Routine" seems like, "Quincy Smith was in a nationally-ranked tournament qualifier" (so was everyone else in that qualifier) or "Quincy Smith went to secondary school" (so did I). Sure, someone has to hold that record but that seems like saying 'someone'/'something has to be any particular hook fact since otherwise it wouldn't be a fact. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The issue with these qualifier hooks isn't necessarily their interest or how routine they are but rather their factual accuracy. One of our recurring issues is how our "first" hooks can be misleading or inaccurate. Just see how often "first" hooks end up here on WT:DYK or WP:ERRORS. I don't think requiring BLPs to be vital articles would solve that issue, and in any case BDPs would still be vulnerable to the same issues. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My impression from the semi-recent threads (one thread and another thread) about "first" and "among the best" and other superlative or qualified superlative hooks is that a lot of the objections have been excessively fastidious. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 14:11, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
But you’ve never heard of Quincy Smith before. It’s as good to you as “someone holds this record”. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
you’ve never heard of Quincy Smith before: That seems like it's sort of the point of WP:DYK: DYK aims to [...] highlight the variety of information on Wikipedia and to present facts about a range of topics. Now I know who holds the record, and I can opt into learning more about that person by clicking the link. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 14:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Narutolovehinata5 the proposal will not pass. Lightburst (talk) 12:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose given all the points Narutolovehinata5 raised about the severe chaotic consequences of the proposal. ミラP@Miraclepine 13:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Oppose, and hope to heck and back that this modest proposal was just as tongue-in-cheek as Swift's. "Vital" articles are extremely limited in number, biased toward a Western worldview, and generally at a point where they would not qualify for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 says it all a lot more eloquently than I could. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, a quick petscan shows that there are around 4,000 vital BLPs; you can probably do further checks to see if any countries are overrepresented. However, bear in mind that 300 are GAs and 100 are FAs, meaning only around 3,600 are realistically eligible (through GA only) for DYK. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:51, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In order for that to happen the rating system would actually have to be meaningful and well applied... currently it is not. Let me be clear: if this were possible and we had a fully fucntional rating system I would be a strong oppose, but I don't see the point of opposing an unborn infant. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:53, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for three reasons.
  1. This would basically invite people to abuse the vital article system. Since anyone can edit the vital articles list, they can merely add any articles to the vital-article list that they want to nominate for DYK.
  2. It kind of defeats the purpose of DYK, which is to showcase lesser-known articles.
  3. If the issue is that a hook isn't interesting, the solution is to reject the hook during the nomination process for this reason. The solution should not be to add restrictions on what types of articles should be nominated.
– Epicgenius (talk) 00:30, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

Minnesota State Highway 36

@Rjjiii, NotDragonius, and Nyanardsan: This doesn't seem to pass the interesting test. A highway goes over a river using a bridge. I'm guessing the putative interest factor is that it's a lift bridge, which is relatively rare, but only somebody into bridges would know that, so fails the likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest criteria of WP:DYKINT. On the plus side, I see this nomination was processed mostly by editors I don't see a lot at DYK, so thank you all for helping out! RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the whole article now, I'm not sure there's anything in there that would make a good replacement hook. The best I can come up with is:
... that you can take Minnesota Legislative Route 118 to the Wisconsin state line, but you'll never see a sign for it?
based on the first sentence of History, but it's questionable if there's solid sourcing for the lack of signs. RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Its not currently supported by any source... The given source is from 1933 but the statement is about 2024, so unless they were time travelers or clairvoyants no bueno. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
At least for the time being, let's assume the GA is valid
It also doesn't meet our current standard for how to use maps in articles (the GA review is mistaken, the reviewer appears unaware of the current consesus on maps use). This should be taken out of the queue for now. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
What is the current consensus on maps use Horse Eye's Back? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:01, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That they are not an exception to the OR policy. There is an extended stand alone discussion somewhere which half of the community particupated in. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@48JCL: regarding the GA review. RoySmith (talk) 16:07, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith sorry at the time I was not aware. 48JCL 16:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me if you need to be sorry. See my comment below about the 2023 RFC on maps use which states that it's consensus that maps are an acceptable form of source information and that the use of maps for historical information is a matter of editorial consensus. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:17, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
okay I am SUPER confused. 48JCL 16:19, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@AirshipJungleman29: Consensus on maps use seems contrary to what Horse Eye's Back is saying. The close to a 2023 RFC states that There is consensus to add (to WP:OR) Source information does not need to be in text form—any form of information, such as maps, charts, graphs, and tables may be used to provide source information. Routine interpretation of such media is not original research provided that there is consensus among editors that the techniques used are correctly applied and a meaningful reflection of the sources and that citing maps for historical information is something that remain[s] up to editorial consensus, with no consensus for or against adding something about it to WP:NOR. That text still stands as WP:ORMEDIA ([permanent link). Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that HEB is saying that the use of maps in the article goes beyond "routine interpretation", but as you say that is "up to editorial consensus". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes that is what I am saying, this drifts out of routine interpretation and into OR. Only by comparing the cited map to previous and subsequent maps can that intepretation be made, so its not routine and is OR/SYNTH. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:02, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed the sub-thread about the GA and maps. If anybody thinks the GA is not valid, WP:GAR is the place to discuss that. My original question is about WP:DYKINT, so hopefully I can steer us back to that. RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mi-naow think this is interesting either. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps
(A is called B but isn't marked B)
  • ... that Legislative Route 118, Cedar Avenue, and Officer Richard Crittenden, Sr. Memorial Highway have all been terms for Minnesota State Highway 36?
(leaning into the several names the road's had.)
(Some Canada on a road for a U. S. state? What's that about? (and thinking that, the reader clicks))
(last one is trying to be quirky by leaning into the somewhat person-sounding names of the cities)
Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the last two suggestions, to me those are interesting and quirky. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I like the little Canada one. RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The linked bridge (Stillwater Bridge (St. Croix River)) is on the National Register of Historic Places. I won't object to the ALTs but did not see an issue with the original hook. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As I originally quoted, the hook need to be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest. The fact that the bridge is on the NRHP is precisely the kind of "special knowledge" that requirement is talking about. RoySmith (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list of older nominations is now a week old and could be archived at any moment, so I've created a new list of 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 29. We have a total of 225 nominations, of which 73 have been approved, a gap of 152 nominations that has increased by 7 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than one month old

Other nominations

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) 02:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all

Thank you all for your work on the Henry Street salamander tunnels hook. It performed well because of everyone's work on images, and on the hook: 28,432 views (1,184.6 per hour). I think the shortened hook and the great images certainly helped. Bruxton (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was glad that nobody took action on the complaint filed at Errors about the hook. I thought it was perfectly fine and a great hook. Good work, Bruxton et al. Schwede66 04:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1229868050"