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 Freedom4U (talk | contribs) at 23:20, 4 January 2024 (→‎Quirky vs. clickbait?: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

22 December wish

Composer Carl Friedrich Abel was born on 22 December 1723, 300 years ago, and a new catalogue of his works appeared this year: Template:Did you know nominations/Catalogue of Works of Carl Friedrich Abel. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:58, 10 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Did you know nominations/Catalogue of Works of Carl Friedrich Abel: four hooks are now approved. We don't have a 300th birthday often. Is there a chance to get it in on his birthday? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:10, 17 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

asking again

asking again, having listened to two hours, music and interview, on Deutschlandfunk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:21, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Just to say I am happy for my Bou hook to be delayed to make room for this.--Launchballer 21:32, 20 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It would need an admin, and perhaps more than one supports for the idea. The day is tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@DYK admins: Please delay my Bou hook and replace it with this.--Launchballer 11:30, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I am not opposed to the special occasion request itself, it was probably unnecessary to make multiple requests across several days and pinging users or admins for the request to be granted. Admins are very busy and requesting them to make changes with such a short notice can be seen as inconvenient. One message was probably enough: asking about the request three times on three separate days may be overkill and could be misinterpreted as being begging by other editors. Special occasion requests, while desired, aren't always granted, and when it happens, it's regrettable but it's not a major loss (note I'm speaking in general here rather than this specific request). Admins will respond to discussion sooner or later, pings like that are probably unnecessary unless it's something that needs urgent fixing, like for example an issue with sets or a hook that needs to be pulled. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:44, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would not have asked multiple times and places if this initial request from 10 December had been acknowledged. This may be the only time in my life of this kind of significance. What will our readers think if we present this hook in 2024, instead of the birthday? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:31, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Does it really matter if it runs tomorrow or in 2024? The hook itself doesn't need to be on the birthday itself; it running on his birthday would just be a bonus. Indeed, readers may not even be aware that tomorrow is his birthday, so regardless if it runs or not tomorrow, I don't really think most would even think about the date the hook runs. As in, it wouldn't matter to them if it ran tomorrow or in 2024.
    Like I said earlier, I'm not against it running tomorrow, it's just that it's not a major loss if the request isn't granted in time since the hook wording itself is not time dependent. Remember that admins are busy and making requests like this at such a relatively short notice can be quite inconvenient since it would require some work and energy.
    In addition, when I brought up how it may not be appropriate to make multiple requests about special occasions on several days, I wasn't specifically talking about this nomination but in general. Indeed, the opinion would also apply to other editors who may have special occasion requests and have brought it up multiple times. I'm sure many of us have been guilty of doing this at least once in the past (I can admit to have done it myself before), but regardless, making multiple requests to grant a special occasion date may not be a good idea depending on the circumstances. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:04, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    The preferred hook (of 4 approved) says "where he was born on 22 December 1723" which makes sense (and a lot of sense imho) only that day. I also wonder what readers may think if they read some day in January that the book was created for his tercentenary (as the other 3 hooks say) and find that it was in the past. It's "no major loss", but looks as if Wikipedia was not good in timing. - That's my last appeal at common sense. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same topic, 28 December

A hook was promoted to prep 5 by User:AirshipJungleman29, without image, and an edit summary saying that the hook was too boring for an image, and modified there. I suggested to unpromote the topic, and look for a better hook in the nomination, suggesting: ALT2a: ... that the new Catalogue of Works of Carl Friedrich Abel, describing now 420 compositions of the viol virtuoso (pictured), was introduced at a festival for his tercentenary?

  • trying to avoid the repetitions (of catalogue and the composer's name)
  • trying to say that it's not just a list of works but a book with 420 detailed descriptions (+ indexes, timeline, illustrations ...)
  • mention instead that Abel was a virtuoso on the viol - he was the last, btw. - If the image was taken, that rare instrument could be gathered from it.

I believe that the image alone is interesting and therefore should be shown:

  • It provides the information that he was famous enough to be portrayed by a leading artist of the period.
  • It shows the period (without extra words).
  • It shows his high social status (without extra words).
  • It shows him as a player as well as a composer (without extra words).
  • It adds that the centre of life of this German musician was London (without extra words).
  • It is a great image, worth showing to our curious readers.
  • I love the little dog, - it adds so much about the person (without extra words).

I beg you to consider that we deal with a notable musician around his tercentenary, and a great scientific book about him and his works. Can we please either discuss hook and image here, or in a reopened nomination, the latter giving us more time? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:05, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Couple of clarifications: this is concerning Template:Did you know nominations/Catalogue of Works of Carl Friedrich Abel, which was promoted to prep 4, not prep 5; the edit summary did not say "that the hook was too boring for an image"; the modifications were done later by Ravenpuff; and the suggestion above was put forward at my talk.
My position was that a) I could not unilaterally replace a hook, thus serving as both reviewer and promoter, and b) as we receive roughly twice as many picture hooks as DYK can run, around half have to be promoted without images; it is very clearly unsustainable to do otherwise. It also seems unfair to me if hooks get to be de-promoted after nomination and held indefinitely upon nominator's request. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:21, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Picture hooks are always at the discretion of the promoter, and while we all desire to see our image hooks to be on the front page, demand is higher than supply and not all requests can be accommodated. It's disappointing whenever it happens, speaking as someone who has experienced this feeling multiple times. However, it's ultimately the promoter's decision on whether or not to promote (or demote) a hook with regards to the image slot, and the nominator's requests, while should be noted, in practice can't always be granted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:15, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I am also a bit disturbed by what seems to be proposed here: unpromoting a hook just because the nominator is unhappy with it not being in the image slot, with the request to be promoted to an image slot later on. Doing this would open a can of worms and set a precedent that we would ideally not want to be common: hooks being promoted or unpromoted per the nominator's request just because they are unhappy with its placement, or not accepting anything other than an image slot. Prep building is already difficult as is, and accommodating requests like this, especially if other editors decide to do something similar, could result in all sorts of situations that would ultimately just lead to more work and burden on prep builders, who are already swamped with work. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:20, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I did this as an exception, because I don't think there will be any other image as worthy of presentation to our readers in my lifetime. I hoped the promoter would understand that, but was told to go here. We missed seeing this image in OTD, on the day of his tercentenary because blurbs are not done for births, and images are only done for blurbs. So I went to DYK, see above. We missed the day. I would like to have the image at least later, because of our readers, but was told to make the composer a GA to make it happen. Rather than trying that, I came here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:36, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Does it really matter if Abel is not an image hook? The hook will still be featured on the Main Page, isn't that what's important? You have to understand that nominators can't get everything what they want, and if things don't go their way (this includes nominations failing, a non-preferred hook being promoted, or even not being promoted to the image slot), it can be disappointing but nominators have to move on. It's not the end of the world.
I'm also going to be honest here. Most if not almost all if not even virtually all of our readers, if it was in the image slot, would not even notice or care about any of the details you brought up. At the end of the day, it isn't the context that matters to the promoter, it's if they think the image would be a good fit to be featured. To others, they would have just seen the picture as a painting of a composer, and I doubt they would know or care about the context behind it, much like readers generally don't care about the contexts of other image hooks.
You have to let this go. You have to understand that you cannot always get what you want, and asking editors to adhere to your wishes to the point of, in your own words on the 28th, begging, will either leave a bad taste on other editors' mouths, or paradoxically may only make editors more disinclined to fulfil your wishes. You already have somewhat of a reputation for getting upset when editors do not agree with your wishes or your requests are not granted, and this whole discussion is probably not helping with that reputation. Again, it may be disappointing if it is ultimately not featured as the image hook, but at the end of the day, it will still be featured and that's what matters. It's not a major loss nor a big deal in the long run. Besides, there will always be other opportunities for your other nominations to be featured as an image hook. This isn't the end of the world. And your experience is far from being yours alone: even I and many others here have had similar experiences in the past, but it doesn't mean we have to sulk about it. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:19, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Global Engagement Center

What is happening with Template:Did you know nominations/Global Engagement Center? It was approved on December 1,[1], and moved to prep area 2.[2] It was then raked by Theleekycauldron on December 3 to queue 3,[3], but for some reason it was deleted from that queue on December 5.[4] Can we get it reinstated back into the queue please? Viriditas (talk) 18:24, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've put it back into Approved. I can't pshaw it because six out of seven preps are full and the other already has four US hooks and I can't promote prep 6 because it's got one of mine in it.--Launchballer 19:50, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
my bad, I forgot to put that back in dykn! My issue was that the approved slightly non neutral hook, along with much of the article, rests on non-independent sources. I see that some of that was cleaned up in review, but not enough for showtime. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:56, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
When I completed the review, somewhere on the order of 20 independent sources had been added, per my insistence, accounting for almost half of all sources in the article. Additionally, the hook in question was neutral and supported by independent sources. I made this clear in my reply to one of the objections to my closing review. Viriditas (talk) 04:02, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
half? articles should be predominantly based on independent sources. also, the article contains what in any corporate article would be categorized as "cruft", and that makes up for a lot of the content sourced to the government. I suggest it be pared back significantly. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You’re distorting what I wrote. I did not comment on the applicability of WP:PSTS (which nowhere says "predominantly", you may be confusing it with notability). I commented specifically on the state of the article when I came to it as a nominator. The fact that half of the sources are now secondary is acceptable depending solely on how they are used, not on the notion of a basic headcount, which of course varies depending on what they support. I also dispute your characterization of the hook as non-neutral. Viriditas (talk) 00:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Update: New reviewer requested. Thanks. Viriditas (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Shootings of Sydney Land and Nehemiah Kauffman (nom)

I think we'll need some extra eyes on this one to get it unstuck. At issue is this cited source from the Toronto Sun, and whether it's reliable. Thoughts appreciated :) (cc StonyBrook) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:28, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Oh wow @Theleekycauldron:. I just read the names now and I can say that I know of this case through Sydney Land's mother (Connie Hagler Land). I do not know CHL personally but I come across her messages because she has been campaigning for justice. I am not sure I have time but will see if I can make time to look at the article and nomination concerns; of course others with more time available are also welcome to check. Bruxton (talk) 19:47, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have a lot of issues with this. The first one is Doug Poppa and the Baltimore Post-Examiner. Have a look at this article which is used here. It starts off normally, but look where it goes half-way through as Poppa veers off into a personal-opinion rant about the police department ("Shame on you Metro Police / Wow, what the hell is going on in this case / This is a disgrace"). This reporter, whose articles are used many times, does this is pretty much all of his stuff (i.e. here ("That is extremely disturbing to me. I believe that there is much more to Tobiasson and her daughter Sarah’s involvement in the homicide case." - I mean, wow). A look at Poppa's recent output shows that it mostly seems to be about UFO sightings.
Also, timelines. In the lead paragraph we have "as of January 2023 no arrests had been made in the killings of Land and Kauffman." - that's a year ago. As regards Valentine, we have " As of August 2019, he remained incarcerated at Warm Springs Correctional Center on the firearms charges." - that's four years ago. And as I said at ERRORS, I also have issues with "committed suicide" in the hook; given the quote from the deceased ("If I wind up dead, remember I wasn't suicidal.") we do not use that phrase in the article, saying instead that her death was "ruled a suicide". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Black Kite (talk • contribs) 20:25, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Black Kite: Thanks for the message. Do you think that editing can overcome these issues? I noticed that the article needs to be tightened up - I edited a bit of the lead just now. Bruxton (talk) 20:33, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, almost certainly, but I think it'd take a bit of work. Getting the timeline into shape, removing anything that's solely sourced to BPE (the tabloidy stuff really needs trimming anyway) and making sure everything is up to date. Black Kite (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking into this Black Kite. Back on November 8, I proposed the following ALT to address your concerns: ... that six years after Sydney Land and her boyfriend were shot to death, both her mother and a judge friend who took an interest in the investigation were found dead of gunshot wounds? As far as the timeline goes, those were the absolute latest dates I could find in the sources available to me (there is more updated info on the person of interest in this source, as well as verification of the judge's quote, but honestly I was hesitant to use it due to WP:NYPOST). In regards to Poppa, I'm not familiar with the UFO stuff, but his credentials as an investigative reporter seem solid. I was very careful to steer clear of any speculative language he used, dealing only with the hard facts and using attribution where needed. StonyBrook babble 05:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

NZ MP mass nomination: thank you

Well, this has been a massive undertaking. The New Zealand MP mass nomination from 17 October is going to close soon and thanks are in order. Firstly, DrThneed as my co-nominator; it's been most enjoyable to work alongside you once more on a big project. The various bios have been worked on by many editors, and apart from DrThneed and me, we have Adabow, Chocmilk03, HenryCrun15, Idiosyncritic, Kiwichris, Lcmortensen, MerrilyPutrid, Moondragon21, MW691, Nurg, Pakoire, Paora, Vaticidalprophet, and Villian Factman to thank. Various DYK volunteers have commented on the overall process and helped out in various ways, including BlueMoonset, Chipmunkdavis, Fritzmann2002, Kiwichris, Narutolovehinata5, Urve, and Vaticidalprophet. Thank you also to the reviewers, which were 97198, AirshipJungleman29, Bremps, Chocmilk03, Hameltion, Knightoftheswords281, Miraclepine, Queen of Hearts, Sammi Brie, and Shivashree. Lastly, we had a couple of good souls chip in with some QPQs: Lightburst and theleekycauldron. I hope that this list is complete and I do apologise if I've missed anyone. This is just those contributors listed on the nomination page; I acknowledge that there have been a number of discussion at WT:DYK – thank you to those contributors, too.

To me, this collaborative working is what makes Wikipedia such an enjoyable place. Thanks, everyone – you are all awesome! And greetings of the season; hope you are all enjoying some well-deserved IRL holidays. Schwede66 03:08, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, that's been a while. Thank you, Thneed, et al. for your contributions to Wikipedia. And what can I say except you're welcome for the review? Queen of Hearts ❤️ (she/they 🎄 🏳️‍⚧️) 03:14, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It took quite a while but I'm happy this is finally about to cross the finish line. I do think the compromise we were able to work out, with there being a mass nom but some of the best possibilities being spun off into their own individual hooks, worked out in the end. Especially when how the main multi-article hook took a long time to be completed while the individual hooks were able to already be featured on the Main Page quickly. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for looking after this @Schwede66 - sorry I have been MIA the last few days, very unreliable Wifi our AirBNB has put paid to Christmas editing for me so far! A huge thankyou from me to everyone that chipped in with getting the original articles up to DYK standard, contributing QPQs, reviewing and polishing etc. It's lovely to be part of such a big effort! @Narutolovehinata5 I find it amusing that the experience I had with this multihook this time around is quite different to last election three years ago. I'm pretty sure it all happened very fast last time, with people leaping in to review really fast (not going to strain my Wifi trying to check though). DrThneed (talk) 05:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Great job, everybody. It's nice to contribute to part of a larger group effort. Bremps... 15:22, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a bystander, I have always been fascinated my these multi-nom hooks. Great example of collaboration. Happy holidays! Ktin (talk) 16:21, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nice job team! — Knightoftheswords 22:12, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Schwede66 has said People will return to normal from 8 January onwards January 8 is about the time to run this which puts the hook in Prep 7. I am not sure I will have the time to go through all of the articles prior to promotion but I can try. Maybe another editor can assist with final checks? Also three hooks are in prep 7 now, how many hooks will we run in the set with the mega-hook? Bruxton (talk) 19:47, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Schwede66, @DrThneed & others: thanks for all the hard work! Looking forward to seeing this up on the main page. :) Chocmilk03 (talk) 21:10, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Requesting guidance

I am requesting guidance on a series of hooks by the same editor currently in the nominations pile and the approved pile. User:Owais Al Qarni has produced a series of articles on books, which to me generally seem to be written in non-encyclopedic tones, often encompassing MOS:PUFFERY and MOS:WEASEL. I would like some of the regulars here to provide clarity on whether I am seeing things, and if I am not, whether the articles all need to be worked on to meet WP:DYKCOMPLETE. The articles and nominations are:

I do not know whether this is the standard for book-related articles, and so I bring this here, instead of spreading it across a dozen DYK and talk pages. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 23:49, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

My general impression, clicking around a few of these, is that the articles sit in the uncanny valley w/r/t looking like Wikipedia articles, but they seem to be basically encyclopedically written (if a little too deferential too the author, I imagine that was picked up from the academic sources). "This looks funny" is the reason a DYK nom is challenged a not-insignificant percentage of the time, so I won't begrudge you if that's what it is, but it'd be a shame if all of these ended in failure despite them being mostly on-target in the important ways. Are there any quotes that stick out to you? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think they should end in failure—just that the puffery should be rewritten theleekycauldron. Al-Wafa bi Asma al-Nisa has been approved; it contains sentences like
  • "Beyond its scholarly weight, this opus reshapes the landscape of hadith scholarship",
  • "It serves as a catalyst for contemplation, delving into nuanced inquiries",
  • "the initial volume immerses readers in an exploration of the intricate world",
  • "Enhancing this narrative are captivating visual aids",
  • "facsimiles of pertinent certificates offer a tangible glimpse into their scholarly pursuits",
  • "The biographical journey commences with an in-depth focus"
  • "volumes 11-13 shed illuminating insights ... Subsequent volumes [present] a mosaic"
etc. Additionally—and I've just noticed this—the "Content" and "Methodology" section verges upon WP:CLOP from this source.
There is also a problem with excessive elegant variation. Look at all the times scholars are mentioned in Islamic Revival in British India: "According to Francis Robinson", "Amedeo Maiello observes", "Yohanan Friedmann identifies", "Yohanan Friedmann urges", "Christopher Shackle highlights", "Gowher Rizvi underscores", "William R. Roff sees it", "Christopher Shackle positions it", " Yohanan Friedmann acknowledges", "Francis Robinson commends", "Amedeo Maiello praises", "Gopal Krishna opines", "The Daily Star rates it", "Annemarie Schimmel criticizes". No two verbs are the same! ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:12, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's a good argument for cutting down on the puffery a bit. I would support efforts to trim and replace. Viriditas (talk) 00:15, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I think the biggest policy problem here is value judgements in wikivoice – those are a policy problem per WP:VOICE, these statements and works should be treated more neutrally. The ELEVAR and academese are irksome, but not the top priority here, imo. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked a bit further at potential CLOP issues, after noticing it above, and it's not that great. Just comparing the last sentences of the "Theme" section from Islamic Revival in British India with the cited source: ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Article Source
"The author adeptly demonstrates that Sufism played a pivotal role in the school's spiritual life, often intertwining with roles like Mufti and Shaykh. Deobandis, in their role as shaykhs, challenged the spiritual leadership of Sufis associated with medieval saints' tombs. While opposing perceived deviant Sufi customs, they endorsed practices like contemplating the shaykh's image for spiritual concentration, distributed amulets, and were credited with kurämät. A significant portion of Deoband's fatawa also delved into matters related to Sufi practices." "The author has shown that Sufism was an important element in the spiritual life of the school and that the roles of mufti and shaykh were frequently performed by one and the same person. The Deobandis provided, in their role as shaykhs, a spiritual leadership which challenged that of the Sufis associated with tombs of medieval saints. While opposing Sufi customs which they considered deviant, they encouraged practices such as tasawwur-i shaykh (conceiving of the shaykh's image as an incentive for spiritual concentration), distributed amulets, and were credited with karamat. A considerable part of the fatdaw issued at Deoband also dealt with matters related to Sufi practices."
That's way too close to the original source and needs to be completely rewritten. Viriditas (talk) 00:40, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I could see how The Ulama in Contemporary Islam might appear that way, perhaps even promotional, but looks might be deceiving. I can't say for sure just yet whether there is a problem. The issue is that this is a niche subject that requires a bit of academic expertise, so I think we would need an expert on religion to take a closer look. I will say that it is well written, almost professional in tone. Viriditas (talk) 00:00, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've recently taken a couple stabs at writing about modern religious-interest academic books (one has run on DYK, another is waiting). The nom that I reviewed did seem a bit on the praising side, but I felt it was sufficiently comprehensive and neutral. This is a hard balance, as academic reviews on niche subjects tend to be very polarized. I say continue tagging sections/articles when you feel something is up, but I wouldn't say there's enough here to broadly reject these noms. A valid concern, though, to be sure. ~ Pbritti (talk) 00:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an issue separate from the guidance being asked here, but the nominator now has over five nominations, meaning they now need to provide a QPQ. However, they have not provided a QPQ for their newer nominations. I'm not sure which nomination is the one where they need to start providing QPQs, but given that over a week has passed since the most recent ones, they need to provide a QPQ for them to pass regardless of the concerns raised above. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:09, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes exactly. It becomes very difficult for a reviewer to understand which nomination would be having a requirement of a QPQ. These articles in my opinions should go to the GOCE for extensive copyediting and this is as @Narutolovehinata5 says, separate from the guidance being asked here. Mere copyediting should not be a reason of getting these nominations rejected. ─ The Aafī (talk) 08:10, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've had a look and the above list of DYK nominations is complete. The order of nominations was slightly out and I've adjusted that. You get five free nominations; from nomination 6 onwards, you need to provide a QPQ. After being prompted for one, you have a week to provide the QPQ; after that, the nomination can and should be rejected if nothing's forthcoming. Schwede66 20:17, 27 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've left the nominator a final message on whether or not they will be able to provide QPQs. If we don't receive a response, or if the response is negative, we may have to close the nominations starting from Al-Raid (the first five nominations would not be affected by this as a QPQ is not needed for them). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I’d be more hardnosed than that. If someone refuses to provide QPQs from nomination 6 onwards, I’d regard that as GAMING. That’s not on, and I’d thus reject the prior nominations as well. Schwede66 19:04, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    And since it’s a requirement to issue a warning to a user when GAMING is suspected, here’s a ping to serve as one: Owais Al Qarni. Schwede66 19:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Narutolovehinata5 and Schwede66: Hello, everyone. Please be kind. Although I've been on Wikipedia for over three years, I recently started contributing to DYK. I wasn't familiar with QPQs before, which led me to ask Narutolovehinata5 if retracting four out of nine nominations is feasible. Could you kindly provide guidance on the withdrawal process? Currently, I aim to keep five and close four. I've gained some techniques on crafting perfect DYK hooks, and I'm committed to providing QPQs for each of my DYK contributions soon.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no need to withdraw Owais Al Qarni, you just need to review some other DYK nominations and review a few of your articles for close paraphrasing (see above table for an example). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I have a lot of QPQ I can donate so we can avoid having to reject anything. Can I donate some of my reviews to allow this to go forward, or is that against the rules? Ping me to let me know if I can help save this. Viriditas (talk) 19:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    @Viriditas: If possible, please consider donating 4 QPQs to me. Now, I want to address my 9 DYK nominations before I start reviewing other nominations.–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 20:07, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I would love to, but I don't think it is allowed. If you can get the okay, you can have them. Viriditas (talk) 20:09, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely would think it would not be allowed. It would be highly unfair to other editors to allow Owais to have as many as nine freebie nominations without being required to do even a single QPQ review when other editors only get five at most. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:49, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Right, I understand. I don’t see it as an issue of fairness, but I get that others do. Forward and onward… Viriditas (talk) 00:02, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have now marked the four most recent nominations for closure due to a lack of a QPQ, although they may continue if Owais is able to provide QPQs for each of them. The other five nominations are not affected as the QPQ requirement only kicked in starting with Al-Raid, though the other issues raised above remain to be addressed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @AirshipJungleman29: What is your current evaluation of "Al-Wafa bi Asma al-Nisa"?–Owais Al Qarni (talk) 21:22, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Owais Al Qarni: This is just to make things clear: will you be able to provide QPQs for the four nominations that require them? Meaning, will you be able to review four nominations by other editors and provide links to them in your four relevant nominations? If you need help with reviewing editors here are willing to help. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:27, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Asking four additional QPQs is seriously unfair. It appears Owais is not enough interested in reviewing four other nominations (I was willing to donate one QPQ subject to his willingness of reviewing other three nominations. Doesn't appear to be so. As such, I'd be glad to take over all the four nominations, provide QPQs and help address any DYK questions in the nominations. Best regards, ─ The Aafī (talk) 17:30, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 7

Artificial planet

@Piotrus, TheLonelyPather, and Lightburst:

With this edit, the page has been changed from an article to a disambiguation page. I have pinged the editor who performed this edit on the page's talk page. Please note that this hook might need to be pulled until this situation is resolved, or the bolded text might need to point to a different page. Z1720 (talk) 00:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who did the disambiguation responded very quickly, and I think we have determined the mix-up. I reverted the disambiguation of artificial planet, so this is back to being an article and doesn't need to be pulled. Z1720 (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Z1720 Lightburst (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not technically a DYK issue, but how can a hook about artificial planets not include ringworld? Maybe we could do:

... that some artificial planets are inside-out?

which would at least be worthy of the quirky slot. RoySmith (talk) 15:26, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Cross Temple, Fangshan

@Schwede66 I'm trying to understand the history here. This was in Queue 7 once before but you moved it back to a prep in Special:Diff/1191528110. Was there a problem the last time? If so, did it get fixed? RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith, this had been placed in the Christmas set, but even though requested for that date it wasn't really a Christmas hook, and consensus here on the talk page was to replace it in that set with an actual Christmas-related hook when one became available. I am unaware of any issues with the hook or article. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:42, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, the edit summary could have been more meaningful. This was moved just to make room for another hook; there were no other issues. Schwede66 16:56, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

E. S. Brusky

This will be two Greenbay Packers hooks in consecutive days. Maybe this should be run another day?

And while I'm here, the hook says "at least the first nine years" but the article says "at least the first decade".

RoySmith Nomination I see the discrepancy now. I thought we were safe to say "at least the first nine" because the source supporting that fact said "almost ten years". Our article said although for at least the first decade the position was unpaid which I now see was not accurate. I edited our article so that it matches the source and hook.
I also did not see an issue with running Packers hooks in two consecutive sets but if you like I can look to separate them. Also pinging Gonzo fan2007 so that they can follow the concerns. Bruxton (talk) 19:11, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
As a general rule, it's better to keep more variety from day to day. I just raised the question here in case somebody else felt a need to address this. RoySmith (talk) 19:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Switch Disco

RoySmith, the song title "Everything" was changed from quoted to italics, but per MOS:MINORWORK it should be in double quotes. Can you please change it back? Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

TIL :-) RoySmith (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 1

George Willis Pack

@Rublamb, Hameltion, and AirshipJungleman29:

I have added a citation needed tag next to a sentence; a citation will need to be placed or the sentence removed before it appears on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 16:40, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the sentence in question. Thanks. Rublamb (talk) 17:09, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nomination Ping promotor Narutolovehinata5 Bruxton (talk) 19:13, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The above issue is resolved. Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Maintenance tag

@DYK admins: On the main page right now is a DYK article with a tag. December 2017 North American winter storm. During RFA someone templated the nominators weather articles and this one was in the queue and went live about a half hour ago. What should we do about this maintenance template? Bruxton (talk) 00:13, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If it's not justified, then remove it. If it is justified, then we'll pull the hook. Schwede66 00:31, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed it. I don't think the cites to the storm events database are excessive myself, with lots of secondary sourcing also present.  — Amakuru (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Amakuru: That was the right move IMO. I also just looked at the article talk page and see that editors mentioned several secondary sources to show WP:LASTING. The nominator has had enough punches at their unsuccessful RFA. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Need second set of eyes

@RoySmith: Per this previous discussion, I made this change to the hook in the queue. Please support me or revert me depending on where you stand. Viriditas (talk) 00:33, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping. Looks good to me. RoySmith (talk) 00:43, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: I think it works and thanks for notifying us! Bruxton (talk) 00:58, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Die Kuranten (nom)

@Kazamzam and Launchballer: I've substituted "first" for "oldest" in this hook since I think it might be misread as implying that the newspaper is still in publication – I'm aware that there has been some discussion about the "oldest Jewish newspaper" claim, but I hope that this change still makes sense despite that. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 01:11, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Use of "first" in hooks should be deprecated. Viriditas (talk) 03:09, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Viriditas: I want to encourage you to help with promotions. Get the pshaw tool and have at it! Happy 2024! Bruxton (talk) 04:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Happy New Year everyone

Given that it's already January 1 over here as well as in places like Australia and New Zealand, I'd like to greet everyone a happy new year and a job well done for 2023. Here's to a 2024 full of good hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:07, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Happy NY from New Zealand! Schwede66 16:54, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year Narutolovehinata5. Thanks for always toiling in the noms. Raise a glass to another year of making this corner of the front page interesting. Bruxton (talk) 18:56, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Happy New Year! Shubinator (talk) 03:27, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 3

Triassosculda

@AirshipJungleman29 @Abdullah raji @PrimalMustelid The article doesn't say anything about April. Also, missing an end-of-sentence citation. RoySmith (talk) 01:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the source again it seems to have been published on the last day of March rather than April. Also which sentence needs the extra citation? Olmagon (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The article has to say that Triassosculda was discovered in March 2023, and that sentence needs a citation to the source which supports that statement. And once that happens, then the hook needs to be changed to also say March. RoySmith (talk) 21:56, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie of Courtenay

@AirshipJungleman29, Surtsicna, and Johnson524: the hook says "divorced", the article says "annulled". Those are not the same thing. RoySmith (talk) 01:42, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You learn something every day. Perhaps "... that when her niece's marriage to the king of Jerusalem was annulled ..."? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:42, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've updated the hook in the queue. I'm not entirely happy with the wording, but at least it matches what the article says now. If somebody has better wording, go for it. RoySmith (talk) 22:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the more I look at this, the less I'm happy with the hook at all. Surely we can find something to say about the subject herself, rather than her niece? RoySmith (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
An alternative hook was proposed. Surtsicna (talk) 13:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Chequers, Potters Bar

@AirshipJungleman29, JacobTheRox, and Whispyhistory: CANR/whatpub does not strike me as a WP:RS. And the "only" claim is similar to the "first", "biggest", etc kinds of claims in that it's almost impossible to verify. And certainly not from a bloggy sitle like whatpub. This hook seems problematic. RoySmith (talk) 01:50, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The CAMRA site is the blog of the local branch, and whatpub is WP:UGC (there's even a "submit updates" button). The hook may well be true, but it's not well sourced. Actually, I'm not even sure the subject is notable, but that's a separate discussion. Black Kite (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RoySmith, @Black Kite: thank you for your concerns. I understand the problem with the hook being a first/biggest/only, but I disagree with the idea that the sources are not WP:RS. Reference:
Middlewood, Les (2019). "A pint at the local #13 The Chequers, Potters Bar". CAMRA. Archived from the original on 23 May 2022. Retrieved 4 November 2023.
(reference 5 on the page) is a publication in the form of a news report by CAMRA. It is a reliable, independent, published source, as as necessitated at WP:RS.
Reference 7 on the page ("Chequers, Potters Bar". whatpub.com. Retrieved 2023-10-25.) is by WhatPub, the reliability of which was discussed at this RFC. The conclusion was that it was not WP:UGC, because "updates" that users could enter are simply suggestions to a team of reviewers. The source was considered appropriate for use on the page, and is used in many other places on Wikipedia. As User:Banks Irk said, CAMRA has a number of other publications, including books and periodicals, published over decades.
If there are any other issues with the article you would like to discuss, please don't hesitate as I want nothing more than to see the article on DYK! Kind regards, JacobTheRox (talk) 11:01, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That RFC also says, "What they do in terms of actual editorial oversight of WhatPub is a mystery". I'd be inclined to accept it for non-controversial facts within their area of expertise, but a statement like "was the only pub in the UK with traffic lights in its car park" is controversial because we have experience with statements like this ending up to be wrong. Also, the distribution of traffic lights in car parks is probably not something the WhatPub staff are experts in. This has all the hallmarks of an urban legend; it sounds fun, and people keep repeating it, but there's no real proof. RoySmith (talk) 14:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Whatpub is not a reliable source. Anyone who's on the committee of their local CAMRA branch can edit this information, and in my experience, it mostly comes from people's own research, at best with help from local historians (but most of the time from things they hear about pubs being opened, closed etc). Definitely WP:UGC. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, most of the History section is almost word-for-word from the https://southherts.camra.org.uk/ source. Certainly WP:CLOP, possibly into WP:G12 territory. Given the sourcing problem above, I don't see how we can run with this. RoySmith (talk) 02:11, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agree... article needs a whole rewrite. Whispyhistory (talk) 06:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This disagrees with you - 16.7% is still pretty high I guess, but I'm working on ce the article now. Surely WP:G12 needs a lot higher percentage than that! JacobTheRox (talk) 13:20, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Don't just look at the big number at the top. Read the text and compare it to the source. For example, "The Chequers pub originally occupied the building across the road from the current site." is essentially the same sentence as "The original Chequers pub occupied a building opposite", but earwig doesn't pick it up because some of the words have been rearranged. It's like that for the rest of the section. That's WP:CLOP. RoySmith (talk) 14:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I realize this was very last minute, but I just noticed that the problems raised here still hadn't been addressed, so I pulled the hook. RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Julia Figueredo

@AirshipJungleman29, Krisgabwoosh, and Mary Mark Ockerbloom: I'm concerned about the hook for two reasons. From a DYK nitpicky rules point of view, the hook fact is buried in a note; I'm not sure if that meets our requirements. But more importantly, Figueredo is notable for having been elected to national office, not for being a midwife. And the hook isn't even about her being a midwife, it's a commentary on the social status of midwives in Bolivian society. I don't see running that kind of hook. RoySmith (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Of all my nominations, this one is admittedly the largest stretch between hook and article content – the original version didn't even include Figueredo's name. While interesting on its own, I think I can get behind your reasoning, and perhaps I can circle back to this hook when – I don't know – I write an article on midwives or something.
If I were to write a new hook more closely aligned with the article, how would I go about doing that. A re-nomination now probably exceeds the seven day rule, unless an exception can be made there. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 04:58, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hooks get rehashed at the last minute all the time. Just suggest some alternates here on this thread. Reading through the article, maybe:
ALT2: ... that Julia Figueredo was the first indigenous woman to be elected president of La Paz's parliamentary delegation?
RoySmith (talk) 05:10, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Krisgabwoosh and RoySmith: Confirming that ALT2 is stated and cited in the article. I would be tempted to add "In 2013" to the hook. Mary Mark Ockerbloom (talk) 13:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I would prefer to leave the "in 2013" off. The goal of a hook is to entice somebody into clicking on the link to read the article. Adding the year into the hook isn't going to make it more enticing. RoySmith (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can get behind this hook – without "in 2013" – but linking "La Paz" to the article on La Paz Department (Bolivia) to avoid confusion with the city of La Paz. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 18:18, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I've replaced the hook with ALT2, with the La Paz Department (Bolivia) link as suggested. RoySmith (talk) 22:12, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poison: Iitai Koto mo Ienai Konna Yo no Naka wa

@AirshipJungleman29, IanTEB, and Lullabying: We're stating something in wiki voice based on a blog post. I know this is the quirky slot, but I'm not sure it gives us that much latitude. RoySmith (talk) 02:03, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • The source attached to the hook sentence is indeed a blog, but there's a Mashable reference [5] near the end of the section which appears OK. Mashable is OK for pop culture content (see RSN discussion here). Perhaps the ref should be moved to the first paragraph of that section as well. Black Kite (talk) 02:22, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this refers to Internet Watch: they are a part of Impress Watch, which was listed as reliable on WP:VGRS, so I figured it was OK to use. Even if internet Watch isn't reliable (there was no real discussion on the VG project and the author name isn't a fantastic sign), tons of replacements are available: the above mentioned Mashable article, Oricon, The TV (published by Kadokawa Corporation), brief mention in Billboard Japan, and probably a few more. IanTEB (talk) 09:39, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived about half a day ago, so as the new year begins, 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 November 27. We have a total of 298 nominations, of which 94 have been approved, a gap of 204 nominations that has increased by 11 over the past 9 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than two months old

More than one month old

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) 03:52, 1 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Today's DYK isn't actually something to 'know'?

Why is it notable that one random journalist, with no expertise in linguistics, made the exaggerated claim that 'Geordie Greep has an accent that has been described as "geographically unclassifiable"?' As a native Londoner, that's a load of rubbish. He is clearly speaking in MLE (Multicultural London English) with some sort of lisp/minor speech impediment. I guess you can say that MLE is by its definition geographically unclassifiable, but its also a very common and well established accent, and this DYK makes it seems like he sounds so unusual. I just do not understand how this off-handed comment that one journalist said casually is now front page of wikipedia? FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 10:03, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

His article itself even states 'raised in Walthamstow. He has considered his upbringing in the town beneficial, citing its cultural diversity as "brilliant for a young person" '. This almost confirms for sure that he is speaking MLE as 1. That accent/dialect is spoken widely in areas like Walthamstow and 2. He states explicitly how much the many different cultures in London influenced him and 'raised him', which is by definition where the MLE accent comes from. FlyingScotsman72 (talk) 10:09, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, this seems like even less than trivia. Uninteresting and possibly insulting. Why wasn't an actual fact such as that he met his band mates at school or that his interest in playing guitar started with a video game used instead? --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:47, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 1

Die Kuranten

  • @PrimalMustelid, Kazamzam, and Launchballer: This is another one of those problematic "first" hooks. How do we know for sure there weren't any previous Jewish newspapers? Has somebody done a comprehensive survey of all Jewish journalism for the past 5000 or so years? I see @Schwede66: brought this point up in the nom page but apparently was overruled. Skimming the nom, it looks like more attention was given to finding an interesting hook than to finding a verifiably accurate one. RoySmith (talk) 22:25, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • RoySmith, see also above, where "oldest" was changed to "first" after promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:29, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There's no fundamental difference between "first" and "oldest". Both are claims that there were no Jewish newspapers before this one, which is difficult or impossible to verify. RoySmith (talk) 22:44, 2 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess I said my piece already. Schwede66 02:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: usually, we have to go through the original-research ringer on these because newspapers are too quick on the draw to declare something the first – but I think the academic sourcing is solid. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:13, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Origins of Early Christian Literature

Does someone mind slightly altering the phrasing of this hook to be shorter. See my suggestion:

Best, ~ Pbritti (talk) 17:02, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Queue 4

Dolly de Leon

@Pseud 14, MaranoFan, and Bruxton:

Both the article and the source say that de Leon was the first Filipino nominated for Best Supporting Actress (BAFTA) and Best Performance by an Actress in a Supporting Role in Any Motion Picture (GG). This hook needs to reflect that distinction. Z1720 (talk) 03:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720, MaranoFan, and Bruxton: IMO the hook is fine as it is. De Leon is recognized for being the first Filipino to have been nominated for either awards in any category as mentioned in article. These sources also suggest that De Leon made history as the first Filipino talent to be nominated for a Golden Globe award and the first Filipina to be nominated for a BAFTA, without distinction to a role/category. The hook appears to be succinct as promoted/edited by the DYK promoter(s). Pseud 14 (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseud 14: The source used in the article made the distinction. I don't want to run a hook with two sources in disagreement. Are there other sources that can clarify? I'm not looking for anonymity; if the majority of sources say de Leon was the first Filipino nominated in any category, then it can run. Z1720 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: I've replaced that source with the two sources listed above. Ref 56 and 57. Pseud 14 (talk) 20:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Pseud 14: Replacing the sources in the article doesn't satisfy my concerns, because I know there is a source that contradicts this hook. Since this is an extraordinary claim, there must have been other outlets that discussed her achievement with these nominations. Are there other sources that specify that she is the first Filipino ever to be nominated for these two awards, and not just for these specific categories? Z1720 (talk) 22:41, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720: then we can just modify the hook to say for a Golden Globe and BAFTA for Best Supporting Actress. Every source Ive looked at mentions she is the first Filipino nominated in the category. To avoid ambiguity we can add the category if that is satisfies your concerns. I won’t have time to weed out every source that mention the same achievement, whether international or local publications. Please modify as you find fit. Pseud 14 (talk) 23:16, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bruxton: modified hook : Alt1 ... that Dolly de Leon (pictured) was the first Filipino to be nominated for a Golden Globe or a BAFTA Award for Best Supporting Actress? Pseud 14 (talk) 23:36, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have used the above ALT in the queue. Admin are welcome to make further changes without consulting me, including reverting if sources state that she is the first Filipino ever to be nominated. Z1720 (talk) 18:50, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unless the previous source says that other Filipinos had previously been nominated for other category awards, that source does not contradict the original hook, it just provides further specificity to what she was nominated for. Just saying. Kingsif (talk) 23:40, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Kingsif: I considered that too, but then I thought "Saying that it was the first Filipino ever would be a better statement than first Filipino in the category, so why add the qualifier?" Statements about being the first to something have been criticised on DYK, so I want to be extra careful in this instance. Z1720 (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ballagh

@SeoR, Pbritti, and AirshipJungleman29: There are numerous unreferenced passages (marked with cn tags) and 4 cite errors in the references. These will need to be resolved before this appears on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 03:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I restored the version as the article appeared before the substantial edit warring and as it stood on the nom's approval. If the editors involved can't agree to keep the page stable and maintain references, I would like to lodge my withdrawal of approval for the nom and would encourage a DYK clerk to swap it for another hook. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:01, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I have also removed some material that appears to have been improperly cited and moved one citation in order to demonstrate that it verifies content that was otherwise without reference. I have some suspicion that a great deal of the citation-less material may have been verifiable, but given the edit warring and that this a BLP, I have removed it until it is demonstrated as appropriately referenced. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hello all. I am sorry this is giving extra work. It *was* thoroughly reviewed - thanks to the two fellow editors involved - and approved in a stable form, as the record shows (13 Nov - 29 Dec, 99% unchanged). Last week, another editor noted some concerns about aspects of it being a bit detailed, and made some substantial edits - and to avoid edit warring, I made a few modest further edits and stepped back, keeping hands off it for some days now (so it stabilised again, aside from a couple of IP edits). I did suggest that the best bet might be to leave major editing until after DYK, to avoid complications, and maybe we could just agree that - we have had a good conversation about our writing approaches. @Hesperian Nguyen:, would you agree to wait until say 7 Jan, and then edit away? Between now and then, the only edits being to close any referencing gaps, for example? SeoR (talk) 09:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there was warring and I didn't know of the date for the DYK. (I still can't seem to see where this is listed? How to find out about this?). I think the page is not in great shape yet and needs work for reasons already discussed on its Talk. I can wait on more editing if it helps make the page better in the long run. Regards, Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 11:28, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Hesperian Nguyen: Unfortunately, there's no automatic way that you'll be notified that the page will run at DYK (unless there's a tool/script I haven't seen before). However, a quick way to check if something is up to run at DYK soon is, if you see there is a DYK nom that's transcluded on the article talk page, seeing if the discussion has been closed (usually, it'll be all purple) but there is not notice at the top of the talk page that notes the day it ran at DYK. Generally, that'll mean it is in a prep or queue to run within two weeks. As for holding off on edits, I can't tell you not to edit an article–this is a collaborative project. However, page instability may preclude this article from running at DYK if issues are introduced. I'm glad that discussion seems to be proceeding civilly and effectively. ~ Pbritti (talk) 16:17, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you all, and I agree, this proceeds in a good way. Then I propose that I go ahead and fix the referencing issues noted by fellow editors, leaving all other editing for other hands after DYK. I'm just back to work but given how soon Main Page appearance is, I will prioritise doing that tonight. SeoR (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Z1720:, I am happy to report that after a good efficient discussion above, the article is in compliant state, with references supplied for all of the noted items, except one, which I think is unnecessary to put back (it was about a family member rather than the subject). I re-sourced, as my notes from the leading source were unavailable (cloud storage!). I still hope to secure one artistic image, but that will only add. I will do one last ref. check. SeoR (talk) 02:21, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the article again and the citation and referencing concerns seem to have been resolved. Z1720 (talk) 02:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need to be more willing to reject nominations if they are stuck or are unsuitable for DYK

One of the recurring issues with DYK, and one that helps contribute to DYK's large backlog, is that nominations often sit around for ages with little-to-no progress being made. In some cases, it's for reasons beyond anyone's control, such as reviewers being unwilling to review them. However, in cases where a review is ongoing but progress on addressing the nomination is slow, we need to be more proactive or at least willing to reject them. These stuck nominations often turn into time sinks when efforts and energy could instead be diverted to more urgent matters or nominations that need the attention. This of course does not mean we should automatically reject "stuck" nominations; sometimes they're stuck for understandable reasons. However, we do need to be more willing to reject them if they cannot be brought to standard within a reasonable standard.

Similarly, we also need to be more willing to reject nominations if the hook proposed, or the hooks proposed, are not suitable. For example, they either don't meet the interestingness criterion, or they are all unsuitable due to being inaccurate, unclear, or lacking proper sourcing. If an article simply does not have enough suitable material to base a hook, we should be more willing to reject these nominations, instead of trying to squeeze out hooks that in the end may not actually be that good of a hook and were only proposed just for the sake of there being a hook and the article passing.

I understand that in both cases, nominators' feelings may be hurt. This is understandable and we probably have all felt the feeling of disappointment or frustration if things don't go our way on DYK. But we have to work for the good of the encyclopedia, and especially on DYK, the interests of our readership should be above all, even if it may come at the expense of hurt feelings. Disappointment is understandable, but editors need to learn to move on from such cases and perhaps find another outlet for their efforts. Perhaps the article just wasn't right for DYK but it can mean more energy and effort to contribute more suitable material. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn’t agree more. Schwede66 14:35, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Same here. But I'll add that I'm a lot more willing to put in effort to teach a new submitter how this works than to argue with an old hand who's just insisting on getting their way. RoySmith (talk) 14:48, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Poll: is this hook interesting?

Did you know ...

Let's make a scale from 0 to 3, 0 = not interesting at all, 1 = partly interesting, 2 = interesting, 3 very interesting. I'd be interested if you said so without looking at the nomination (to avoid bias) which can easily be found on the article talk page if wanted. -- Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1.5? I'm not so excited about the first half of the hook. I assume many (if not most) performers make their debut in some kind of children's event, so nothing there to pique my interest. Reading over the article I found "She appeared as both Venus and Gepopo" to be the most interesting thing, and I see that's the second half of what you proposed, so my recommendation is to emphasize that. RoySmith (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
0. Combining two unrelated facts in a hook is normally to be avoided anyway, a singer starting in a children's chorus is very meh, and "she appeared as both Venus and Gepopo" is only interesting if you don't know that this is nearly mandatory, i.e. the composer has specifically indicated that the roles should be played by the same person, as was done by Sarah Aristidou (Needcompany), Barbara Hannigan, Hila Baggio in Dresden, Sara Hershkowitz, Susanna Andersson, ... By the way, the claim in the article that she performed in the German premiere of the opera is wrong, as shown by the Dresden link. The actual German premiere seems to have been in Hannover. So, a hook combining one uninteresting part with one which only looks interesting if you don't know that this is the custom, to combine these two roles. Fram (talk) 15:33, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I still think the bit about playing both parts is interesting. My knowledge of music is limited, and of opera even more so. But I expect that's true of most of our readers. People usually complain that Gerda's hooks are only interesting if you know the musical backstory, so I can't get upset about a hook which is only interesting if you don't know the backstory. I do think this point should be mentioned in the article however. A good hook is a tease, but at least let the reader in on the joke when you get them to click. Le Grand Macabre says Gepopo, chief of espionage, sung by the same soprano who performed Venus; it might be good to clarify in that article that this is by design and noted in the score, as opposed to an oddity of one particular performance. @Grimes2: who looks like they've been the most recent maintainer of that article. RoySmith (talk) 16:20, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We could clarify that by saying: ... that coloratura soprano Anna Nekhames performed first in the Bolshoi Theatre's children's chorus, and in 2023 at the Oper Frankfurt the double role of Venus and Chief of the Gepopo in Ligeti's Le Grand Macabre? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:58, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
0.75, with a potential of 1.75; the only interesting part is the bit about playing both Venus and a chief of espionage. Everything before is filler fluff and should be trimmed. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
0 Why does it matter that they played this role? It's like saying that a soldier participated in a battle, or an actor was a lead in a movie: their occupation is that they would be participating in an activity like this, so why is this important? What makes this event, or their participation in the event, special? A reader who is unfamiliar with this topic should realise why this is special from reading the hook. Z1720 (talk) 17:26, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Gepopo is one of the great coloratura roles in opera, so why not something like "performed as Gepopo an high, wailing aria, that consists of "code language"". (citation from the wiki article of the opera) Grimes2 (talk) 17:53, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
as written, 0 – doesn't really make me want to know more. If we just focused on the second half, I'd say 0.8. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:07, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd call it maybe a 0.5 ("very limited interest but only to non-experts, who probably won't be interested because they're non-experts"). Something like ... that Anna Nekhames played the dual roles of the goddess Venus and a chief spy in Le Grand Macabre with coloratura acrobatics that "seem[ed] to go beyond the vocal limits" would be minimally interesting, I think (maybe 1.25): I'm not a huge fan of "a reviewer said this" hooks but they're better than "a person did their job" ones. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (they|xe|she) 19:21, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be a fan of that. Kingsif (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support Grimes2 (talk) 14:39, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Calling it a 1. But the interestingness isn't the problem for me, we have so many 1-level hooks now that I think upholding a higher standard isn't going to be practical. No, the issue is that this hook is a run-on sentence. I'd just cut the Bolshoi Theatre part to fix that (to make it "...Nekhames performed at the Oper..." - haven't seen the nom to know if this has been mentioned. Kingsif (talk) 23:44, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • For me, because I have a specific interest in opera—it's a 1.
  • For a general audience, which DYKs should be targeting—it's unfortunately a flat 0, as far as I can tell. Remsense留 23:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Step 2 learning

From some responses above I gather that a shorter hook would be more welcome, so - cutting out where she came from, and her early activity on the stage of one of the top houses known in the world, where she had the chance to hear the top performers of that house:

Reflecting the wish to mention the kind of performance (which was not yet in the article when I wrote the first hook):

Questions from me regarding the comments above:

  1. Isn't the title "Le Grand Macabre" making curious, regardless of it being an opera?
  2. Isn't Ligeti's centenary (in 2023 when I wrote the hook and the production of one of the key operas of the 20th century was staged - another one in Vienna) - the composer from whose music that of 2001: A Space Odyssey was drawn - reason enough to mention his name on Did you know at least this one time?
  3. "highlight the variety of information" is one of five goals of DYK - is there a good reason to reject varied information? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:09, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Identifying something specific: there's a lot of proper nouns in the hook—and most people will not be immediately comfortable putting all of them in context. Many people will get halfway through and their eyes will glaze over because they don't really know what it's talking about.
Here's a thought: ideally a hook will have one or two unfamiliar names, one of them probably being the topic itself. Here's my try:
Remsense留 08:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty good proposal actually. If others are fine with the proposal we can use that instead for the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I do wonder if a slightly-modified version, something like ALTØ1 ... that soprano Anna Nekhames had to be "acrobatic" in her dual role as both Venus and the Chief of the Gepopo in a 2023 production of Le Grand Macabre? would be better since it would mention Nekhames first and thus encourage readers to click on it first instead of clicking on the article for Le Grand Macabre. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:34, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Narutolovehinata5, I think that's an improvement on mine, certainly! And of course, I'm happy if my suggestion is in any way helpful. Remsense留 08:36, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for thinking, but we need some way to say that it's vocal acrobatic, not real acrobatic, and believe the term "coloratura acrobatic" does a god job. I also believe that "Ligeti" (6 characters) should not be omitted. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:43, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • I disagree, I don't think the distinction is necessary. It's a hook, not a complete thought. If anything, this is a case where some ambiguity might intrigue the reader. The word being in quotes reinforces this—if it were straightforward, the quotes would not be required, it would just read ... that soprano Anna Nekhames had to be acrobatic in her ...
  • It's not about character count per se—though with a limit of 200 that always matters—like I've said above, it's about avoiding information overload. While I personally love him very much, most people reading don't know who Ligeti is, and i think [unfamiliar surname]'s [unfamiliar work] is a formation that is particularly likely to make an otherwise uninvested reader stop reading. The topic is about making a hook interesting, not making it shorter.
Remsense留 08:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
ps: you can save chars by avoiding the redundancy of saying "double" and "both". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Coloraturo acrobatic" is a very poor translation, "acrobatic coloraturo" would be better. And she didn't "have to be" acrobatic (which makes it sound like she she had to perform while making somersaults or jumping on a trampoline), her vocal performance was described as acrobatic. Oh, and the article now claims that this was "the German premiere of the revised version" of the opera, without any evidence for this claim; the use of "premiere" in one source just indicates the first date that this particular staging was shown in Frankfurt, nothing more. Is there are any reason why so much effort is spent on so many of Gerda Arendts hooks, while most other prolific DYK contributors don't seem to be such a drain? Just reject it and move on to the next. Fram (talk) 09:01, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree that in several cases, simply outright rejecting her nominations for lack of an interesting hook would be the ideal option (this is mainly for articles without suitable hooks, articles that have something usable do not apply and should be passed if they meet the guidelines). It would save DYK a lot of time and effort. However, she is rarely willing to let her nominations be closed or rejected. She has also, in the past, expressed frustration if her requests are not granted: for example if her special occasion requests are missed, or if a hook other than her preferred wording or fact is promoted and featured.
Several editors here have experienced being on the receiving end of her frustration when either they review her nominations and state that the hook is uninteresting, or they propose a hook that has wordings or facts different from what she wishes. Given previous experiences, it could be the case that at least some editors here may not be necessarily be willing anymore to engage with, review, or reject her nominations considering how they would often turn into time sinks if things do not go according to her wishes.
Having said that, in the case of this specific nomination, I would be open to Remsense's suggestion if there is consensus to run it and she agrees to it, because otherwise I can't see the nomination running given the consensus has largely been against her originally proposed hook. I can sympathize with Gerda. Her goal is to make classical musicians and opera performers more known, either via DYK or via ITN. As someone whose DYK specialization is on a similarly-niche topic (anime voice actors and musicians), I share that goal of wanting more people to learn about the subjects I write about. It's just that there's probably a better way to do it since, as statistics have shown, her hook wordings have generally scared away readers more than attracted them, with her classical music hooks consistently being among the least-viewed hooks on DYK. This is just my opinion, but I believe that hooky facts about opera singers, for example highlighting unusual or fascinating aspects about them, even if they're not necessarily about their musical careers, would do more to promote these people and encourage to learn more about them than the status quo of hooks that may appeal to Gerda and other classical music fans, but not necessarily the general public. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:52, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does seem, reading through previous conversation, that the user does not seem interested in what the average reader may or may not get out of a hook. Moreover, she doesn't even seem interested in what reviewers—who constitute a class far more actively engaged than the average reader—may or may not get out of a hook.
I am not sure what the point of polling for advice on the subject is if her criteria for "general interest" ultimately remains coterminous with "her interest", other than to eventually obtain permission through sheer attrition. Frankly, I would meditate on the fact that neither the the topic nor even the hook are "hers". Remsense留 10:06, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't we have a HUGE discussion about this a year or two ago? I thought that the project had reiterated that "singer sings songs" (or other "guy does something bog standard for his job" type hooks) weren't going to be allowed going forward. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
In October 2022 we did have an RfC that modified the interestingness criterion, requiring that hooks be perceived as intriguing or unusual to non-specialist audiences (a less vague and more explicit wording than the previous "interesting to a broad audience" wording). In practice, it hasn't always been applied, and there have been several cases of hooks by multiple editors that have slipped through the cracks, as RoySmith can attest to with recent examples like Teratoscincus roborowskii.
As for the "people doing their jobs" hooks, while they're generally discouraged, they're not outright banned and there hasn't been an actual discussion to my recollection about restricting them. At most, there's some consensus to discourage hooks that are basically saying that a person played a particular role in a media without additional context, although in practice some hooks with that format have still been approved as that consensus does not appear to be widely known or enforced. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:51, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we did. What we didn't have was a discussion about Gerda's consistent WP:FORUMSHOPping all over the place (on this page, on user talk pages, and, on one memorable occasion, demanding a change at WP:ERRORS) in increasingly frantic attempts to grind everyone down and force her preferred versions onto the main page against consensus. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:10, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If we aren't going to make sure that the hooks are actually interesting, then why go through the process at all? Just post whatever the proposer wants with no oversight. Or just post a list of recently created or updated articles with no blurbs, just the bare links. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:44, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There's of course, the other more sensible solution: be more willing to reject nominations that are unsuitable, either because they have taken too long to get up to standard, or because the hooks are not interesting enough. It's true that views on what may be interesting differ from editor to editor, but we do need to be more willing to bring up to the nominator if a hook isn't interesting, and be more willing to close nominations if there isn't a suitable hook that could be found or agreed upon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:47, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That was all implied in "make sure that the hooks are actually interesting". --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 14:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hook duration dynamics

For a while we have used a 12/24 hook duration system, which seems to work O.K., but seems unfair to some subjects which gives us either a once a day or twice a day rotation. It goes back and forth between a 365 sets per year and 730 sets per year rate. We generally fall between those two rates so this works. Once I mentioned it would be fairer to switch between 16/18 which is between 486.6 and 547.5 sets per year, which might be a bit tight of a range to work. However, what about switching to a 16/24 system, which would make sure all hooks get more fairly exposed worldwide. The 16 hour periods would entail 2-day periods where 3 sets run for 16 hours each. It would take longer to reduce high hook inventories, but it would be fairer to all hooks.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:46, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How many hooks do we get through per year? I've suggested increasing the number of hooks on the main page before now.--Launchballer 15:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I meant 'per set'...--Launchballer 16:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The possibility of 18-hour sets (not 16) has been discussed before, but the calls were rejected for both technical and practicality reasons. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
16 hour sets sound sensible to me, though I'm sure I've suggested this before... Yes the times will vary for sets (so not always at 12 o'clock UTC), but it will stop the frequent 12/24 hour hook shenanigans. And 16 hours works better than 18 in my opinion, as it cycles better (3 sets every 2 days, whereas 18 hours is 6 sets every 4.5 days, and so a 9 day cycle until it's back to 12 o'clock change time). Joseph2302 (talk) 16:18, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
16 hours gets you 3 sets every two days; 18 hours is 4 sets every 3 days. When I started at DYK, we had 3 sets per day, or 8 hours, so 12 hours or 24 hours both seem like extra time to me, and I don't see any need to change; 12 hours is a lot, and 24 is an extra bonus. But whether it's between 12 and 24, or 16 or 18 is picked, it won't be exact, and we will have to switch at some point. We've been in a recent lull, and WikiCup is beginning, which adds to the rate of nominations; similarly, there will be a GAN backlog drive in February or March which will also increase the number of DYK nominations. Something to think about. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:02, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I remember 6 hour time slots when I started. But that is the past. Of course no subject is entitled to exposure time. I am just saying since we have the system, it is more fair to have those that don't get 24-hour slots get 16-hour slots rather than 12-hour slots.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:55, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Proposals to vary from 12 or 24-hour timeframes have been repeatedly shot down due to special occasional requests wanting to be on a certain date. Flibirigit (talk) 19:10, 3 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Flibirigit, 16-hour sets would not interfere with date requests any more than a 12-hour set would. In any two day cycle there would be three runs: a.) 0:00-16:00 day 1, b.) 16:00-8:00 day 1/day 2 and c.) 8:00-0:00 day 2. On the UTC clock/calendar, a day 1 date request could get the a slot and the day 2 request could get the c slot. Depending on the part of the world that the subject is of most interest to the b. slot may also be an option. If the UTC clock/calendar is not most relevant, the 12-hour set or 16-hour set would both be a matter of figuring out which slot is best for the hook.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Must admit, my morning coffee has not kicked in yet. Why 16 over 18? Ktin (talk) 07:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
16 feels a bit neater, because you crank through 3 sets in 2 days, then start the cycle again. With 18, it would be 4 sets over 3 days, which is a little more complex to think about. Personally I'm fine with this proposal, it would be good to get to a point where we rarely need to change the frequency. Obviously having the year by year stats would be useful for that. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:12, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. I see. Typically one of the concerns I have thought through is daytime in certain geographies and night time in certain other geographies when the hooks run. 24 hours solves for that quite nicely. However, 12 hours does not solve for that. If we were going for something in between, I think of 18 which is right in between 12 and 24. Ktin (talk) 09:41, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ktin, the point of varying from 24-hour sets is to reduce the backlog by presenting an above average number of hooks. 18-hour sets is a rate of 486.6 sets per year, but 16-hour sets is a rate of 547.5 sets per year. Last I heard we do somewhere in the low 500s. Someone can probably tell us what the exact number of sets we did in the last couple of years.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
497 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Total
2023 52 28 48 35 40 30 39 37 42 31 30 31 443
2022 62 38 42 41 38 44 45 39 44 51 41 31 516
2021 57 40 62 60 48 49 56 62 42 42 45 48 611
2020 61 47 31 42 62 53 52 53 54 33 41 43 572
2019 31 39 48 31 31 30 31 51 50 31 30 38 441
2018 54 28 29 41 45 30 31 31 30 31 30 54 434
2017 52 55 49 31 31 30 51 31 40 31 30 31 462
Total 369 275 309 281 295 266 305 304 302 250 247 276 3479
Might have got carried away, but if I can add up, we did 443 sets last year (or, at least, that's the number of times "ago) (utc+" appears), and I think the COVID spike's over. (September 2016 contained a day with three sets, so any earlier than 2017 isn't a fair comparison.)--Launchballer 16:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Launchballer. This measures the outflow and is an important number for sure. Do we have the ability to measure the inflow? I think that is the number we need to look at. If we want to be specific we should use Inflow multiplied by probability of acceptance. That will tell us how many entries will come through our prep queues.
My mind continues to remain fixated with the 18 hours number to ensure that each time zone gets a good shot at having hooks during their daytime. My thinking 24 hours = Each time zone gets the hooks during their daytime. 12 hours = half and half. 18 hours = somewhere in between. Ktin (talk) 16:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a way, I don't know it. For me, 18 hours is a non-starter because every third day would not have a set to itself, which would obstruct date requests on those days. I remain in favour of increasing the number of hooks per set; nine and ten hook sets would be equivalent to between 410.8978125 and 456.553125 eight-hook sets.--Launchballer 21:18, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Launchballer, these are the two alternatives to the 12-hour alternative:
  1. 16-hour runs:
    1. a.) 0:00-16:00 day 1,
    2. b.) 16:00-8:00 day 1/day 2
    3. c.) 8:00-0:00 day 2
If a person wants either day 1 or day 2, there is a clear set preference for either day.
  1. 18-hour runs:
    1. a.) 0:00-18:00 day 1,
    2. b.) 18:00-12:00 day 1/day 2
    3. c.) 12:00-8:00 day 2/day 3
    4. d.) 8:00-0:00 day 3.
I did not realize your point until considered a request for day 2.
Yes 16-hour (and 12-hour) alternative runs retain date preference availability on the UTC clock/calendar. 18-hour runs is a problem.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:11, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. Lunchballer, please clear up the math so I can see where 410.8978125 and 456.553125 come from.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
365.2425 divided by 8, and then multipied by 9 and 10. (.2425 is 97 leap years out of 400, and I like the number 365.2425 because it divides cleanly by 7, i.e. there are 52.1775 weeks in a year.)--Launchballer 22:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
User:Ktin, I didn't really realize normal production is that far below 500 sets/year. We could say that 2020-2022 are all COVID bump rates. Right now when we have a high inventory of approved articles we go to a 12-hour run. This is a pace of 730 (365*2) sets per year. Because this is an above average number, it helps us reduce the high inventory very quickly, but some subjects only get 12 hours of exposure. 730 reduces the inventory because it is far above our average production rate (see the year-end totals). 16-hour sets is a pace of 547.5 sets per year, which is a rate that over the long haul will reduce our inventory (except for the 2020-22 COVID lockdown production bump). 18-hour sets is only a pace of 486.6 sets per year, which may be a bit above average, but will may not reduce the inventory any where near as quickly. In fact if production fluctuates during the year, at a time when production of approved articles is high and inventory is high, we may not even be reducing the inventory, but it would probably keep inventory from ballooning too much until production goes back down. Let's say we believe we produce about 450 sets of approved content per year. We could predict number of days of the year (x) that we would be at 24-hours sets as follows:
  1. 18-hour set alternative: x*(1) + (365-x)*4/3 =450-->x=110
  2. 16-hour set alternative: x*(1) + (365-x)*3/2 =450-->x=195
  3. 12-hour set alternative: x*(1) + (365-x)*2 = 450-->x=280 (current situation)
18-hour sets would not be that bad actually, it is just a question of whether it keeps inventory from continuing to balloon at times when inventory is high.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:53, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Number of hooks in each set

As an offshoot of the above discussion, I want to consider the number of hooks in each hook set.

DYK has not always had 8 hooks per set: January 2005 had a seemingly-random number, January 2007 had between 6-8/set, January 2010 had 8/set (with 4 sets running each day!), January 2012 and January 2014 had 7/set. Its back to 8/set in January 2016, which I think has remained that way up to today.

If DYK reduces the number of hooks per set, it will give more attention to each article in a set, especially those in the middle. For main page balance, fewer hooks mean that TFA can have longer blurbs; speaking as a WP:TFA blurb writer, it can be hard cutting material to 1025 characters and fewer DYK hooks means TFA can take up more space on the main page. Likewise, from an OTD perspective, if there are fewer DYK hooks, OTD can run fewer hooks in its section to achieve Main Page balance. Fewer hooks per DYK set also means that prep-to-queue promoters do not have to review as many hooks, which will hopefully get more admin to help out here.

If DYK adds more hooks to the set it will mean we cycle through hooks more quickly. OTD recently increased the number of births/deaths on each day from 3 to 4, which sometimes adds a line to OTD. I've noticed that OTD is further down the page than DYK about once a week; sometimes the number of OTD hooks is reduced from 5 to 4 to achieve main page balance. I would surmise that, from a Main Page perspective, there is space to have more DYK hooks if that is decided upon.

Looking forward to reading additional thoughts: should DYK increase, decrease, or keep the number of hooks the same per set? Is your opinion contingent on how often DYK runs sets? (so, for example, if DYK went to 16h sets, would you want fewer hooks per set?) Z1720 (talk) 22:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Z1720, we have been at eight hooks per set for quite a while, as you note, and that is because that's what we need to fulfill our part in balancing the main page. We are not operating in a vacuum. Indeed, it has been suggested that we do slightly larger prep sets, but there was fierce resistance here from prep builders to including more than eight hooks per set. I doubt we have the option of attempting to reduce the number of hooks at the present time, though, as you note, if we wished to expand to nine hooks (or maybe even ten), that would likely be welcomed by our colleague main-page sections. As I'm not building prep sets, I'll let those who do weigh in on set size. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Quirky vs. clickbait?

There was a suggestion made by @Bagumba on WP:ERRORS about updating WP:QUIRKY. Just noting it here for wider attention. See Special:Diff/1193598287. RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For convenient reference today's QUIRKY hook was ultimately toned down Is a caveat to QUIRKY needed?—Bagumba (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My view is that we shouldn't be posting hooks that are blatantly misleading, as this one is- a capital P on Poison isn't enough for readers to understand that it's a quirky joke. Not least because not everyone will know the quirky hook slot. I think there should be a rule against deliberately misleading readers. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If I was approving this prep set, I would have not changed the hook. I think we are underestimating our readers' ability to decode information: they are smart enough to realise that the original hook was not talking about poison, but rather something else. If anyone thought it was talking about poison, they would probably click on the link to find out more information, and realise that we were talking about a song.
I did a completely unscientific test where I showed the original hook to someone who does not edit Wikipedia: they said, "first glance, I thought it might be the substance, but then I see it's capitalised and in quotes, so it's probably not and I would need to click on it to find out more. It's definitely clickbaity." (I didn't ask if it was, they volunteered that word without prompting). Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is safe to say that most of us will agree that this DYK should not have gone as-it-did to the mainpage. I think that is straightforward. Upper-case P vs lower-case p distinction will escape most of our readers.
That aside, often times, DYK editors and nominators are guilty of misconstruing "click-baitiness" with "interestingness". Even as I type this post, there are at least two threads upstream on this page that are debating interestingness. In my view, a good DYK is something that should make our readers learn more about a subject, and roughly go "Ah! I learned something today!". Instead, what we might be prioritizing here is our readers going -- "Oh! What could that be?" and then followed by "Eikes! Why did I click on that one!" Ktin (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ah yes, they'd learn how to soothe all those babies. Especially if they'd already tried out Alice and all the 28 other songs with that title!! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Joseph2302, @Ktin: You've both been selective in your recollection of the original presentation. It was "Poison", upper-case P and the word in double-quotes, which I maintained in the discussion is substantially different from poison. Bazza (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Neither of which is significant enough for most readers to notice a difference in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Meh. I don't object to the change -- 'the song "Poison"' isn't that much less quirky. But I also don't think the original was a problem. Valereee (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Bazza 7 I will admit, I missed the double quotes. It makes it only marginally better than without the quotes imho. Ktin (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A key distinction between interestingness and click-baitiness.
Interesting: Reader clicks on the article to know more about the presented fact and / or learn more about the article now that their interest has been piqued by the presented fact.
Click-baity: Reader clicks on the article now that their curiosity has been triggered because the fact has not been fully presented or worse still has been presented in a misleading manner. Ktin (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Criminal: Reader comes to DYK to learn more on how to poison noisy babies. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How exactly was the hook "blatantly misleading"? Regardless of what hook slot it's in, I can't imagine a reader possibly interpreting this as a literal suggestion that poison soothes babies. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 23:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We seem to have forgotten the meaning of "quirky" lately. It should be something a bit bizarre but that's presented accurately. Tomorrow's is a decent one - "that although Olga Hartman believed that her basic research on marine worms had no practical value, it was applied to experimental studies of oysters?". Historically, we have allowed the other type of hook - ones designed to mislead or present things as other than what they're really saying, once a year on 1 April. I also don't like that myself, but you pick your battles I guess. The daily quirky slot was never meant to be an everyday version of April fools though, and today's hook veered too far in that direction IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know&oldid=1193656811"