Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Mover of molehills (talk | contribs) at 16:54, 17 November 2023 (→‎Reopening a DYK discussion: new question). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

september 1983 laws

i am sorry to mention this, but unfortunately, it looks like the initial version of this article was largely copied from the "National Reconciliation (Sudan)" article (specifically, this version), and the nominated article is currently not long enough to satisfy the eligibility criteria mentioned at wp:dyksplit. a comparison via earwig of the aforementioned article versions can be found here. neither the edit summaries nor the talk pages appear to mention the split, so i can understand why this issue may have been missed before.

to be clear, i don't know if there is a copyright, close paraphrasing, or attribution issue here. it's possible that all the copied text was originally written by the nominator or was already in the public domain to begin with; i simply haven't had the time to check. i am only raising this as a wp:dyksplit issue. i remember there was another dyk hook that was mistakenly accepted and ran on the main page last month, even though it did not satisfy wp:dyksplit, so i just wanted to raise this issue before the hook was scheduled to appear on the main page. apologies if i am missing something obvious. dying (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Well dang. "it's possible that all the copied text was originally written by the nominator" the copied text seems to come from the nominator's 30 August 2023 rewrite of National Reconciliation (Sudan). Rjjiii (talk) 03:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
good catch, dying! have pulled :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Theleekycauldron given how this conversation went (see dying response and mine below), are you going to put it back? FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:21, 5 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma: done :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:56, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Dying to add to the previous point "it's possible that all the copied text was originally written by the nominator". The text you mentioned was moved not copied and expanded way beyond what beyond the version that you used in earwig. How about you do the earwig analysis with the current version of September 1983 Laws and if you reach the same conclusion, I am happy for the hook to go FuzzyMagma (talk) 07:52, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Btw you can just click on both articles stats and see who is main contributor so you will to know if “that all the copied text was originally written by the nominator”. You did the crazy bit of comparing two old versions of two different articles why not do the easy bit too FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
if it's established that September 1983 Laws is at least 80% new text, this nomination can go forward. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:07, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the rule even when I wrote both articles around similar time and decided the split when one ran too broad while nominating one and leaving the other; then I guess I will wait for the article to pass GA FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:14, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma: if you split the text less than seven days after publishing to mainspace, it's still new if you nominate within seven days of putting it in mainspace? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the Nation Reconciliation article to the mainspace on 13 October and the September 1983 Laws article was created on 16 October. So yes less than 7 days FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:23, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
oh, i completely missed that the "National Reconciliation (Sudan)" article was moved to mainspace shortly before the article was split! thanks for pointing that out, FuzzyMagma. also, although the article was moved to mainspace just over a week before the nomination, i'm happy to let that slide.
interestingly, the "National Reconciliation (Sudan)" article wasn't actually the article i had first compared the nominated article with; i only ended up stumbling upon that after a bit of digging. i think what had first caught my eye was the similarity between the nominated article with the "Islamism in Sudan" article. the latter article was first created in mainspace in 2020. according to this earwig comparison, there seems to be more than a 20% overlap between these two articles. if the overlap with "Sudanese Greeks" (here) and "Legal system of Sudan" (here) are also taken into account, it seems as if expanding the nominated article to satisfy the fivefold expansion requirement at this point would be difficult to achieve.
apologies for the confusion caused by using the comparison with the "National Reconciliation (Sudan)" article. at the time, it looked like presenting that comparison would have made the issue more obvious. dying (talk) 09:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. Just for clarification, I was the one who expanded the Islamism in Sudan article from a stub to the existing size (by 90.2%) starting from 31 August 2023 and did not nominate the article as it relayed on one source and I need to improve so it can fit the front page. The text the might have started all of this, as you said, was copied later on 20 October from the September 1983 Laws and not the other way around. FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:38, 4 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
i'm sorry, FuzzyMagma, it looks like you misinterpreted what i was trying to say. the date that the "National Reconciliation (Sudan)" article was moved to mainspace is irrelevant because the copied material previously appeared in the "Islamism in Sudan" article. if only the date that the "National Reconciliation (Sudan)" article was moved to mainspace mattered, then editors can effectively renew text copied from other articles by first copying the text to an intermediary article in draftspace first.
i'm not sure why you provided the diff dated 2023.10.20. the only substantial text copied there appears to be an accidental duplication of some caption text into the prose, which you later removed anyway in this diff. i suppose you could say that the text was copied from the "September 1983 Laws" article to the "Islamism in Sudan" article, but that's simply because it was already in both articles before you duplicated it in the "Islamism in Sudan" article. in any case, the duplicated caption text wasn't what initially caught my eye anyway.
the comparison i provided in my last comment between the "September 1983 Laws" and "Islamism in Sudan" articles was based on the latest versions at the time because you had requested that i compare the then-current versions in your earlier comments. to make more clear what text was copied, here is a comparison between the current "September 1983 Laws" article and the "Islamism in Sudan" article at the time the "September 1983 Laws" article was created. this comparison clearly shows that more than 20% of the current text in the "September 1983 Laws" article had already appeared in mainspace before the article was created.
i think it is possible that you had actually copied the text in question from a different article, or even from an offline draft, but had lost track of what text you were copying to which articles, and didn't realize when you created the new "September 1983 Laws" article that you had already copied much of the text to the old "Islamism in Sudan" article more than a month earlier. if so, that would explain why you may not have realized that this article was ineligible when you nominated it. dying (talk) 03:59, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don’t agree with your statement. the comparison that you are showing is the current September 1983 Laws with a version of Islamism in Sudan, I know that from the similarity in the lead which I copied as I said on 20 of October. So you cannot hyperbolically make the jump that because some of text match now equals that they are the same.
i don’t think I misunderstood anything, you start your argument with comparisons from the National Reconciliation (Sudan) which I dismissed, shifted later to Islamism in Sudan stating that the article existed since 2020 which I again dismissed by I pointing out that actually I am the one who expanded the article starting 30 August 2023, and you now again shifted to compare recent versions of the articles.
anyway, the two versions that you compared were within almost the 7 days. Compare the current article with a version that was not copied from the National Reconciliation (Sudan) and was 7 days older and I would happily pull the plug on this
also please make sure that the new (non copied) prose is less than DYK length requirement FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FuzzyMagma:
  • when you are referring to "the similarity in the lead which I copied as I said on 20 of October", are you just referring to the fact that, in the diff you provided, you copied the {{multiple image}} template from the "September 1983 Laws" article to the "Islamism in Sudan" article? i don't think that's relevant. i was comparing the prose, not the images nor the captions. i believe wp:dyksplit also only considers the text in the prose. in addition, the last earwig comparison i provided uses a version of the "Islamism in Sudan" article that predates the addition of the duplicated images. by the way, the duplicated images weren't what initially caught my eye either.
  • i didn't conclude that the articles are the same because some of the text matches. i said that "more than 20% of the current text in the 'September 1983 Laws' article had already appeared in mainspace before the article was created", and therefore concluded that "this article was ineligible when you nominated it". the articles are clearly different, but i believe they are not different enough for the "September 1983 Laws" article to be eligible for dyk. wp:dyksplit allows splits to be eligible for dyk "if the copied text does not exceed one-fifth of the total prose size", but this is not the case here.
  • i am not sure why you are stating that i should "[c]ompare the current article with a version that was not copied from the National Reconciliation (Sudan) and was 7 days older". i believe that is what i already did. the earwig comparison i had previously provided is a comparison between the "September 1983 Laws" article on 2023.11.08, and a version of the "Islamism in Sudan" article on 2023.10.01, nearly three weeks before you nominated the "September 1983 Laws" article at dyk.
    i can provide another one that shows that the duplicated text was in mainspace much earlier than that if you'd like. this earwig comparison clearly shows that more than 20% of the prose of the current "September 1983 Laws" article was already present in the mainspace "Islamism in Sudan" article on 2023.08.31, fifty days before the dyk nomination.
regardless, you don't seem to have noticed what i was trying to do with the last paragraph of my previous comment, so i will be more clear. i was trying to give you a decent out. being unfamiliar with wp:dyksplit, or unaware that this nomination violated that criterion, is an understandable error, so you won't suffer much reputational damage for withdrawing a nomination if that was the case.
you probably didn't realize this, but i had actually chosen to bring this up as a wp:dyksplit issue as a favor to you. there are a number of other issues with this nomination, and citing wp:dyksplit seemed the least accusatory of the options. did you want to take the out now? dying (talk) 22:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
“trying to give you a decent out.”!!!
“reputational damage”!!!
” as a favor to you”!!!
bro, Are you ok?! I thought we normally need to assume good faith!
weird!
is that how you normally say “sorry”? Or “I was wrong” or “oops”!
I just debunked your half-baked detective work so just stick to the facts and do nothing for me please
no one asked you for favours 🤦‍♂️ FuzzyMagma (talk) 00:15, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
alll righty, let's everyone take a step back. @FuzzyMagma: The crux of the matter seems to be that per this earwig report, more than 20% of the current version of September 1983 Laws had already existed, in mainspace, at Islamism in Sudan, for over two weeks. That means that September 1983 Laws is neither new nor a fivefold expansion. Unless you dispute that claim/I'm grossly misreading the diffs, I'm pulling this article. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:07, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I already beaten this claim to the ground earlier. Just recycling old arguments does not make it new. Above I clearly outlined that, see my comment that started with “No worries. Just for clarification, I was the one who expanded the …”
it was not fun to defend myself and work, like I copied someone else work when I was the one who wrote the three articles in question and picked one that I thought interesting for DYK
am I to be expected to argue with someone who shifted their argument three times? I did refuted their claim three times and then just decided this is not about the article this is someone who does not like to be wrong
I had the same encounter in Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah Gadallah Gubara with the same editor and yet kept my cool down and sliced through this one and the other one.
Typically when you understand that you made a bad call, you apologise or just quietly walk way. We all been there BUT doubling (tripling!) down when your argument doesn’t hold water and starting using some above language is just strange!
I leave it to you to decide. And just for the sake of closing this. Even if you remove the text with 20% similarity in the articles, you will still have an article that is more than the DYK required prose length, i.e., The problem has nothing to do with WP:DYKSPLIT which states that "Articles featured at DYK must exceed 1500 characters of prose. Text that is not original does not count, including text copied from the public domain and from other Wikipedia articles.". Still I did some paraphrasing to just ease your mind, see here. Hope this resolve this situation FuzzyMagma (talk) 08:17, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@FuzzyMagma: The relevant text from WP:DYKSPLIT is Splits from non-new articles are ineligible, but if the copied text does not exceed one-fifth of the total prose size, the article can be considered eligible as a fivefold expansion of the copied text. It doesn't matter that the text is originally yours, or even originally from this article – if that text appears in mainspace over two weeks, elsewhere, before this article does, the text in the article isn't new and the above part of DYKSPLIT applies. With that in mind, I'm going to pull. I suggest you stop levying personal attacks at dying – WP:ANI would be the place to go if you have a legitimate grievance with their behavior in this thread. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:43, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
WP:ANI will not help and would likely just increase bad blood. It only really helps if one party is clearly engaging in persistent misbehavior. Rjjiii (talk) 20:36, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely a fair point – i didn't think FM should file a thread there, and I didn't when I said that, but if they have a user-conduct issue, it's better there than here. Ideally, the stick could just be dropped. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:42, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Rjjiii Maybe you need to read this vomit Template:Did you know nominations/September 1983 Laws at the end FuzzyMagma (talk) 09:23, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
FuzzyMagma, you nominated an ineligible article for DYK. I would seriously recommend dropping that stick right about now. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 09:33, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Are we reading the same Template:Did you know nominations/September 1983 Laws? Have a look to the end of the “discussion” and if you think I am the one with a stick then I can gladly put it where it belongs FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
And assume good faith even if you think it’s ineligible. Mistakes happens but slander is intentional FuzzyMagma (talk) 10:06, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Delanie Sheehan (nom)

Hope it's OK to ask, I've got an unreviewed nomination with a forthcoming date request for this weekend (Nov 11). It would bump the photo hook in Queue 5 if I have my time conversions right. Thanks in advance for considering. Hameltion (talk | contribs) Hameltion (talk | contribs) 14:35, 6 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have reviewed the nomination and it's good to go. I shall leave it to the promoter to decide whether this should be a special occasion hook. Schwede66 20:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Aoidh, you approved Queue 5—would you consider swapping this date request hook into that picture slot? I notice there are three species and only one bio in the set, not that I'm unbiased. Also pinging @Vaticidalprophet and Fritzmann2002 as builders of the set. It's okay if it doesn't work out but I'd appreciate if you took a look. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 21:54, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't necessarily be opposed to perhaps swapping one out of the hooks (perhaps the penultimate Lessons in Chemistry hook to balance out the bio/non-bio pattern) but I don't think the hook or image are interesting enough to bump out the image slot of an already assembled and promoted prep a little over a day before that set will hit the Main Page, when there's also a bio image in the queue that precedes it. @Vaticidalprophet: You added the image slot to that set, what are your thoughts on that? - Aoidh (talk) 22:32, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with I don't think the hook or image are interesting enough to bump out the image slot of an already assembled and promoted prep a little over a day before that set will hit the Main Page, but don't think the presence of another bio image has any influence on that -- there's rough consensus that "no consecutive bio images, ever" is overly strict/that they can double-up sometimes, and we've had very few lately. Vaticidalprophet 22:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, I agree that if that were the only issue then there wouldn't be an issue, but I added that to point out that there are some reasons (some more solid than others) to not bump out the current image slot, that being the least solid one which is why I included it last (literally as an afterthought). - Aoidh (talk) 22:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That last point is moot anyways, but I'd be fine with swapping Lessons in Chemistry. - Aoidh (talk) 23:48, 9 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd also be fine with that swap (I really should've queried that hook at DYKN). Vaticidalprophet 00:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
 Done - Added to Queue 5. - Aoidh (talk) 00:35, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Vati and Aoidh, glad it could fit in somewhere. Hameltion (talk | contribs) 01:01, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 2

Sarah Jane Baker (nom)

Looks fine to me, but I'll open this one to anyone else who wants to take a look, since it's a BLP and I made my thoughts on it clear pre-promotion :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Saikabo (nom)

@Toobigtokale, ZKang123, and AirshipJungleman29: I've bumped this one out because the hook accepts a statement from the article's subject as fact (the paper it's sourced to quotes the author, rather than repeating it in their own voice). Could we find another one? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:30, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oops good catch. How about this: ... that the Korean restaurant in Japan Saikabo suffered a 30% drop in sales after the South Korean president visited the disputed Liancourt Rocks? [1]
This is another fact sourced from the subject, although it's repeated in the journalist's voice.
Alternatively: ... that the Korean restaurant chain in Japan Saikabo has a kimchi museum in its original location? [2]
I have no preference for either hook, please feel free to choose whichever or request alternatives if needed. toobigtokale (talk) 23:58, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@toobigtokale: The first one is actually a lot better, thanks! I've swapped it in :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:35, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but the hook as drafted and showing on the main page is embarrassing; grammatically poor and implies that there is one Korean restaurant in Japan. It should say something like '...that Saikabo, a Korean restaurant in Japan, suffered...' GiantSnowman 12:20, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

DYK suggestions?

  1. ... that Gordon Scozzari, a 21-year-old pro wrestling fan, started his own wrestling promotion featuring stars from around the world? Source: Plombon, Jonathan (September 12, 2022). "Unraveling the myths of Gordon Scozzari". SlamWrestling.net.
  1. ... that Max Thrasher was a substitute teacher during his pro wrestling career? Source: "Meet the Principals". Jackson School, K-8. York City School District. Archived from the original on August 19, 2018.
    1. ALT2 ... that Max Thrasher retired from pro wrestling to become a public school teacher and later a school principal? Source: Lee, Rick (September 17, 2001). "PHIL LIVELSBERGER, BIOLOGY TEACHER AND PRO WRESTLER; Wrapping up one career and taking off in another, he's gone from 'bad, bad guy' to teacher". York Daily Record. p. 3A.

173.162.220.17 (talk) 17:24, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both of those articles have maintenance tags, and because I don't know that you don't have five credits already, I'd want to see two QPQs.--Launchballer 21:22, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see 4 credits from DYKUpdateBot – although technically, none of those were nominated by the IP, they were proxied. Still, though, a QPQ would be in order. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:26, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The wrestling IP has been nominating regularly since 2012 (or earlier, but I happened to read that archive lately). On the one hand, QPQs have obviously been due for a while. On the other hand, dynamic IP makes it hard to track that the reviewer is the same person + suddenly springing this is a little difficult. Vaticidalprophet 21:30, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I understand if the IP would rather not have an account, but would it be possible to ask them to create one if only for the purposes of tracking and organization? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

Really lovely to see a new promoter get in the mix, Fritzmann2002! Good job :)

North Nias Regency (nom)

@Nyanardsan and Piotrus: same thing as here, but I've bumped instead of pulled :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:38, 8 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron Fair point, I support putting this on hold until the citations are properly formatted with cite templates. That also includes expanding stuff like "Badan Pusat Statistik, Jakarta, 2021" - what is this? A book? A brochure? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 01:25, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
There is a helpful redirect at Badan Pusat Statistik. TSventon (talk) 02:12, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanksgiving/Harvest-Themed DYK Set

With the recent success of the Halloween DYK set, I'm wondering, what do you guys think of a Thanksgiving-based DYK set for November 23rd? I know that the holiday is most often American in nature, which understandably leads to worries that it's American-oriented, but if we're looking at the wiki page for Thanksgiving, it is celebrated to different extents in various countries, albeit on different dates. This is very shaky, so I can definitely understand not doing it, but at the same time, it would be an interesting drive towards improving and/or creating articles based on Thanksgiving and/or harvests similar to Halloween, and it's very difficult to incentivize such major changes otherwise. PrimalMustelid (talk) 01:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to the idea, but like you said, the America centrism might open a whole can of worms. I understand most of our readers are from the Anglosphere and thus have probably at least heard of Thanksgiving. However, it would open up questions about why not do similar themed sets for holidays from other countries. After all, we had that St. James Day set a few months ago which itself was a cause of controversy, and I don't think changing the setting from Spain to America would help thing.
I think having one, maybe two at most Thanksgiving hooks on that date might work as a compromise, but a full set might lead to accusations of us being US-centric. After all, in almost all other cases, when non-Anglophone special sets have been suggested there had been little interest or drive, so Thanksgiving being given special treatment might be seen as unfair. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:30, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I suggest that it’s rather close to the target date; that might be a practical problem. Schwede66 02:33, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, while some of us celebrate the day as Thanksgiving, for others it is the National Day of Mourning RoySmith (talk) 11:52, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One or two hooks for Thanksgiving would be great. Maybe not a set. Lightburst (talk) 01:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WugBot failing to move noms to WP:DYKNA

My nom, DOM Clobbering has been approved by Clyde Franklin for a while (~ 12 hrs) but WugBot doesn't seem to moving the nom to the approved nominations page. Could somebody uninvolved with the nom move it over :) (also ping Wugapodes as the maintainer of the bot.) Sohom (talk) 17:43, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen it take several hours in the past. It might be something to do with the checklist, because that's the only context I see it in. I don't use the checklist, so can't speculate on what could be the cause. Vaticidalprophet 17:48, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The review was written below the "Please do not write below this line" line, which means that the review was not actually in the nomination subpage template, but rather after it. Let's see if the bot moves it, now that I've fixed that (as well as some other template errors). MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:32, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yay! that worked :) Sohom (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Whoops. Clyde [trout needed] 21:14, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, that didn't actually work, but the following did: When the bot didn't move it at 19:00 UTC, I took one more stab at it. The {{DYK checklist}} had |status = <!---(instructional comment)--->y and I thought the bot may expect the "y" without an intervening comment, so I moved the "y", and then the bot moved the nom at 21:01 UTC. Clyde, for any future reviews, please remember to put your input before the comment. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:25, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh I see, though it does feel like something the bot should handle. Sohom (talk) 21:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it should, but for now at least we know what to avoid/look for. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:41, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so I've created a new list of the first 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 21. We have a total of 241 nominations, of which 85 have been approved, a gap of 156 nominations that has increased by 12 over the past 9 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than three months old

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other nominations

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:07, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Next queue Q2

There is a mismatch between hooks and credits in Q2:

  • Jim Rich has hook but is not in Credits.
  • LGBT history in Massachusetts is in Credits but hook appeared on 8 November.
  • Flathead Lake Biological Station has hook but no Credit.
  • Rachel Yakar has Credit but no hook.

JennyOz (talk) 05:19, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Jenny. I've had a look at this. PrimalMustelid, when you move hooks around, you must move them together with their credits. I'll tidy this up now; I suspect the problem also exists in Q4 (where some of those hooks moved to). Schwede66 08:49, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that, I wasn't aware of the existence of credits in preps/queues pages while I was manually editing the DYK pages, thanks for letting me know. PrimalMustelid (talk) 13:28, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Q2 has been fixed and Q4 was all correct. Schwede66 08:59, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for patches Schwede. JennyOz (talk) 10:45, 14 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

Chancellor Hut (nom)

@Panamitsu, Thriley, and PrimalMustelid: I've bumped this one, because sources in the article disagree as to whether the hook is true. Carlson 2023 says it's "one of the oldest", while Heritage New Zealand says it's the oldest at "high level". Van Noorden (not Hall) 2013 does say it's the oldest. I'd like a more definitive source than any of these, or a clear consensus, before going with this hook. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:03, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I'd say that the hook is correct as it is. Alpine huts often get shifted (sometimes by only a few metres) due to erosion, change of avalanche passes, etc. There are older huts than this one that are not in an alpine environment. What the hook says is that this is the alpine hut that's never been shifted that's oldest. Carlson is probably not wrong by saying that it's "one of the oldest huts in New Zealand in its original position"; note that she is not making the restriction of talking about alpine huts, though. Schwede66 23:48, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

History of Turku (nom)

@Peltimikko, TSventon, and PrimalMustelid: The original hook didn't appear in the article (as far as I can tell), so I've changed it to this:

Let me know if you'd like something else, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:21, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Theleekycauldron: I think I wrongly assumed that the 16th century was still the Middle Ages, but in any case I prefer your hook to the original. TSventon (talk) 23:56, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I was more driving at "second most important" ≠ "second largest", but yeah, either way. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:00, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I also can't say that I'm a fan of how much article is sourced to webpages made by the city, but I think I've trimmed it back to a more acceptable level. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:24, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gembong Warsono (nom)

@Juxlos and Piotrus: I've bumped this one, both because there's already another Indonesian politics hook in the set (PrimalMustelid, trout :P) and because I'm not entirely sure that it's interesting for a politician to criticize a leader of the opposing party. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:33, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the nom, the hook is not very interesting, but nobody had an idea for anything better. Sometimes, notable people are just plain boring... shrug. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:21, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In such cases it may be better to simply not nominate them for DYK at all, instead simply focus efforts on more feasible subjects. There's also no shame in failing nominations because there's simply no suitably interesting hook: it's already a DYK criterion that hooks have to be interesting, and that not being met should be a cause for rejection just like any other criterion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:11, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it’s the "German dumpsters" part I thought could be somewhat interesting. Juxlos (talk) 02:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is a politician who according to the Jakarta Tribune avoided the 27 July 1996 incident where some of his colleagues died because he went home early. According to the article, this was an event that (understandably) defined his later party political choices. I'm not sure why those details aren't in the article, and if they were I feel they'd fit into something hooky. CMD (talk) 03:04, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Rereading with Juxlos' comment in mind I've come around to that too. Is "... that Indonesian politician Gembong Warsono once criticized the use of German dumpsters?" a bit snappier? CMD (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Roberts Point Track

This has just gone live. Immediately prior, theleekycauldron removed this wikilink: [[Hiking in New Zealand|tramping track in New Zealand]]. Having lived in New Zealand for a few decades now and having seen blank faces too many times when I mentioned the word "tramping" to foreigners, I don't think that removing the wikilink is a good idea. There are too many people who do not know that "tramping" is the local lingo for "hiking". Schwede66 00:12, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66: perhaps we shouldn't be using localisms in the first place? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:52, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. "Tramping" is deeply entrenched, e.g. it's a tramping track, a tramping hut, tramping gear. To call it "hiking" would feel wrong to New Zealand ears. Spelling of hooks, and choice of words, follows the language variant used in the target article. I can't really think why that should be any different with New Zealand English. You wouldn't use "autumn" in a North American hook, would you? When I read "fall" for the season, I always have to think about what that refers to. Schwede66 00:59, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I can see where you're coming from, but you also have to remember that the Main Page has readership from around the world. Not everyone is going to know every localism out there, and one word that may have a common definition in one Anglophone country can be the same in another. The way I see it, there's two solutions for this: use the word "hiking" (as in the title or the article), or keep the link for the benefit of non-Kiwis. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:41, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'd keep the link. I didn't see the April 2023 move discussion that resulted in Hiking in New Zealand; had I seen that, I would have certainly objected. Schwede66 03:56, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It was me that added the wikilink to the hook for the word tramping when I did the original hook review. Very much because, although it is the common term in NZ, it will be less well known around the world. I agree with @Schwede66. ResonantDistortion 13:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Britten's birthday, 22 November

Canticle I: My beloved is mine and I am his was written with the idea in mind to feature it on Benjamin Britten's birthday, 22 November, which is also the feast day of St. Cecilia, patron saint of music. Sorry, I had other things on my mind, but would like to return to the tradition. It would need a review, and a swap as the prep (2) is already full. Sorry about the inconvenience. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 16 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the QPQ confirmation tool?

Looking for link to the tool you use to confirm if it's indeed one of the nominator's first five DYK nominations? Cielquiparle (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Probably the most reliable way is to go here and change the URL, to see someone's creations in template space. There's the "QPQ checker" tool in the DYK toolbox at every nompage, but it checks credits, not nominations. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Where exactly is the "QPQ checker tool in the DYK toolbox at every nompage"? I just know I used to be able to find it easily under "useful tools" but am having trouble locating it now. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Ah it is in the DYK toolbox. I see it now. Cielquiparle (talk) 11:04, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Reopening a DYK discussion

Hello! A little while ago, I nominated the article Isaac Saul for DYK, but it was rejected because it was embroiled in an AfD debate (and it was ultimately deleted for lack of high-quality sources). Since then, though, I have substantially expanded the number of sources, republished the article, and I believe it's ready. Do you know what I can do to get this nomination reopened? I can't just nominate it manually, because the page "Template: Did you know nominations/Isaac Saul" is already occupied with the discussion from the old nomination.Mover of molehillsmove me 16:54, 17 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1185573630"