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 91.96.116.138 (talk) at 08:22, 31 July 2018 (→‎Opera hooks interest). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

SKIP TO THE BOTTOM


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 processes can be discussed.

Do you have a suggestion for improving DYK, or would like to comment on the suggestions of others? Have your say at Wikipedia:Did you know/2017 reform proposals.

Dates

It happened again: I wrote an article today, finding that the subject's day of death is 24 July. Soon. A little more time: a piece of music best on Bach's day of death, 28 July. Sorry for the pressure. If they won't work, we'll survive ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:47, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

... and again: Template:Did you know nominations/Liebe und Eifersucht, - I wrote the opera article mentioned above, to find out that it was premiered on 27 July! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:39, 20 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Your article on Gerd Hatje was really too late for a mainpage appearance on 24 July but I have reviewed Liebe und Eifersucht and there are some problems with the hook facts. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:46, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Liebe und Eifersucht nomination is now approved, and the request is that it run on 27th July. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks to all who helped. Hatje can't be helped (day is today, and no review yet), Sankt-Bach-Passion is reviewed, but not yet in prep which has a different hook related to Germany that would probably need to be moved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In the hook for Minna Lammert tomorrow (q 6), you could link Marie Lehmann to Marie Lehmann (soprano). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, could you do that? (seeing you busy in that queue) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. Gatoclass (talk) 16:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Gatoclass, but sorry, you did too much. By whatever sort, Lilli is No. 1, and Marie her sister. Not only in the order on the image which sadly doesn't come along, also by alphabet, by age, and by fame. Lilly Lehmann is one of the best singers of all time, and her sister didn't even have an article until now, and in German still has no article. - Almost more important: please don't bold Marie, it's no reviewed article (yet), not even nominated. Just link, please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:45, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Done, thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 16:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Once more, now prep 3: Could Joseph Mohr be replaced by Sankt-Bach-Passion, which would make more sense on Bach's day of death than any other? - Once I'm here, the hook for Mohr was changed to that he was forced out of Germany. That will raise Error questions, because he wasn't forced, he could have stayed, just not been active in a Jesuit organization because they were dissolved, but he wanted to, so left. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved, thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:06, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Inspector General Report on FBI and DOJ's Actions in the 2016 Election

A new review of this DYK nomination, preferably from someone with little-to-no interest in U.S. politics, is requested. Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:58, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

LOL, I was just on my way here to post the same request! The discussion there has gone way out of control and is in need of a look by someone uninvolved. --MelanieN (talk) 00:32, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
True. @MelanieN: I think you need to reply to Lionelt there as soon as possible. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:36, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have commented there. Lionelt won't like it, but then he's causing many of the issues (he's not the only one, obviously). Black Kite (talk) 12:12, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Wilmot-Sitwell

Copying this discussion to this page for a wider view. Here is the original hook:- Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reviewer was right and the best hook is Alt 1 "beautiful but utterly useless" which would go well in the last spot. Could you move it please, or hold over until that spot is available? Thanks. Philafrenzy (talk) 08:00, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Philafrenzy: You should ask Cwmhiraeth since she was the one who swapped the hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 08:02, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth: Philafrenzy (talk) 08:06, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Philafrenzy: I changed the hook rather than returning the article to the nominations page because Peter Wilmot-Sitwell died last month (thus the article is almost a BLP) and I thought the hook was unduly negative. Looking at the article, I could see he was a considerable figure in the city and to have a hook stating he was "beautiful but utterly useless" seemed entirely wrong to me. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:48, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be fine. It's not intended to be negative. He was the source of the phrase and was making a joke at his own expense. The Times headed their obit "Self-deprecating gentleman banker...". It's also about a group of people, not just him. Anyone clicking on it would quickly see that he wasn't useless at all. I can't say whether he was beautiful in his youth! It would fit perfectly at the end, where a joke is expected, unlike the one there at the moment. Philafrenzy (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have to agree with the arguments put forward by Philafrenzy. This appears to be yet another instance where a perfectly good hook has been replaced with one which is arguably not "interesting to a broad audience", per WP:DYKRULES. Edwardx (talk) 13:18, 23 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The "beautiful but useless" hook is inaccurate because the quote is in reference to the stockbroker when he was a new recruit, not to stockbrokers like him in general. Gatoclass (talk) 07:03, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not inaccurate, merely imprecise. Many of our hooks lack precision, yet excessive precision can often mean long and dull hooks. This is the dichotomy we face when crafting hooks. Edwardx (talk) 11:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
ALT1: ... that when he was made partner in a stockbrokerage firm at age 25, Peter Wilmot-Sitwell was described as "beautiful but utterly useless"? Yoninah (talk) 10:51, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
He described himself as such, though; it didn't come from someone else. Vanamonde (talk) 11:09, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How about, ALT1a: ... that aged 25, stockbroker Peter Wilmot-Sitwell described himself as "beautiful but utterly useless"? Edwardx (talk) 11:49, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alt1b ...that according to Peter Wilmot-Sitwell, young well-connected stockbrokers in his firm were known as "orchids" because they were "beautiful but utterly useless". Philafrenzy (talk) 12:31, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
1b looks viable. Gatoclass (talk) 13:35, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
With the addition of a question mark I'd agree that ALT1b seems workable. If there are no further objections I'll swap it into the queue in a little while. Vanamonde (talk) 14:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine with me. Gatoclass (talk) 14:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alt1b fine with me too. Edwardx (talk) 19:43, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Vanamonde (talk) 04:51, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Vanamonde93:, @Gatoclass: but it should be in the last spot due to its humorous content. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sometimes we have more humorous hooks than quirky slots. In this case, there's a quirkier hook already occupying the slot. Gatoclass (talk) 10:39, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
" that Liebe und Eifersucht (Love and Jealousy), an 1807 opera with libretto and music by E. T. A. Hoffmann, premiered in 2008?" That appears to be a straightforward hook. In fact, just saying when it premiered really says nothing of interest at all. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:42, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That it was 201 years later is certainly quirky. The Rambling Man (talk) 10:45, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I missed the years. So wouldn't that be better as "an 1807 opera.... didn't premier until 2008?" Philafrenzy (talk) 10:58, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The fair use image should be removed. He's barely one month dead. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:25, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sea Trader: Rise of Taipan

I have pulled this hook from the queue as I think the hook is substandard. The hook was originally:

TRM objected to this on the grounds that it violates C6, which states that a hook must involve the real world in some way (I considered pulling it myself on the same grounds, but given that a recent RFC on the issue ended rather indecisively, I'm not sure about the current status of that rule). Fish and karate, responding to TRM's objection, tweaked the hook to say:

- While this addresses the issue raised by TRM, the fact that a computer game was "developed in America and set in China" is not at all unusual or interesting, you could say the same thing about hundreds of computer games. While I appreciate Fish's attempt to resolve the issue, adding an uninteresting fact to an already iffy hook hardly qualifies as an improvement, so I've pulled the hook for further discussion. In the meantime, I will look around for an alternative nomination to complete the set. Gatoclass (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please note here when the new hook is added so we can all go and check it. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:26, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Will do. Gatoclass (talk) 14:30, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine, I didn't think it was that interesting either. Fish+Karate 14:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added one. Gatoclass (talk) 15:56, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It amazes me that you think Darwin catching and eating a fish is more boring than the release of a computer game simultaneously on multiple platforms. That's as common as muck. What a terrible "hook". The Rambling Man (talk) 17:06, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please point me to where in either of the two references provided, the hook itself is verified? Particularly as our article on Dungeons 2 clearly states It was released on April 24, 2015 for Microsoft Windows, OS X and SteamOS.[8] The Rambling Man (talk) 17:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't terrifically keen on the hook myself, but I went through a stack of hooks on the approved nominations page and couldn't find a suitable one. But to avoid further debate, I will look for a replacement - I was just doing that in any case. Gatoclass (talk) 17:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well that hook needs to be rejected at the nomination as well, based on the new information. I'll just make a note of this for statistical purposes of course. The Rambling Man (talk) 17:27, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@The Rambling Man and Gatoglass: The hook said it was the first to be released on five different platforms at the same time. Dungeons was released on three platforms. Dungeons 2 was released on three platforms and then one another a year later. So the hook was correct. This verifies it (upper right corner lists the platforms and the release date). As for boring, I'm not really disputing that. I personally prefer ALT0, ALT1 or ALT3 but the reviewers struck them for some reason. Maybe someone can take another look? Regards SoWhy 18:07, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Sorry, I meant to ping Gatoclass of course. Regards SoWhy 18:25, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The hook that was in the protected queue was different. Presumably somebody thought they'd modify the hook, change its meaning and render it incorrect. Which is a shame. And a waste of a lot of others' time. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hook substituted. Gatoclass (talk) 17:33, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Just saw this discussion (sorry was away for work!), mentioned in the other one that I really didn't have many alternate hooks here. Only other suggestion I could think of here:
    • ALT4: ... that Sea Trader: Rise of Taipan keeps track of player's stats using battery save RAM? (IGN source, last paragraph)
    • ALT5: ... that Sea Trader: Rise of Taipan features no skill or action-based sequences even though the player can fight pirates? (IGN source, last paragraph)
I'm pretty out of alternatives after that. If I had access to the Nintendo Power review, I'd look there for something as well (I'm pretty sure this is the only trading simulation game for the Game Boy Advance but I'll be damned if I can find a source that says it outright-- that would be the best hook). Nomader (talk) 23:17, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Also just a note, the "set in China" part is actually wrong-- the game starts out in just China, but over time you can sail across the whole world to London and trade there as well. As for the C6 note-- I'd argue that ALT5 above would meet the criteria as "skill and action-based sequences" involve real-life input from a player. Could imagine that line of reasoning might be controversial though. Nomader (talk) 23:20, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither ALTs 4 or 5 sound unusual to me and therefore lack interest IMO. How about:
The fact is that the reviewer used that expression and his meaning is clear even if grammar mavens might question the usage. I think the hook is fine, but if you want to make an issue of it, one could just paraphrase the comment instead. Gatoclass (talk) 06:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think what's fundamental here is what is actually meant by "relatively unique" here? Just because one reviewer made a bogus claim, what does it actually mean? The hook is meaningless (and erroneous). The article should be failed, it clearly can't provide anything of broad interest. The Rambling Man (talk) 06:34, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that he meant "unusual", probably "highly unusual", but definitely the former, so you could just substitute that. Gatoclass (talk) 06:40, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Although "atypical" would probably be a better word. Gatoclass (talk) 06:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes yes, but in what sense? The Rambling Man (talk) 07:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In the "gaming experience" sense. But if you want something more specific:
Getting better! The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think I can do better than that. I think that's a pretty decent hook now, although it may need a little addition to the article. Gatoclass (talk) 08:12, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Gatoclass here, I think it's the best that we'd be able to get it. Nomader (talk) 13:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I think that can be improved upon a bit:

I think that this is great, we'll need to expand the article with a line about its uniqueness (IGN and GS review should cover it here) but I'm good with this. Nomader (talk) 18:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moved discussion back to Template:Did you know nominations/Sea Trader: Rise of Taipan. Nomader (talk) 16:47, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1 tweaks

In the 4th hook of Queue 1, Guinness Book of World Records should be italicized and changed to Guinness Book of Records, which is the non-US title used in 1989. It's the title used in the article's English source (although it's misspelled there).

Also, in the 7th hook, I'd recommend a comma after "died". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:48, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator I would disagree with the suggested additional comma in the 7th hook, but I don't really care. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Mandarax on the comma, and I would also spell out "23 million" rather than all those zeroes. I'm posting this at ERRORS for a quicker response. Yoninah (talk) 23:00, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

"Hooky" hooks rule

After having thought about it before i really have to ask... What is the deal with that rule? Should it be removed? Should it be followed and hence fail nominations for it? The somewhat recent discussion about the Telfair Hodgeson hook and several hooks i noticed on the main page made me think about it. Yesterday, for example, there again was a very generic hook about an opera singer performing operas in an opera... Is a hook that could be used just like that for many different topics and countless individuals really hooky? "... that (insert performer/athlete/whatever name) performed (insert piece/act/whatever) at (insert location)" style of hooks are just particularly bland in my opinion. Anyway, should the rule be clarified/simplified, followed or abandoned? Because as of now it does not seem like anyone really cares about it that much. Yes, interesting hooks are being looked for, i realise that, but if there is none there still is a decent chance it will run the main page not following the project rule it seems. I of course also realise that finding things interesting is very subjective, so it is not that easy to define 'hookyness'. Obviously this is nothing formal but... any thoughts on the rule, its implementation(or lack of), its usefulness, is it even an issue etc.? 91.248.69.62 (talk) 01:18, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a relatively new reviewer I have failed to grasp this rule too. I have resolved it by avoiding reviewing nominations with uninteresting hooks. But on most main pages there is a hook which suggests that the rule is not in force. If I were to reject a nomination on the grounds of a boring hook, the nominator would be entirely entitled to exclaim "How can it be less interesting than that one?" Gog the Mild (talk) 09:26, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is, as i have stated before, there is absolutely no objective way to define "interesting to a broad audience". Its an utterly meaningless concept that is used by certain editors complain about subjects they do not like or do not understand. I have stated before and will state again that it sould be removed as non-definable and non-enforceable.--Kevmin §
Just need to change the silly QPQ process and enable more than just one person to agree that a hook might be of interest. Did you know ... hooks should be interesting to a broad audience, and if articles are about super-niche subjects and don't appeal to a broad audience they shouldn't be DYKs. Simple. The Rambling Man (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
...which would immediately exclude the Canaries :p  :;) —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 12:08, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I really have to say that "...is used by certain editors complain about subjects they do not like or do not understand." is assuming incredibly bad faith kevmin. So everyone that has an issue with 'boring' hooks is either an idiot or does it just on a whim of personal preference and dislike of a topic? Can you expand on that a little? Any examples, previous instances where this happened etc.? Genuinly curious here as that is a rather serious claim. 31.150.103.47 (talk) 12:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The hook interest requirement is a core principle of DYK, and even though the standard is not always met to everybody's satisfaction, getting rid of it would result in frequent embarrassment for the project. Gatoclass (talk) 12:13, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well... if it is a core principle, how come there is such a lackluster approach to actually enforce the rule? How come so few nominations get failed for it, how come so many hooks like an opera singer performing operas in an opera house make it all the way to the main page. If it is an important rule, treat it as such. If it is not important enough to enforce the rule... then get rid of it. But keeping it, saying it is important and then disregarding the rule so often just seems pointless. 31.150.103.47 (talk) 12:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, DYK doesn't always live up to the ideal - nothing on Wikipedia does - but that doesn't mean we should just scrap the whole concept. With regard to the "opera singer" hooks - it's a topic area that doesn't necessarily lend itself to broadly interesting hooks. If a hook can't be interesting to a broad audience, the minimum standard that should apply is that it should at least be of interest to somebody with an interest in the topic area, and presumably these hooks qualify in that regard. Gatoclass (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Being interesting to somebody with an interest in a topic area is a really low standard. Anything will be interesting to somebody. If that is the minimum it should be spelled out in the rule, which would water it down very much and pretty much voids it anyway. But what you said was basically my whole point for asking. The rule is an ideal to be followed...unless it would mean failing nominations so they run anyway by making up new criteria to allow it to be posted. Either re-write the rule so it actually supports what you describe, or fail nominations and leave it as is. In my opinion you cannot have it both ways.. 31.150.103.47 (talk) 20:49, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, the hook interest is the least important matter. It pales in comparison to accurate and informational -- it is window dressing, which is why there is no real 'standard' to apply. Alanscottwalker (talk) 12:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, I would describe it as the core principle of DYK - they are not called "hooks" for nothing! Having said that, of course we don't compromise on hook accuracy just for the sake of interest. As for "informational", if by that you mean "informative", ie, imparting useful information, I wouldn't disagree with that as a desirable object, but I would also describe useful information as by definition interesting. A broader definition is applied at DYK however, in that trivial and not particularly useful information is also permitted if it's likely to excite interest. We are permitted to be entertaining as well as worthy! Gatoclass (talk) 12:58, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, a "principle" that is based in arbitrary feelings can hardly be called a principle. As for information, 'do you know' information. And yes it is called 'hook', just reinforcing it is window dressing. What you call entertainment, others may call boredom. Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:30, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is unfortunately a fairly widespread misconception that hook interest is entirely subjective, or "arbitrary" as you put it. That is not the case, there are some basic principles that can be applied, but not enough people are aware of them. I've been intending to write a guide for evaluating hook interest for quite some time, but haven't found time for it up to now. But since I'm getting tired of seeing the same discussion periodically repeating on this page, I think it's probably time I made that guideline a priority. Gatoclass (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free, but that is just an admission that the current rule is arbitrary - and you want to address that by making new elaborated rules. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:00, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the rule should interpreted along the lines that it's as hooky as possible for the subjectmatter of the nominated article? Abyssal (talk) 13:32, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be opposed to watering down of the criterion. "Interesting to a broad audience" is the ideal that nominators should be striving for, and though nominators don't always manage to attain it, we don't want to encourage them to strive for something less. Gatoclass (talk) 13:48, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You say you would be opposed to watering down the criteria yet above you said "...the minimum standard that should apply is that it should at least be of interest to somebody with an interest in the topic area..." which is a very much watered down version of the rule and which is not mentioned at all in the rule itself. Pretty much in the spirit of what Abyssal suggested as well. I agree of course that everyone should strive for 'interesting' hooks but if it makes no difference in regards to getting onto the main page... The rule is de facto already watered down by what you described there. Lowering the standard to something made up, nowhere in the rule and a much lesser standard than the rule states. 31.150.103.47 (talk) 21:47, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think "as hooky as possible for the subjectmatter" is good enough. If the subject matter of the article has nothing hooky, the article is not ready for DYK, just as if it's too short or otherwise deficient. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that "as hooky as possible for the subject matter" isn't good enough, which is why it's not part of the rules. But that's not quite what I said, which is that a hook should at minimum have genuine appeal to somebody with an interest in the topic area. A hook that is unlikely to appeal to anybody, not even to people with an interest in the topic area, is clearly not good enough, regardless of whether or not it is "as hooky as possible" for the given subject. Gatoclass (talk) 07:56, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need a new rule, we need a new process. Hooks should be interesting to the nominator (obviously, that's a given), interesting to the reviewer (essential) and interesting to the set builder and queue promoter. That way we have the same process as right now overall, but four "interest" checkpoints, two more than we currently do. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:53, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's pretty much how it's supposed to work now, except with regard to the queue promoter (which I tried and failed to get enshrined as a principle in the last RFC). But we still have some dud hooks slipping through, because many users clearly don't understand, or aren't comfortable with, vetting a hook for interest. It's been clear for a long time that contributors need some assistance in dealing with this aspect, and if it's not addressed, we are just going to be having this same conversation over again six months from now and every six months thereafter. Gatoclass (talk) 17:20, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't work though, does it? As QPQ is a selfish pursuit, the nom and reviewer won't be bothered, the prep builder will just assume the reviewer has checked for broad interest, and the queue promoter will just assume the prep builder and reviewer have done the job. Its root cause is in QPQ where the back-scratching attitude is such that daring to fail nominations never ever happens. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:44, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely don't agree with the original poster's suggestion that this requirement be removed. We may be ignoring the requirement for hookiness more than we are obeying it, but without the requirement at all things would be even worse. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I just want to make clear, i do not suggest it be removed. I wanted to know what the point of the rule is if it gets ignored so often and if there perhaps is something that could be tweaked or clarified to bring it more into line with how it actually is used. Well, i did mention removal as one option as well of course, but that does not mean i agree with it. There just is a large gap between the application of the rule and what it says. So i wondered why out of personal curiosity but also, and more importantly, if that could perhaps be somehow remedied or at least the gap narrowed a little. 31.150.103.47 (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would support removal because it relies on a subjective notion. At the very least it should be reworded because it does get tiring when a number of hooks get brought up here on WP:IDL grounds using this rule as a reason for it. Alteration of it would certainly help everyone I would say. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:04, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No, we don't need to scrap it, we need a different way to ensure it's implemented. More eyes on hooks. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:05, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it always comes down to a matter of personal preference whether a hook is hooky or not. I like the way Gatoclass phrased it, that a hook should at minimum have genuine appeal to somebody with an interest in the topic area. A hook that is unlikely to appeal to anybody, not even to people with an interest in the topic area, is clearly not good enough. Take, for example, a hook that appeared yesterday which I thought was a complete waste of space: ... that Technological University Dublin, or TU Dublin, is the first university of its type in Ireland? Apparently, 1,800 viewers disagreed with me. Yoninah (talk) 12:18, 26 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What is the difference between lowering the standard so much and removing the rule altogether? Anything will be of interest to somebody and any article notable enough for Wikipedia will have something of interest to someone in any given topic area. One could 'justify' any hook with that criteria, because obviously the nominator(person with interest in topic area) finds it interesting so that is that check already passed, always and by default. 91.248.249.106 (talk) 02:58, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And there is another hook about operas without anything broadly interesting in it today. I see there was a somewhat lengthy discussion on the nominations page where one person even said that no proposed hook is broadly interesting(which is absolutely true)... And what happens? It runs anyway... And now we have the 'unusual' hook of a person having a gig at two different locations. This is quite honestly getting ridiculous. But then again, it is getting quite clear that this project is not for the reader but a vanity project for the regulars. It is just as clear that nothing will change... Quite sad really. 37.138.73.155 (talk) 03:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/John–Eleanor Rykener

An editor has proposed this hook:

IMO this is graphic enough without the anal sex, which is anyway speculative. I suggested this ALT:
ALT1: ... that in 1394 John Rykener, known as "Eleanor", was found committing an "ignominious vice" in Cheapside and later confessed to having had sex with both friars and nuns?
However, the nominator is insistent on using the original. What do others think? Should the original go up on the main page? Thanks, Yoninah (talk) 17:27, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is precisely the kind of thing that the much-abused WP:NOTCENSORED (which is abused precisely because editors all too often forget that it is policy) applies to, and Yoninah's WP:IDLI is very much at odds with it: ..."being objectionable" is generally not sufficient grounds for the removal of content. The activity the two people were involved in is not only at the heart of the article, but pretty much at the heart of what we know of the subject's life. It is, therefore, both relevant and explanatory to the WP:READER. Further, since the only explanation of the illegality of their conduct left in ALT1 is "ignominious vice", you are relying on the reader (whose first language may not be English) to understand or otherwise try and find out exactly what that archaic phrase actually means. It also implies that we know what they were doing; whereas, when they link through to the article, it will be made clear to them by numerous RS that it is an assumption, albeit a reasonable one. I feel, strongly, that the disambiguator is necessary to clarify to the reader what his offence was in plain and simple English, and avoids the obfuscation that ALT1 throws up by not clarifying whether sex with "friars [or] nuns" was the "ignominious vice"—when, of course, technically, it was neither. —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 17:43, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm undecided and won't have time to look more closely into it now, but my first response is, why not use the full quote: "that detestable unmentionable and ignominious vice", which is much more intriguing (and would be better without the "anal sex" spoiler anyway). Gatoclass (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Wikipedia:CENSORMAIN is the guideline for the main page. — Maile (talk) 18:36, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
To some extent, I agree: of course it does say, Each situation should be judged on its merits, and there shouldn't be a blanket rule that says "anal sex is banned" :) even so, it's actually an essay, not a guideline (let alone policy). —SerialNumber54129 paranoia /cheap sh*t room 18:45, 25 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The hook may be somewhat graphic, but if ever there were an article for which that would be appropriate, this—which is not a salacious stub created solely for DYK, but is a serious treatment of an object of serious academic interest—is probably it. The hook is less prurient (compare with the occasional irrelevant sex joke) than it is directly related to the substance of the article. --Usernameunique (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination page is unreadable

It seems there are some unclosed small tags somewhere in among all the nominations to the point where the ones at the bottom are almost unreadable. I've found and fixed one, but the others are more discreet. Anarchyte (work | talk) 07:19, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. [1]. Vanamonde (talk) 08:43, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
... and I looked at the same and couldn't see a problem, just that it was that one.
What do others think of eliminating all these small-tags which cause the danger of not matching them, and rather encourage to not quote a long thing, - the reviewer will have to look anyway unless it's offline. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:54, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Gerda Arendt: I think it's nice to have to add a link to the immediate source on the DYK page, but if the small tags are causing trouble we could change it to be like the comments bit. Have it like this:
Source <!-- please mention which hook it is for-->:
Reviewed:
Comments:
Anarchyte (work | talk) 09:26, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing wrong with a link, but no need to have it small. Small - I guess - was intended to differentiate hook and source, which is a good idea until unmatched tags cause trouble for the whole page. Another solution might be to clear all open tags on top of every nom, to limit problems to that one nom, or to clear at the end of every nom. - I am not good enough in technical stuff to know how. --

Capture of Berwick (1333)

I seem to have broken the template with Template:Did you know nominations/Capture of Berwick (1333). I am not sure how I did that nor how to fix it. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:12, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 09:50, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prep area 6

  • ... that the time limit in the puzzle game Cloud Kingdoms is calculated in Manukas?

This is the ALT0 of the nomination, which I explicitly rejected. Should the hook be substituted for ALT1, which I approved? In addition, the prep already has a video game hook before it (Sea Trader: Rise of Taipan), so Cloud Kingdoms should probably be moved to another prep. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about fourteen hours ago; here is an updated list with all 40 of the non-current nominations that need reviewing, which covers those through July 20. Right now we have a total of 189 nominations, of which 69 have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these, especially the three oldest—one each remaining from March, April and May.

Over four months old:

Over three months old:

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:59, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Tribune East Tower

This nomination dates back to the end of February, and is about a proposed skyscraper that, if built, would be the second-tallest building in Chicago. The nomination ran into trouble because of questions as to whether it was a case of WP:CRYSTAL and thus ineligible, or if a proposed building was a suitable subject for an article and for DYK.

If someone who is knowledgeable on WP:CRYSTAL could please take a look at this and see whether the nomination should proceed, and post as appropriate to the nomination page, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:56, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Aya Hirano

Hello. This nomination of mine has been approved. I requested a special occasion date of August 31, which is the date of the time-loop in the infamous Endless Eight arc of The Melancholy of Haruhi Suzumiya. The date however is three days after six weeks after the article was promoted to GA status (as the article was promoted on July 17, six weeks after would be August 28). By coincidence, August 28 happens to be the birthday of Yūko Gotō, voice actress of Mikuru Asahina and Hirano's co-star in Haruhi. As such, would an IAR August 31 special occasion date still be requested, or is August 28 an acceptable alternative given the six-week limit? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:35, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I'll IAR and move it to August 31 in the special occasions section. Yoninah (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on; none of the hooks are hooky and the reviewer should not have approved it, as they mentioned they had reservations. Please suggest a new hook. Yoninah (talk) 00:03, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's not at all unusual for us to stretch things and allow six weeks from the approval date, and in this case, since the nomination wouldn't have needed to be made until seven days after it became a GA, it could have been nominated as late as July 24. August 31 should be fine. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:27, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Find sources

Template:Find sources is one of the most handy tools available. I added it a few weeks ago to DYK toolbox that appears as an upper right-hand sidebar on the nomination template. Because it's been newly added to the toolbox, maybe most people haven't noticed it's there. But I recommend this tool for just about anything you might be working on. — Maile (talk) 11:49, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1

This would be a perfectly acceptable hook, except it's currently in the last slot (aka the "quirky" or "funny" slot). Considering the topic (JFK's assassination), I'm not sure if the hook is appropriate for the slot. Perhaps there are two options here: 1. the hook be substituted with ALT2 (which is more humorous), or 2. the hook be moved out of the quirky slot. Pinging Cwmhiraeth who promoted the hook. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew

You have a point there. I have replaced the hook with ALT0 because I did not think the facts in ALT2 were entirely made out in the article. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image hook for Prep 2

The image hook for Prep 2, as originally promoted by Yoninah, was the one from Dharma Bum Temple.

About an hour ago, Zingarese, the creator (but not nominator) of the Franz Schubert article, substituted an image of Schubert for the Dharma Bum Temple image that had been heading the set, with the edit summary replacing main page image with Schubert, he is of far higher international and historical significance than an American frat with only one or two chapters. While this may indeed be true, nominators and creators are not supposed to give their own nominations/creations a more favored slot than the set preparer gave them. They can, of course, make a request on this page if they feel a better placement is warranted.

Narutolovehinata5 subsequently finished the process by moving the Schubert hook into the lead position, which is where all pictured hooks are supposed to go, with the edit summary I'll just do this formally since I'm not sure if the nominator is allowed to make these changes themselves. However, I have reverted the entire move because I think in courtesy Yoninah should be consulted in this, and that we should carefully consider whether the out-of-process move should be allowed to go forward. Another alternative, of course, is to move the Schubert hook to a later prep set that doesn't yet have a lead hook, which would allow the Dharma Bum Temple to retain its lead slot for Prep 2. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I sincerely apologize to Yoninah for the discourtesy. I realize it would have been far more appropriate to start a discussion on this talk page, no matter how uncontroversial I feel it may be to swap the image. I do very strongly stand by my original claim, however, and I welcome others to comment and determine the best course of action.—Zingarese talk · contribs 04:21, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Moving to another prep was actually the first thought that came into my mind when I saw the prep, and in fact the moment I saw the prep was the time I was about to move Schubert hook to another prep. However, I hesitated because I had already promoted the image hooks for two succesive preps (Prep 3 and Prep 4) and I don't want to do all the image promoting work. I apologize if my actions were disruptive, as no ill-doing was intended. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 04:25, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Everyone is being far too polite. It was entirely inappropriate for Zingarese to promote his own article's image in that way. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:23, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Cwmhiraeth: My intention was not to “promote my own article’s image”. It is indisputably true that Schubert is of far higher significance than Dharma Bum Temple. However, I was not aware it was bad practice to change the image without discussion on this talk page, and for that I apologize. I had no ill intention at all, and I’m slightly offended you feel I should be treated less politely. I continue to stand by my view that Schubert’s significance >>> Dharma Bum Temple, and I doubt many will disagree; I wish for the most appropriate course of action to be taken in this regard, whether it be moving Schubert to a later prep set or just making the change on the existing one. Regards, —Zingarese talk · contribs 07:27, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly think fame of the subject is the right criterion (nor even among the criteria) for choosing DYK hooks. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:44, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Though I'm normally opposed to doing anything that might be seen as rewarding nominators for trying to move their own hooks to the lead, in this case I agree that it looks kind of weird to have a major composer like Schubert playing second string to some obscure temple, so I think I could support moving the Schubert hook to the lead of another prep. This doesn't mean however, that I would automatically support giving major historical figures the lead spot, that could create all kinds of problems. While we're on the topic though, I think Schubert is so well known that he hardly needs a list of greatest hits included in the hook, that's just insulting the intelligence of classical music lovers while adding nothing of interest to those unfamiliar with his works, who can read about them in the article. Gatoclass (talk) 07:53, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

When the image is taken, we can shorten the list or even drop it. Without image (and I always plan for that), I thought to mention a few recognisable works was a way to clarify which Schubert. You (all) are welcome to propose better hooks, but preferably in nomination stage. Also: the Main page is read by people for whom Classical Western music is nothing they'd know. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:01, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Zingarese: as Narutolovehinata5 pointed out, the choice of the lead image depends on several factors, among them the type of image appearing in a succession of prep sets. There was a portrait image before this and a person image after, so it was time for something else. As an editor involved with the nomination in some capacity, you are not allowed to make any changes once the hook goes to prep, but you can post a request on this talk page. That said, you have a good point, and I will move Schubert to a later prep set. Other editors can discuss whether the hook needs to include a list of his works. Yoninah (talk) 09:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 4 lead image

Now that Franz Schubert is in the image slot, I must say that the image doesn't look too good. The tone is too orange and there's too much background. Is there any way to crop this, or make it vertical, so the image can be seen more clearly? Yoninah (talk) 16:13, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel in this case, the image should be replaced with File:Franz Schubert by Wilhelm August Rieder 1875.jpg: this is the most famous painting of Schubert and the lead image in the article. —Zingarese talk · contribs 16:26, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) I suggested that image from the article that seemed natural. File:Franz Schubert by Kriehuber 1846.jpg this one might work, but is not (yet) in the article, pose but not stiff. I may disagree with you, Zingarese: I could imagine the hook without image as quirky. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:31, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I also think it would work better as the quirky. Yoninah (talk) 20:07, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opera hooks interest

There was a discussion over at WP:ERRORS on opera hooks, and how they are interesting to a broad audience, although it appears to have been archived as I wrote this post; the link is here. It appears that there are concerns on if these opera hooks as they are written are interesting to a broad audience, and/or if they are accessible enough to those unfamiliar with opera and classical music. Calling on the attention of Gerda Arendt who is the primary author of these opera articles, as well as DYK regulars @Yoninah, Cwmhiraeth, BlueMoonset, Gatoclass, The C of E, The Rambling Man, and David Eppstein:, and other interested parties, and Stephen who archived the original discussion. Also pinging WP:ERRORS discussion participants @Double sharp and GreatCaesarsGhost: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:15, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment with sadness I tend to agree that many of these hooks certainly aren't interesting to a broad audience. And they often contain easter egg links. But the real problem here is with the QPQ process which allows a hook to be signed off and sent all the way to the main page with literally one person making a "summary" check of the checklist, including the "interesting" rule. It's more and more obvious that QPQ needs a shake up to reinforce the broadly interesting or to dismiss it altogether. The Rambling Man (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, I have to point out that interest is subjective and just because some may not enjoy classical music, doesn't mean that others won't. I see nothing wrong with them and I wonder why we are suddenly jumping to this when just one IP commented "WP:IDONTLIKEIT". Likewise I could argue that biology articles aren't interesting to those unfamiliar with it but I don't go around saying that we shouldn't have them because I know that broadly other people may still enjoy them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 07:41, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It goes far deeper than some opera hooks, of which not all are even 'bad'. The one about bringing tears to Wagners eyes a few days ago was much better than the hooks like "professional opera singer sings operas"(of which there were at least two within the last week i think). Hook facts which are stupidly obvious and only mean something more, or even become 'interesting', with extensive knowledge in any given topic area cannot be a standard you want to set, and are just not included in the rule. And i cannot stress this enough, it is your rule. I did not make it. If you want me to stop bringing this up, maybe clarify the rule, enforce the rule or get rid of it. Because as of now my complaints are absolutely legitimate when the DYK project disregards its own rules. Even more so in cases like yesterday where the Rambling Man has mentioned the used hook was not in line with the rule on the nominations page. So reviewer, set builder and promoter willfully ignored the rule, whose lack of broad interest was, to repeat, even mentioned on the nominations page, to get it onto the main page anyway. But why have a good discussion about anything like this if you can just say it is only a sole IP who doesn't like topics... And to be honest, i would also complain about hooks like "person does chosen profession" in fields that interest me. And i also have to say, i do not dislike opera at all, that would mean i actually cared enough about it to form an opinion. 91.96.116.138 (talk) 08:14, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ERRORS should talk about errors. We have an open nomination page, where you can raise concerns and improve, including some female opera singers as a result of the WiR drive in June. The one questioned, Kateryna Kasper, had a simpler hook (which offerred a woman between Ukraine and Germany for the general public, and an opera which was restored to its original title, staged by one of the great masters of directing for the specialists), but Narutolovehinata5 didn't like it, so we searched (long) for an alternative. Rambling Man, I liked to mention Kosky once more, the first Jewish director in Bayreuth, and got thanks for mentioning Dido. We can't please them all. - My lead hook for yesterday found more than 20k viewers. A question for the legalistically minded: It was pictured for most of the day, but not when archived, - is that now a pictured hook or not, for the stats? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:59, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, i did look at the nominations page even before posting at errors. And guess what i saw there? It was brought up that the proposed hooks were not 'broadly interesting'. So what happened with that objection? It was completely ingored. That was actually the main reason i even brought this up. 91.96.116.138 (talk) 08:17, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I should note there's a common theme here in those who believe that just because someone isn't personally "interested" or "enjoys" or "likes" something that they can't agree that a hook about the same subject can still be interesting. That, I'm afraid, is nonsense. At least, as far as I'm concerned, I can easily determine (in fact, I can better determine) if a hook about an opera singer will be appealing to a "broad audience" precisely because I'm not an aficionado. People who are too close to the subject matter are the last people to ask if a hook is interesting to a broad audience. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:06, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=852774861"