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 Wikipediæ philosophia (talk | contribs) at 12:34, 8 March 2023 (→‎Samuel Iling-Junior and Dean Huijsen: 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
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
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.

Who can withdraw a nomination

In light of Special:Permalink/1140684022#shenton way mrt station and past conflicts between article creators and drive-by nominators (and a conversation I had off-wiki), I think we should allow a consensus of authors of the article to withdraw their article from DYK consideration, whether or not they were involved in the nomination process up till then. If I write an article on my own, and it gets drive-by nominated before I feel it's ready, I think I should be able to prevent the article (or any hook in the nomination, we frequently extend line-item vetoes to nominators as a courtesy) from reaching the Main Page. I'd also want to have GalliumBot notify editors when their article is drive-by nommed. Any objection to that? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 07:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate that the article creators/main contributions would also have an input for DYK noms. I don't mind my promoted articles (to GA) to be nominated for DYK, since others might see something interesting from the article which I have overlooked. But I would wish to be notified and consulted to see if the hook(s) proposed works, since I would be more familiar with the context and source the blurb might be from.
So something like FAC or FAR, when the main contributors were also pinged in the DYK nomination. I would support granting main contributors to an article veto powers if they find the article (especially newly-created ones) isn't ready for DYK, and they might prefer having the article 5x expanded or newly-promoted to GA for it to be featured. After all, an article can only be on the DYK page once. ZKang123 (talk) 10:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this proposal runs afoul of WP:OWN which is actual policy. Also your "drive-by" accusation is insulting to editors like myself who vet, edit and steward the articles through DYK. We should not codify more rules - especially ones that are counter to policy. Bruxton (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I also Oppose. I agree it would be nice to notify the "primary author" (whatever that means in the context of WP:OWN) of a nomination, but I'm not sure how you would determine who that is, and I certainly don't want to get pestered with talk page notices about nominations for every typo I've ever corrected. I would expect that the primary author's opinion would carry significant weight at a discussion, but I certainly wouldn't give them absolute veto power. In any case, "it's not ready yet" isn't a valid argument. I generally write new articles in my user space and move them to mainspace when I feel they're ready (search my move log for "prime time" comments). -- RoySmith (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bruxton and RoySmith: I'm not accusatory, some of my best friends are drive-by nominators! In all seriousness, we already do make a list of people who get "credit" for their nomination – if I'm being honest, WP:OWN kinda goes out the window as standard practice here. Reviewers barely ever make changes the nominator would dispute, and creators get nice shiny buttons saying that They Wrote This Article And It Did Appear On The Main Page And If They Care About Their Article's Performance There's A Stats Page For That. And I certainly hope we'd sympathize with people who might be anxious about letting tens of thousands of people view their work all at once. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 18:54, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You did nothing whatever to Tinder Fire before nominating it. You should have notified me when you nominated it. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:27, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vami IV: I put you down as the person who brought the article to GA in the nomination. I read the article and I checked the references. I researched and came up with hooks. I made sure they were cited properly. I followed the article through approval. It was a good article and I was glad that you guided it through GA. We have no such rule about notifying editors because of our policy on ownership. I will make myself a mental note that you wish to be notified. Bruxton (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support but not normally for GAs. This has long been accepted for main page FAs btw. I don't see that WP:OWN is a problem; the concept of "main authors" is well-established at FAC too. Johnbod (talk) 16:36, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, unless there's an obvious reason why the nomination is disruptive or being used to harrass someone. Although we unofficially have a concept of who was the main author of a particular article, WP:OWN makes it clear that ultimately there is no special status for anyone, and any editor who wants to nominate an eligible article for DYK should be allowed to so.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:25, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should usually accept it if a page's main author asks nicely for the article not to hit the Main Page. We should not have a formal veto power, though, as that could lead to things like authors vetoing a nom if they don't like the hook. —Kusma (talk) 18:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support a veto, or at least Kusma's version of "listen to the author if they ask nicely". I also support a notification to the primary author. My support comes from recent experience. I recently had a BLP article pass GA. I quietly opted not to DYK it as he's primarily notable for a few embarrassing incidents from years ago and is now a private citizen. Another editor nominated it for DYK without speaking to me, and with a hook that violated the rule about avoiding negative hooks on BLPs. Had I missed the DYK nomination edit on my watchlist - say if someone else edited the talk page after - I would never have known about the DYK nomination. Although they eventually agreed to withdraw it, I don't like the possibility that it could happen again without notification. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:29, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I would have thought that when you nominate another editor's work at DYK, it's a common act of courtesy to let the other editor know about it. I'm not sure that we need to codify that. Schwede66 22:11, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schwede66: it rarely ever happens, as far as I know. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I honestly couldn't say how often or how little it happens. Maybe I'm naïve assuming that common acts of courtesy are a thing. Schwede66 22:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Several editors and I have done drive-by nominations without issue in the past, so this whole discussion actually surprised me because I always assumed it was something that was permitted and not necessarily discouraged. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:06, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There's no rule against it whatsoever, Narutolovehinata5. But as is normal with DYK, an article can only be nominated if it has become eligible within the last week. As such, it seems logical to me that the relevant editor (or editors) would appreciate a heads up that their very recent work is heading to the main page. Schwede66 05:22, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do think there's one thing to consider here. DYK tends to have the idea that ownership of articles and nominations shouldn't be allowed. However, doesn't this technically empower nominators/article creators in such a way that they do have some "ownership"? At the very least I don't think there should be some kind of firm rule. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:23, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: Nominators already have withdrawal and veto power, though – why shouldn't creators? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:33, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the veto power at least, not without controversy (I have lost count of how many nominations that were bogged down by the nominator's veto power when such nominations could have otherwise run smoothly). In my opinion at least, it goes against the spirit of WP:OWN and most of what happens throughout the encyclopedia. Article creators are great and all, and at times they can be respected for creating an article, but that doesn't mean they should have final authority on everything. At the very least they can be consulted, but I don't think we should have a hard rule where we must follow a nominator or creator's wishes even if consensus argues otherwise (I am speaking from experience here). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:39, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, like others above. No objection to the "listen to the author if they ask nicely" principle of course, but a firm rule is a bad idea. Sometimes things come up for discussion and that's okay. CMD (talk) 01:34, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no opinion on the proposal itself, except that I agree with PMC that common sense and cordiality to the subject of a DYK should be codified; put simply, just letting a negative hook about a BLP run should not be permitted. I digress. I propose that it should be mandatory for drive-by nominators to notify the editor(s) who did the legwork in getting an article to a DYK-ready state. Keep it simple and ping them on the nomination template, please. Then in PMC's case above, a discussion about the suitability of the article for DYK can be had, and more importantly people like me don't find out my work was nominated when a reviewer stops by to say, while pinging me since my name is on the nomination because I got it through GAN, "hey, these hooks aren't the best, can you workshop something better?" –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let me also add, for the record, that the lack of notifying bothers me, especially for newer accounts, because it may make an editor look like unscrupulous, meat- or sock-puppeting to quickly get DYK nominations into the market of consideration by avoiding the tedium of DYK QPQ. At least notify me if you nominate an article of mine, but even better ask me first. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 07:49, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Vami IV: I will point out that drive-by nominators do still have to perform QPQs once they pass the five-nomination threshold. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:24, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Vami IV: the At least notify me if you nominate an article of mine, but even better ask me first. is exactly what WP:OWN speaks to. Let's look at Tinder Fire an article which you have said is your own. The article has six editors. One editor, @Missvain: started the article added (1,210 characters). Isn't it Missvain's article? Maybe they did not want their creation nominated at GA? I have not seen that you asked them prior to GA. Are all major contributors to be notified prior to DYK nomination? Does Tinder Fire belong to the editor who added the most characters? It is a fundamental truth that none of us owns anything related to Wikipedia. If I left the project today it would be next editor up. Bruxton (talk) 21:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is an incredibly lame reply. I am just making a simple request, not at all hard to implement. Just ping the people credited in the nomination when you nominate the article. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 03:09, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
LOL it's a a Wikipedia article, I don't care if it becomes a DYK. I'm glad people expand things I start. I'm flattered knowing someone even sees the articles I write. Let alone my boring ass fire articles. Missvain (talk) 03:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If one is bored of ass fire articles, one is bored of life. CMD (talk) 03:58, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
On god, there's an xkcd for everything. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:11, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main takeaway here for me is that most nominators of creations not their own assume they're doing something the creator would like. Some even think it'll be a nice surprise, a bit of unasked-for recognition of your work. But at least some creators actively dislike it. Whether or not the creator should have veto power, that's clearly something nominators should understand: not every creator appreciates what you're doing, and some find it actively rude. It's kind of like throwing someone a surprise party: you might think of course anyone would love that! Some of us live in horror of the very idea.
Maybe we should add that to the DYK nomination thingy when the nominator is not the creator: some notification to non-creator noms that this may not actually be appreciated by the creator and it would be polite to at least open a conversation at the creator's talk before you do them a "favor" they actively dislike? Valereee (talk) 14:28, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As with most things in civilized society, it's difficult to know where to draw the line between inappropriate behavior and activity prohibited by legislation. I've done one drive-by. I first asked the "primary author" if they were OK with it, which they were. Had they declined, I would have honored their preference. It's not like we've got so few submissions that we need to be beating them out of people to keep the pipeline full. But I'd still prefer that we keep this as a "best practice" and not elevate it an official requirement. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree we don't need a rule. I just think people who nominate the work of others are probably unaware that a surprise nomination may not be welcomed, and maybe we should let them know somehow. Valereee (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This happened to me a week ago when an article I took to GA was nominated. I had no issue with this, but reviewers do need to be aware that (1) If I didn't nominate the article, then I don't have the DYK nomination watchlisted, so if you have questions about the article, you will need to ping me! (2) If I didn't nominate it, then I didn't supply the QPQ; the nominator did. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Getting close

249 waiting
116 approved

Also start looking out for that March 8 slot which I think is the last prep now? Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. We could start parking hooks for International women's Day there if that is the March 8 prep. Bruxton (talk) 16:39, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I assume we're talking about switching back to 2 per day? I haven't been pulling my weight lately due to IRL stuff. BorgQueen has been putting in overtime keeping things running. I'll try to jump back in a bit, but I'll renew my objection that the 2x pace is not sustainable. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:48, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You guys might notice that every single queue currently bears my stamp. Having said that, if @Bruxton and @Cielquiparle would continue doing their jobs as impeccably and thoroughly as they are now we could pull this off like we did the last time. It won't last long anyway. BorgQueen (talk) 18:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget breakout artist @dying and of course we always love when @Theleekycauldron finds time for a set between coursework, DYK machinery, and potions. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:40, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, Cielquiparle. i'm happy to try to help out whenever i can, though admittedly i don't think my throughput will come anywhere near yours or Bruxton's. dying (talk) 09:37, 25 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @dying. Was also happy to see @Aoidh promote a set (including some older hooks that had been lingering in Approved). Cielquiparle (talk) 13:56, 26 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I have stepped back because I have too much of my own work in the hopper. I am still promoting a few here and there. Bruxton (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
jeez, Cielquiparle's got flair! you wanna write the DYK wrapped when I'm out? sounds like you'd be great at it :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 04:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rrrrrrright. Not that it's a contest or anything, but mad respect to @BorgQueen and @Theleekycauldron who are in first and second place, respectively, with their entries in the monthly stats so far in February. (On top of everything else...) Cielquiparle (talk) 08:39, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle: The German contract killer hook did pretty well too actually, for a hook without an image. Heh. BorgQueen (talk) 10:03, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and @Bruxton in 6th place with the NASCAR chimpanzee attack...! (Even though @BorgQueen was covering her eyes while reading it.) Cielquiparle (talk) 10:18, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing what our audience wants is late-night B movies. BorgQueen (talk) 10:20, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Remember that it isn't just reaching 120 approved to set off the change to two a day, its reaching 120 with ten queues and preps filled at the same time. At the moment, there are nine filled. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:33, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

  • @BlueMoonset: 246 waiting 120 approved with 12 preps and queues filled ATM. not sure when we switch, but soon I think. Bruxton (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Testers needed for DYKToolsAdminBot

I've got what I think is a working version of move protection for queued hooks working on testwiki. I've got (unprotected) copies of {{Did you know}}, {{Did you know/Queue/1}}, etc from a few days ago on testwiki. The bot doesn't care about a "promotion" being done properly; it's just looking for a properly formatted Hooks section. If you add a hook, it should move protect it sometime in the next 10 minutes. If you remove a hook, it should unprotect it, again within about 10 minutes. It doesn't care about a target page's content, just that it exists.

Please play around with it and let me know if you see any problems. It would be most valuable to me if you throw weird stuff at it that I hadn't thought about in an attempt to break things. If all goes well, I'll start a formal BRFA in a few days. There's a draft at User:DYKToolsBot/BRFA 2 Draft. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Don't really wanna screw around with testwiki, but I would make sure to test that your bot can correctly interpret [[Article|'''pipe''']], '''[[Article#section|pipe]]''', and '''[[Art? icle]]'''. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 03:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Those are good test cases. Offhand, I'm going to guess it'll pass on 1 and 3 but I'm not so confident about 2. I'll leave that for tomorrow. Don't worry about breaking anything on testwiki; that's what it's for. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If you want "weird stuff", check out ships. For example, in this DYK archive, the page HMS Melpomene (1794) is linked to as {{HMS|Melpomene|1794|6}}. There are litterally a million variations of {{ship}}. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:17, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I thought about that one as well, but I think Roy's code is set up for it because it uses a wikitext parser, rather than a regex. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:07, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my. {{ship}} will certainly fail, thanks for pointing that out. I do the wikitext parsing with mwparserfromhell; it'll find the template, but won't be able to expand it. To do that, I'll need to get parsoid involved. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:57, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3: Caulfield railway station

Maybe I'm interpreting this more strictly than I should, but I do not think the hook for Caulfield railway station meets the interesting to a broad audience criterion. The hook is ... that a train crash occurred at the Caulfield railway station which killed 3 people and was the first fatal accident to occur on Melbourne's electrified rail system? This reads to me as a news story in the local paper, not a hook that makes me want to read the article. It also barely even mentions the station, the ostensible subject of the hook. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 04:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree! I really wanted to read the article after reading that hook. I like that it manages to work in a reference to Melbourne's electrified rail system, rather than only focus on an accident. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
But the hook did have too many unnecessary words, so have shortened it now at prep (minus "occurred" and "and"). Somehow getting rid of "occurred" actually does make it seem a little less "news story in the local paper"-like. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've pulled this as the claim seems to be false. See Railway accidents in Victoria which lists many earlier fatal accidents. The word "electrified" doesn't seem to be an adequate way to weasel this as we read that "On 23 March 1925 eight people were killed when a car was run into by an electric parcels van at a gated level crossing at Wickham Road, Highett." Andrew🐉(talk) 10:11, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it needs to be fixed, it's actually very easy - by changing it to "...3 people, who were the first passengers to be killed on Melbourne's electrified rail system". The incident named above was a collision between a train and a motor vehicle, in which all the fatalities occurred. Black Kite (talk) 10:22, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • : Done So fixed. Good solution. Cielquiparle (talk) 10:38, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This still won't do. The article says "Three people were killed and 170 injured in the first fatal accident to occur on Melbourne's electrified rail system". The source says "Three people were killed and 170 injured in the first fatal accident to occur on Melbourne's recently-electrified rail system." Neither the source nor the article use fine distinctions about passengers or which vehicle they were in and so they are wrong. To go beyond them is OR. Note also that the article copies the language of the source too closely. There were already some Earwig issues during the GA review and it still gives a score of 25% which still seems too high. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, have deleted "passengers" and reverted to first fatal accident on Melbourne's electrified rail system. It's what the plaque says, so it seems solid. Not sure what was going on at Wickham Road, Highett, but electric railways tend not to have level crossings, so it is possible that that particular collision was not on Melbourne's recently electrified rail system. The copyvio flag is fair enough – the 30% match is from direct quotes, appropriately cited – but exceeding 25% (where there were no direct quotes) did seem too high in this case, so I've edited a bit and CC: @HoHo3143 so they are aware of this discussion (and why there has been a flurry of editing). Cielquiparle (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reckon the plaque is wrong too. There's a detailed account of the earlier Highett accident here. Notice the photographs of level-crossings with overhead wires. The incident also appears in the similar article about the Highett railway station. The line through Highett was the Frankston railway line which was electrified by 1922 and also connected to the Caulfield station. My impression is that the Melbourne rail network was remarkably extensive and complicated for the time and so it seems easy to overlook some aspect or incident. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the nomination page itself, I suggested an alternative hook based on how the station has operated continuously since 1914 with minimal changes. I believe we should workshop a hook based on that here. I believe it would be more interesting and avoid the other issues associated with the original hook (which I actually did not notice myself). Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Trainsandotherthings With all due respect, I thought the alternative hook was probably boring to a non-specialist audience because it's not obvious why nothing changing since 1914 is interesting. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:45, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the best I could come up with. It's not exactly an article that lends itself to good DYK hooks, and in my opinion this is a recurring issue with DYKNs for train stations. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:48, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    You often have good hooks though. Cielquiparle (talk) 15:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I would say that's because when I create or expand an article that doesn't have anything hooky, I simply don't nominate it. I technically could have nominated Bighorn Divide and Wyoming Railroad for DYK, but there's simply nothing hooky, so I didn't try and force a mediocre or worse hook through. I just skimmed Caulfield railway station again, and I stand by my assessment that there's very little that's really "hooky", so to speak. This raises the fundamental question: is every article that meets the eligibility requirements for a nomination entitled to a DYK, or are we willing to shoot down nominations that just don't have anything hooky? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 15:55, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it's silly to force-feed DYK articles that just don't have anything hook-worthy. And that describes most train stations. Your typical train station has some tracks, some platforms, services some rail lines, was built in some year, perhaps was the scene of one or more accidents, is served by some other modes of transit, is built from some kind of building material, etc, etc. I just read through Caulfield railway station and really couldn't find anything worth hooking about. I had a glimmer of home when I saw that it was heritage listed, but https://vhd.heritagecouncil.vic.gov.au/places/279 didn't offer any hook material either. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) @Trainsandotherthings: I agree that too many cooks spoil the broth. We are doing quite a bit of hook parsing until there is nothing but literality left. Bruxton (talk) 16:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, there are certainly exceptions (did you know that New Haven Union Station was almost demolished but is now the busiest train station in Connecticut, NRHP listed, and recognized as an significant design by Cass Gilbert, who also designed the United States Supreme Court Building?) but your typical train station (e.g. Branchville station) is unlikely to have much that merits a hook. I generally have an easier time because I write about entire railroads or major rail yards, so there's a whole lot more that can be said (Providence and Worcester Railroad is over 6,000 words and I took it all the way to FA status). I wish more nominators would exercise more self-discipline and recognize that sometimes an article just isn't DYK-worthy. I hold myself to that rule. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I am against failing the article. It is a GA and I read the article during my review. Hook rejecting is becoming very subjective. It only takes a single editor to raise an objection and then we all start parsing and rewriting. We have a nominator, reviewer and promotor who saw fit to advance the article. We should not be invalidating everyone's work based on subjective criteria. JMHO Bruxton (talk) 17:06, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't object to the hook for being incorrect, though Andrew Davidson's concerns appear to be valid to me. If someone has a hook that works, I won't stand in the way. I proposed one and was told it wasn't interesting, so it's not like I immediately gave up on the nomination. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:21, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I thought that the hook would've been interesting enough but if it's considered either uninteresting or incorrect then i guess the nom can fail. Personally, I thought that hook could work but I can't really argue against majority opinion. Onegreatjoke (talk) 20:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Working on a new hook now. I'm not one for big discussion threads but this one is great! What a gift to have @Andrew Davidson point out problems before this hit the main page and ERRORS. Asking good questions is the key to getting good answers. And as for "this article is boring and has no hook potential"...some of us take that as a challenge. I'll be back! Cielquiparle (talk) 06:39, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The Greek train crash may also be a reason to try a different hook. Browsing the article, the association with the race course seems a particular feature. Perhaps something like:
If we still want to focus on the crash then, to satisfy my objection, we just need to duck the claim of a "first". We could leave that to the plaque, for example,
Andrew🐉(talk) 08:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of the crash angle I think the first option (the one about the ticket office and the horses) is far more intriguing and surprising. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:08, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Andrew Davidson. I think the first ALT you proposed is a great solution. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 14:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am agreeing with the two editors above about the first hook proposed by andrew. The ideas are separated in our article - first part of the hook is in the intro with an offline source, and the second part about the horse deliveries is in the History section - I find a reference for the horse platform which is hard to make out or to find the information about "Racecourse horse deliveries". I hope that we can find a better source for that claim of "...and a platform for delivering horses to it?" Bruxton (talk) 18:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Many thanks to @AndrewD for brilliant ALT hook re: horses and @Bruxton for excellent flag re: horses and sources. More sources and horses have been added to the article (which may also be slightly more exciting and informative than before). Resisting temptation to try to fashion a clever quirky hook out of this one. Updating hook accordingly, with minor change of "nearby" to "adjacent", as the station is directly adjacent to the main entrance of the racecourse (per source). Cielquiparle (talk) 09:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

prep area 6

formed police unit

i don't know if asian-film.com is a reliable source, but if this search is exhaustive, this article appears to be the only one on en wikipedia using asian-film.com as a source. dying (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have replaced asian-film.com as a source. It appears the film release of Formed Police Unit has been delayed (so indeed, not reliable info). There should be a ton of media coverage (and more RS to choose from) once it does come out, though, because of its star-studded cast. @Chetsford @Chipmunkdavis Cielquiparle (talk) 06:12, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh, wow, nice work, Cielquiparle. i had not caught the fact that the film does not appear to have been released yet. dying (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

also, the hook contains a list of international organizations: "the UN, EU, and African Union". reviewer CMD mentioned that it was "odd to spell out only African Union and not the other two bodies", and i had felt the same way. however, before i expanded the two acronyms, i realized that if i did so, the hook would be 203 characters long.

alt0a: ... that Formed Police Units (pictured) are used by international organizations like the United Nations, European Union, and African Union as an intermediate response mechanism between local police and military forces?

shifting a few things around, i was able to get the hook down to 200 characters, but i did not want to implement it unilaterally, so am posting it here for feedback.

alt0b: ... that Formed Police Units (pictured) are an intermediate response mechanism between local police and military forces used by international organizations like the United Nations, European Union, and African Union?

the oxford comma can be replaced by a comma after "forces" if the hook parses better that way. dying (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@dying @Chetsford @Chipmunkdavis We need to change this hook. Strictly speaking, per the source (Security & Defense Quarterly), it is not correct to refer to "Individual Police Officers (IPOs)" as "local police". I will give this some thought and try to propose alternative wordings, but perhaps you have thoughts here? Cielquiparle (talk) 06:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
How is this?
alt0c: ... that Formed Police Units (example pictured) are used by international organizations like the United Nations, European Union, and African Union when military intervention would be excessive?
Cielquiparle (talk) 06:49, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cielquiparle, i think, when comparing the types of units deployed by the united nations, you are correct, as individual police officers deployed by the united nations are not necessarily local to the area they are deployed in. on the other hand, the eeas source cited in the nomination mentioned the example of eulex's fpo being an intermediate option between the kosovo police (presumably considered a local police force) and nato's kfor (which seems more militaristic in nature), so i had figured that the hook proposed chose not to focus on united nations units only. (i cannot access the jstor source, so am currently assuming that that source expands upon this, so that the hook is not based on one example.)
in any case, regarding alt0c, i think this hook currently suggests that fpos are used in all such situations, and that the appropriateness of military intervention can be determined objectively. as this statement seems a little strong, i would suggest, for example, replacing "are" with "may be", and "would be" with "could be considered". the hook looks good to me otherwise. dying (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The jstor source says "FPUs are equipped to convey a stronger presence than a collection of individual police officers". I think it is correct they might not be "local police", but I do like the original hook's positioning them as within a scale of response. The new hook works fine for me too though with dying's tweaks. CMD (talk) 23:21, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Have tried to salvage an ALT hook with the "intermediate response link" idea but finding the "individual police officer (IPO)" concept too technical to convey accurately...but in the meantime, struck by the distinction between the unarmed IPOs and the armed military forces (per the sources).
alt0d: ... that armed Formed Police Units (example pictured) may be used by international organizations like the United Nations, European Union, and African Union when military intervention could be excessive? Cielquiparle (talk) 10:50, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Works for me, the armed distinction is a nice nuance to be sure. CMD (talk) 15:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Cielquiparle, i am a bit wary about stating in the article that "individual police officers" are unarmed, as the article does not define the term, so a reader, unaware that the term has a special meaning within the context of un police, may believe that a local police force is made up of individual police officers. (the kosovo police appears to be armed if the wikipedia article on the force is accurate.)
also, are all fpus armed? i assume that they are, but am unsure if the statement in the security & defence quarterly source is applicable only to un fpus. the same paragraph in the source also appears to assert that all ipos are unarmed, while this may only be true for un ipos.
by the way, good call on dropping the "considered"; doing so hadn't occurred to me.
CMD, does the jstor source expand on the relationship between the fpus and local police? the article cites the jstor source to support the statement that fpus "support ... local police in situations that require additional resources but don't necessitate a military response". dying (talk) 08:49, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It says that FPUs usually "work in support of host-state police to maintain law and order, although they can be called upon to serve independently...they support police operations that may involve higher risks". CMD (talk) 12:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

justin j. pearson

two phrases in this article are making me uncomfortable because they also appear in the sources cited: "valedictorian at Mitchell High School and graduated from Bowdoin College in 2017" and "legislation to prevent officers with criminal records from transferring". dying (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@dying @Elli Have expanded those sections and rechecked Earwig; issue has been resolved. Good bio on young lawmaker. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:49, 1 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
thanks for addressing this, Cielquiparle. dying (talk) 14:19, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

ida ospelt-amann

i may be reading the german sources incorrectly, but i think this source states that ospelt-amann is considered "the pioneer of the renaissance of dialect poetry in Liechtenstein" ("die Wegbereiterin für die Renaissance der Mundartdichtung in Liechtenstein") rather than a pioneer of the "appreciation of dialect poetry in Liechtenstein" as the hook and article state.

also, i presume that she was awarded the golden cross for her efforts regarding the alemannic dialect of vaduz, though i was surprised to see that the cited source doesn't seem to state this explicitly. i think this can be resolved by removing "for her efforts" from the hook and "For her services to preserving the Vaduz dialect" from the article, though i wasn't sure if i was being a bit too nitpicky. dying (talk) 13:15, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Dying. There is a whole thread at Women in Red about why we don't want to refer to it as "Vaduz dialect" (even if that's what translation bots say and even if we technically do mean the dialect that happens to be spoken in Vaduz in this case). Personally I am liking "revival" instead of "appreciation" ("pioneer of the appreciation" doesn't sound so good in English), and went ahead and changed it in the article. Cc: @Lajmmoore, @Ipigott (with apologies in advance to Ipigott as I realise you're specifically trying to avoid big DYK threads, but the good news in this case is that the DYK hook has already been promoted! so we are seriously just trying to finetune constructively for accuracy and to do her justice). Cielquiparle (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2023 (UTC) Cielquiparle (talk) 14:08, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does this work? Or is it too strong/broad?
... that Ida Ospelt-Amann led the revival of dialect poetry in Liechtenstein and was awarded a Golden Cross of Merit?
@dying @Lajmmoore @Ipigott Cielquiparle (talk) 14:10, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looks fine to me.--Ipigott (talk) 14:20, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh, that's good, Cielquiparle. i was struggling to find a decent rewording of "pioneer of the renaissance", and saying that she "led the revival" is better than anything i came up with. also, i'm assuming that dropping the link from "Golden Cross of Merit" was an oversight, though i'm fine with it either way. dying (talk) 14:51, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh good. Happy if you and Ipigott are happy and yes, didn't mean to drop link from Golden Cross of Merit. Thanks for thinking through and raising the question. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Cielquiparle, @Ipigott & @Dying - this looks great! Lajmmoore (talk) 06:43, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 5: Ludwig's subathon

Hello, and congratulations on getting this DYK promoted. I've been following this article along with the DYK discussion ever since the original AfD in August 2022, and I'm glad it finally got verified. I saw that the DYK lingered a bit because there were concerns about the hook which seem to have been resolved now, but the cloud that was the long discussion ended up revealing a silver lining! It turns out that because of the discussion, the DYK promotion now coincides with the upcoming 2 year anniversary of the subathon - March 14th. Because of this, I wanted to ask if there was a possibility for the DYK quote to appear on the front page on that day, if any of the March 14th slots are still open, just to celebrate the occassion. Thanks, PantheonRadiance (talk) 05:20, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@PantheonRadiance Right now it's slated to run on March 5, and would require an admin to intervene to demote the hook and see if it can be slotted in for March 14 and even then, there is no guarantee. We are currently at a "critical juncture" during which DYK may shift gears at any moment, and run twice a day (for 12-hour shifts) instead of only once a day, which greatly confuses scheduling of special occasion hooks. If I were you, I wouldn't mess with the timing at this point and just let it go. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:59, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't notice that! I wish I had earlier so I could have requested the date. Honestly, I'm just happy the hook is even running at this point, considering the lengthy AfD and WT:DYK discussions. :) — PerfectSoundWhatever (t; c) 02:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 2 March 2023

Please change an artwork to art or artwork. In this context, artwork is uncountable. This was changed in [1] by User:Ravenpuff and he hasn't responded to me on his talk page yet. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:02, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

checkY Done. BorgQueen (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I seem to have missed this. I'm happy for the change to be reverted. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 13:07, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template protected?

I am trying to start a new nomination, and I tried three times. each time I get a red Template protected lock, and this language: "Creating nomination page: Failed to save edit: The article you tried to create has been created already. Getting token: done Arrgh :( Something bad happened. Your DYK template wikitext is provided below, which you can copy and use to create." Any thoughts? Bruxton (talk) 00:57, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@DYK admins: Bruxton (talk) 01:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What is the page, and was there a previous DYK nomination (might have failed, existed for a different page at that title, etc.)? CMD (talk) 01:13, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Chipmunkdavis: It appears that someone put a high level of template protection on the nomination template. Click the nominate button and see. "A template-protected page can be edited only by administrators or users in the Template editors group. This protection level should be used almost exclusively on high-risk templates and modules."
Well, never mind, it seems it was already a DYK, and the history was not on the talk page. Bruxton (talk) 01:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton, yeah, but what was the page? -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It is a secret. Bruxton (talk) 02:12, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I assume the page you are trying to create exists already. What is the article name you are trying to create a nomination for? Schwede66 15:59, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66, Chipmunkdavis, and RoySmith: It already existed. I am embarrassed to say that due to my bleary eyed ham-fisted bumbling I did not notice the previous DYK for Art Deco architecture of New York City. I thought it was a great article (GA) and my hooks were great, but I have forgotten them already. Onward. Bruxton (talk) 16:19, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's also happened to me multiple times funnily enough. Onegreatjoke (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Iling-Junior and Dean Huijsen

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

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

Dr Salvus, DYK is only publishing one set a day at the moment, so it takes longer for nominations to move through the system.
Template:Did you know nominations/Samuel Iling-Junior was approved (given a green tick) on 19 February, the next step is for it to be promoted to a preparation set. A delay of two weeks between approval and promotion is not unusual. The nomination includes an image and each preparation set only has one hook with an image, so it may take a little longer to promote.
Template:Did you know nominations/Dean Huijsen is in Template:Did you know/Queue/7 and should appear on the main page on 7 March, or sooner if we move to 2 sets a day before then. The preps and queues are listed at Template:Did you know/Queue. TSventon (talk) 12:22, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dr Salvus, it's not unusual for hooks to take weeks or longer after approval to be slotted into a prep. You can see at Template_talk:Did_you_know/Approved#Approved_nominations. Valereee (talk) 14:35, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dr Salvus: - promoted Samuel. starship.paint (exalt) 13:21, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint, imo, there's no need to write the full name "Juventus Football Club". The hook already makes people think it's on a football/soccer player. The full name is exaggerated; at most, there could be Juventus F.C.. Dr Salvus 14:09, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dr Salvus: - I wouldn’t assume that a majority of readers are familiar with either Juventus or the UEFA Champions League as identifying football/soccer. Goal (sports) is pretty common among sports. For laymen, ‘Football Club’ identifies context. For those familiar, it’s no big deal. starship.paint (exalt) 12:21, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    One alternative is to put ‘footballer’ before Samuel. How about that? starship.paint (exalt) 12:22, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Starship.paint, footballer is already better. Football Club is too long and unnecessary, and there would be no need to have F.C. after Juventus as there would already be enough context. Dr Salvus 12:34, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Adoption request: hooks needed

Template:Did you know nominations/Northern Territories Alcohol Labels Study appears to be abandoned. It has only minor issues to fix, but also no suitable hooks. Would anyone be willing to adopt and/or suggest hooks? Flibirigit (talk) 11:21, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Avoiding a potentially problematic humour mine, I have suggested some hooks. CMD (talk) 11:48, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Electron backscatter diffraction

Template:Did you know nominations/Electron backscatter diffraction was nominated on the basis of being a fivefold expansion. The page size tool says that article before expansion [2] was 11 kB (1,625 words) "readable prose size"; it is now 49 kB (23,472 words) "readable prose size". This falls short of 5x expansion (word counts don't work properly in the presence of mathematical markup). The author contends that they now have authored 86% of the article. I'm inclined to waive the rule, but seeking a second opinion on this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

According to Who Wrote That, FuzzyMagma has written 89.0% of the page. I also note that DYK Check seems to think that most of the "Selecting a reference pattern" section doesn't count as "readable prose", which is just silly. So that's roughly another 1k there. It's also not counting any of the Note section, which is another 2kb. I assume it's not couting that because technically it's generated by {{reflist}}, but if the text that's there doesn't count as "readable prose", then something's wrong with the definition. This is an excellent piece of work. Let's not be a slave to some script, especially when @Shubinator the script's author said I'm uncomfortable with its imperfect logic used as the basis for policy. I'm not even sure you need to invoke IAR to accept this.
It was suggested in {{Did you know nominations/Electron backscatter diffraction}} that the author could add more text. With respect, that's a bad suggestion. Edits should be made to improve the quality of an article. We should not be encouraging authors to pad their work with more text just to satisfy some dumb rule. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:56, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I disagree, for a quite a few reasons. First, notes and lists explicitly don't count as readable prose for a reason; in the former's case, you don't need reliable sourcing to add them, and in the latter's case, pretty much every list would qualify if we didn't do that. Even if we were to make an exception for the text in question, you'd still only be up to 52kB, which is short of the targeted 55kB.
Authorial percentage also explicitly doesn't count, because removing old text doesn't count; per SG?fivefold history, you can only deduct old text from the starting value if it's copyvio. The guidelines are pretty clear that this doesn't count; see Wikipedia:Did you know/Meanies. If we wanna change that, that's fine, but the fivefold has always been treated as a hard minimum and I don't see this as a case where IAR is appropriate. If the article was at 11kB, it's inherently very difficult to squeeze an article out of that we can somehow call "new". Fivefold is primarily targeted at stubs, not gargantuan expansion projects, and it's supposed to get harder the longer (less new) an article is. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:07, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, RoySmith, you've misquoted Shubinator – that quote, as far as I can tell, refers to how DYKcheck picks which revisions to assess, not the prosesize gadget it relies on (that's not Shub's work). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 23:04, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I would encourage the lead to be expanded, not to satisfy a dumb rule, but because a larger lead would provide a better summary of the article, and provides the opportunity to make it a bit more accessible to a less familiar reader. I would also be inclined to count the list in this case, as it is genuine prose rather than being a series of items. CMD (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point. MOS:LEAD#Length suggests 3-4 paragraphs would be appropriate for an article this long. Whoever reviews this for GA will want to see that anyway, so might as well get it out of the way now. MOS:LEAD also suggests that the citations in the lead be moved to the main body. Citations are essential for WP:V, but they do get in the way of readability, which is of paramount importance in the lead. @FuzzyMagma: to make sure they're aware of this thread. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The article is impressive indeed! I've always felt that DYK needs more non-biology science hooks btw. BorgQueen (talk) 19:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support. I have expanded the lead.
I have rearranged the text from the notes and numbered list near the end so it will be included for the DYK check and then the article passed the 5x criteria. feel free to confirm for yourself on this veriosn ... FuzzyMagma (talk) 21:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma: If I'm reading these two diffs correctly (1 2), you seem to have added a large amount of text (in addition to deleting the list parameters, which would bump up the count further, but that's not what i'm talking about), and then reverted that addition. If that's correct, that doesn't count. We can IAR on the list, but you can't add and then remove text to game the fivefold guidelines. Your article needs to pass the fivefold criteria+IAR from review to appearance. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:01, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron I think it is the other way around. the current DYK script for some reason does not count notes and anything in a list as texts (both do not fit your definition in your earlier comment). So what I did is taking these notes and uncounted list texts and added them in a way so they can be counted as in the version I have shared. Once this text is included in the DYK check, then the DYK will indicate that the article is 5x. Not sure why notes and list are not included in the DYK varfication but I hope after running DYK script on the current EBSD article you will see my point.
Anyway, I still think 5x should be waved anyway, as the text that I have added is 83.4% of the total article FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:12, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron both of the notes and list do not fit the definition you mentioned in your earlier comment, i.e., they are referenced and not just list FuzzyMagma (talk) 22:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
ah, you also added the notes into prose. okay, fair enough – if we're gonna IAR and count those, the nomination would pass with the expanded lead. Even though the text you've added is 83.4% of the total article, some of that presumably comes from removing old text, which doesn't count in assessing fivefold expansions. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 22:38, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks people. I do remember an article we shamelessly padded to meet the 5x criterion. (Nobody noticed, and it went on to pass GA in that form.) I had been more strict about 5x since GA was added as an alternative route to DYK. But I was also relieved to find that the work I did on John Anderson, 1st Viscount Waverley was sufficient to reach the 5x threshold and save me having to send it to GA. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:07, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4: Brazil's first rowing medal

The hook currently reads "... that Paralympic rower Josiane Lima won Brazil's first rowing medal?" That is only true if you ignore rowing at the Pan American Games. Those games have been held since 1951 and Brazil won two silver medals that year. Hence, as stated, the hook isn't true (as is regularly the case with "first" hooks). Schwede66 01:16, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably because somebody removed Para/Olympic. Either of those is true, and it's what both the article and nom say. Just add it back. Kingsif (talk) 03:21, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) This is specific to the Paralympic Games. So perhaps that needs to be specified. Bruxton (talk) 03:23, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, none of the hooks on the nomination page were ever correct. And what got promoted (ALT2) is unchanged from the nom page, so I'm not sure what exactly you mean, Kingsif. Schwede66 03:30, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Our hook needs to specify, that is my mistake approving a hook without the Paralympic qualifier. Meet Josiane Lima, the first woman to win a medal in Paralympic rowing representing Brazil Bruxton (talk) 03:47, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Schwede, we can all look at the nom page. There are various hook suggestions, and every mention of "first rowing medal" includes that it was from the Paralympics. It was discussed at the nom page, too. So I have no idea what you mean. Kingsif (talk) 23:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The firsts are troublesome, but I think that works. Bruxton (talk) 04:19, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@BorgQueen, could you please fix the Josiane Lima hook in Queue 4 per the revised ALT3 hook suggested by Schwede66? Cielquiparle (talk) 08:08, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Done. BorgQueen (talk) 08:20, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Special occasion holding area / color background

I have noticed that the "Approved" hooks in the Special occasion holding area on WP:DYKNA turn out to have problems. Those hooks sit there at the top of the page without being re-checked for weeks and weeks, and the problems only come to light days before the Special occasion, when it is time to promote (or at Queue in the case above, which I should have scrutinized more closely before promoting).

I have wondered if it's the dark orange background in that section that causes people to want to skip over it. The background color is dark, so it is less visually appealing to read, and you sort of get the feeling those hooks have already been bulletproofed and are "untouchable", when in fact they should be going through the same level of scrutiny as all the others (or arguably even more). Is there any possibility of changing the formatting of that section? Maybe changing the orange background to a very light yellow (which to me signals caution and is more readable)? Or maybe even changing it back to white, and clearly marking it as "special occasion hook" in another way? Cielquiparle (talk) 08:32, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, in most cases, I don't leave comments on an approved page unless I was getting ready to promote it. Just kinda how that goes – the nice thing about my sandbox proposal that I've been mulling over is that we wouldn't actually have to worry about this? Promoters could promote the hook at any time, and then take it out of the sandbox when the appropriate prep comes up. That's what the sandboxes are for: holding double-signed-off hooks pre-scheduling. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 08:41, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I seriously appreciate all the work that editors like @Sojourner in the earth have done in re-reviewing the hooks at WP:DYKNA and flagging up issues. They have caught some serious problems that the original reviewers missed and that subsequent promoters could have overlooked. I try to do the same if I notice anything egregious about hooks at DYKNA, but for promoters it can be double-edged because if we get overly involved, we can't promote the hook anymore. I think it's important to continue to have multiple sets of eyes on hooks that have been approved but not yet promoted, rather than boxing them off somewhere where they are "untouchable", also because we all read things differently depending on background/discipline/geography/language/culture/pet peeves, etc. The earlier these issues are addressed in the pipeline, the better; we want to avoid last-minute agony and embarrassment at ERRORS at all costs, as sometimes the stopgap solutions we come up with there are not so great either. And if these issues are identified at DYKNA (rather than DYK Talk or Errors), we tend to have more original nominator involvement in a positive way. Cielquiparle (talk) 09:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Bicycling in Islam

Queue 1: Bicycling in Islam (nom) Maybe not strictly a DYK issue, but the article is badly named. It's really Women and bicycling in Islam. Given the desire to move-protect queued hooks, I'm not sure how to deal with that.

The intro also makes some statements which don't seem to be supported by the main text. "... both Sunni and Shia Islam ..." for example. I don't see anywhere in the main text that talks about that. Similarly, "mobility (social control)" isn't mentioned, at least not under those terms. It's also a bit of WP:OR to equate "mobility" to "social control". -- RoySmith (talk) 15:17, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Additional thought. Since Islam is a religion, and not a geographical location, it seems awkward either way. Perhaps "Bicycling and Islamic women" or "Islamic women and bicycling", or something link that. — Maile (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. We use "in <religion>" frequently in the sense of "as pertains to" [3][4][5][6][7] so I'm not seeing an issue there. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:14, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Point well taken. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 16:54, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Copying in nominator @Bookku as well as @LegalSmeagolian, as apparently the page naming issue was a massive topic throughout the AfD. I believe it's already been renamed at least once? Cielquiparle (talk) 17:40, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Cielquiparle present title has come out of WP:Bold effort and consensus may take it's own time. I am all the way for inclusion of words 'Women' and 'Muslim world' in the title. I do not have issues about temporary suitable renaming for DYK duration too.
First para of the lead is largely inherited from before expansion and later rephrased. My attempt of shifting that from lead to the body was pushed back. I thought, first para is less likely to get contested, Personally I do not have issues if it is shifted to talk page until citations are matched for the first para.
Besides @LegalSmeagolian I would like to ping @Silverseren and @Jason from nyc since they are likely to have knowledge of older sourcing. Bookku (talk) 18:58, 5 March 2023 (UTC) Also pinging @Carbon Caryatid for their previous contributions in discussed topic area. Bookku (talk) 06:11, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever I may think about the title, I strongly object to the concept of temporary suitable renaming for DYK duration. DYK should be an observer of article quality. To some extent it's also a driver of quality improvement which is a good thing. If changing the title improves the article, we should do it. If changing the title makes the article worse, we shouldn't do it. The idea that it should be changed to satisfy DYK, with the intent that it be undone as soon as DYK is no longer a factor, is absurd. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:29, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think DYK should have anything to do with renaming at all. As for the two text changes, those seem easy enough to fix (with one just being changing or removing a wikilink). SilverserenC 19:37, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Silver seren Can you provide some inputs for sorting out first para issue too. Bookku (talk) 02:21, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith I understood your points. As you rightly also say DYK itself can be driver of quality improvement with more people joining in at article and article t/p. Bookku (talk) 02:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We already have an article for Bicycling and feminism... IMO Bicycling in Islam is a coatrack unless there is also coverage pertaining to muslim men and bicycling not currently used in the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 07:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This article covers not-feminism and cycling as well, so I don't think it belongs there. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No it doesn't, there isn't a single source which talks about it outside of the context of women's rights. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 08:22, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, definitely need to rename the article, as it doesn't cover men and cycling. Agree with RoySmith that it should be "Women and cycling in Islam" or "Woman and bicycling in Islam". There is a discussion now in progress on the article Talk page for Bicycling in Islam. Cielquiparle (talk) 08:41, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The more I look at this, the more I'm convinced it should be pulled for failing WP:NPOV. This is not at all an article about cycling in Islam. This is an article about persecution of women in Islam, and a different title won't fix that. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith: My opinion was the click surprise regarding the hook. I asked the question recently about the hook. We hid the title with the words "...helped along by the bicycle?" Then when you click you got a religious/political article. I thought it was eggy and said so. Bruxton (talk) 15:44, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith Let me distance myself from such controversy. I have very much strived to include diverse practices among Muslim women over time and over the spaces and avoiding stereotype. At times and spaces and places they seem to face restrictions some other spaces they do not. About the same I have made a detail statement @ the article talk page which includes ".. Experiences in lived religion seem much diverse than media emphasized narrative. ..".
I also tried to change lead with (pl excuse me for grammar pl note positive effort to balance) ".. Women's participation bicycling in Islamic world has been on and off depending availability of opportunities and social, cultural and religious perspectives and background of respective communities and countries as prevailing at any given time. ..".
Where religious and/ or cultural really restrictions exist and WP:RS available can we do any thing?
@Bruxton Idk provide alternate way to avoid surprise you are talking about, but my effort through DYK has been to avoid stereotype and controversy both. You can suggest improvements or alternatives. I do not have issues. Bookku (talk) 16:33, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The core problem is there's nothing significant about cycling in Islam other than women not being allowed to do it. And there's nothing significant about women in Islamic countries not being allowed to ride bicycles which is fundamentally different from women in Islamic countries not being allowed to participate in a lot of sports. I see the article now has {{Unfocused}} and {{Undue weight}} added to it, so it fails WP:DYKSG#D6. There's enough issues here that I don't think it's going to be possible to resolve them before it reaches the main page in less than 2 days. I'm going to pull this. People can continue to work on it if they want without the pressure of the clock ticking. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:57, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That was the right call. I was just about to do the same a few hours earlier but it was bed time for me. Apart from content issues, I’d like to see the article name discussion having come to conclusion. Schwede66 18:31, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith Once pulled down from ongoing queue, whether Template:Did you know nominations/Bicycling in Islam is supposed to re-mentioned @ Template talk:Did you know ?
I shall prefer re-mentionining if possible, since that way article may get attention of experienced contributors and help in improvement. If you do not mind. Bookku (talk) 05:04, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, feel free to relist it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:00, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith @Bruxton @Bookku I think it's fixable and we can reframe so the emphasis on cultural history is also clearer. I will have a look today after work. (I have to confess, I might have misinterpreted the "eggy" comment earlier – I thought my proposed hook revision fixed the problem – but if there is something more specific in your objection, please let us know.) Cielquiparle (talk) 16:58, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was just my opinion that the piped link was a surprise, nobody else seemed to think so, so I did not pursue the matter. Bruxton (talk) 17:02, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Assistance requested for a hook wording for a nomination

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

Queue 1 needs a replacement hook

As noted above (#Bicycling in Islam) I pulled a hook from queue 1. I haven't been following the details of what we're doing via-a-vis special focus on women, but I'm guessing we've waived the "not too many biographies" rule? I'll leave it to somebody who is more up what we're doing in that regard to find a suitable replacement. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:12, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think we have a few in other preps Shirley Kurata, or Josiane Lima or Kae Miller or Lisette Olivera. I do not think we should be concerned about too many biographies. Bruxton (talk) 17:16, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the prep, Josiane Lima is both sport and disability related. We have no other Prep 1 hooks in those categories. Bruxton (talk) 17:39, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I'll go with Lisette Olivera. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:23, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was also hoping for Josiane Lima because it's non-US (there are already 3 in the set that are US-based, and it's International Women's Day, not 50% US Women's Day). Cielquiparle (talk) 22:08, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Lima is in Queue 4; In general I try to avoid cannibalizing queues because that just kicks the problem down the road. However, if somebody wants to swap it, I won't object. -- RoySmith (talk) 22:13, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

National Tom Sawyer Days

I have recently started participating here and I am grateful for the work everyone does. I have a nomination Template:Did you know nominations/National Tom Sawyer Days. The article was a copyright violation. About 200 characters were referenced to UGC source (answers.com) that is red on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. The rest was just un-cited content which I considered a copyright violation. So the article was sent to AfD and WP:TNT'd and then what I consider 5x expanded. I would like opinions on the article's qualification for DYK. Can we determine that this is 5x or maybe IAR to proceed? Lightburst (talk) 19:20, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have responded in the template, but it doesn't look like a 5x expansion, even if we were to use 422 characters/74 words as the starting point. Cielquiparle (talk) 22:30, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do not understand the count that finds 422 characters . The article had 2 lines cited, 214 characters which were cited to a user generated source which WP does not accept as reliable. The article was completely rewritten and now has 1550 characters. I think it is a matter of how we are counting. Lightburst (talk) 22:55, 6 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We previously had an RfC on exactly this question and it clarifies the situation. Hence, uncited content that wasn't a copyvio unfortunately does count towards the old article content. Schwede66 01:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: Thanks for that link. I think my misunderstanding has come from my belief that copying a source without a reference or citation is the definition of a copyright violation. Like copying an image without attribution. The definition used at DYK or on Wikipedia must be much more narrow. There are hundreds of rules for DYK and apparently RFCs that I am not aware of. What strikes me the most in the linked RFC is the comment repeated over and over in the proposal: This may be a bad surprise, but we don't have enough time and volunteers to reach consensus on the quality of each previous article. Sadly this is the second nomination in the past two weeks that I will need to withdraw. Lightburst (talk) 02:17, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Unreferenced text is not regarded as a copyviolation. You have to have a source to show that the text got copied from somewhere before it is a copyvio. That is not specific to DYK; that is how it is regarded by the English WP. Completely different rules apply to images. Schwede66 02:22, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Only partially a result of DYK's arcane rules? A moment of celebration, for sure! CMD (talk) 02:27, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66: Before nominating I asked the question. but it was my own misunderstanding of a violation. I could find the source of the cc but I think this nomination is not going to proceed and I have wasted enough of everyone's time. Thanks for the help. Lightburst (talk) 02:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You did the right thing by asking and Joseph's answer was correct (as you now know). Don't feel bad about wasting other editors' time; it's all part of the process. If you stick with DYK, I guarantee you that you'll be a better editor in no time as there's a decent peer review process going on here. Most editors who hang out here are really helpful. Keep it up! Schwede66 02:42, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the help. I withdrew the nomination Lightburst (talk) 14:47, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7: Hurricane Henri (nom)

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

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

International Women's Day

DYK is running a theme set for International Women's Day currently and some of the other main page sections seem to be following the theme, which is good. But there's a discussion about the picture which is being used. Please see Image discussion and the sub-section which I started about the theme. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:20, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yes thanks. I never thought to check whether today's featured DYK image was a derived work. I take responsibility but by the same token, as I was saying earlier, today's DYK was sitting at the top of the "Approved" DYK page in the dark orange box for weeks and weeks before it finally got promoted. I'll go propose it on ERRORS but I think the solution is to swap in the other New Zealand hook featuring a woman. (I had deeply regretted not being able to use both New Zealand picture hooks...) Cielquiparle (talk) 11:15, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The thread appears to have vanished so I'll just leave it. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:18, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1143548473"