Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎Post-posting comments: was it really needed?
Line 250: Line 250:
:No one should promote their own hook (or one they reviewed) to prep, but it's okay to move to queue a prep that contains one of your own hooks or a hook you reviewed. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 13:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
:No one should promote their own hook (or one they reviewed) to prep, but it's okay to move to queue a prep that contains one of your own hooks or a hook you reviewed. [[User:Valereee|—valereee]] ([[User talk:Valereee|talk]]) 13:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
::This is what I meant, yes [[User:Theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Theleekycauldron|contribs]]) ([[Singular they|they/them]]) 01:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
::This is what I meant, yes [[User:Theleekycauldron|theleekycauldron]] ([[User talk:Theleekycauldron|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Theleekycauldron|contribs]]) ([[Singular they|they/them]]) 01:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

== Discussion notice: Belle Delphine GIF on the main page ==

The appropriateness—or lack thereof—of the Belle Delphine GIF currently displayed on the main page is currently being discussed at {{slink|Talk:Main Page|Belle Delphine GIF}}. [[User:JBchrch|<span style="color:#494e52">'''JBchrch'''</span>]] [[User_talk:JBchrch|<span style="color:#494e52">talk</span>]] 06:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:42, 20 November 2021

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
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.

Moving the SOHA

I just archived the discussion on special occasion hooks. It seemed like the takeaway with the most chance of success would be moving the Special Occasion Holding Area to the top, instead of leaving it at the bottom where it's often ignored by prep set builders who usually take older hooks for a set. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Like I said on the previous discussion, if anything helps the reviewers to spot a special occasion hook faster, let it be done. Moving SOHA to the top of the page is fundamentally a good idea. But, in my opinion, it is useful if, and only if we have all the special occasions hooks in the holding area. Otherwise, it doesn't take anything more than pressing that page down key to see that same SOHA at the end of the page. Now, as it is being discuss, can someone help me figure out why do we have a SOHA on awaiting nominations page, when we are not allowed to nominate them in that section? Thanks for starting this discussion! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably a remnant from the time before the Approved hooks had their own page. CMD (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not convinced, but in any event I do not support moving anything until Shubinator is contacted and we make sure the move will not break DYKHousekeepingBot's creation of the Count of DYK Hooks table—I also do not support any move until the bot can be updated accordingly. Frankly, that table is far more valuable to DYK as a whole than the placement of the Special occasions section. CMD is correct about it being a remnant, and Maile that I was the one who did it (I'm pretty sure I also set up the Approved page): the stub of the Special occasions section was left on the main nominations page as a pointer to its new location when the Approved page was created to split those nominations off from the main page when it became overloaded and incapable of transcluding all the nominations. The reason you can't nominate the hooks in that section is the same as why you can't nominate ones for April Fools' Day on its page: these are ordinary nominations until they are reviewed and passed, and need to be reviewed without special priority or sequestration along with contemporaneous nominations. The idea of putting nominations in a special section at the bottom either privileges or disadvantages them, and is something I would absolutely oppose. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset: I wouldn't support nominating special occasion hooks in a separate area either—but I'm not sure why you don't want to move the the SOHA for only the approved hooks, as long as it doesn't break the bot? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
BlueMoonset I agree, and I don't suggest to add SO nomination there, but if it serves no purpose than just pointing to the new location, is it really needed there? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
What's the benefit of it being at the top rather than the bottom? It's always been at the bottom, so prep builders should know where it is, the times when I've built preps, I've always been able to find the SOHO fine. Don't see how it being at the top would mean people check it more than at the bottom- if prep builders are missing it, then it is their error. This just seems like a pointless discussion over nothing, in my opinion. Which seems to be the OP's forte on this talkpage at the moment- trying to "fix" things that aren't broken, "fixing" hooks by cutting content on them for no reason.... Joseph2302 (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Fundamentally its a good idea, but in its current form, it looks to me more like a solution looking for a problem. At the end, its as simple as pressing the page down key to see that same SOHA at the end of the page. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
i really just thought that if it were me, it's easier to remember all the hooks there if i have to pass by them and be reminded by them every time i build a prep set. it sometimes slips my mind otherwise, so i thought it might help. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Just mentioning that I am not a experienced prep builder. If regular prep builders find it a useful suggestion, then let it be done. Thanks! - Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The benefit is that prep builders, who should be starting at the top of the page and working down, will see those SO request first thing. —valereee (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Vibes are happening on this page. Check the time stamp of my post below, with the same message. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yep, DYKHousekeepingBot will break if this change is made today. If there's consensus for the change, no worries, we can coordinate to avoid disruptions. Best to also check with the other bot operators for bots touching the noms or approved pages: WugBot and MusikBot. Shubinator (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Advantage of moving the special hooks sub section to the top - it's a short list, and would make it less likely to accidentally overlook a SO request. The prep builder will know right away if they should include a SO in the set they're building. After a glance at that short SO list, the promoter can scroll through the oldest dates on the routine promotions. As is, maybe by the time they get enough hooks for a set, they didn't remember to also have a look at the SO hooks. We're human - we make mistakes. — Maile (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Not sure if this is resolved. EEng 04:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not. I really wasn't expecting this to be as controversial as it is, but we need more input for a consensus. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support

  • I would support moving SOHA to the top of the approved nominations page. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support moving it to the top. —valereee (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support placing the special holding dates to the top of approved nominations, which seems logical to me. As for the Kavyansh.Singh question about SOHA notice also at the bottom of the nominations page: I think there was a reason for it, but it escapes my memory. BlueMoonset would likely have the answer to that, and might have been the editor who placed it there. — Maile (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I support moving the SOHA to the top; there would appear to be benefits in doing so. Schwede66 10:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose

Neutral

  • To me it doesn't matter, either seems fine and the same. So happy to defer to what other people think is most helpful. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have no opinion on this and don't mind either way. As long as its still accessible to put hooks in. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider me neutral on this. No major issues with moving the special occasion holding area, if helps the prep builders. But in my opinion, both the ways appear more or less the same. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Close?

It's been seven days. Is there anything we need to do other than move the code to the top of the page? —valereee (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: If the closer finds that there's consensus to do this, then we have to talk to shubinator first—the DYKHousekeepingBot will break. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron, do you think we need a formal close? There's no formal opposition, just support/neutral. —valereee (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't, but we're the proposers here so that's probably a decision for someone else. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Shubinator could do the honour of closing (and then tweak the bot). :-) Schwede66 09:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Shubinator: I think that's a fine idea, how about you? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another set proposal for New Year's

So, ten weeks out: I've been working on New Year foods and I was thinking a set for New Year's Day or Eve would be cool. There are some pretty cool possible spinoff articles at that draft (who knew the Spanish eat 12 grapes at midnight while wearing gifted red underwear) but other New Year articles besides food traditions would work. I'm going to move this draft to article in the next couple weeks and ask for a SO if anyone else has a New Year's hook they'd want to develop. —valereee (talk) 19:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

jewish people have quite a few different new year's celebration foods, but our new year is in like september so that's not helpful. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron, actually, I was planning to include in that article NY foods for New Years that are celebrated other times than January 1. I just hadn't worked my way out to Chinese NY and Jewish NY yet. But, yeah, if an article was about Jewish NY foods, you might prefer to have it run September 25, 2022. :) —valereee (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
ah, fun fun! I'll consider writing something when August rolls around, then theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Meant to comment on this earlier. I think this is a really good idea. Don't know if you're familiar with the Huell Howser California's Gold series, but I seem to remember an episode he did on New Year's day tradition of Japanese mochi pounding. Not just the eating of mochi, but the family tradition of having a mochi pounding on New Year's Day. Anyway, I think you have a good start on the article. Looking forward to seeing it on the MP. — Maile (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks @Maile66, and also for the Huell Howser suggestion! I found a link to that episode! —valereee (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Valereee: Oh, good, you found that episode. I think he might have done a lot of other cultural holiday tradition related episodes over the years, but that one pops out in my mind. I vaguely remember one he did on the Mexican tradition of creating the nativity in homes, and the visitation-ceremonial events that happen with that. Good thinking on his part to leave his entire collection to Chapman. — Maile (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Well ... heck ... I just clicked on that link, and the next one in Huell's queue is the Christmas tradition of tamale making. — Maile (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I have a Christmas DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Jingle Cats. I just had to expand the article for DYK after buying the first cassette from a Goodwill Outlet for under $1. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did a thing!

The DYKstats page seemed to be pretty hodgepodge to me, because it requires a dedicated user to add in all the hooks for the tables to be up to date, and that's pretty slog-gy. So, I spent way, way more hours than is generally considered ethical to write this script! If you go to any WP:Recent additions archive, there'll be a button at the top that reads "Get views!" Before clicking it, open up the Javascript console, because otherwise your computer is going to slow for quite a bit. Once you click it, it'll spit out, in a format ready to be added to the wikitable, any hook that meets the required threshold of 416.6 views! It currently doesn't support multi-hooks, but I will get on that in a little bit. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:27, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

it's not perfect just yet, but I'm working on it theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:28, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is probably one of the imperfections you already know about, but in case you hadn't noticed... On the current page, it doesn't find Feetloaf. (It also doesn't find it in October, where I wouldn't expect it to.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:10, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I knew about that—this is one of those things where I'm going to call "feature, not bug", because i don't trust every using the tool to know that Feetloaf should belong in October, not November. The first prep set of every month can be added manually. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Could this perhaps be browser-specific, or specific to some other item at our individual user Preferences? I have Firefox, Chrome and Edge browsers. My skin is Modern. I'm not seeing anything at all when I follow those steps. Also, I have no idea where my Javascript console is, as I only deal with it if a specific page tells me to. — Maile (talk) 23:32, 7 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You'd have to install it by adding importScript('User:Theleekycauldron/DYKViews.js'); to your common.js page. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 02:41, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, you'd have to install the script. You can open the javascript console by right clicking somewhere, selecting "Inspect", and going to the console tab in there. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:27, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
update on thing: it now supports multi-hooks and'll now just spit out the entire table at once! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:16, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The archives are gonna get pretty long if they're all up-to-date—each month should have a separate page. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:50, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandarax: fixed feature bug—running the script on any given monthpage will also return any relevant hooks from the bottom of the next month's page (which is really still this month). So, if you ran the script in October, it would find Feetloaf. i just want to stress how god damn annoying that was to get working—promises make me want to tear my hair out—but it does work now! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:52, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for all of the effort you've put in. Now, I'm just asking a question and not in any way suggesting that you do anything about it, but does the script account for the previous and next day's "background" views, as described in Rule 3?  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  21:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Mandarax: yep! The trigger is an average of 1,024 views on either side of the date (i do like my powers of 2). It'll also exclude any hook that doesn't meet the marker even when background views are gone (so, 10,000 view hook with 1 view on either side is excluded). If it's a multi-hook where a bolded article doesn't reach the required threshold on its own, it'll also account for previous and next day views there. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:05, 12 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Dianxi Xiaoge

I have some reservations about approving the nomination at this time over the "one of only three Chinese influencers to gain international influence" claim, as well as the detailedness of the internet career stuff and the mentions of her political views. Can another editor who is an expert on China take a look at the article and give a second opinion? Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:01, 8 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't use the phrase "one of only three Chinese influencers to gain international influence", so I'm not sure where you got that, but it does say she is one of only three "Chinese Internet celebrities who have reached international prominence", and the problem with that claim is that it's sourced to an article that is two years old and therefore not up-to-date.
With regard to the overall length, I would agree that it is overly detailed and could use a trim. I'm not sure this is relevant to DYK however, as "overly detailed" is not one of our criteria. What I would say is that the level of detail does raise the chances of close paraphrasing so the article would need to be carefully checked for that. Anybody else with an opinion on this article? Gatoclass (talk) 14:41, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I guess my original comment was a paraphrase of the "international prominence" wording, and yes that was the statement I was referring to. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:16, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Adjusting WP:DYKSTATS guidelines

Hi, y'all! So, I've been putting quite a bit of work into the WP:DYKSTATS page, where some of our most popular hooks are stored and celebrated. There's a rule in counting pageviews that says that hooks should be adjusted for any background popularity before they're added to the stats pages; this is a sensible rule, that makes sure that if a hook about, say, Bill Gates (whose page gets roughly 10,000 views a day) wouldn't get a spot on the stats page if the article gets 12,000 views on the day it's aired.

I have an issue with how the background views are calculated, though. If you go and look at the pageviews for any given hook on the stats page, there's usually some lingering attention the day after a hook is aired, which is good. It shows that some people were really interested in the article, and it wasn't just a one-off for everyone who looked at it. The problem is, next-day views can actually be counted against a hook, because of the way the averaging system works; In terms of an actual example, SpaceX Starship from this month comes to mind. It got an average of 2,150 views in the three days preceding the DYK date, 12,277 views on the day it aired on DYK, and 3,010 views the day after, slowly trending down towards the 2,150 as the week goes by. Under our current averaging system, it doesn't count as over 10,000, because the fact that the hook actually interested 900 people in the article for longer than a day counts against the hook's chances—so we subtract the average of 3,010 and 2,093, which comes out 9,675.5 views when it should be around 10,077.

I think that this rule should be adjusted, so that instead of focusing on the two days immediately surrounding the DYK date, we should look at the average of the two or three days preceding the DYK date, to keep prior popularity in the calculation without penalizing lingering attention. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:31, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to this. —valereee (talk) 19:33, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's pretty much the way I've always calculated it anyway (though I usually do the calculation using longer-term averages, not just over the preceding three days). I didn't actually know that somebody had added a formula whereby you are supposed to include an average of the day immediately before and after, and would have objected to that had I known about it, so certainly I would have no objection to the rule being formally changed. Gatoclass (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62 and The C of E: what do you guys think? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:09, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
My thoughts:
1. The proposal is logical, but ...
2. It will require more work for whoever is maintaining the DYKSTATS page -- more effort will be required to calculate six-day averages than is involved in simply averaging the day before and the day after. Having tried to maintain the page at various times, I found the work in calculating just a two-day average to be a bit much.
3. The three-day timing will mean that final figures can't be calculated until four days after a hook is run. This does create some lag.
4. I'm not that the slightly greater precision outweigh the extra work and lag. Cbl62 (talk) 10:15, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the proposal would reduce the lag, as it doesn't talk about days after the hook has run. I don't think it matters either way: all ways of counting will sometimes estimate the effect of the Main Page appearance incorrectly (especially for topics that are in the news). But there's literally nothing that will break if our figures are off here, so if @Theleekycauldron will maintain the stats page for a while, I'm happy for them to change the counting rules slightly. —Kusma (talk) 10:34, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Cbl62: I think you might misunderstand the proposal? The idea is that instead of counting the day before and the day after, we count the two or three days before and no days after. That way, we do end up getting results quicker, and we don't unnecessarily penalize lingering interest. It'd only involve a two-day average, decrease lag, and since we have a script to create the updates, extra work would be minimal. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 10:36, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood. Sounds good. Go for it! Cbl62 (talk) 10:39, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 2 Ineligible hook?

Les Cabrils station (DYK nom: here) is not a new article. It was created in July 2021 as Des Cabrils station, then an article that was almost exactly the same was created under the name Les Cabrils station on 9 November 2021, and the histories have since been merged. Therefore, it was not a new creation on 9 November, but on 25 July 2021 instead, so would have needed to be nominated within 7 days of 25 July, and hasn't been 5x expanded recently. I don't see how this nomination can ever be passed, when fundamentally it wasn't a new article, just a copy of an existing article under a new name (which then used a histmerge). Allowing this would just encourage people in future to create duplicate articles just to call them "new" to get a DYK. Pinging @Oaktree b, Victuallers, and Theleekycauldron: as creator, approver, and promoter of this nomination. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Probably my (and the nominators) mistake. The articles appeared to be created by one person in a confusion. The DYK nomination was one spelling and the article was another. The nominator said that they had created both and I (obviously now) didnt check every version. Victuallers (talk) 12:28, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302: Thanks for the good catch! I've pulled the hook, and marked it for close unless there's an explanation for why this might have counted as a new article that I'm not anticipating. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:23, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not the first time this has happened. In 2016 Oaktree b created James Howard Scott with 3.8 kB of readable prose. Then on March 22, 2017, they redirected that to James Scott Howard, pasting the contents of the original article at that new title. At nomination time, the article was 4.7 kB of prose (a 1.2x expansion). Because it was a cut-and-paste move, it would have seemed like a new article and was not noticed in the initial DYK review, which took place on March 27. An administrator then hist-merged the two on March 30. That article was ineligible for DYK as well; given that this has happened on two occasions, I would urge Oaktree b to check that they are actually expanding articles by 5x before nominating in the future. DanCherek (talk) 21:46, 15 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Belle Delphine

Currently in Prep 4 : "Did you know .... that Belle Delphine's (pictured) online popularity surged after she replicated the orgasm faces featured in Japanese manga?"

Okay, the article has been improved to GA status, but it has seen a lot of controversy, including one legal request of defamation on the talk page. I don't mind people working on the article to ensure it complies with WP:BLP, but I really don't think it's a good idea to publicise this on our main page. Or am I just out of touch with "teh kidz" these days? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:41, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging partitipants : Soulbust, Sdkb, Theleekycauldron Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:54, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW, that legal request on the talk page is bogus (that isn't how the "Right To Be Forgotten" works), although the content identified (and its surrounding subject matter) was a WP:BLPNAME and general sourcing issue, and accordingly identified and removed during GA review. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:06, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is that bored-looking face supposed to represent orgasm? Really?? I'd prefer the hook without video. Picasso's head of a woman would be so much better to show, only it's still under copyright. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not seeing "a lot of controversy" concerning this page. The article appears to be well written, well sourced and stable. The legal request, regardless of its legitimacy, is redundant given that the contested content has been removed. If there are any more controversies about the page that I've missed, it would be helpful if they were outlined. Gatoclass (talk) 13:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what the problem is. Could you elaborate? —Kusma (talk) 13:38, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it a good idea to have a woman pretending to orgasm on the front page? Is it a good advertisement for Wikipedia? It is appropriate when we're still trying to address the gender balance after years of trying? Of course, if I see 10 longstanding female editors saying, "of course it's not a problem", I guess I'm over-reacting. AFAIK, the only one to comment so far is Gerda, who doesn't like it. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:03, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delphine is parodying the silly ahegao faces found in manga. Quite frankly I found the GIF to be not only funny, but charming and poignant. Who doesn't feel sorry for kids today having to negotiate the tsunami of filth they are exposed to on the internet? That somebody is out there making fun of it is in my view a positive thing, that helps put it all into an appropriate perspective. Gatoclass (talk) 14:29, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think this image is funny but I wouldn't want to put it on the main page! Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:57, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If relevant (a big if, but, say, to illustrate an article about the image), I would put that image on the Main Page. It doesn't strike me as remotely funny, though. —Kusma (talk) 15:34, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Ritchie: Neither would I, because it's denigrating somebody. But what Delphine is doing is precisely the opposite. She is saying, "you can't denigrate me with your smut. You can't strip me of my humanity. I won't be objectified by you, and I laugh in your face at your attempts to do so."
So again, to me this is sending a positive message to the kids out there. There are a million young women trying to make a buck from sex work on the internet. Delphine has succeeded when so many have failed because the kids are finding something else in her content. She's reminding them that they are more than what the porn industry wants to reduce them to. Gatoclass (talk) 15:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It would be easier to grasp if the hook said "mocked" (or whatever with a critical note) instead of "replicated". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That hook I'd get behind. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:10, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's fairly long-standing and well-defended precedent that WP:NOTCENSORED applies to the Main Page, and that's included past appearances of nudity. I've argued that we should change our approach for things like disturbing medical images, but this is much less concerning. If we're going to allow an article on a popular pornographic actress to appear, using a hook that involves sexuality seems the obvious choice and will likely be extraordinarily popular. It's also not surprising that such an article has a bunch of talk page activity, so I'd want to see more evidence of problems there before I'd have concerns. The last thing I'd add is that I'd see this differently if we were featuring many such people, as that'd start to reflect poorly on us. But this is the first instance I can recall. Pornography is a part of the world and belongs in a comprehensive encyclopedia, and therefore (under our current rules/norms) by extension the Main Page. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 14:49, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure that's fully the case, the last time I remember it being discussed was at Talk:Main Page/Archive 202#Buruli ulcers where there was consensus to switch an image some found disturbing. CMD (talk) 15:45, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I sometimes think that the reactions we anticipate for main page stuff are overstated. Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 28, 2021 ran a Confederate flag on the main page, and nobody complained. Hog Farm Talk 01:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I think about that a lot too—lack of oversized, dedicated attention isn't an excuse to be casual with our ideals, but i think we have a tendency to take ourselves too seriously. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:12, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
For the most part, I'm staying out of this one. I will say to Gatoclass that if we want to send a message to the kids about objectification in sex work, we probably shouldn't run a hook that suggests that internet popularity (something lots of kids don't see the downside of and/or desperately chase) is directly linked to physical attractiveness. I understand what you're going for, but if you think DYK is where people look for nuanced, under-the-surface messages about sex work, you're out of your gourd.
If we do run this hook, particularly in the image slot, it won't be because we're making a brave point, or taking a stand, or becoming an edgier PBS Kids—it'll be because delphine is a known (and slightly controversial) figure across some parts of the internet and because we're looking to shock for attention. If consensus is that doing that is fine, then okay, but I don't think we should pretend that we're hitting home that particular message, valid as it may be. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:09, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say anything about "sending a message to the kids". I simply noted my own personal response to the hook and the GIF. IMO it's Delphine herself who is "sending a message" with her approach, but I very much doubt she is doing it consciously. She is simply expressing a gut response to a particular phenomenon, which happens to resonate with her audience.
And neither have I defended this hook because I want to "shock for attention". If there's anything "shocking" about this hook to my way of thinking, it's the response some in this thread have had to it. As I have said, I personally find the hook and the GIF to be charming, amusing, whimsical and innocuous, and it does surprise me that some here are evidently bothered by it. When the internet is saturated with the most graphic pornographic content, what is shocking about a woman parodying an "orgasm face" that itself is a parody of the expression? Honestly I think people are just overreacting to this. While we will probably get one or two complaints when we run this as we commonly do with such hooks, I find it hard to believe it will go any further than that. But it is likely to get a lot of hits, because it is so quirky. And while page hits are far from DYK's primary purpose, it certainly doesn't hurt the cause overall to run the occasional popular hook. Gatoclass (talk) 04:51, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Gatoclass: I think we might be talking past each other a bit. I never meant to imply that you were defending it because it was shocking; i meant that it's going to get a lot of hits because of that, and that if we're trying to aspire to a higher purpose, we should run a different hook, because this one is looking to shock in its current state. I did misunderstand when you said So again, to me this is sending a positive message to the kids out there, I thought you meant the hook, not Delphine herself. I'm also not bothered by this hook, and I don't think it'll get a lot of complaints. I think the question Ritchie was bringing up with Is it a good idea to have a woman pretending to orgasm on the front page? Is it a good advertisement for Wikipedia? is whether people will take Wikipedia less seriously as a genuine repository of information if we use our platform for this. To answer it, I think that if we make it a bit clearer what Delphine is actually doing here (using "mocked" instead of "replicated"), we are still making a meaningful point instead of a shock-and-disgust. As long as we're there, people will only take us as seriously as we should aspire to take ourselves.
"but theleekycauldron", i hear you say, "you said you were staying out of this" theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gerda makes a pretty decent point about using the word "mocked" instead of "replicated"—whether we run this or not, it'd be irresponsible to say that she was merely "replicating" the faces without at least some mention of the fact that it's considered by a decent chunk of the sourcing to be mockery. Do we outright change the hook to "mocked"? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:03, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think a lot of the sourcing calls it mockery. Or at least, it would be weird to say "mocked" since some of the sourcing opines that she isn't outright parodying it or at least discusses how some audiences don't have the opinion that she is mocking/parodying it. I think especially the gif being used is more of a demonstration of her signature ahegao face than anything, since it came during an interview. I'm one of those "kids today having to negotiate the tsunami of filth they are exposed to on the internet" that @Gatoclass: mentioned. Especially during the late 2018–early 2019 period that Belle first started blowing up a lot online. Idk, I think this entire thread/conversation on the hook is looking for more nuance than exists, which is something I think even Belle would think, based on all of the amount of time I spent researching/editing the article. I don't think she's necessarily "mocking" it (maybe too strong of a word here), although it is certainly tongue-in-cheek (especially at first, which would be the point of the hook; i.e.: her popularity surged after initially making the face). But I also think it is a fair point to say that overtime, and especially after she transitioned to OF, her ahegao faces became less satirical as she was just using them in her online pornographic posts. Again, that's just what I think of the situation (my opinion obviously), but I do still think we're looking for nuance that maybe is getting in the way of a simple DYK hook. I think "replicating" is fine verbage, and I don't think it is irresponsible to go with that. I would like to see the hook + the gif on the main page, since it'd be satisfying after working on the article and helping it successfully pass GA nomination. If that means tweaking it to make some sort of mention that some of the sourcing thinks it is satirical/trolling then that's okay, I guess. I do think this section of the article would be important to note in that light though, because it presents genuine first-party pushback on that idea, and is also good food-for-though on this entire conversation topic:
    "Delphine herself views her modelling as falling into the category of erotica,[41] but in December 2020, when asked on if she considers her online activity as performance art, Delphine disputed the idea.[40] Instead, she described her actions as "just jokes," and went on to say she enjoys "playing" around online, calling the internet "a really fun place to tease and mess around with".[40]"
    I guess one could argue teasing and messing with is the same as mocking, but I'd say it's a little softer than outright mocking. Again, it's more tongue-in-cheek, I think.
    And as far as the anticipated reaction/censorship/is this too explicit or graphic issue, I think it's very overblown. I think Wikipedia is perceived as mainly informational. I think people who browse Wikipedia aren't going to freak out about it. I think they'll understand, especially given the context of the hook, that it's just information accompanied by a gif. I think having the gif run with the hook is important; we should make the most of the visual information on this website, in my opinion. Also the gif is actually an underratedly great compromise between the this is too explicit and the it doesn't matter if this is explicit crowds (although I do firmly think Wiki should remain uncensored). Trust me, as the main contributor to the article (and also, again, as someone in the same generation as Belle), I found much more explicit depictions of her ahegao faces in my time editing. This one was demonstrated fully-clothed and during an interview, but also still retains the distinct replication of the expression. Idk what else to really say, but I'd like to run the hook as is, I guess. Best wishes, Soulbust (talk) 05:14, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    (having tried to format indenting): Gatoclass said something about her parodying (not my invention), and that made sense to me. That's all I tried to say. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:42, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd never heard of Belle Delphine (!) but I've now looked at the YouTube video the image was clipped from. My own reaction was that she "made fun of" the facial expression. But that's maybe more OR than "replicated" or "mocked". Thincat (talk) 11:01, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Given that critics are somewhat divided over whether her schtick primarily constitutes mockery or exploitation, "replicated" would I think be the more accurate term. But a possible compromise would be "mimicked", because that can mean both "imitated" and "mocked". Gatoclass (talk) 04:04, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
yeah, I'd be on board with that theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
also, as an ashkenazi jew with a polish grandmother, A+ use of "shtick" theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:14, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think mimicked is fitting here for sure. Soulbust (talk) 06:22, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
 Done, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 01:06, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Good. Although I suggested a different wording I think "mimicked" is better. Thincat (talk) 10:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • A far as I can tell there are at least two reasons we should not use "orgasm face" in the blurb: the linked article says it's a drawn face used usually during sex to show ectasy, not that it has to be at climax; moreover, the encyclopedic and interesting bit of information is that Japanese manga actually has genre term (ahegao) for this, so use the genre term. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, if you look at the underlying sources, they do describe ahegao as an "orgasm face". Gatoclass (talk) 22:40, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No. I am not seeing that, and certainly not consistently in high quality sources -- moreover, that is just one of the problems identfied above: genre terms, like indigenous terms, better capture nuance and better inform about the topic. Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:54, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The "ahegao" is in the caption, which is perhaps a reasonable compromise? —Kusma (talk) 17:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like some kind of joke
I don’t disagree with Wikipedia being uncensored it also shouldn’t just do something stupid which this is, there’s no other way to say it it’s just plain stupid. This isn’t the meme channel of some random discord server or April fools day. Not even worth putting in bad jokes and other deleted nonsense other than an example of how to get on it DogsRNice (talk) 04:06, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Post-posting comments

  • Sigh... first complaint of likely many for those with OTRS/VRT access (#2021112010000188) ~TheresNoTime (to explain!) 01:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • On the one hand, I fully support NOTCENSORED. But on the other: was this the uhhh...brightest editorial decision? Also, are we really sure that GIF is CC licensed? Like sure the video its taken from is CC, but its obviously taken from another non-CC video. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @CaptainEek: damnit, well that's the last time I trust the review licensing system. I'm making a note on WP:ERRORS—if you or someone else could pull the hook, that would be good. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    @Theleekycauldron I mean, I'm not certain either. But it was my first concern. There was some discussion about it on Discord that it might be okay but I'm hoping for further input... CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Also commented at T:MP, but copying here too: Delphine does not own the channel, but the podcast she appeared on does. So the question is whether the podcast has the rights to the video of her. I'd generally think yes, per meta:Wikilegal/Copyright in Zoom Images. (for evidence of the "Cold Ones Clips" channel being owned by the Cold Ones podcast, see here). I think the GIF is fine. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to featuring Belle Delphine on the main page and no objection to the GIF on the topic page... there are many images that are orders of magnitude more adult than this in Wikipedia. That said, this image does strike me as possibly being a little too adult for the main page. Obviously, kids can find this and much worse if they search for it but we should consider a higher standard for content that is pushed into view (of young readers). No strong objection here but definitely seems worthwhile to have a broader discussion to shape future guidelines. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps this is the time to revisit Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 183#Because we don't have enough to do right now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The looping motion makes a kind of upsetting (to me) image impossible to ignore, and doesn't do much to help showcase the subject. I had to block it with uBlock Origin. Aside from that, it seems like the discussion about the appropriateness of this "did you know" entry on a site that already has a gender disparity problem kind of got glossed over in favor of a discussion about the word "replicated"... Even if whatever Delphine does is empowering to women in some way, that doesn't make it empowering or even okay to say "fun fact, her popularity surged when she did ahegao faces!" on the front page of Wikipedia with no context. Autumnontape (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • And we wonder why women don't contribute to Wikipedia. Urve (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is an interesting issue. I was unaware of it before seeing your comment. I'll read up on it. It looks like there are other causes that are more significant in shifting participation. Maybe it's discouraging to some but encouraging to others. - Wikmoz (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just found the nomination. The sexual topic and GIF were favored specifically for the associated engagement potential? That seems like a dangerous game to play and possibly a good way to undermine Wikipedia's stance against censoring itself. Autumnontape (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      of course it was—as I told Gatoclass earlier in the thread, If we do run this hook, particularly in the image slot, it won't be because we're making a brave point, or taking a stand, or becoming an edgier PBS Kids—it'll be because delphine is a known (and slightly controversial) figure across some parts of the internet and because we're looking to shock for attention. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The animated gif is very tacky. Please rein in the quest for hookiness (and now apparently engagement metrics as well?) a bit. 2001:48F8:4002:684:9CD5:A12F:5EA5:7CE0 (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did not know that, and I was happier then. MaxHarmony (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the audience and purpose of the main page needs some clarification. The main page is what you see waiting for you in a public library anywhere in the world, right?? What kind of audience is this designed to attract, and is that worth losing the kind it will discourage? It doesn't seem welcoming when you consider the wide variety of cultures that find an encyclopedia valuable.TommyB5000 (talk) 05:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm all behind NOTCENSORED and with these sort of controversies, regulars know I have been on the end of many of them. But with this one, did we really need to say "orgasm" in the hook coupled with a gif of a pornstar doing it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few days ago, so I’ve created a new list that includes all 21 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through November 9. We currently have a total of 190 nominations, of which 107 have been approved, a gap of 83, down 6 over the past twelve days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 06:25, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Admins needed to promote preps to queues

@DYK admins: We currently have only one prep loaded into queue—if admins could promote more preps at the moment, that'd be very appreciated. Also, we're at 127 approved hooks still—I don't know how we're at a higher water mark than we were when we started. I guess if every queue were filled and then every prep re-filled, we'd be at 79, so that's something. Still, the two-a-days probably aren't going to be over for a while. So we'll need more queues in. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:09, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in the middle of verifying prep 4 right now. Gatoclass (talk) 01:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I had to hold off because the prep 3 had one of my hooks in it, plus I've been debating a hook in prep 4 as seen above. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:47, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Ritchie333: I don't believe there's a hard rule against promoting your own hook—i've seen a few admins do it theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 11:04, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

No one should promote their own hook (or one they reviewed) to prep, but it's okay to move to queue a prep that contains one of your own hooks or a hook you reviewed. —valereee (talk) 13:11, 19 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I meant, yes theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion notice: Belle Delphine GIF on the main page

The appropriateness—or lack thereof—of the Belle Delphine GIF currently displayed on the main page is currently being discussed at Talk:Main Page § Belle Delphine GIF. JBchrch talk 06:42, 20 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1056177635"