Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

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

Are we really not on mobile?

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T360689

Tracked in Phabricator
Task T221993

According to WP:VPR#There is already a different Main Page on the app, DYK isn't on the mobile app main page. I don't use the mobile app, so I have no clue if this is true or not, but @JPxG felt "someone" should let DYK know, so I'm doing that. RoySmith (talk) 15:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I can confirm that there is no DYK on the Android app. From the top, the order of Main Page sections is:

• TFA
• "Today on Wikipedia" (small body text hyperlink to the normal Main Page)
• "Top Read" (presumably the articles with the most pageviews in the last day or couple days)
• PoTD
• "Because you read" (related articles to one that I was looking at last time I had the app open)
• ITN
• OTD
• "Random article"
• "Suggested edits"
• then it loops back to the previous day's TFA.

jp×g🗯️ 17:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Similar on Apple devices. If I had to guess, our occasional twelve-hour periods are rather annoying to deal with for a page that is structured on a day-by-day basis. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

@The wub told me a while ago not to worry because mobile app uptake is so poor anyway. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:33, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

The mobile apps (iOS and Android combined) made up 2.3% of pageviews on English Wikipedia last year [1]. Mobile web was 65.5%, and desktop was 32.2%. That said, the app audiences are slowly growing, and it would be nice to have DYK shown to them as well. the wub "?!" 00:25, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Which is bizarre, since the website version on the phone has a DYK section. Bremps... 11:50, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Sometime back, I had a chance to engage with the WMF team that was building the iOS app. I was making a case for WP:ITNRD and WP:DYK be added to the iOS app. I was not successful. Ktin (talk) 02:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Btw, I have a random hypothesis, as follows. The homepage of the iOS app versus the mainpage of the mobile / desktop site as a percentage of views in that category will be a closer comparison than 2.5%: 65.5%: 32.2%. My hypothesis is more app users start their app journey with the app homescreen (mainpage equivalent) compared to mobile / desktop users starting their journey with the mobile / desktop mainpage. Ktin (talk) 02:22, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

MediaWiki Thread that I had started sometime back. Ktin (talk) 02:05, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Tagging @Julle:, who was helpful the last time by connecting me with the iOS app product manager. It seems like the product manager may no longer be with WMF. Ktin (talk) 02:15, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I've pinged ARamadan-WMF, who should be able to get you the right answers. /Julle (talk) 08:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you, @Julle, for pinging; hello all, this is Amal Ramadan, I am the senior community relations specialist supporting the mobile applications team in the foundation; we have noticed this request T360689 and it's on our list as we plan work for this coming year.

Also tagging @JTanner (WMF), the Lead Product Manager for the Apps team, for further updates. ARamadan-WMF (talk) 08:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

April Fools'

I've started to fill out Prep 1, which will be the April Fool's set. I've moved what I see as the best nominations at WP:DYKAPRIL there already; I think those remaining at DYKAPRIL might need a bit of work, considering they can't all fit.

Or in other words, do you want a dog or a cat in the picture slot? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Of course, new nominations are still equally welcome. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:39, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

That cat image is brilliant, I say go with that. There was a suggestion by Theleekycauldron at the article's nom that ur mum should be lowercase and unquoted?--Launchballer (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

i've gone ahead and done it, hopefully it isn't shooting myself in the foot :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:06, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

No way, cat! The dog is fantastic. Wrongly accused—paw prints and mugshot taken—slammed into chokey for life—and then, as if things couldn't get any worse, put on diet! "Help!" sez Pep :) ——Serial Number 54129 17:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)

Definitely the dog for mine. Great, eye-catching hook, whereas the cat hooks are quite clunky or else not very April Fools-ish. Gatoclass (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm inclined toward the dog. Kudos to the maker of the ray cat image, but I think the article about Pep is more appealing both as a hook (it's concise, amusing, and attention-drawing) and as an image (although the bad lighting is a little unfortunate, it still registers strongly as a mug shot, resulting in further amusement because now the reader's thinking, "wait, did they really arrest a dog?). P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

I've realised I never said it here, but I, too, prefer Monsieur Woof. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:37, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

Pawsing for thought... it's a shame we can't use Eastern State Pawitentiary too  :) ——Serial Number 54129 19:23, 23 March 2024 (UTC)

• I never saw a chartruce cat / I hope I never see one / but I can tell you anyhow / it would make a great lead photo.RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 12:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

• I prefer the cat, personally, it's more eye-catching. Not to say that Pep isn't a good boy. Silverseren^C 16:35, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

And the winner iiiiiiisssssss... a bridge? – Hilst [talk] 18:55, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like I mucked up the set- blissfully unaware of the date. When we open a new prep I will move out the offending hooks or another editor can. I moved out the image and will need to move two more. I realize that I have also overloaded Prep 6 with US-centric hooks and that will need to be corrected. Bruxton (talk) 19:34, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Are we really doing 10-hook sets? RoySmith (talk) 19:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith: I did not set up the ten set, but I did run a character counter and we are well under normal set size so it will be ok. Bruxton (talk) 19:51, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

Preps 3-5 have eight hooks instead of nine. The three misplaced hooks in prep 1 can be spread across those sets. I also notice that we are above the threshold for switching to two sets per day (10 preps/queues filled), so perhaps we can have a dog and a cat as lead April Fools' images.--Launchballer 20:22, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

My warped mind wonders if we could run two different hooks that both use the same image. Because April. RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

If desired, we could alternate the dog and cat hooks through {{random item}}, as a sort of extra joke for anyone who happens to view the Main Page twice. It gets purged something like once per second, so it'd be truly random each time someone refreshed the page. Or we could do a time-based parser, even number of seconds or odd. (COI disclaimer one: I wrote the cat article.) (COI disclaimer two: That dog looks like a very good boy.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:04, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

If somebody could make that work, I think it would be awesome. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)

@RoySmith:

Randomized

{{random item |{{main page image/DYK|image=Green glowing cat.png|caption=An artist's impression of a ray cat}}<!--See [[Template:Main page image/DYK]] for other parameters--> * ... that '''[[ray cat|color-changing cats]]''' ''(artist's impression pictured)'' could help us communicate with the future? |{{main page image/DYK|image=Pep (inmate C-2559) mugshot.jpg|caption=Mugshot of Pep}}<!--See [[Template:Main page image/DYK]] for other parameters--> * ... that '''[[Pep (dog)|Pep]]''' ''(pictured)'' was falsely accused of murdering a cat and sent to [[Eastern State Penitentiary]]?}} An artist's impression of a ray cat ... that color-changing cats (artist's impression pictured) could help us communicate with the future?

Alternating every second

{{#ifexpr:{{#time:U}} mod 2 |{{main page image/DYK|image=Green glowing cat.png|caption=An artist's impression of a ray cat}}<!--See [[Template:Main page image/DYK]] for other parameters--> * ... that '''[[ray cat|color-changing cats]]''' ''(artist's impression pictured)'' could help us communicate with the future? |{{main page image/DYK|image=Pep (inmate C-2559) mugshot.jpg|caption=Mugshot of Pep}}<!--See [[Template:Main page image/DYK]] for other parameters--> * ... that '''[[Pep (dog)|Pep]]''' ''(pictured)'' was falsely accused of murdering a cat and sent to [[Eastern State Penitentiary]]?}} An artist's impression of a ray cat ... that color-changing cats (artist's impression pictured) could help us communicate with the future?

Just to be clear about how this would work, it wouldn't flicker on the Main Page or anything; the different versions would only show up on reload. The "every second" part shouldn't be an issue server-wise, since, like I said, the MP gets purged constantly regardless. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'm always seeing the green cat in the example above, but I'm assuming there's just some cacheing that's getting in the way? RoySmith (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

On this page, if you're just refreshing, caching will probably keep it the same unless you purge (); or it might change when someone comments somewhere. On the Main Page, the frequent purging by various actors takes care of that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 03:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll add the randomized version, if no one minds. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:58, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks good to me, although the set isn't being transcluded properly at T:DYK/Q. Fixed. – Hilst [talk] 13:41, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

@theleekycauldron: Not that it matters much, but will there be some way to make these count as only 12-/6-hour hooks (if on 24- or 12- respectively) at DYKSTATS? Since they'll average out to about that. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 16:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

I'll note that this set should absolutely run for 24 hours, and I'll handle that when it comes up if need be. As for DYKSTATS... bleghh. I could code in some kind of override, but it'd probably be a bit hacky. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:00, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

IMHO, providing a fun experience for our readers trumps getting the statistics right. RoySmith (talk) 18:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

• There's April Fools-esque material at this nomination for the song "Obsessed" in case anything needs to get swapped out.--NØ 14:05, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

As theleekycauldron notes, we can run a single set for the day, and fit as many as we can (I think we've had as many as 11 hooks in a set, given that hooks for this day tend to be shorter), even if we're technically at two sets a day: we've had more sets or fewer sets for this day depending on what's been nominated and our frequency when the day comes around. It's also typical that not every hook nominated for April Fools runs on the day because not every one is prime AFD material. (In that case, they're put back on the Approved page and run later with one of the other approved hooks.) If the decision is taken to run two 12-hour sets, we could have the cat and dog hooks sharing the lead slot in both sets. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:09, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

how about we do a random item where either we have the dog in lead and the cat no. 2, or vice versa? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:43, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

That would be a better idea given that, unless the animals spread across two April Fools' sets, then they would only get half as long on the front page.--Launchballer 09:41, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I've boldly implemented this. Feel free to revert.--Launchballer 19:06, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

This implementation is breaking DYKUpdateBot User:Launchballer User:theleekycauldron. Shubinator (talk) 23:10, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Reverted. Shubinator (talk) 23:18, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Not an admin, so I can't help with things in queue, but that template was there before I started playing with it, all I did was adjust it so that both hooks appear at the same time (it didn't seem on that they only got "twelve" hours rather than 24).--Launchballer 23:31, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Now that the set has been moved to the Main Page, can the randomizer be put back? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:07, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

If the randomizer is added now, DYKUpdateBot may crash on the next DYK update; it parses the outgoing set as part of archiving & tagging the outgoing image. Shubinator (talk) 00:29, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I've removed the randomizer. There should only be one picture hook per DYK rules, it risks breaking things as mentioned above, and it's unclear what this is adding.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:37, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

People liked both images, so this was the compromise that had consensus. Why not just leave the randomizer up and then take it down around 23:45? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 00:42, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

OK fine, I'm just waiting for protection to kick in on the second pic, then I'll reinstate.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2024 (UTC)  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Note that I've also increased the timer to keep this set around for the whole day, we can flip it back to two per day tomorrow. If some people like the dog pic we can swap it in half way through the day (remembering to protect it first).  — Amakuru (talk) 00:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

colin mackay

• article
• nomination
• set (already ran)

• nominator
• drafter
• reviewer
• promoter

i'm sorry for putting a damper on the fun here, but i wanted to note that i have misgivings about the current colin mackay hook. i am not sure if it is a good idea to make light of a living person mourning the death of a predecessor whom he respected, and although i understand that the phrase "very sad" is in quotes because those were the words that mackay used, the quotation marks could easily be misinterpreted as scare quotes mocking his grief instead, especially considering the date the hook is scheduled to run. to be clear, i don't think the hook needs to be pulled, but i think it could use a good reformulation. below is one possibility.

alt2a: ... that Colin Mackay, the political editor at Scottish Television, had words of praise for Colin MacKay, a former political editor at Scottish Television?

dying (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Nah, this is overthinking it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:01, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I do think that putting "very sad" in quotation marks reads oddly. As MOS:QUOTEPOV explains, Use of quotation marks around simple descriptive terms can imply something doubtful regarding the material being quoted. I might suggest the following:

• ALT2B: ... that Colin Mackay, political editor at Scottish Television, was sad when Colin MacKay, political editor at Scottish Television, died?
• ALT2C: ... that Colin Mackay, political editor at Scottish Television, mourned the death of Colin MacKay, political editor at Scottish Television?

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

ALT2B works, but it'd be better with a very Bremps... 05:15, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I did wonder if it was worth ending with the second Colin, so something like: "... that Colin Mackay, the political editor at Scottish Television, was saddened by the death of the former political editor at Scottish Television Colin MacKay?"--Launchballer 06:40, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

If we specify that one is the current and one is the former that would ruin the hookiness IMO. :( Bremps... 11:37, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair cop, how about "... that Colin Mackay, the political editor at Scottish Television, was saddened by the death of the political editor at Scottish Television Colin MacKay?"--Launchballer 13:19, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Main page DYK now and Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2024/March#27 March 2024 don't match?

Right now (since 00:00 UTC 27 March), the main page DYK is showing the group beginning ... that Jean Schwartz and William Jerome (pictured) wrote more than 1,000 popular songs together? and I have received a bot notification to that effect. So I'm happy! .

But I suspect that the editors who contributed to the list at Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2024/March#27 March 2024 (beginning ... that while named for alliums, the fossil Paleoallium (pictured) was not necessarily directly related to any allium species?) may not be?

Or have I micsonstrued? --𝕁𝕄𝔽 (talk) 00:46, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

DYKs are archived by the time :) they're taken off the main page theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:27, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

For the record, you're not the only one who finds this confusing, especially considering the talk page banners. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:31, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

It is super confusing I think I've actually reported this as a bug in the bot at some point. I understand why we have to do it this way, but we might need to try to document this better. —Kusma (talk) 11:02, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

JMF, if you are interested, more details on this issue can be found at wp:whyisrecentadditionsonedayoff. dying (talk) 01:59, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Kusma For historical context, the current setup is a DYK community choice that predates DYKUpdateBot and its predecessors DYKadminBot & DYKBot. DYK started adding timestamps to the archives 15+ years ago in June 2008, before DYK updates were automated.

I agree the current setup is confusing, and would love to fix it. My understanding of what we're waiting on (full conversation at wp:whyisrecentadditionsonedayoff):

1. Establishing consensus on the change, including its tradeoffs. (My sense is there is consensus that it's not ideal the archive links don't point to the "correct" set. I'm not sure we have consensus the proposed change is a net positive.)
2. Specifically, the tradeoff around increasing difficulty of manual updates is an important one. Both of the last two manual updates made mistakes, which indicates the manual update process is already too confusing.
3. Before floating a proposal to establish consensus, aligning on whether we would prefer to break continuity with the historical archives (not ideal) or recreate the historical archives (time consuming). If we don't want to break continuity, the historical archives should be recreated before we switch over behavior for the latest sets, and this will likely take weeks if not months.

Shubinator (talk) 12:48, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

A 10th for April Fools'

I approved/ticked Template:Did you know nominations/Obsessed (Olivia Rodrigo song) for 1 April. It either needs to be moved to Prep 7 if it can run in that set (which already has 9 hooks, most of them short), or sent back for re-review as the hooks are inappropriate for any other day. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 14:30, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Instead of having 10 hooks, I would support moving Lianxing Temple, George E. Mylonas, or February 1983 North American blizzard to the quirky slot of another set as, to me, they are the weakest joke-y hooks in the set. Z1720 (talk) 14:34, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: I will move George E. Mylonas to prep 3. If anyone objects we can move it back. Bruxton (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

I agree, Mylonas was by far the weakest of the set. I've promoted Obsession in its place.--Launchballer 15:07, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, all! BTW, I have another decent hook: ... that Ukrainian Sheriffs went to summer school after being shot?. I'd been expanding it for a contest and hadn't thought about the DYK until a few minutes ago. Needs review. It'll run on other days, though, I'm okay either way. – Reidgreg (talk) 19:24, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

Looks like the set came together. Good work to all concerned. Bruxton (talk) 02:31, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Unprotected image

@DYK admins: DYKUpdateBot couldn't update the template due to File:The old church of Sodankylä.jpg not being protected. Can someone fix this? – Hilst [talk] 12:17, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

OK, on it.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:29, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: @Hilst: actually, I can't be "on it" unfortunatley as it seems Krinklebot is down. We'll need a COmmons admin to protect the image. Does anybody know of one? I've uploaded the set with no image for the time being. About to have lunch so will do the credits later if nobody else does. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:43, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: red alert, the April Fools' set is on the main page for some reason! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Fixed by Amakuru! In other news, the church image can now be used safely. – Hilst [talk] 13:26, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've rolled that back, so the intended set is there again. It looks like Krinklebot kicked back into life again, and that prompted DYK bot to do an update. I'm not sure if I was supposed to do something to tell it not to act? I haven't done a manual promotion for a while... Anyway, since the pic is now protected I've added that in too. We'll need to wind back the queues again too before the next update, I'll do that shortly.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:28, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

For future reference:

• If performing a manual update, please follow the steps described in the "Manually posting the new update" section of the DYK queues. Not doing so can result in collisions between humans and bot, or between humans and other humans.
• As described by DYKUpdateBot, please follow these instructions if KrinkleBot is down - there's no requirement for a Commons admin to be around.
• The "random item" template in Queue 7 is crashing DYKUpdateBot. I'll start it back up, so the bot will update T:DYK, but will again crash before distributing credits for this set. Communicating special sets ahead of time can help us avoid these situations in the future.

Shubinator (talk) 23:08, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I've reverted the "random item" template in Queue 7, so DYKUpdateBot should stay alive. Shubinator (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Shubinator, any idea why the bot hasn't updated the main page with the new DYK set? Q1 was supposed to go live 20 minutes ago. Schwede66 00:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I see that there's a discussion below. Schwede66 03:33, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 3

Biodiversity Impact Credit

@Pinkchiken, Silver seren, and AirshipJungleman29:

There are several uncited passages that will need citations. I have indicated these in the article with citation needed tags. Z1720 (talk) 14:52, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I've added a few more tags in the lead for uncited facts mentioned there that don't seem to be in the body. This was a fairly glaring error IMHO, and no doubt just a rare oversight... but as a reminder it's the job of everyone: reviewers, prep builders and promoting admins alike, to ensure the hooks and articles meet the quality criteria. This triple check should ultimately provide some redundancy in ensuring the hooks are as good as we can get them, but ideally issues are spotted before they're in the queue and subject to the final check. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:09, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Time to pull this hook? The hook's still on Queue and the tags remain unresolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:33, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Pulled. Schwede66 23:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 4

A-Channel

@Sammi Brie, RickyCourtney, and Hilst:

I added a cn tag to a sentence that should be resolved before it goes on the Main Page. Z1720 (talk) 02:34, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

A bit off-topic but I was a bit disappointed this wasn't a GA about the anime A Channel. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:47, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Forgot to ping @Z1720 but I decided to fold the intro sentence (it's a summary of the next two paragraphs) in for now. I disagree it needs a citation; it's basically a one-sentence lead for the next two paragraphs. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 06:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

My concern has been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 17:39, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Randy Travis

@TenPoundHammer, Lightburst, 4meter4, and Bruxton:

I added two cn tags that will need to be resolved before this appears on the Main Page. Z1720 (talk) 02:49, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I removed the first sentence that needed a citation. The second one, under "Awards", I feel does not need a citation as it is a summary of content both found elsewhere in the article and on the subpage mentioned above. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 17:08, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @TenPoundHammer: Bruxton (talk) 17:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Aleksandra Waliszewska (Prep 6)

Untitled (2012–2013) by Aleksandra Waliszewska

• ... that a gothic painter, whose work (Untitled) is pictured, works with The Vampire's Wife?

@Apocheir, Lajmmoore, and Hilst: Looking at the nomination page, this hook's "media marker" seems to have been added rather awkwardly, as it explicitly self-references the accompanying image rather than subtly through an italic "(pictured)". I don't think that this is particularly helpful here, so I suggest that a more usual phrasing would be something like the following:

• ... that a gothic painter (artwork pictured) works with The Vampire's Wife?

— RAVENPVFF · talk · 15:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Since it's no longer in the running for April Fools, I'm going to change it back to the original ALT2. Apocheir (talk) 19:05, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, no problem. – Hilst [talk] 00:40, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you @Apocheir that's great Lajmmoore (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Prep 2

Krisztofer Mészáros

... that in 2021 Krisztofer Mészáros became the first Hungarian male gymnast in 22 years to qualify for a world championship all-around final?

If I look at Gymnastics World Championships, there are multiple types of gymnastics world championships. Is the hook suppose to imply he was the first of any (generic) world championship, or specifically the World Artistic Gymnastics Championships (which is what the hook links to)? If the latter, showing only "world championship" without any other qualification seems incorrect. Notifying DYK participants Riley1012 and OlifanofmrTennant—Bagumba (talk) 15:57, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

The second one. Questions? four Olifanofmrtennant (she/her) 16:04, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

OK. I've updated the hook to unpipe and just display "World Artistic Gymnastics Championships".—Bagumba (talk) 16:15, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Special occasion again

It looks like we moved back to 24-hour sets which has knocked Template:Did you know nominations/Singh v Canada out of its special occasion of 4 April again. Would appreciate if someone could move it from Prep 6 to Queue 3. Thanks. – Reidgreg (talk) 16:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Reidgreg I believe we should be moving back to 12-hour sets on 2 April, so Prep 6 should still hit main page on 4 April. It is good that you are watching out for last minute changes. TSventon (talk) 16:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Okay, thanks! – Reidgreg (talk) 17:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Not only that, but Prep 6 (now promoted to Queue 6) is actually best for a Canada-based April 4 hook, since it will run during the day there. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:43, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2: Thambi Naidoo

• ... that South African civil rights activist Thambi Naidoo was arrested along with Mahatma Gandhi and sent outside of Transvaal for refusing to register?

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Thambi Naidoo)

A couple of points here - firstly, I think "register" is a bit confusing here, and should probably be expanded to "register as an Asian" or similar. Secondly, the "sent outside of" part is also a bit confusing. The wording is unusual, and there seems to be a small discrepancy between the article text

• "Later that year, he boycotted the mandatory registration and was forced outside of Transvaal, and was arrested in January of 1908 along with Gandhi"

and the source text

• "On December 28 that year, he was charged for refusing to register and sent out of Transvaal> When he refused to obey the orders, he, along with Gandhiji, was arrested on January 10, 1908 and sent to jail"

The latter suggests that he wasn't actually "sent out" but instead refused, and he was subsequently arrested for that refusal. Whether he actually left Transvaal isn't stated, but he was back there again by 1913 anyway. Maybe it's all fine, but just Thought I'd raise this. Pinging @Ktin, Grnrchst, and Hilst:  — Amakuru (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with expanding the registering part, no comment on "sent out", though we could just omit it if needed. – Hilst [talk] 00:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Ktin (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 2: Aisling (book series)

• ... that the novel series Aisling is based on a character archetype elaborated upon by users of a Facebook group?

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Aisling (book series))

Not sure if it's just me, but I found this hook a bit misleading. It gives the impression that the Facebook group actually had a hand in developing the story or the character in some way... However, the article has a weaker version of this, with no sense of the group having "elaborating" the character, but merely discussed. The sole secondary source for this is [2], which credits the group as having given the authors the inspiration to go ahead and public, but doesn't say that the published character was actually "based on" anything that had been discussed within the group.

Pinging @AirshipJungleman29, Bogger, Lajmmoore, Narutolovehinata5, and Launchballer:. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:36, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Would ALT3a solve the issue? I was actually surprised ALT3 was the version that was promoted as I preferred ALT3a, but the hook got promoted before I could give my opinion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 21:48, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm happy with ALT3a too Lajmmoore (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

ALT3a for me too. [The point being that the "character" was recognisable, the people bought into it, added to the lore, in a sort of fan-fiction way, but the rights to this particular Aisling and her story belong to the authors.] -Bogger (talk) 07:33, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 5: Peter Patton

• ... that Peter Patton was given the nickname General Patton by the father of his college coach?

Nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Peter Patton (basketball)

Minor point probably, but the article says "He attended a camp by Ray Meyer in Wisconsin as a 6th grader, earning the nickname General Patton"... i.e. doesn't directly say that it was Meyer himself who gave him that nickname, it could have been a fellow campmate for example. I can't access the source, so not sure what that says... assuming it was Meyer who gave him the name, we probably want to clarify in the article. Pinging @4meter4, TonyTheTiger, Premeditated Chaos, and Bruxton:  — Amakuru (talk) 18:25, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

I'll leave it to Tony to clarify as I can't access the source either.4meter4 (talk) 18:35, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Queue 6

Hesperocyparis guadalupensis

@MtBotany, Kevmin, and Bruxton:

I have added a citation needed tag to a sentence in the "Conservation and restoration" section that will need to be resolved before this goes on the Main Page. Z1720 (talk) 19:44, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

This was a promotion that I depromoted in order to move and then promoted with pshaw. I have erased the uncited sentence. Bruxton (talk) 19:51, 1 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing that problem. I remember seeing that sentence when I started editing the page and thought, "I need to find a source for this or delete it," and then forgot about it. 🌿MtBotany (talk) 21:43, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot turned off to avoid undefined adminbot behavior

Summarizing the conversation above, DYKUpdateBot does not support the randomizer added in the April Fools set. I've turned off the bot to avoid an adminbot running with undefined behavior. Shubinator (talk) 00:00, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Shubinator the idea was to leave the randomizer up and then take it down around 23:45 on 1 April. Is it possible to remove the randomizer and then turn DYKUpdateBot on again after a short interval? TSventon (talk) 00:16, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Shubinator: I've removed the randomizer. —Bagumba (talk) 01:13, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Schwede66 this is why the MP hasn't changed yet. TSventon (talk) 00:21, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: Would a manual update mess with the bot? If not, then I think it should be done, pretty please with a bronze star on top – Q1 is nearly an hour overdue to be switched in :/ Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

We also need an admin to revert us to two sets a day now that April Fools' is over. Pinging Amakuru, who set things to one set a day yesterday at about this time, though any admin is welcome to do so. Thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 01:32, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Z1720: can you help? Bruxton (talk) 01:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I've done the manual update steps 1 to 7. That should be the urgent stuff. Could someone else please deal with steps 8 to 11? I have some real work to get done...

Given that we were nearly 4 hours late with the update, I haven't reset the update cycle to 12-hour sets yet. Maybe we'll let this set run for 20 hours and reset the clock then? Schwede66 03:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest 16 hours each, but be careful of that 4 April date request.--Launchballer 08:39, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't even know where this gets changed at, but I will say that the best bet is likely to require the fewest number of manual changes to get this all back to automated (KISS). Let it run to 00:00 GMT then switch back to 12 hr. As this has shown, getting a bunch of WP:VOLUNTEERs to manually coordinate this to a precise timing (e.g. 16 hr, then change again to 12 hr) is no small task. Thanks to all who make this work.—Bagumba (talk) 09:01, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

@Bruxton: Sorry that I did not respond to this, as I was about to log off when I got the ping. Z1720 (talk) 15:11, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

No worries, I was concerned because there are so many hooks waiting. Looks like it got sorted. Bruxton (talk) 16:29, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• FYI the credits don't seem to have gone out to the talk pages of users who contributed hooks to the current set.--NØ 12:28, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  Also noting that queue 1 hasn't been cleared. – Hilst [talk] 13:38, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

  @DYK admins: please update the main page, revert the last change to User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates, and properly clear the last queue; automatic updates can't take place until that is resolved, which absolutely no one wants, see User talk:Shubinator. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I have cleared queue 2. I think Schwede66 has reverted the bot, and I think the Main Page has been updated. Z1720 (talk) 00:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm part of the way of giving credits. Have also reverted to 12-hour sets. Schwede66 00:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Both queue 1 and 2 haven't been cleared properly, you should replace all text with {{User:DYKUpdateBot/REMOVE THIS LINE}}. – Hilst [talk] 00:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Z1720 see above. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:57, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

or Schwede66 ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm done with the manual update. Schwede66 01:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Wonderful. Hopefully Shubinator can restart the bot now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:25, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• One more thing to do for a passing admin: please swap the Singh v Canada hook in Queue 6 with a non-bio hook in Queue 5 (I suggest the toilets one), so the former runs during the daytime hours on 4 April in Canada; it's a special occasion hook, even though the promoter neglected to add the appropriate comment to the hook (perhaps you might do this, so it won't be moved by accident prior to promotion to the main page). Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:06, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

  I'm onto it. Schwede66 04:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

   Done Schwede66 04:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot is back up and running! Thanks everyone who chipped in, especially AirshipJungleman29 for getting this across the finish line and Hilst for flagging tooling inconsistencies after the manual updates. Shubinator (talk) 06:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

That sounds fine, but if I'm not missing something, no credits were given to talk pages and user talk pages for the last archived set. - I received one for the set now on the Main page, that looks promising. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

 Done. – Hilst [talk] 20:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of David Ben Avraham

Considering current events and the topic of the subject, I'm requesting comments on whether or not featuring this article on Did you know with any hook would be appropriate. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:10, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I find my sense of it is similar to that of starship.paint as expressed in the nomination: being neutral and avoiding sensationalism doesn't mean "don't make anyone look bad". I think it's a worse look if we as a project get such cold feet that we refrain to recognize valid content. It may generate an impression we don't want to spread the notion that harm to a civilian took place in a nation state plausibly charged with violations of international conventions about harming civilians. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:45, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

To add on, NPOV means we reflect reliable sources neutrally. If reliable sources’ majority view is that “X is bad” or “X is false” then we should reflect that. Given that the reporting is by mainstream Israeli newspapers that are already less likely to be pro-Palestinian, I do not see why we cannot have a hook on this subject. starship.paint (RUN) 05:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

For what it's worth, had it been the other way around (i.e. a Palestinian killing an Israeli), I would have had similar concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I find it hard to not read the initial hook as deliberately inflammatory. ATL1 is better, but still not great. CMD (talk) 06:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• I agree that the original hook is a no go. I think Alt1 is fine assuming it accurately reflects a reliable source. Given the sensitive topic area, the reviewer will need to read the cited sources carefully and check that the article is both verifiable to quality RS and neutral throughout.4meter4 (talk) 07:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  • @4meter4: I've added a source and a quote from the source to ALT1. Times of Israel has been broadly well received at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Israeli based news sources. starship.paint (RUN) 13:15, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
• Update. Consensus at the review was leaning towards rejection based on the controversial nature of the article content. I pointed out that we try to feature all articles because DYK is not censored. Others pointed to examples where inflammatory hooks were rejected as evidence of censorship. I took this more as a need to avoid inflammatory hooks per rule C11 of the suplementary guidelines which prohibits the use of sensational and gratuitous hooks. Given that violence and animus based on race, religion, and ethnicity is often perceived as sensational and/or gratuitous, I attempted to provide a hook that was compliant with rule C11. The nominator, Makeandtoss, rejected the hook and insisted on featuring a hook which emphasized Israeli/Palestinian animus and violence. As such, the nominator has established they are not willing to draft a hook compliant with rule C11 and the hook has therefore been rejected.4meter4 (talk) 22:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  To be frank, I agree with Makeandtoss that the proposed hook ... that after his death David Ben Avraham was granted Israeli residency as a form of justice by Israeli Minister of Interior Moshe Arbel? amounts to de-emphasizing the killing into some heroic recognition by the state that had killed him and is quite honestly extremely inappropriate. There is a surprising generosity toward a state engaged in harm to civilians on a wide scale. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:39, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Hydrangeans Privately, I agree. But as a DYK reviewer my opinion doesn't matter. We don't consistently approve hooks highlighting violence or racial/ethnic/religious animus. When an article is about those things, DYK is not the optimal forum for featuring that content. It requires some massaging of text to find something usable on the main page. Them's the rules.4meter4 (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

With all due respect @4meter4: this is not a reasonable argument. Consensus is "a process of compromise while following Wikipedia's policies and guidelines". This nomination follows all WP's policies and guidelines and is neatly written suffering no POV tags or any other concerns; in fact, most of the sources used are Israeli sources themselves. Definition of sensational: "presenting information in a way that is intended to provoke public interest and excitement, at the expense of accuracy." There is nothing inaccurate about the proposed hook. Furthermore, the definition of gratuitous: "lacking good reason." The article is about Ben Avraham's killing; why would we not have a good reason to have a hook about his killing? Wikipedia had zero problems promoting these similar hooks:

1- ... that Jordan's new justice minister, Hussein Mjali, called for the early release of Ahmed Daqamseh, the attacker responsible for killing seven Israeli schoolgirls in the 1997 Island of Peace massacre? 12:00, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

2- ... that in August 2022, Igor Mangushev spoke on a stage in a Russian nightclub with what he said was the skull of a Ukrainian soldier killed in the Azovstal Iron and Steel Works? 00:00, 22 February 2023 (UTC)

3- ... that the film Farha, which depicts the killing of a Palestinian family by Israeli soldiers during the Nakba, became the subject of a downvoting campaign? 00:00, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Consensus is reached by abiding Wikipedia's guidelines, and is never determined through editors' personal opinions and preferences. And I agree with @Hydrangeans:; Israel should not be treated different to Russia, as seen by the hook #2 above. Makeandtoss (talk) 22:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments aren't particularly persuasive. The fact that policy was not implemented in other cases is no reason not to implement it here. Those are merely examples when editors failed to follow policy, which is a poor reflection on the reviewers and hook promoters in those instances. There's also context. A hook viewed as not inflammatory in the past may be inflammatory today as social consciousness and community values are not stagnate. 4meter4 (talk) 22:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4: I have just demonstrated above how there’s no violation of policy, this is completely untrue; it’s objectively neither sensational nor gratuitous. These examples show how it is in fact true that these hooks are neither sensational nor gratuitous. Facts are facts; the Times of Israel reported these facts as they are. Consensus is reached by following Wikipedia guidelines, and this has been done. There is in fact WP guideline-based consensus for its inclusion. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Makeandtoss Nobody is disputing the facts. We are choosing not to feature certain content on the mainpage because it is too disturbing for a general audience. We do have kids viewing the main page. Part of gratuity/sensationalism is the disturbing aspect of the content. Think of it like a movie rating. The main page isn't going to feature an R, NC-17, or X rated hook.4meter4 (talk) 23:07, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4: Then I am glad that now we can agree that these hooks are neither sensational nor gratuitous. Now regarding the claim that it is too disturbing for a general audience and that we have kids, Wikipedia policy is crystal clear on this issue. WP:NOTCENSORED:

"Wikipedia may contain content that some readers consider objectionable or offensive‍—‌even exceedingly so. Attempting to ensure that articles and images will be acceptable to all readers, or will adhere to general social or religious norms, is incompatible with the purposes of an encyclopedia."

I am sure now given the overwhelming WP policy-based arguments that you are a reasonable and experienced editor who will in good faith work with other editors in reaching a middle ground compromise per WP:CONSENSUS. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:14, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

As what was said above, context is key. The Mangushev hook is arguably fine because the focus was on Mangushev himself rather than the actual attack, and it doesn't seem to be intentionally or unintentionally promoting a particular point of view. For the Mjali hook, that was back in 2011, which is a lifetime ago by DYK standards and to say that a lot has changed since then would be an understatement. Farha is a more borderline case but it is factual, and more importantly, the mention of killing is only incidental and the actual focus is on the downvoting aspect (though now that I think about it, it could have been reworded better).

The proposed hooks, on the other hand, were specifically about the killing itself. And not just that, but they were giving the impression of promoting a point of view, whether intentionally or not. Again, this isn't a pro-Western bias; had the sides been reversed (i.e. a Palestinian killing an Israeli), the point would stand. It's a different case and circumstance from the other three you mentioned.

Finally, contrary to popular belief, WP:NOTCENSORED is not absolute. It also refers more to article content, but less so to other aspects of the encyclopedia like the Main Page specifically. Indeed, there have been multiple examples here, with consensus, of hooks being censored to prevent sensationalism or other concerns, with NOTCENSORED explicitly being stated to not apply. A relatively recent example of a hook suggestion being rejected on sensationalism grounds, although NOTCENSORED was not explicitly brought up, is Template:Did you know nominations/Flypaper (1998 film). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

A middle-ground compromise was already offered: 4meter4's ALT2, which you rejected. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:20, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• Comment. I'd like to point out that WP:CONSENUS was clearly followed. I was the only editor of several participating editors backing Makeandtoss at Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of David Ben Avraham, and then Makeandtoss chose not to work with me in finding a workable hook and was ignoring what everyone else was telling him. WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behavior was clearly being exhibited by Makeandtoss. With multiple other editors already challenging the hook, I closed it as a reject because not one editor at that conversation was supporting what Makeandtoss was advocated for. Consenus opinion is clearly against featuring the hooks Makeandtos is proposing.4meter4 (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  @4meter4: I really appreciate that you backed me initially by pointing out that WP is not censored and that controversial hooks are not a problem; but my criticism of your proposed hook should not have resulted in an unfriendly note, where I was accused of POVPUSHING. This guideline states that this is in cases "used to denote the undue presentation of minor or fringe ideas." I am not promoting any fringe ideas and I find this accusation inappropriate. Overall, I think we both got on the wrong page; would you be willing to start over in good faith and a friendly manner to discuss ALT1 proposed by starship.paint? Makeandtoss (talk) 23:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Is there a reason why ALT2 is not a suitable compromise? It gives the same general gist but makes no mention of the circumstances of the killing and thus allays any concerns about pushing viewpoints.

I'm also going to be frank here and suggest that the apparent insistence on including the "killed by an Israeli soldier" aspect, despite a compromise being offered that avoids the mention, was what doomed the nomination. Whether unintentionally or not, the apparent insistence of including that angle given the subject was a bad look. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5: Why are there concerns about pushing viewpoints? ALT0 and ALT1 are purely factual based on the Israeli viewpoint as demonstrated in the title of the Times of Israel: "Disturbing video shows Jewish convert fatally shot by IDF in West Bank posed no threat," and there are no opposing viewpoints. On the other hand, ALT2 is more about the opinion of an Israeli minister that he was served justice by giving him the late David a residency instead of putting the perpetrator on trial. Makeandtoss (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment.@Makeandtoss and anyone else reading this, I'm responding the ping about trying again for a hook and the questions over POV in the alt0 and alt1 hooks. I'll address the latter first. I would have to agree that there wasn't anything factually controversial in the hooks, and that they were an accurate representation of the POV in the media articles cited. That was why I supported Makeandtoss from the beginning. Whether or not the article as a whole is neutral I can't say, because I haven't looked for other POV articles. I can say that Makeandtoss did a good job writing a neutral article based on the materials used.

That said. I don't think POV was the main problem here. Our main concern in reality is avoiding getting hauled to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors which in practice is likely to challenge sensational (i.e. controversial) material; particularly material that involves both violence and a politically contentious topic area. Therefore, the real issues are best described by the following questions: Should we present violent content at DYK, and if so to what extent? Should we present content about racial/ethnic/religious animus, and if so, to what extent? These questions are further complicated by the fact that they are positioned within the context of Palestinian/Israeli relations during a war which has become the source of global protest/criticism (and conversely the opposite) with supporters of diverse viewpoints. The optics of any hook dealing with current events in Isaeli Palestinian relations (no matter how factually accurate or neutrally written) is going to have a certain sensationalism/controversy to it due to the current geo-political situation of the world we live in and the highly reactionary response given to any and all content in this topic area. Given all these factors, any hook we present on this topic is by necessity going to have to be carefully vetted.

From my point of view, I did my best to craft a hook that walked the middle path and would avoid being hauled into Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Clearly it was still controversial given the response by Makeandtoss. I think it unlikely that we are going to find a hook on this topic devoid of controversy that isn't likely to be challenged and pulled from the main page. For this reason, I think it is best that the rejection stand, because anyway we slice this, a hook is either going to be offensive to some for being too censored (as in the hook I proposed) or too offensive for not being censored enough (as in the hooks Makeandtoss proposed).4meter4 (talk) 00:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'd say I'm not unsympathetic to concerns about 'getting hauled to Errors' over hooks; I suppose my thinking is that the neutrally presenting the thoroughly-agreed upon reality that an Israeli reservist killed Ben Avraham and expanding Wikipedia's audience's knowledge about this topic is worth any 'optics' that a certain portion of the audience that has already made up their mind about this might accuse DYK of. And I think that while the comparison of ALT2 to ALT1 as both being (either going to be offensive to some for being too censored [...] or too offensive for not being censored enough) has been made sincerely, it doesn't really hold. Makeantoss objected to ALT2 because it misrepresents the circumstances of the event (it registers to me as having a tone similar to a hypothetical Andrew Jackson hook going Did you know... that Andrew Jackson saved the Cherokee? [hypothetically written by citing Robert Remini's tone-deaf and outdated Andrew Jackson and His Indian Wars]); ALT1 is objected to because—I admit I'm not entirely sure I understand. Seemingly because ALT1 suggests Wikipedia thinks this death of a civilian was wrongful? I find it a strange optic of which to be afraid.

In any case, to Makeandtoss I would point out that strictly speaking, while the article and its content adhere to consesnsus-based guidelines and policies, strictly speaking that is not the same as there being consensus to promote the hook to a DYK queue and present it on the front page. Narutolovehinata5's and 4m4's objections, while I disagree with them, sort of by definition means a consensus for advancing the hook hasn't been established. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 05:20, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4: @Hydrangeans: Consensus doesn't require unanimity and must be based on Wikipedia policy. If there was a DYK rule saying it shouldn't feature violent content then so be it. But there's none. And then to find a previous hook that a Russian was holding the skull of a Ukrainian in a nightclub was acceptable, and when it comes to a tragic incident of a Palestinian being shot by an Israeli soldier, we suddenly can't feature such hooks; then this would naturally raise deep questions.

I understand 4meter4's concerns and I agree with Hydrangeans' analogy. I don't think it would be reasonable to equate ALT1, a factual statement which now has three supporting editors, with ALT2, an opinion by an Israeli minister. Criticizing ALT2 should not have led to a rejection of the nomination. Compromise is reached in the middle and not on opposite sides; there was still room for discussion; so 4meter4 do you have any tweaks to ALT1 that would be considered a further compromise? Makeandtoss (talk) 10:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm going to be very frank here: the apparent insistence on an angle that specifically focuses on the fact that the subject was killed by an Israeli soldier is not going to allay the concerns about POV pushing. This isn't about having a "pro-West" bias: it didn't matter if the soldier was Palestinian or Israeli. The objection to any hook that does not mention the soldier may give the impression that the intent is to provoke and possibly push a POV, regardless if intentional or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:21, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Sorry but that's not what POV pushing means; POV pushing refers to pushing minority viewpoints, which is not the case here.

I have a suggestion that would be a middle ground between that combines both hooks without mentioning the Israel/Palestine dynamic; and without downplaying or overplaying the event; ALT3: "...that David Ben Avraham was posthumously granted an Israeli residency after having been killed?" I am certain now that this would be supported by @4meter4:, whose concerns have been addressed. Makeandtoss (talk) 13:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

If another reviewer wants to explore this as an option, I won't object to the hook review being re-opened.4meter4 (talk) 14:49, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I would be supportive of Makeandtoss' proposed ALT3 and see it as a viable compromise that both avoids giving undue weight to a political appointee's spin on the event as well as avoiding that content to which objectors to ALT2 are averse. But while I haven't participated in the review thread proper, I have talked about the nomination and other ALTs in this thread, so I'm left wondering whether I'm still considered an uninvolved reviewer. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:33, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

ALT3 is probably fine, but the process to get to that alt was poor. DYK is not a place to push narratives, even if said narratives happen to be 100% correct and NPOV in article space. ALT0 probably shouldn't have been proposed, ALT2 should not have been rejected off-hand as being "extremely inappropriate". DYK isn't about finding a "middle ground", it's about finding a creative and interesting hook. CMD (talk) 12:58, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Are those hooks interesting for anyone?

See Template:Did you know nominations/Swift Orange Line. I hate to fail this but I find the hooks very boring, which goes against DYK concept. But maybe someone will be more positive, I don't mind if it is passed, but I cannot do it myself, since, as I said, I find all proposed hooks very boring. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

The landfill hook is the most interesting of the options, IMO. I would be fine with running that hook. The rest are pretty boring and typical of a rail line. Z1720 (talk) 13:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Is boring and typical for rail a good or bad sign given the article is about a bus line? A new ALT5 passed by Piotrus works well for me too. CMD (talk) 01:12, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree that ALT3–5 are sufficiently interesting, and ALT5 highlights an edge that makes the detail pop. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 04:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/ Jordan Murphy (basketball)

The bot/tool for DYK creation gave me an error and I have tried to create it manually. I ended up with a Template:Did you know nominations/Jordan Murphy (basketball)2 and writing over Template:Did you know nominations/ Jordan Murphy (basketball) (in the presence of Template:Did you know nominations/Jordan Murphy (basketball))?--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:53, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Fixed. You don't need both, so I've redirected the older of the two.--Launchballer 11:09, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

What is the standard syntax for the repeater DYK (a space in front or a numeral after)?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 11:52, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I believe that the syntax for a repeat nomination is a space and numeral after, e.g. Template:Did you know nominations/Stowe Gardens 2. TSventon (talk) 11:58, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

With the redirect already pointing to the current location, what should we do to name it correctly?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:14, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I would argue it should really be "Jordan Murphy (basketball) (2nd nomination)", absolutely not worth moving now.--Launchballer 12:23, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

• I am sure that there have been several repeaters go through the system. I can see several possible conventions. (#, _#, /#, /DYK#,_(#th nomination)—underscore being a space). Before we have a whole bunch of each, can we come to a formal agreement? Then can we update the bot/tool to automatically name following an agreed convention?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:56, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  • I am kind of disappointed that no one wants to try to have a formal repeat nomination naming convention discussion. I think we should figure this out for future consistency.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:04, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Are we making sets too long?

I've been watching how the new 9-hook sets are working. As I remember, the original concept was we could use 9 hooks as long as they're all pretty short. Today they're all tending to the long side. On my desktop, it looks fine, but on my phone, the DYK section blows way past the bottom of OTD. On the other hand, part of the problem seems to be that TFA is also running long, so it pushed DYK down. RoySmith (talk) 15:51, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

No, this also happened with 8-hook sets, because for some reason the font size of ITN/OTD on mobile is lower than TFA/DYK. No clue why. This obviously doesn't affect the mobile view, which is how 99% readers will be using the site. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 15:59, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I often measure total characters of each set. I have not been measuring every set, but I think they vary between 870-1200 for a set including the ... ellipsis. I think the sweet spot is 1000-1100 characters. Each hook can be 200 characters but that is usually rare. And obviously If there were 9 200 character hooks it would not work. I did change one prep 3 yesterday to eight hooks for balance it has 8 hooks and is 1138 characters. The set right now is 1051 characters and has nine hooks. The next set queue 2 is 1075. Queue 3 is 1115 Characters. The one after that is queue 4 - 1100. Maybe queue 5 could use an extra hook because it is 928 characters with nine hooks. Bruxton (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I just promoted one very short quirky hook to the end of prep 3, it's now 1192. I think it can take it.--Launchballer 16:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

I am the one that proposed adding a hook to the DYK set to make it 9-a-set. I checked on two different computers and on them right now the OTD is slightly shorter by two lines, which would make me consider adding a short hook if I had more time. I cannot check the length on my phone because it keeps sending me to the app, which formats the Main Page differently. Z1720 (talk) 16:46, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

When did you propose this? I mentioned trying to make the sets longer (9 or 10) and always having 24 hour sets a few months ago.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:03, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't optimize for desktop view on phone. I use it, but I assume its limited to a niche group of editors, and not general readers. —Bagumba (talk) 04:51, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Really? I've always assumed that it's far from niche as possible. I've been viewing and editing on mobile since the 2000s. I suspect the vast majority of younger people do so on phones or tablets. When I write articles, I always try for a happy balance on desktop and mobile. Viriditas (talk) 08:38, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

I meant the niche is that its a group of editors, not the general reader. —Bagumba (talk) 09:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Got it. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 09:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• Was there a discussion to go to 9-hook sets. A few months back, I tried to get people to think about going between 9 and 10 rather than between 12- and 24- hour sets and I got shot down.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 17:59, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Yeah, Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 198#Proposal: 9 hooks a set.--Launchballer 18:02, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
    • O.K. I see that back in January Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_196#Hook_duration_dynamics I first proposed getting rid of 12-hour sets by going to a 16/24 rather than a 12/24 system. Then as the discussion went on for a few days, I stated that constant 24 hour sets with variance between 9 and 10 hooks would probably work. I guess this takes us in the direction of fewer 12-hour sets. Hopefully we can get to constant 24 hour sets with variance by number of hooks.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:34, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Multiple article hooks/nominations

Do we have a place that addresses the process for multi-article nominations? I know it is sort of self explanatory in the template, but I recently came across an editor who nominated each article individually but was wanting to bundle them in a single hook. (see Template:Did you know nominations/Mirna El Helbawi) It would have been helpful to have had a written guideline on process to point them to. Does one exist somewhere? I'm not seeing any mention of it on the DYK pages.4meter4 (talk) 02:46, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi, so I was the nominator, I'm totally happy for them to go separately. I agree guideline on this would be helpful, I nominated both because I couldn't find a guideline. John Cummings (talk) 19:18, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

@John Cummings I thought that was probably the issue. We need to have some sort of guideline visible at WP:DYKRULES that addresses this. Pinging some DYK regulars to comment: @ TonyTheTiger, Launchballer, Viriditas, Shubinator, Schwede66, AirshipJungleman29, BlueMoonset please comment. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 19:36, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Some relevant portions seem to be at WP:DYKMOS:

Every eligible article in the hook should be linked and wrapped in bold markup '''.

and WP:QPQ:

Where a nomination offers more than one new or expanded article, an article-for-article quid pro quo (QPQ) is required for each nominated article.

If you nominated from WP:DYKNOM, the form has a "Multi-article nomination" box that can be ticked.

If anything can be tweaked, it's best to do it now while the experience is still fresh.—Bagumba (talk) 04:25, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Given both hooks have been approved, surely all that needs to be done is bold the already-included second article at Template:Did you know nominations/Mirna El Helbawi and close Template:Did you know nominations/Connecting Humanity? (And copy over the credit code?) CMD (talk) 05:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Add add the additional article as another parameter to the exisitng {{DYK nompage links}} in the nomination. —Bagumba (talk) 05:44, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I have boldly made those changes and left a note in both noms. CMD (talk) 06:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@John Cummings: If you wish to run two separate hooks, it would be better if they were two different hooks, as the current hooks are essentially the same. CMD (talk) 12:28, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Chipmunkdavis, yes I'll think about how to do this, I think the one about Connecting Humanity could be quite different. John Cummings (talk) 14:51, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Requesting second reviewer for Template:Did you know nominations/Mohammad Saifullah Ozaki

Hi all

I'm just starting reviewing for DYK, I've just finished my first one, could someone please check everything is correct before I notify? Its a nomination due to it being approved as a GA so I feel pretty confident its good. Also I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Kentucky Educational Television, if someone could check that one too, that would be great.

Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 19:20, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

• @John Cummings: Regarding Template:Did you know nominations/Mohammad Saifullah Ozaki. It is a BLP so I am cautious about promoting a hook that seems to imply guilt before conviction. Also the bit in the hook about him being an associate professor... it appears in the lead uncited. In the body it just says "He began teaching at Kyoto's Ritsumeikan" - since it is a hook fact it should be stated in the body directly followed by a citation. The hook is 197 characters so it is 3 under the limit, but also crams a lot of facts in.

Thanks Bruxton great points, what would you suggest in this situation? What about suggesting waiting till after the court case has concluded before proceeding? John Cummings (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

@John Cummings: I placed a notice and suggestion at the nomination. Bruxton (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

• Your review of Template:Did you know nominations/Kentucky Educational Television looks ok. The hook is interesting, and short, it is cited in the article's body with a news article. Bruxton (talk) 19:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks Bruxton, I'll contact the nominator to finalise. John Cummings (talk) 19:15, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Are there any special rules around DYK for current/recent events?

Hi all

I'm thinking about nominating an article for DYK which was a recent event, can anyone tell me if there are any special reuqirements around this? I don't see anything in the guideance but maybe I'm missing something. Thanks, John Cummings (talk) 19:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

The article needs to meet WP:DYKNEW; in particular, if the article has appeared as a bold link at WP:ITN in the last year, it is not eligible. —Kusma (talk) 19:41, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, thanks very much. I guess I'd like to avoid a situation where I nominate an article for DYK and someone else nominates it for ITN and then they both get disqualified. John Cummings (talk) 21:22, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

John Cummings, do you want to reveal your secret of which article you are considering for nomination? It's easier for somebody to have a quick look and give you a definite answer, rather than reciting the somewhat intricate eligibility rules that are documented at WP:DYKCRIT. Schwede66 21:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

ITN doesn't allow nominations of any news item that is over 7 days old.—Bagumba (talk) 15:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

QPQ instructions on Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions are not very clear

Hi all

I've started doing DYK reviews, partially to fullfil QPQ, but also because its interesting. I'm pretty confident I understand all the other instructions, but I'm finding it difficult with the QPQ requirement. The requirement is extremely clear but there don't appear to be any instructions on how to check if the requirement has been met. Is there an automated way ro process to check this? If so please can it be added to the instructions for new people?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

John Cummings, QPQs don't just have to exist but also need to be provided on a nomination. If a QPQ is not in some way provided in the nomination, usually as a bullet point like this:

• Reviewed: Did you know nominations/foo

then the QPQ requirement has not been met.
Hope this helps! — ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 23:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

John Cummings, a QPQ needs to be a full review of one other nomination. I click on the QPQ link and check the nominator has done a full review, using either a checklist or a sentence like the example at the bottom of Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewer instructions. If the review was failed without a full review, that does not count. If they passed the nomination with no comments, I would ask them to add a sentence to summarise the checks they had done. If there are outstanding questions, I accept the QPQ but watchlist the review to see that the reviewer finishes it. Other reviewers may do things slightly differently. TSventon (talk) 00:07, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

If the review was failed without a full review, that does not count.: The nomination does not need to be successful. Per WP:QPQ:

A review does not need to be successful to count as a QPQ.

—Bagumba (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Bagumba a QPQ review can be a pass or a fail, but it needs to be full per WP:QPQ. If the nomination is quick failed, for example because the article isn't new enough (or newly expanded or a new GA), then a full review isn't needed and a QPQ should not be claimed. TSventon (talk) 02:18, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I was only clarifying the "failed" part of your earlier comment. Best.—Bagumba (talk) 03:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi Bagumba, Ezlev, TSventon thank you for your replies, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear in my question, maybe I can break it down into a few questions

1. Who is responsible for knowing and telling that QPQ is required? Is it the reviewer or the nominator?
2. I can't find any instructions for either the nominator to tell the reviewer that QPQ is required, or how a reviewer might know that QPQ is required. Did I miss something or does it just not exist?
3. If it doesn't exist what should be written and where?

Thanks

John Cummings (talk) 10:38, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

John Cummings the nominator and reviewer should have read WP:QPQ. Therefore the nominator should know a QPQ is required and if they don't know for some reason the reviewer should remind them. Recent nominations using the wizard say something like Number of QPQs required: 2. DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and nominator has 159 past nominations. to quote a random nomination. There is a tool that shows a list of nominations at https://qpqtool.toolforge.org/dyk .

Would it be helpful to add another paragraph to WP:QPQ along the lines of Nominations made using the DYK wizard automatically state the number of QPQs required, whether DYK is currently in unreviewed backlog mode and how many past nominations the nominator has. There is a tool that shows a list of an editor's nominations here. TSventon (talk) 12:10, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Both the nominator and the reviewer are responsible for knowing that a QPQ is required, because they should have read the guidelines. There is no need for anything to be written, because people who do not read the guidelines will not miraculously find a new guideline. In general, if you want to read the guidelines you should go to the guidelines page and read the guidelines. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

TSventon thanks very much, yes taht would be super helpful. I had this happen yesterday, I reviewed two articles to do my QPQ but then the reviewer of my nominations seems to have not seen I've done them... Does the tool count the number of articles I've reviewed? I guess my question around this is if QPQ is required then how can the reviewer know if the nominator has fufilled their QPQ requirement? I'd be super happy to do several reviews, but I can't actually approved any unless I know if QPQ has been done by the user. John Cummings (talk) 12:27, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The nominator of a DYK must link to the QPQ(s) on the nomination page. The reviewer of the DYK nom must check whether these are proper reviews and whether they have been used before elsewhere. —Kusma (talk) 12:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

What's the easiest way to tell if a review has been used as a QPQ elsewhere? DrOrinScrivello (talk) 12:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Clicking on "what links here" on the nomination provided as a QPQ. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:56, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Ah, of course. Thank you. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 12:59, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

...but I can't actually approved any unless I know if QPQ has been done by the user Have you considered asking? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

See ezlev's response to you earlier above, showing where the nominator's QPQ is specified. —Bagumba (talk) 15:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Hi all, thanks very much for the explanations, if this documentation could be added e.g explain that the QPQ needs to be added to the nomination page and exactly where (there doesn't seem to be an obvious place for it) that would really help people like me who are interested in both nominating and reviewing. John Cummings (talk) 19:04, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The "obvious place" was pointed out to you in the very first reply, John Cummings. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

WP:QPQ reads: You can do your QPQ review before or after you make your nomination, but for your nomination to be approved you will need to provide a link, at your nomination, to your completed QPQ review. What would you propose? —Bagumba (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

No update?

DYKUpdateBot hasn't moved Queue 4 yet. It also hasn't reported any errors for some reason. – Hilst [talk] 00:14, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

The bot hit a 503 Server Error and crashed; I've started it up again and it's chugging through the update now! Shubinator (talk) 00:36, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Phew. Thanks for reviving it, Shubinator. I've done manual updates two days in a row; I would have hit a 708 overload error! Schwede66 00:40, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Sweet, thanks. – Hilst [talk] 00:43, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Any more Ramadan?

I just promoted the two Ramadan hooks in the special occasion area. There appear to be enough hooks in Approved to warrant a full set - possibly worth running a 24-hour Muslim set?--Launchballer 16:41, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Which hooks did you have in mind Launchballer? FWIW, I would be against running a set composed of "random Islam-adjacent hooks". ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

(Actually, that was more or less what I had in mind. Never mind.)--Launchballer 17:17, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I was hopeful that we would just acknowledge with a hook or two. I think we have done that. FYI most of the Islam related hooks in the pipeline may be inappropriate for the holiday. Bruxton (talk) 19:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I doubt Rasmus Paludan or Norske jenter omskjæres would go down too great. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list of older nominations was archived several hours ago, so I’ve created a new list of all 28 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 27. We have a total of 283 nominations, of which 164 have been approved, a gap of 119 nominations that has decreased by 6 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than one month old

• February 13: Template:Did you know nominations/Marcelino Gutiérrez
• February 18: Template:Did you know nominations/Real Kakamora F.C.
• February 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Todd Leslie
• February 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Postinflammatory hyperpigmentation
• February 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Thorpe, North Yorkshire
• February 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Herodian Quarter
• February 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Canadian Dental Care Plan

Other nominations

• March 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Interstate 65 in Tennessee
• March 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Andrew Tate
• March 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Max Whitlock
• March 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Forever Young (horse)
• March 14: Template:Did you know nominations/Descendants of Christian IX of Denmark
• March 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Enchylium conglomeratum
• March 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Nandipha Magudumana
• March 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Virdem
• March 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Kully Thiarai
• March 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Silvio Hein
• March 19: Template:Did you know nominations/Bud Lea
• March 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Struggle Committee (Hong Kong)
• March 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Oakland California Temple
• March 22: Template:Did you know nominations/Jordan Murphy (basketball)2
• March 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Miyuki Ichijo
• March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Zhuan Zhu
• March 25: Template:Did you know nominations/COSMOS field
• March 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Histamine N-methyltransferase
• March 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Charles Holland (singer)
• March 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Francis of Delirium
• March 26: Template:Did you know nominations/To See the Next Part of the Dream
• March 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Senate Avenue YMCA

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 22:02, 4 April 2024 (UTC)

I would say that, given that this list is the shortest it's been in nearly a year, then I would argue that the backlog has been cleared and we should get out of backlog mode.--Launchballer 07:23, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Noticed it earlier but I didn't say anything. Someone take a screenshot for posterity. Viriditas (talk) 08:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The backlog is still 119 nominations long; for comparison, 120 nominations at DYKNA means 12-hour-sets are activated. No harm in waiting a little longer, IMO. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I agree it is too soon to end backlog mode. It isn't how many old nominations need new reviewers, it's how many unapproved nominations we have, and it's still too many. We're getting close to a more reasonable level, so it probably won't be all that much longer before we can revert. Note that when we do, those nominations that qualified for extra nominations while backlog mode was in place still need to have two QPQs, just like those noms made before 8 March didn't retroactively come under backlog mode. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

DYK is almost overdue

In less than two hours Did you know will need to be updated, however the next queue either has no hooks or has not been approved by an administrator. It would be much appreciated if an administrator would take the time to ensure that DYK is updated on time by following these instructions:

1. Check the prep areas; if there are between 6 and 10 hooks on the page then it is probably good to go. If not move approved hooks from the suggestions page and add them and the credits as required.
2. Once completed edit queue #7 and replace the page with the entire content from the next update
3. Add {{DYKbotdo|~~~}} to the top of the queue and save the page

Then, when the time is right I will be able to update the template. Thanks and have a good day, DYKUpdateBot (talk) 10:05, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

• @DYK admins: if someone could fix this, would be appreciated. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Added DYKbotdo in the name of the promoting admin (Cwmhiraeth). —Kusma (talk) 10:26, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  This may have just been an oversight in this case, but I am concerned that we would add "DYKbotdo" to a set that may not have been checked properly... if there is no queue ready or the one that's due to go hasn't been checked, then the default is that we should either defer the promotion or move in a different set. The purpose of "DYKbotdo" is to confirm that the set is ready, and it's far better to leave old hooks on the main page for a while than to promote things that haven't been checked.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  I have done a few sanity checks, slightly more superficial than when I do an actual promotion. I think of the {{DYKbotdo}} mostly as the place that holds the admin's signature for the credits. Nobody should move preps to queue unless they check. —Kusma (talk) 10:47, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Kusma: thanks for that... this raises an interesting question actually - if we aren't supposed to promote to the queue until we've done the checks, how is the process supposed to work? It typically takes me a day or two to get through a full set, unless it's really urgent and needs expediting quicker than that, but there's obviously not much point me working on that if someone else is also covering the same set. In practice I typically promote the queue first, and then complete the checks at my leisure before the actual run date, but that runs counter to your suggestion above. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:01, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  @Amakuru, I said "unless they check", which is not the same as "unless they have checked". If I promote a prep to queue, I check immediately after promoting, and will make it very clear (by a post here or at leats a suitable edit summary) if I have not checked everything. —Kusma (talk) 12:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  I do the same as Kusma; I promote, then immediately do my checks and post any discrepancies here. But I do agree that this process is sub-optimal. It would make more sense to allow any non-admin to do the final check of a prep set while it's still in the preps, and add their endorsement. Maybe we'd want to have some internal process where experienced DYK regulars could get approved as final endorsers. Then all an admin would need to do is verify that a set has been endorsed and a quick look to make sure we're not doing anything horrible to the main page. This would get more people involved and reduce the admin roadblock.

  There's been a general trend over the years to unbundle admin responsibilities. This seems like a perfect place to continue that trend. To be honest, I'm not doing much promoting these days (and none during 12-hour hell). I find it too onerous. If a process like I described above could be put in place, I'd be happy to do more queue promotions because each one wouldn't be such a large time committment.

  Who would you rather have being the final checker? Somebody who has worked DYK for years and is intimately familiar with all the arcane rules, or some random admin who responded to a plea on WP:AN for anybody with a mop to come push the button? RoySmith (talk) 14:42, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  I remember that last time this topic came up, someone (I believe Kusma) suggested moving away from the antiquated prep-queue promotion system and towards a much simpler cascading protection format, as used at OTD and TFA. Is that an option? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:49, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  I don't remember the discussion and I'm not familiar with how OTD and TFA work, but the gist of my suggestion is that we need to decouple the need to review an entire set of hooks from the need to have an admin modify the main page. Anything that does that would probably make me happy. Do you have a link to the previous discussion? RoySmith (talk) 14:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Amakuru, you appear to have promoted prep 3 without clearing it; can you fix that? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 11:21, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

   Fixed. – Hilst [talk] 11:35, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

  Thanks Hilst and apologies for that oversight.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:58, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Prep 6 similarity

In the spirit of WP:DYKVAR, these two hooks seem rather too similar to be in the same set:

• ... that actress Mattie Edwards was made a US Deputy Marshal at the age of sixteen?
• ... that Adolf Ulrik Schützercrantz was enrolled in the military at the age of ten?

Perhaps swap one. Thanks in advance. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 17:02, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Kicked back Edwards. I'll replace that once I've cooked.--Launchballer 17:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Launchballer that sounds like a breaking bad quote 😀 RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 18:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

(I'll take your word for it, I've never watched it.) I've filled the hole.--Launchballer 19:52, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Heisenberg! Lightburst (talk) 21:04, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Backlog metrics

We have been in backlog mode for a few weeks. I am wondering if there are any metrics on the progress that the backlog mode has fostered.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:34, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

The number of unapproved nominations has decreased from well over 200 to around 105. I think we should wait until it gets down to around 60 (the lower bound for WP:DYKROTATE) before leaving backlog mode. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 20:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, is that the typical size of the backlog? TompaDompa (talk) 20:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

It fluctuates quite a bit. I think we had a large number of new articles asa result of the GA backlog drive. It is feast and occasionally famine. Leeky may know the historical average. Lightburst (talk) 21:00, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Is it ever really famine? Valereee (talk) 05:53, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

I found a 2022 backlog discussion here. A backlog was declared in May with over 200 unapproved hooks and finished in August with under 60. The difference is that in 2024 nominators with over 20 nominations are contributing extra QPQs to help deal with the backlog, rather than just relying on volunteers. TSventon (talk) 20:24, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Rejections as QPQs

Since it's far easier to reject a nomination than it is to approve one, when reviewing QPQs should we assign them the same weight? In backlog mode, I notice one nominator submitted two QPQs, both of which were rejections. My take on this, is that for every rejection we submit as a QPQ, it should be accompanied by at least one approval to avoid people rejecting nominations out of hand to get their QPQs. Am I wrong on this? Viriditas (talk) 22:19, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@Viriditas I would say the opposite. DYK noms requiring rejection are often the ones with the longest shelf life in the DYK review queue. Rejections often involve interpersonal conflict, and editors are more likely to avoid nominations that require rejecting a nom. The system works fine as is by counting them equally, and doesn't need fixing. But if we were to make a change, I would say extra credit for taking on controversial/difficult reviews that lead to rejection and count it double on QPQ approval.4meter4 (talk) 22:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

In my experience, the longevity has nothing to do with a final rejection, but with multiple contributing editors and reviewers attempting to salvage it. I also haven't been involved in any interpersonal conflict when it comes to the few rejections I've made, so I don't share that experience, although I don't at all doubt it is true for some rejections. I still maintain that it is far more difficult to approve a nomination than it is to reject one. My concern is that someone could game this and just submit rejections as QPQs. However, I will thank you for assuaging my fears and convincing me this is entirely unrealistic. Viriditas (talk) 22:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

@ Viriditas I think if someone tried to game the system by hunting for articles to reject they would find that difficult. If it was an unfair rejection, it would get noticed and create drama for them at DYK. If was a fair rejection, they still would have to take the time to examine the article which is reviewing, and often times initially rejected articles are contested by the nominator and a solution is found, making for a lengthy review process for the reviewing editor. I wouldn't worry about it and just WP:AGF on editors working at DYK. On a side note, case in point of a controversial hook leading to rejection (Template:Did you know nominations/Killing of David Ben Avraham). As you see, I spent time on that review, and I probably won't count it since I wasn't the initial reviewing editor. Just chalk it up to pitching in.4meter4 (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Whatever rules we set up, if people are looking for ways to game the system, they'll find a way. Rejections are a part of reviewing; it would be silly to deny QPQ credit for rejections. RoySmith (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

My experience is the opposite. For DYK, just saying that it passes all criteria is easy; rejection sets up a likely argument and long discussion, except in easy cases of ineligibility. This is the opposite of my experience with GA reviewing, where quickfails are easier and reviewing for a pass takes a lot of work. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:37, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That's interesting, because if you read the GAN talk archives, you can see they've had a longstanding issue of editors quick-passing, not failing, articles. I suspect if anyone did that here, they would be immediately overruled by another editor, and in fact, that's exactly what we find in the archive of old nominations. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

That's the strength of our multiple review system; it's much harder for bad reviews to stand. GA's dependence on a single reviewer is a fundamental flaw of that system. RoySmith (talk) 22:57, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

My interpretation of guideline is that a quickfail based on an in-depth application of one of the more meaty rules, like sourcing/neutrality, counts as a QPQ, but a quickfail based on newness usually doesn't. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

Rejections can count as QPQs as long as all the DYK requirements as well as any article issues are discussed and reviewed. Personally, even a quickfail could count as a QPQ if the other criteria were still checked and noted despite automatically failing because of one criterion (for example, not being long enough). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:06, 5 April 2024 (UTC)

I feel like at DYK people are more likely to try to save a nom than fail it, especially newer reviewers. Viriditas, are you seeing quickfails that seem to be too quick? Valereee (talk) 06:02, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

No, just exploring the idea. It has been a real education understanding how everyone else sees the process. Viriditas (talk) 08:21, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

It's not just newer reviewers. Even veterans are often loathe to reject nominations. If anything, whether or not a nomination is quickly rejected often depends on the nominator. From experience, nominations by new or newer nominators are more likely to be rejected without question, whereas if a nomination by a veteran is marked for closure, it often leads to at least some drama. It can't be helped: for experienced DYK regulars, getting a DYK rejected sucks. Still, we really have to be more willing to reject nominations even if it inevitably means feelings will be hurt. In addition, nominators have to be open to the idea that not all articles that are created or expanded are a good fit for DYK and/or have usable hooks. This is advice that regrettably isn't always followed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:49, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

Prep 7

Thomas S. Gathright

... that the first president of the State Agricultural and Mechanical College of Texas was fired for teaching classics instead of agriculture? Source: Chapman, David L. "Thomas S. Gathright: Dedicated to Success, Doomed to Failure". Cushing Memorial Library and Archives. Archived from the original on September 19, 2006. Retrieved 2008-02-27.

I recently updated the article, fixed some inaccuracies, and added some sources. The accepted hook must be rescinded because it is inaccurate, and I propose the following alternative to replace it.

... that Thomas S. Gathright founded the only functioning secondary school in Mississippi during the American Civil War? Source: "Summerville Institute". Historical Marker Database. Retrieved April 5, 2024.

Aquabluetesla09:35, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

New hook short enough, sourced, and interesting, and the old one doesn't appear in the cited source. Swapped.--Launchballer 09:43, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Advice on MOS

I was the WP:GAN reviewer of 3:16 game, which is currently four preps/queues from the main page. It is basically an article about coincidences. Many coincidences are well cited making WP:ICs from WP:RSs easy. However, while reviewing the article, I noticed two other coincidences which are not cited. Since we are interpreting WP:PRIMARY sources and we are not a WP:NOTADATABASE, it is not clear to me how prominently if at all the coincidences that I noticed should be in the article. They are currently only included as footnotes A 2 and A 3. Before this goes on the main page, I want to make sure we have got this properly handled.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 13:22, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that is a content matter that will sort itself out through normal editing. As long as those matters aren't referred to in the hook, or make the article ineligible for GA, or will cause other major issues (like a maintenance template being added), it's not a concern to DYK. Schwede66 20:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

O.K.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:54, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Special date request

Hello, recently I made the nomination of Template:Did you know nominations/David Raymond, which is nine different articles about this year's inductees to the Delaware Sports Museum and Hall of Fame. I was hoping to get it promoted for May 23, which is when all the sportspeople are being inducted, but the reviewer pointed out that WP:DYKSO mentions a six-week guideline, and my nomination was for a bit longer than six weeks, something I did not realize. I request that this may be an exception to the rule, as the guideline mentions Exceptions to the six-week limit can be implemented by way of a local consensus at WT:DYK. I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

This seems like a pretty reasonable special occasion request, and it doesn't, as far as I gather, emphasize any kind of commercial release. I support making an exception in this case. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:38, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Nice work! I fully support that special occasion request as it's relevant for the inductees. Schwede66 20:10, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Queues are empty

Pinging @DYK admins: the queues are empty, and we have about ten hours before the next promotion to main page is scheduled to happen. Please promote whatever you can. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:42, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

@DYK admins: , the same again if you can. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:27, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I've just checked three hooks. The first one didn't pass muster (close paraphrasing) and I've sent it back to the unapproved area. I've plugged that gap. That's all I've got time for right now. Schwede66 05:47, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

There probably should not be three sports or British hooks in that set. I've kicked back the one hook in that set which is both and replaced it. Someone else will have to check Al-Rushati and Karl Loewenstein (banker) (see #Prep 6 similiarity).--Launchballer 07:32, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Never mind, looks like Waggers already did.--Launchballer 07:34, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Liviu Holender in prep 7 is boring

I'm an opera fan, a former working opera singer, and an active editor at WP:WikiProject Opera, so my interest in opera articles is already higher than most. Can anybody honestly tell me they find this hook is interesting? Pinging promoter AirshipJungleman29, reviewerSerial Number 54129, and nominator Gerda Arendt as a courtesy:

... that Liviu Holender, who played Papageno in a 2018 Salzburg Festival production of Mozart's Die Zauberflöte for children, portrayed the resolute Hans in Zemlinsky's Der Traumgörge in 2024?

To me this is a snooze. In 2024 alone opera base lists 125 different professional productions of The Magic Flute (which is what we should call it on the English language wiki, not Die Zauberflöte) Papageno is such a widely done role and is done frequently at Salzburg. This was also a student performance, so it wasn't even a 'real performance' at the festival (it was for kids, a rather minor event) that listing it would be akin to a hook that says "baseball player hits baseball in game played for children". It's dull, and frankly not encyclopedic.

As for the second half of the hook: Der Traumgörge is an obscure opera. I've never heard of it (although I know some of Zemlinsky's other operas) and I am a former opera singer by profession. Nobody outside of Germany, Austria, and France (which to my knowledge are the countries who have ever staged it) will know it, and I would imagine most inside those countries probably won't either because its done infrequently. It is too esoteric to just throw out a random opera most have never heard of, with a character nobody knows, and then throw a single descriptor of "resolute" onto the character. In short, these are two bad hook facts (one boring, the other obscure, boring, and badly crafted) merged together into a single bad hook. This shouldn't have been approved.

In crafting a hook for operas, plays, theatre, film, etc. for entertainers, etc. I strongly suggest avoiding what I call "resume hooks" where we just list an opera, a play, a film, etc. and a role. That really isn't a good hook. It's inherently boring unless the work itself is famous to a general audience and the artist has done something significant, such as playing the part in the premiere. I also strongly advise avoiding bringing in too much content about the work itself unless it was a part created for or specifically altered for the performer. If it's an old work being revived like The Magic Flute, any fact about the opera or its characters really isn't about the artist (it was made for someone else and done already), and it is a bad hook for not focusing on the main topic of the article being featured. I've seen this before with hooks being proposed about current opera singer articles where they become more about the composer/librettist (such as Mozart and Emanuel Schikaneder for The Magic Flute) and the opera they wrote rather than singer. That's a bad hook for an article on a performer, because those facts hold true no matter who is in the part. We need to feature the performer prominently in the hook fact with something unique to them.

What can be done is draw in information about that specific artist's performance. Were they famous or critically lauded (or perhaps controversial or reviled) in the part? A critical review quote of their performance etc. with some sort of interesting quote about Holender's performance of Hans for an example, or another production he was in and preferably in an opera not as obscure as Der Traumgörge. Find a hook that has something interesting to say about the work done by the artist. Even better would be some sort of biographical fact about the singer that's hooky. In short we need a hook that identifies what is both unique and interesting about this performer. If the hook doesn't do that, it is a bad hook.4meter4 (talk) 06:06, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

I know this is already long but one more thing. It's common practice in the opera world to run dress rehearsal or tech runs (where they are doing lighting tweaks and other practical stage craft changes as the performance is going on) before officially opening. These performances are often opened up to kids/schools to have an audience as a form of outreach at no charge to the kids. Understudies, typically young singers at the beginning of their career, are often given the opportunity to perform the parts they are understudying at these rehearsals to give them practical on-stage experience before letting them perform in a front of a real paying audience and in front of critics. I got to do Papageno myself in a context like this. Anybody listing a performance like this is resume padding, because the singer wasn't really hired to do a real show, and they are just doing what's normal to help develop young talent.4meter4 (talk) 06:23, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Would a hook based on He and Grete, sung by Magdalena Hinterdobler portray the couple not understanding the title Dreamer Görge, showing with "resolute voices and acting" the danger of "abysmally deep incomprehension" possibly work? The other quotes don't seem at all interesting, and the article itself is woefully incomplete, saying nothing about his early life or anything outside his opera career. That by itself could mean the article doesn't meet WP:DYKCOMPLETE, but more than that, it also means that there's a dearth of possible hook suggestions in the article. The other review quotes in the article like "wielded a beautifully sonorous baritone in a role that requires both a bel canto-style cantilena line and devilishly fast patter" seem either too specialist or aren't that interesting either, so if the "abysmally deep incomprehension" hook angle doesn't work, regrettably I would have to suggest the hook being pulled and the nomination being failed for lack of a suitable hook.

Incidentally, I would support at least a moratorium on "resume hooks". Over the years they've received a lot of criticism and they consistently are among our worst-performing hooks in terms of views. Views aren't everything of course, but they're clearly not ideal and it might be for the best to limit them whenever possible given they often end up being more trouble than they're worth. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:29, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Please see below. We could make a hook on Hans and Grete but that would leave the reader without anything they know. We'd have to replace Papageno in Salzburg by "Austrian baritone" which is stiffer and has no musical association, while just by reading Papageno, readers would know what king of voice he has. - This is no resume hook, but points at a work that should be known, again see below. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:40, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

(edit conflict, twice, reply only to the first entry): I, however, like to promote knowledge of this particular neglected opera, not performed until 1980 (because Gustav Mahler had left Vienna, and his successor had dropped the project). Creating the article of the singer was prompted by that desire. (I don't think I can make the opera a GA.) I'd say The Magic Flute for a performance in London, but not in Salzburg, - look at the ref. The hook was changed, - it said "charming" about his Papageno appearance at the Salzburg Festival, - compare the nomination, and look at the picture. The festival establishes a position in the musical world. I'd hate to say that he is the son of a former Vienna State Opera boss (which would also give him a position). DYK should be about what is not known, and Der Traumgörge (Holender in interview) sadly is one of these things. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Now reply to the afterthought: As said above; I'd like to say where he comes from, and Papageno is well known, Salzburg hints at Austria (which the name doesn't necessarily imply): my idea of connecting the unknown with something known. It says "for children", and it was an official project of the festival. - He identified with his Zemlisky role - please see the video - but is wasn't the main role so critics didn't say much about his part in a great revival. I'd expect that he would rather like to be mentioned with that unusual role than just another Almaviva (who could hold hands with his wife during COVID because she is his wife in real life). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:33, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

• As Prep 6 is the next to go to queue, I've taken the liberty of pulling the hook for now. Not sure where discussion regarding the nom should continue, whether here or the nom page, but I'd probably wait for a response from both the reviewer and promoter first before proceeding further. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:39, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Did you read my replies, including to your response? Did you look at the video where he his interviewed? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

  Neither of your responses directly addressed 4meter4's concerns. As they said, the audience that will understand the hooks will be very limited at best. It would be far better to propose a hook that would catch the interest of someone who knows little about opera or the names involved, rather than make a hook that a very small niche audience would understand. The latter is just not how DYK works. The fact that 4meter4, who is themselves a WikiProject Opera editor and a former opera performer themself, gave that advice says a lot, Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:50, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Narutolovehinata5 I may write an essay on DYK reviewing and writing the resume hook. What to do and what not to do. Could be a handy unofficial guide. As for he "wielded a beautifully sonorous baritone in a role that requires both a bel canto-style cantilena line and devilishly fast pattern", that's an opera critic's version of high praise. A sports critic equivalent would be a baseball critic saying of Micky Mantle "He's the only one who hits the ball so hard, he knocks the spin off it. Catching a liner from him is like catching a knuckleball. It flutters all over." They both have the jargon of their topic area in their criticism. It would be an interesting hook for an opera fan (who understands bel canto rep is the Olympics of opera), but not to everyone. It's better than a resume hook. As for the other quote... Honestly, I don't understand what the other quote is saying at all. It doesn't make any sense to me. what does "not understanding the title Dreamer Görge" mean or " the danger of "abysmally deep incomprehension"? It seems like the quote needs to be placed in context to the opera's plot in order to be understood, and that hasn't been done. I would cite a fail for WP:DYKCOMPLETE for that. I also don't think it would be useable in a hook because it needs too much context.4meter4 (talk) 07:17, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Do you think the nomination can still be salvaged, perhaps with his biography/personal life info being buffed up, or is this one of those articles that may not be a good fit for DYK and thus regrettably has to be rejected? I do wonder if the fact that he studied law, or that he was the son of the Vienna State Opera's director, would work as hooks as well, but otherwise nothing comes to mind. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:24, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt I think there is a fundamental problem to your approach to writing hooks. I've noticed that you often attempt to cram a ton of different facts into a single hook; most of which are not interesting because they are too general or too obscure. It seems like you are trying to write a summary of your article rather than a hook to grab the reader. This is a bad premise from which to start. I suggest that you find one specific fact of high interest to a general audience (assume they know nothing about opera) to feature. If you can't do that, than there probably isn't a good hook to be had. Once you have found that fact it may be possible to throw in something more, but often the best hooks are short and edit out all extraneous content and feature a single piece of high interest. This splicing together of random inane trivia that you seem to do is not good hook writing. The only time to include a bunch of facts is if they show some sort of unusual contrast or highlight unusual diversity. That isn't the case with the facts in this article. I think you need to remind yourself that the primary purpose of DYK hooks is not to educate the reader (give up the need to include all that content) but entertain and engage the reader in order to grab (i.e. hook) their interest. 4meter4 (talk) 07:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

(another edit conflict, so reply only to the first half:) Can we for the moment stick with this particular case? Repeating: I wrote the article on Holender because I was fascinated with his performance in this opera. I saw him before, he was good, but this was fascinating. I am sorry that it's hard to express that in a few words, especially when trying also to connect (not "splice together") to some background people may know, such as the very Austrian and charming Papageno. I'll offer a Traumgörge only hook in the nomination. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gerda Arendt You aren't listening. I don't think there is even a remote chance of any hook on Traumgörge passing WP:DYKHOOKSTYLE because it is too obscure for a general audience and requires specialist knowledge. Additionally, the singer had a minor part and was not covered in reviews according to you, so I don't see how this is a good choice for a hook on Liviu Holender. I agree a hook about Almaviva is boring if you are just listing a role, but it's highly likely that part got reviewed, and you may find a good quote. I suggest looking for a quote with entertaining language to a general reader (i.e. without too much technical jargon, and maybe some wit readily apparent to people who don't know opera).4meter4 (talk) 08:12, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

@4meter4: Do you have any suggestions for a possible hook here? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:18, 8 April 2024 (UTC)

Thank you for your post, 4meter4. As the promoter, I found the bit about performing for children interesting. Now, by the wording of WP:DYKTRIM, I normally would have been obliged to cut the rest of the hook, but I know from experience that Gerda will then rouse the hue and cry in as many places as possible. I respect your effort to make Gerda realise her hooks are terrible, but I should say that many, many people have tried over the years—she just doesn't think othef opinions are worth listening to. And because she's DYK's highest submitter, everybody just ignores her total lack of consideration and moves on (presumably the same reason her obvious COIs are never mentioned). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:08, 8 April 2024 (UTC)