Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 183

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 180 Archive 181 Archive 182 Archive 183 Archive 184 Archive 185 → Archive 190

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a little over an hour ago, so I’ve created a new list that includes all 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 11. We currently have a total of 198 nominations, of which 105 have been approved, a gap of 93, which has increased by 12 in the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over three months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:07, 19 October 2021 (UTC)

Q3 Oct27b

Template:Did you know nominations/Gao Yan (politician)

Eviolite Juxlos Theleekycauldron

I'm concerned this is too negative for the main page on a BLP. Any objection to switching to ALT1:

I slightly prefer ALT3 though have no objections to ALT1. eviolite (talk) 12:09, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Eviolite, yes, and Juxlos preferred ALT3, too, and TLC promoted it, which is why I wanted to come in here and get other opinions. And I do understand; it's a very interesting hook. The problem for me is that it seems unduly negative for a BLP, which is a problem for DYK hooks per WP:DYKHOOK (3rd bullet under content). ALT0 is less negative, too, if you'd prefer that one? —valereee (talk) 12:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
ALT0 sounds good to me if it's neutral enough given that most of the article/sources are about the investigation and aftermath. eviolite (talk) 13:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
ALT0 feels more balanced to me -- it mentions the corruption investigation, but also mentions that the investigation may have been politically motivated. —valereee (talk) 14:05, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: I'd be fine with switching to ALT0 as well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 14:40, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2021 Facebook outage

Elli ezlev Ritchie333

This was the only hook offered, but I think 99% of folks reading the Wikipedia main page probably do indeed know that Facebook was down for six hours. How would you feel about something like:

  • ... that an outage on October 4, 2021 also cut off Facebook's internal communications, preventing employees from sending or receiving emails, accessing the corporate directory, or authenticating to Zoom?

To me, that's more surprising and therefore more interesting. —valereee (talk) 13:21, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: no objection to using that hook. Elli (talk | contribs) 13:23, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: ooh, yeah that works theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 14:41, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Depends on whether you want a more interesting hook (which is the second one) or the one that will attract the most viewers (which will probably be the first one, as it has all the big companies listed). Joseph2302 (talk) 14:44, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree, but given that this story was felt around the world, i think it'll attract enough viewers even if we take the time to be thorough. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 14:49, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
How can the "more interesting" hook not be "the one that attracts the most viewers"? Aren't they the same by definition? EEng 15:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I took it to mean "more interesting to those who are actively paying some amount of attention anyway", rather than more hooky to everyone who stops by the main page. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 15:38, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
Ditto. It's the difference between 'ooh, WhatsApp!' and 'lol, FB screwed themselves?' —valereee (talk) 19:31, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
No objection here either, Valereee. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 15:45, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Queue 1 - the next to go live - Janet Wilmshurst

@Theleekycauldron: you reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Janet Wilmshurst - this set will go live in less than an hour. Although the source specifically uses the term "poop", the word is not used in the body of the article. I'm assuming "moa poo" is the same thing, but you know how picky people can be. In the second sentence under the Research section, I added "(poop)" after "fossilied dung". Just giving you as the reviewer a heads up, just in case WP:ERRORS mentions this. — Maile (talk) 23:16, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Maile66: good thinking, thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:39, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Prep 5: Boost Drinks

  • ... that Boost Drinks, which primarily sells energy and sports drinks, introduced an iced coffee range in 2020?

Are we not worried that this hook, while not absurdly promotional, pretty much only serves to be promotional? The article itself goes into details about sponsorships and flavours where I'm not sure the secondary sourcing really signals that it's relevant, too. I'm being a stickler about this, so I could be wrong, but it does concern me. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:52, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Pinging nominator and reviewer—i see the hook did have a bit of a promotionality problem to begin with for one of the ALTs. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:53, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I only go by if it's the intention of the creator to promote the company. That is why I would like to hear from the nominator first before any assumptions. SL93 (talk) 02:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I think that's a good idea, too. i'm sure it wasn't intentional. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I don’t work for the company and have never drank Boost before, so it wasn’t my intention for it to sound promotional. Sahaib3005 (talk) 06:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Look, ... that $COMPANYTHATMAKESSTIMULANTDRINKS introduced $STIMULANTDRINK has got to be about as uninteresting as a hook can be. If it was $COMPANYTHATMAKESSTIMULANTDRINKS started out making sleeping pills, then you'd have something. This may be one of those rare articles with no conceivable hook that qualifies as interesting. EEng 03:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • ALT5 was chosen by the promoter Tbhotch. Personally, I think ALT1 is the least bad option. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:39, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Reviewer comment. I'm waiting for Sahaib's comment on this but I have no problem if another option is chosen or if the nomination is reopened. (CC) Tbhotch™ 05:20, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
  • The only way this can get a hook (sorry nominator, but some articles just aren't hook-y, and whether you mean it or not "last year COMPANY added new line of THING COMPANY SELLS" is entirely promotional) is if we could make a pun out of Cosmic Glow. "DYK you can drink cherries that glow cosmically?" - would that work as a quirky hook. Kingsif (talk) 06:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
    I think many nominators on DYK need to take this advice into account more. A lot of the articles we write simply don't have any information that works as a hook, so trying to nominate them for DYK when all attempted hooks are stretches of hookiness is simply counterproductive. I know a lot of us regulars have been guilty of this at least once in our careers, but perhaps we really need to take "not everything is meant for DYK" to heart more often. As for Kingsif's suggestion, I'm not sure if that hook would work outside of April Fools Day; for one thing, the article is at Boost Drinks and not Cosmic Glow, so a hook that only refers to the latter could fall afoul of WP:EGG. I wouldn't be opposed to it as an April Fools hook, however. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:46, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
    Repeated attempts to put teeth into the interestingness requirement have shown, unfortunately, that there's no appetite for putting a lower limit on how dull, vapid, or pedestrian a hook is allowed to be. And the cosmic thing is (a) indeed an EGG, and (b) not even half good enough to waste a 4/1 slot on. EEng 17:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I have pulled the hook for further discussion. SL93 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Queue/6

@Meanderingbartender and Johnbod: - Template:Did you know nominations/Susan Chitty. The "literary assassination" quote isn't actually cited within the article, and I believe that needs to be done before this gets on the main page, per Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria #3. Hog Farm Talk 02:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed the immediate problem and cited the quote inline. If it ever gets transferred to the body, it'll need to be restated and recited. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Sure it is, ref #1. What do you mean "If it ever gets transferred to the body"? Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Johnbod: - It was not there when I posted this - leekycauldron added it. Hog Farm Talk 04:03, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
The quote is only mentioned in the lead, not the body, so if it's put into the body it should be cited there instead of the lead. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
NOT OF THE BODY! EEng 06:56, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Hog Farm: Added a sentence in the main body. Let me know if it needs more. Cheers, --Meanderingbartender (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Queue 4

  • ... that in 1970, a Raytheon 704 cost less than $10,000 ($65,000 today) with a blazing 1 MHz CPU and a whopping 8 kB of memory?
Is everyone happy with this hook which introduces sarcasm opinion in Wikipedia's voice? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: according to author Maury Markowitz, sarcasm the hook is not, although my hunch is that it'll be taken as sarcasm on the main page. I'm fine with it, although I promoted it so I think I'd have to be. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:23, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I do think "less than $10,000" should be in quotes, given even today most computers cost less than $10,000. I think the hook works without the adjectives, but I don't feel too strongly about it. CMD (talk) 07:46, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis (I was the original reviewer). I don't see a need to quote the price, since that's demonstrably true. However, if we wanted to note which parts are opinion, then I would quote "blazing" and "whopping", as those are subjective evaluations. Not sure how much weight you should give to my comment, as I'm a relative newbie at DYK and not up on all the cultural nuances. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:44, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
If we were to quote it, we'd need someone who actually said it, otherwise it's lending it more credibility than it has. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:50, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
I actually like the hook, and the lack of quotes doesn't bother me. It's kind of a sleeper hook. Definitely in the quirky. —valereee (talk) 16:28, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but I can't let this pass. The key moment comes in the nom discussion (Template:Did you know nominations/Raytheon 704) when Maury Markowitz says that "blazing" and "whopping" are not sarcastic! At the time these were impressive numbers - systems using core generally ran slower and came with less memory - a PDP 8/I cost about $13k for a system with 6k and ran about half as fast. We could even mention the weight, 75 lbs vs 250 for the PDP. It may very well be true that for machines of its class ("minicomputers") this thing had good price-performance, but by standards of what was available overall at the time, these numbers are paltry -- that's why they were called minicomputers. So we really do need a source calling them impressive. EEng 16:56, 26 October 2021 (UTC) P.S. A further sign of trouble is the qualification systems using core – all computers used core memory at that time. That's all there was.
    This isn't my field—it's possible that the best thing to do is demote the nom and sort this out on the nompage. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    Valereee. EEng 19:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    Is it too late to suggest another possible hook which might be less controversial? ALT3: "... that the Raytheon 704 had two bits in each memory location which were used to illuminate a front-panel lamp" Source: The parity check module offloaded this task from the CPU, using the two extra bits in memory to store separate parity bits for the two bytes of data in each word. In the event an error was found, the processor was halted and a lamp illuminated on the front panel. -- RoySmith (talk) 19:53, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    The function of the parity bits was not to light a lamp; their function was to detect storage errors, and lighting the lamp was ancillary. Here's an appropriate recasting of the original hook:
ALTX ... that in 1970, a Raytheon 704 with a 1 MHz CPU and 8 kB of memory was advertised as costing "less than $10,000" ($70,000 today)?
(The $65000 was false precision.) EEng 20:16, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
If we're there, we should probably cut out the specs entirely—emphasize the "less than $10,000" as what's quirky. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:27, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, no, the specs are needed to show the significance of the price. If it was a CDC 6600 for under $10,000 then there'd be nothing remarkable about the advertisement presenting it as remarkable -- if you get my meaning. EEng 21:13, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
fair enough, i suppose theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:14, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@EEng As somebody who remembers when my physics prof would mark an answer wrong if you gave more digits of precision than were justified by the data, I applaud your pedantry :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I'd concur with the nom being pulled from Queue and being reopened, as not only is the current hook faulty, but personally I don't think any of the hooks proposed here are going to appeal to anyone who isn't techy. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:48, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
    Disagree. A substantial proportion of laymen will recognize the significance of the specs, and certainly the price. And yes, the "under $10,000" needs to be in quotes because the whole point is that the vendor was touting the price of toy (by today's standards) as being low. EEng 02:39, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
    As you mentioned earlier, the sourcing for the hook is iffy, and given that there isn't that much time left before the hook is supposed to go live, returning to noms to sort out the issues is probably the best option here. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:46, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
    The problem's only with the blazing and the whopping. My hook's perfectly straightforward. EEng 05:38, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
    Well, that should probably happen soon, then, because Queue 4 goes to the main in 24 hours. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:40, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
    I have moved the hook to Prep 5, which gives us four extra days to decide on a change. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
    The objection to my ALT2a ... that the Raytheon 704, which cost over $10,000, was an early example of computers used for gaming? was that it wasn't early. I'm going to push back on that a little bit; it may not have been the earliest, but in the scheme of things, it was early. Be that is it may, we can work around that objection with any of:
    • ALT2b: ... that the Raytheon 704, which cost over $10,000 in 1970, was used for playing games?
    • ALT2c: ... that the Raytheon 704, which cost over $10,000 in 1970, was best known for playing games?
    • ALT2d: ... that the Raytheon 704, which cost over $10,000 in 1970, was the first computer used for playing games by mail? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:24, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
      The sourcing doesn't support 2c. 2b sounds like that was all it was used for. EEng 16:59, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
ALT2d sounds interesting, mainly because people today may find it surprising that playing games via mail was a thing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:04, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
And not email, either. EEng 23:33, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
This is supported by the Zones of Control book, and has the added hookiness that Flying Buffalo is such a weird name for a company, it'll attract attention. Full disclosure: I played Diplomacy by mail when I was a kid. I knew of Flying Buffalo, but never played any of their games. -- RoySmith (talk) 01:32, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Flying Buffalo isn't a widely known company, as far as I know, so it'd make a good quirky hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:06, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Ironically, it being a little-known company in my opinion makes ALT3 not a good hook, especially when the hook could theoretically work with multiple companies and not just that one obscure company. I'd still prefer some form of ALT2d being used instead. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:33, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5, EEng, and RoySmith: I've put ALT2d into prep—it seems like there wasn't much of an objection to that. Since it's no longer a quirky hook, I've booted it from P3 to P1. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. The next thing I was going to suggest was ALT4: "... that Raytheon 704 never made it to the main page because the DYK crowd was going all OCD" :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 17:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
We have standards to uphold. Very, very low standards, but standards nonetheless. EEng 17:14, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
A move commonly known as The West Wing—taking a triumphant, obstinate stand for middle-of-the-road nothingness while convinced of your own moral superiority. i absolutely love the show don't come after me theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:34, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Queue 4 picture hook

  • ... that Feetloaf (pictured) is "absolutely disgusting"?

Hook claims the dish is innately disgusting, which is misleading as this quote is sourced to a story in a British tabloid about a man who made the dish once using out-of-date minced meat. I am sure that most examples of the dish are in no way as problematic as this one (especially as there are a number of recipes on well-known cookery sites for it).

The ALT1 was much better but suffered from being somewhat fictionally in-universe. I reckon there's got to be something interesting about using a parsnip to simulate a broken tibia, or using a handsaw instead of a knife when serving...

Pinging @RoySmith, Theleekycauldron, and Pamzeis:. Black Kite (talk) 11:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps:

ALT-X1 ... that one version of Feetloaf (pictured) has been described as "absolutely disgusting"?
ALT-X2 ... that one recipe of Feetloaf (pictured) suggested using a handsaw instead of a knife for cutting?

For the second hook, "recipe" could probably be replaced by another term such as "version" or wording to that effect. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, for ALT1, this might work:

  • ALT-X3: ... that in a children's book, the hungry thing wants Feetloaf (pictured)? Pamzeis (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't that still fall afoul of the in-universe thing? It's still predominantly about a plot point, and the hook basically substitutes the full name of the book with "a children's book", which in my opinion doesn't really establish a real world connection. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
My understanding of WP:DYKSG#C6 and the word in-universe is that we should not refer to fictional things from a fictional point of view (e.g. (Wiktionary example) saying Lord Voldemort is the most feared person in the world). I believe the hook involves the real world by saying "a children's book" but if that doesn't work this might: ALT-X4: ... that in children's book The Hungry Thing, the title character wants Feetloaf (pictured)? It's basically the same thing but it kinda relates to the real-world more. Pamzeis (talk) 12:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I reckon that's fine. Black Kite (talk) 14:11, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
I'd tighten that up to ALT-X5: "...that in The Hungry Thing, the title character wants Feetloaf (pictured). The use of italics should make it clear that we're talking about a creative work. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Isn't that still a plot hook? I remember we've had multiple discussions about similar hooks in the past and any hook that was primarily plot related was rejected, unless a strong real-life connection was made. Simply saying that it's the plot point of a book seems like a flimsy way to meet that criterion, methinks. Would any of you be open to a hook fact that isn't about the book? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:18, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
ALT-X6: "... that parsnips serve as a sawed-off tibia in Feetloaf (pictured). -- RoySmith (talk) 15:52, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
While I understand that the current hook is misleading, I think that it is intentionally made misleading, which isn't a bad thing per se, as it is a special occasion hook for Halloween. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 13:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
No. There's a difference between "misleading" and "false". Black Kite (talk) 13:59, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
ALT-X6 (which I tweaked to avoid a redirect) is great. Schwede66 17:05, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
i would've gone with the onion/toenails things, since i'm terrible with anatomy, but to each their own. I changed "simulate" to "serve as", though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:10, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: now that I look at it again ALT-X7: "... that parsnips serve as sawed-off tibiae in feetloaf (pictured)" to keep the singular/plural stuff matching. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:33, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
aighty, that works for me! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:38, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
Template:Did you know/Queue/4 is still "absolutely disgusting". I assume somebody's going to update that? -- RoySmith (talk) 21:13, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth, Valereee, Maile66, and Amakuru: good question, i guess theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:09, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
 Done I changed it. I hope kids all over the world say, "Icccckkkkk! Mom! Can we have Feetloaf for dinner?" — Maile (talk) 00:10, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Video hooks

Do we have a list of DYK hooks which were featured on the main page with a video? I can find only 3 ("Daisy", "Daisy", and "We choose to go to the Moon"), but there may be many... – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 06:11, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: I found all of these:
There could be more, these are just the ones i found. Do have fun going through them, some are quite entertaining! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
Great, so we did have quite a few videos hooks. Is there any guideline, which word to use (pictured, video included, etc.)? Also see, Template:Did you know nominations/Money Musk. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
i'm not seeing any consistency, so my guess would be go with what makes sense. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
It looks like the most common option is just "pictured"; we might want to codify that somewhere, just for consistency (although other phrasings can be used as desired if they work better). {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:50, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I thought that I have had two video hooks over the years. One is listed above. The other one was Implosion of Radio Network House, or so I thought. It appears, though, that this August 2012 hook ran with a screen grab from the video. Weren’t we running videos on the homepage back then? Schwede66 09:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
@Schwede66: the nompage has some info about that—and yeah, there's a video grab from July 2012, so it would've been accepted practice at the time. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:51, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:DYKIMG are the current guidelines. (video shown) would be good, if we had to codify, since sounds even have their own template to be used: {{DYK listen|filename.ogg|Brief description}}. — Maile (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I like (video shown)! It's a little weird to say "pictured" for a video, and "video shown" sounds perfectly natural. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 16:58, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

No DYK credit

Yesterday a new article of mine Ganna (seeress) appeared on the front page, but I received no notification of it. What happened?--Berig (talk) 04:25, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll ping Shubinator here to see if they've got an answer, because looking through the hook's record, I'm not sure—the credit for the hook was there up until the DYK update bot cleared the queue, but it looks like it just skipped over your talk page for one reason or another. In the mean time, I gave you the credit for those sweet sweet bragging rights. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:40, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Maybe it is {{bots|deny=all}} that I have on the top of my talkpage. I added it a long time ago and forgot about it.--Berig (talk) 05:24, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
No problem! yeah, that was probably it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
That's right. DYKUpdateBot was switched over to Python in May 2021, and part of the update was that it would "no longer distribute DYK credits on user talk pages with a nobots template, unless DYKUpdateBot is excluded". DanCherek (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
So, I need to change it to {{bots|allow=DYKUpdateBot}}?--Berig (talk) 15:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Bots have feelings, too, you know. —valereee (talk) 18:38, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
They're slaves to their passions -- see User:EEng#Computer porn. EEng 04:40, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, that should do the trick! Feel free to add DYKHousekeepingBot as well if you'd like to be notified if/when one of your nominations is accidentally not transcluded on the noms page. Shubinator (talk) 05:10, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Running out of queues

We only have one set loaded into the queue, and at 2 a day, we burn through them pretty quickly. Pinging some admins to see if we can't reduce the backlog. (Ktin—Amakuru—Cwmhiraeth—Maile66—Bagumba—Casliber—Gatoclass—Hog Farm—ONUnicorn—Valereee) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Will attempt this while listening to some Decoration Day (album) and Tyler Childers, although it didn't go well last time I tried this. Hog Farm Talk 02:07, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: - I've implemented this. Could someone please check to make sure I actually did everything right this time? Also, what exactly should I do about the issue below? Hog Farm Talk 02:18, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
WP:DYKQ looks fine on the surface, couldn't tell you much else though—nice job! I'll fix the issue below. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:31, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps DYK should go back to a set every 18 hours? It makes knowing the rotation times less obvious, but 12 hours is too fast and 24 hours is too slow. SnowFire (talk) 20:11, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Given that 12 and 24 hour thresholds were set on an RFC, 18 hour sets would probably need a discussion that long too. In principle, I have no objection to 18 hour sets, as a good compromise. Though it may cause confusion on date requests when the 18 hours spans multiple days. Joseph2302 (talk) 23:13, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I doubt we're going to stay in 2-a-day for a whole month, so a 30 day RfC wouldn't solve the immediate problem. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:19, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
SnowFire, DYK has never used 18 hours intervals to the best of my knowledge, and certainly not in the ten years I've been a regular participant here. We are always scheduled to change over at midnight UTC when the rest of the main page does, plus sometimes additional times during the day. Back in the era when more frequent sets were typical, we would change every 12 hours, 8 hours, or sometimes even 6 hours. These days it's every 12 hours or every 24 hours, depending on our backlog of approved nominations. We'd have to modify the DYKUpdateBot software if we were to get away from the every midnight update, and the occasional proposal that 18 hours be used as a compromise hasn't gone far in the past, in part because of the loss of the regular midnight update and the likely confusion from the ever-shifting promotion times. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:35, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
It would also significantly weaken our ability to make inferences from hook's pageview counts. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:40, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Fast-tracking my submission

I know this is really last-minute, but I just submitted Template:Did you know nominations/Feetloaf. I would really appreciate it if this could be fast-tracked to appear on October 28th 31st (Halloween). Thanks. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:14, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

@RoySmith: That's over a week from now, so you should be fine—my question is, why is Halloween October 28? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:20, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron because my brain was so addled from rushing to write this in one evening that I forgot how to read a calendar? s/28/31/, please. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:24, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
@RoySmith: ah, I see. Well, take a breath; the good (and only) news is that you're quite a bit early. Special occasion hooks need at least a week's notice, and by my count, we're at twelve days. The october 31st prep set isn't available yet (and given that we're probably going back to two sets a day soon, it'll probably be three or four days until it will be), so there isn't much I could do even if it were approved right now. I'm sure someone'll review the hook in the next few days, and I'll promote it when it's ready. In the meantime, you're good :) – I'd suggest that you get some rest when you can. No rush here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:40, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Excellent, thanks for your help (and reassurance). Actually, this was the most fun I've had in a long time. Sometimes I get so caught up with my sock-hunting duties, I forget that the real reason we're all here is to write articles. -- RoySmith (talk) 03:52, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I regret reading the article you wrote. CMD (talk) 06:03, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I said as much on the nomination page, too! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:12, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I thank you both for your warning, and commit to never reading that article. BilledMammal (talk) 06:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Just a heads up that I've approved it and moved it to the special occasion holding area. Also, have I done this right? Pamzeis (talk) 03:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, also, I'd appreciate if anyone has any ideas how to make ALT1 (... that the hungry thing wanted Feetloaf?) out-of-universe as it's really hooky but violates WP:DYKSG#C6. Thanks. Pamzeis (talk) 03:06, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

  • RoySmithRoySmith-Mobile It is all on track, it's in prep area 4, which is due to run on 31 October from 12 noon until midnight UTC (which I believe is 08:00 - 20:00 Eastern US time). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
    Awesome, thanks. I haven't actually done my Halloween candy shopping yet. I'm thinking maybe I'll just whip up a double batch of feetloaf for the kids :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
    Yuck! Pamzeis (talk) 14:02, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Halloween hooks

While we're on the subject, i think we could legitimately assemble a good, spooky, dark halloween set or two. What would you guys think about assembling a special set of dark/spooky DYKs for halloween? (it doesn't technically break any rules, so i don't need to ask for an IAR, but i do want some rough consensus first.) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:39, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Sure. I suppose it would displace my climate change hook by a day, unless climate change is considered dark and spooky. CMD (talk) 08:16, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, I guess climate change could be quite dark... but not in a Halloween-sense. Pamzeis (talk) 08:35, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Ugh no. We don't need to try and make more work for people by rearranging everything just to try and get 8 or 16 "Halloween" hooks. If people wanted to do this, it should be suggested a month or so in advance, and we'd actually need a number of decent hooks for it. There aren't enough hooks for it, and we shouldn't try to fast track new DYK noms to meet this date (which is what we often seem to do for late thought out date requests). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:42, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
The only actual Halloween hook I see in WP:DYKNA is the one mentioned above, which is a good hook for that date. Anything else falls under "superfluous date requests"- something that keeps on coming up here for tangentially relevant date requests. I thought DYK was trying to cut down the number of not very relevant date requests, rather than increase it by shoehorning hooks onto a random date like this proposal does... Joseph2302 (talk) 08:48, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't have minded, but I agree that these sort of things need to be proposed at least a month in advance, not only to minimize disruption, but also perhaps to entice regulars to write/expand articles for the occasion as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:21, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
yeah, that's fair. We'll just leave it at feetloaf, then. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 14:56, 20 October 2021 (UTC)
Late to this: I just nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Ein feste Burg ist unser Gott (Telemann) which is not dark and spooky but for the same day, 31 October = Reformation day. It's 10 days from now, and why we claim it's all too late I fail to see. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:43, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: it's not too late for a special request for that day, but I think they're saying that getting eight hooks together for a whole halloween set would be too difficult. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, I just wrote one if you all are wanting to review and add it to a spooky set. See Template:Did you know nominations/The Devil and Daniel Webster (opera).4meter4 (talk) 19:12, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I love the feetloaf prep area so far! Tyrone Madera (talk) 17:10, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
glad to hear it! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:54, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a little over an hour ago, so I’ve created a new list that includes the first 35 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 18. We currently have a total of 186 nominations, of which 100 have been approved, a gap of 86, which has dropped by 7 in the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over three months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:32, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

We're below 60!

@BlueMoonset et al.: After waging an extensive war with DYKNA that involved filling two and a half prep sets, booting a few noms that weren't ready, and promoting out of the s.o. section in a gamble that we would revert to below-60ness (all in the space of about an hour), I'm happy to report that we are, in fact, below 60, so we can ping some admins! The only special occasion hooks in the preps have already been moved to their spots for airing on a 1-a-day-rotation. BlueMoonset, tell me if i'm screwing this up, but I believe the procedure is to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400 sometime after noon and before midnight after midnight and before noon UTC, which would be from now until about 5 and a half hours from now. (Ktin—Amakuru—Cwmhiraeth—Maile66—Bagumba—Casliber—Gatoclass—Hog Farm—ONUnicorn—Valereee) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I think the change has to be made after midnight UTC, otherwise the update will be posted at midday. Gatoclass (talk) 06:43, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: You're right, my mistake, I meant the other way. After midnight and before noon is still now, so this should be done in the next five hours or so. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:45, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
No, actually, I think you're right, it's only 7 am UTC right now, I was thinking it was 7 pm UTC, so yes, the change should be made in the next 5 hours. Gatoclass (talk) 07:01, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
It seems we're good then, update's made—thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:06, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
And thanks to Theleekycauldron for getting all the date requests for 7 November done. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Hans Haselböck

We are going to need an admin to move the Hans Haselböck hook from Prep 4 to Queue 1, so that it airs on Nov. 4—There aren't any empty preps at the moment, so if I were doing it, I'd swap it directly with the Osa Maliki hook in Q1. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:11, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Gatoclass (talk) 10:38, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Request for alt hook verification

I have completed all aspects of the review at Template:Did you know nominations/Children of Earth and Sky, but since I supplied the alt hook, I cannot verify it myself. I am therefore requesting that somebody verify the hook (it's a very easy one) so I can wind up the review. Many thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done, thanks. Gatoclass (talk) 16:04, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Unprotected image blocking DYK from updating

Please see Special:Diff/1053734009/1053768415 and Special:Diff/1053764758/prev and upload a protected file to enwiki. Sdrqaz (talk) 00:11, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

{{doing}} — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
 Done — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:48, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Wugapodes. The bot has now performed the update. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 00:51, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
oh thank god it worked I had no clue what I was doing — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:53, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
well that's relatable theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:55, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

How do I add an image to a nomination?

Header says it all really. I would like this image of HMS Agamemnon File:The 'Agamemnon' cuts out French vessels from Port Maurice, near Oneglia, 1 June 1796 RMG PW5874.tiff to accompany my 6 Nov nomination for Jonas Rose. I can't find any instructions and it isn't clear in the template. Thanks. --Ykraps (talk) 10:41, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done Looks like Sdrqaz took care of that for you. — Maile (talk) 11:02, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Thank you both. --Ykraps (talk) 17:44, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Hands showing hands

The lead hook of Queue 3 is: "... that of the hundreds of hands stenciled at Cueva de las Manos as artwork (pictured), very few show a right hand?" (Nominator: Tyrone Madera.) To avoid the awkwardness of hands showing right hands, I'd recommend something like replacing "show a right hand" with "are right hands" or replacing "hundreds of hands" with "hundreds of images of hands". MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 18:02, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Since you've already pinged the nom here, i'm just gonna wp:bebold and make the change to "are right hands". nevermind, it's in queue, i'm a dingus. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:11, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
Mandarax, thank you for bringing this to my attention! I like the first option better personally, but whatever the community thinks is the best wording and sounds the best is probably the best option. Tyrone Madera (talk) 18:14, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
I have made the swap to "are right hands". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:52, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Credit swaps

There were some credit swaps required. I already took care of Prep 6, but the first two credits of Queue 4 need to be replaced with: 

* {{DYKmake|Budge Patty|Bloom6132|subpage=Budge Patty}}
* {{DYKmake|Cwmhiraeth|Theleekycauldron|subpage=Cwmhiraeth}}

MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:04, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Reviewer is saying self-published source from published expert in the field cannot be used for hook

Mhhossein at Template:Did you know nominations/Junk Head (film) is saying that a tweet from a notable film director cannot be used to cite the film director's review of a film. When the editor quoted WP:TWEET, they left out the part that says, ""Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they be published experts in the field. SL93 (talk) 14:51, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

This has been resolved and the section can potentially be archived. SL93 (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Requesting experienced editor input on DYK dispute

I am asking experienced DYK editors to weigh in and help us resolve/achieve consensus on the dispute at Template:Did you know nominations/Pankratius Pfeiffer. Thank you. Ergo Sum 01:30, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Prep 1 lead hook image

The image for the lead hook in Prep 1, for Space Launch System, is not the one that reflects the rocket, which was ALT1 in the nomination; the image is for the mobile platform that was the original ALT0 and not promoted. As it is now, the image is unrelated to the hook, and should either be replaced with the other image in the nomination or the hook should not be given a lead slot. May I also request that the caption, should this nomination remain a lead hook, be trimmed; both in the nomination were overlong. Pinging theleekycauldron. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:31, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

I moved the lead hook to P3—I'll promote in another image hook sometime after 8am utc. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:45, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Admin needed to upload image

KrinkleBot is still down. Yesterday, I posted to WP:ERRORS, about an hour and a half before the update was due, that the DYK image needed to be handled, but by the time it was taken care of, the update was almost an hour late. So let's try to get this done early today. @DYK admins: Please upload a copy of Queue 4's image: File:Budge Patty 1958.jpg. For instructions, see Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions#If KrinkleBot is down. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:56, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. That was a trip down memory lane :) Thanks for including the instructions - I might have forgotten a step or two otherwise! Gatoclass (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh, very nice, thanks for that link. I might end up using that more often anyway, I'm a bit or an impatient type and Krinklebot always makes you wait for an unspecified amount of time before it does its work! 😎  — Amakuru (talk) 22:52, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Good news! KrinkleBot is back up, so we (hopefully) won't have to worry about this again for a while. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 07:59, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Monument to the King's Liverpool Regiment

Hi. I've just nominated Template:Did you know nominations/Monument to the King's Liverpool Regiment. Appreciate it's short notice but I thought it might be nice to run an article on a war memorial on Remembrance Sunday (14 November this year)? If it's reviewed in time it would need to be slotted into Prep 4 which would run during that morning's two-minute's silence in the UK - Dumelow (talk) 09:37, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

Appreciate this is all rather late but as a second option I've added Template:Did you know nominations/Kirkcudbright war memorial, which might also be considered for Remembrance Sunday or 11 November (Armistice Day) - Dumelow (talk) 16:35, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
i've suggested an alt, it'll need approval theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:14, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
Alt has been approved—@SL93, Kavyansh.Singh, and Cwmhiraeth: any chance one of you could put it into prep 4? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:24, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
 Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:08, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: sorry, I should have reminded you, but Template:Did you know nominations/Kirkcudbright war memorial also has approval for the same date. I didn't promote it because frankly, the hooks weren't that interesting without the image to me, but you should make that call before you promote. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:19, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I'm thinking we could put it in Queue 1 with its image, in place of Bourbaki Panorama, also by Dumelow, but about a different war. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: totally your call—the Bourbaki Panorama is a good image, but I'm also all right leaving it in the middle somewhere. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:37, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I was thinking of moving the Bourbaki Panorama to a different set. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:44, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
perfect, that's the best option to me. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:51, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
 Done. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:20, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks both, much appreciated! - Dumelow (talk) 07:10, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Robert Wertheim

I understand that this approved nomination is in the queue. Is it possible to hold it, and other military related nominations for Veterans Day?--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:41, 2 November 2021 (UTC)

@RightCowLeftCoast: despite a miscalculation based on time zones that I've corrected, I do have some experience at this—you can see at WP:DYKQ that the queue that the hook is contained in will air on Veteran's Day. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:49, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 03:57, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: is it possible to move the hook with Hal Linden in Prep Area 2 to Prep Area 1, instead of the hook about Lorenza Böttner? Linden was an Army veteran, whereas Böttner does not appear to have been a military veteran.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:20, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, is it possible to move the hook about Hilda Vīka in Prep area 6, to Prep area 1, as she was a nurse during The Great War? This can take place of any of other non-military related hooks, White Lake Provincial Park, KHXS, and Corvus: A Life with Birds. --RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 04:43, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast: I'd be more comfortable if someone else signed off it, and we'll also get the nominator here to express their thoughts, as Vīka was not an American soldier. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:37, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
If it's helpful at all, I am fine with moving Lorenza Böttner's hooks anywhere if it will make the preps more thematic. (I nominated Böttner.) Urve (talk) 07:48, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
So @RightCowLeftCoast, you're requesting this be placed in SOHA for November 11? Please ping me if that's correct, happy to do that, or anyone else can do it. —valereee (talk) 22:26, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: the hook's already queued for the date, no need to move back to SOHA—what's stickier is Hilda Vīka for Veteran's Day, as she wasn't American. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:35, 2 November 2021 (UTC)
@Urve: Thanks for being accommodating!
@Theleekycauldron: 11 November is also Armistice Day. As Hilda Vīka, as stated before was a nurse during The Great War/World War I, it would be appropriate for her hook to feature on a day which is related to her service to the injured of that war.--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:24, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
all righty, then, I'll put in queue at some point tonight theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:26, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: thanks in advance for making these changes!--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 00:31, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
 Done happy to help! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:59, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
@JuneGloom07: Can we have your hook which includes United States Army veteran Hal Linden added to the Veterans Day hooks, as I suggested above? It is the hook about Brotherhood of Man (The Drew Carey Show).--RightCowLeftCoast (Moo) 02:04, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast: Yeah, that's fine with me. - JuneGloom07 Talk 04:03, 6 November 2021 (UTC)
@RightCowLeftCoast: I appreciate the enthusiasm, but not every nomination that contains a war vet should be prominently featured on Veterans day. We should stick to the ones that are military-related in a tangible way, particularly making sure the bolded article is significantly relevant. That nomination will be promoted when its ready in its place in the backlog, and I don't think honouring the special date request would bolster the veterans day set. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:09, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Q4 tweak

The Rise Bar hook in Queue 4 uses the wrong apostrophe template (see Rule C7). (I had already corrected this on the nomination page before promotion, but the wrong one showed up again.) Please replace {{'s}} with {{`s}}. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:29, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

What on earth is the significance of this apostrophe template, which seems to make no difference to the appearance of the hook? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
The appearance may vary depending on one's device/browser/settings. On my iPad, it makes a significant difference, with the incorrect template showing extra space before the apostrophe, which is how I spotted the problem. See the documentation of the templates I linked to above. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:45, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for making the tweak, but you also accidentally deleted a bunch of stuff (including the DYKbotdo and the credits) which will have to be restored. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 10:54, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
Indeed I did, I wonder how that happened? I have repaired the damage now. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Wording issue for hook in P2

The hook is:

... that for his appearance in the fourth series finale of The Drew Carey Show, Hal Linden spoke with a German accent because he had trouble speaking with a Dutch accent?

Since The Drew Carey Show is an American production, shouldn't we say "fourth season finale"? I read it and I wondered, the show had four series finales?

I would note that the article describes it as the fourth season finale. Daniel Case (talk) 02:54, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

@Daniel Case: I agree, I'll make the change when I have access to a computer—although you're free to be bold and make those changes yourself when you spot issues like these, that's what the prep sets are for. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:09, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

I just wanted to make sure ... I've had some people tell me in the past it's better to discuss even minor changes in pending hooks (save obvious spelling or grammar errors) before making them. Daniel Case (talk) 04:47, 7 November 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I’ve created a new list that includes all 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 28. We currently have a total of 178 nominations, exactly half (89) of which have been approved. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:55, 5 November 2021 (UTC)

4/20

I've been working on User:Valereee/Cannabis cuisine and it occurred to me that an April 20 appearance would be kind of fun. That's a long way off, though, so I thought I'd see if there were objections. I actually have another draft, Draft:Andrea Drummer, and we might be able to develop a full set as there's a ton happening in the field. —valereee (talk) 00:13, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd be down to see a cannabis set on April 20! Does it still fall under the six-week requirement? I think that should be voided if we're trying to assemble a whole set. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:15, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, that's the issue here -- we'd need folks here to forgive that requirement in order to build a set. —valereee (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Figures as much—if we could get a whole set together for the date, I'd support making an IAR exception. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:28, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
April 20, 2022 is definitely over six months from now, but given that there's still plenty of time before then and these are in draftspace anyway, I think the solution would be to simply move these articles to mainspace when it's six weeks to go. After all there is no deadline so their move to mainspace can wait. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I mean, moving it now and securing an exception eliminates the (admittedly small) chance that someone else writes the article in the meantime, no? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:47, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't want to invoke WP:BEANS here though ;) Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:57, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
beans (exclamatory). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

Six months is really too far in the future, given that six weeks is the typical upper limit. And I'm dubious as to whether this is an event worthy of an entire prep set. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

What is the significance of 20 April? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@Cwmhiraeth: this should help—it's nice to work at the largest encyclopedia in the world sometimes. Also, keep in mind that in the United States, the date is written as 4/20, not 20/4. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:30, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose we shouldn't be making niche sets for topics, as a key point of DYK is to get a diversity hooks on the front page. Also the link between 420 and 20 April/April 20 is tenuous and US-centric. If people want do one or two hooks for that date about weed, then go for it, as long as they meet the usual DYK nomination time rules. But a whole set on anything is excessive, with very few exceptions for worldwide events such as International Women's Day. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:01, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
And we shouldn't be putting exemptions on the 1-6 week rules just because Leakycauldron thinks it's a cool subject. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
If it come to a weed related hooks, I did put Pass the Kouchie on 20/4 this year (not that I endorse illegal drug use), but I made sure it was nominated within the correct time frame. I can't see why this should get 6+ months of exemption. The 6 weeks (minus the AFD exception) rule is sufficient. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk)19:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Well, I think it's a cool subject as well. It wouldn't have to be a complete prep set -- it can be fun to have two or three related hooks in a larger set. For the record, all of DYK's time rules are stupid -- artifices for throttling input so we don't have to choose among hooks, and have the perverse effect (as seen above) of encouraging people to delay moving work to mainspace; they should be junked. EEng 19:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@EEng: I'm all in favour of having that discussion. I'm merely stating the rules as they are at the moment. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:02, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Unxderstood. But I never, ever miss a chance to ridicule DYK's artificial deadlines. EEng 03:37, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I also agree that 420 is an interesting and topical subject. User:Cwmhiraeth demonstrates why it's not as funny as it might be, English-speakers often separated by the common language. First, we have no way of knowing Leakycauldron's position, since they haven't made any statements yet. Complain to Theleekycauldron if you wish but let's keep good Leakycauldron out of it unless they wish to join us. If we're going to rip on somebody, let's first get the body right. User:Theleekycauldron has agreed with User:Valereee's suggestion "...an April 20 appearance would be kind of fun." They liked it so much they suggested a topic-related set. User:EEng seems to like it too. Other users dislike it. So let's stop ripping on ANY one user. This is a discussion. There appear to be two questions: 420 on 4/20? and Hold a hook for a special set six months from now? The first one is debatable but the second question seems IMHO wildly IAR. BusterD (talk) 20:17, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Coreen Carroll and Jamie Evans are a couple of other brand-new articles (just approved from AfC by me). —valereee (talk) 20:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Personally I'd be fine with at least some weed-related hooks going up on April 20 (given the prevalence of American media on the internet, even many non-Americans have at least heard of 420 in the context of marijuana), I think it's just simply too early to be discussing hooks for them given that any hooks nominated now would fall afoul of the six-week rule. While we're here, November 13 (or six weeks before Christmas) is fast approaching, so if we're going to have another Christmas set like what we usually do every year, around that time would be a good idea to start planning. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:47, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose for these reasons (1) Agree with BlueMoonset that six months is too far down the line; (2) with Joseph2302 that we shouldn't be making exceptions by subject matter, regardless of what reasons; (3) that this is USA-centric, but the majority of Legality of cannabis by U.S. jurisdiction still has it as for medical uses only, or totally illegal. And I don't think DYK should set aside a hook set - several months in advance - that would offend a large portion of the country that is not in agreement on the issue. We're not just talking about state legislation here, but a large portion of the USA population that doesn't agree on legalization. Bad move on Wikipedia's part, I think. I don't have an issue with the articles Valereee is working on, just that I don't think it warrants either a full set, or an IAR on the Special Date holding. — Maile (talk) 01:40, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    offend a large portion of the country that is not in agreement on the issue – What a weird statement. 90% of Americans support legalization of Mary Jane, and that's been true for decades. As with so many things, the law is waaaay behind. EEng 01:58, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
Even if that were true, I don't think it's practical to propose this set this early. And the concerns others have raised have less to do with personal leanings but rather technical or encyclopedic grounds. I mean it isn't even 2022 yet. Perhaps closer to the date in question the proposal can be revisited, but right now it feels so premature when we haven't even started working on other closer potential sets like Christmas. In response to Maile's concern, to be fair we have made exceptions in the past, such as the Apollo 11 and Yoninah tribute sets, although to be fair these all had corresponding RfCs. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:08, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
There's no "even" about it, but in any event I was simply pointing out the silliness of the "large portion of the country not in agreement" idea. EEng 05:48, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
It looks like support for recreational use legalization is somewhere between a three-fifths and just over a two-thirds majority, while support for medical uses brings that number up to 91%.[1][2] theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:57, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Green, Ted Van (November 9, 2020). "Americans overwhelmingly say marijuana should be legal for recreational or medical use". Pew Research Center. Retrieved October 23, 2021.
  2. ^ Brenan, Megan (April 16, 2021). "Support for Legal Marijuana Inches Up to New High of 68%". Gallup. Retrieved October 23, 2021.
Those are all US stats, which proves my point: this may be interesting/supported in the US, but not in general for the rest of the world. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
No, your point (claim, actually -- and a false one at that) was that a special hook set "would offend a large portion of the country that is not in agreement on the issue" i.e. in the US -- nothing to do with "the rest of the world" as you're now saying. It's really hard keeping up with your shifting arguments. EEng 15:18, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment. I don't have an opinion one way or the other on planning for a cannabis set of hooks of 4/20, but I do question the accuracy of the arguments that 420 is an American centric term. @ Joseph2302 and Maile66 on what basis are you making the claim that this is a US centric thing? According to our wikipedia article 420 (cannabis culture) April 20 and the term "420" are now used internationally with cannabis related events around the globe. If that article is accurate, 420 as a cannabis cultural term/date is no longer just an American thing.4meter4 (talk) 06:07, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    Weed is not legal in most places outside the US, and it's being suggested on a day that's using the American date system (April 20). Joseph2302 (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    I don't see the connection between the legality of weed or the date system being used and whether 420 is a recognised term. It absolutely is a recognised thing outside the U.S., regardless of those things. 420 (cannabis culture) has a modest list of international events. //Lollipoplollipoplollipop::talk 22:30, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
    See File:Map-of-world-cannabis-laws.svg- there's only about 5 countries outside Canada/US states where it's actually legal, and another 15 were it's decriminalised. We shouldn't be running a whole set of hooks based on something that's illegal in 90% of the world, as the reason for this nomination is because it's legal in lots of North America. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:19, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
    What rubbish. Same-sex marriage is illegal in most of the world, and homosexuality in much of it, and we'd certainly run a set on those if the opportunity arose. Or would you oppose that too? EEng 15:28, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I think the point Joseph was making is that cannabis is only legal for recreational use in a tiny minority of countries, whereas homosexuality is either legal or not criminalized in a much larger proportion of countries in the world. There seems to be greater acceptance of homosexuality worldwide than cannabis use, at least as far as I'm aware. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:49, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
And the point I'm making is that we don't shy away from topics because of perceived unpopularity. EEng 16:59, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • @Joseph2302 I think legality and US centrism are two very different issues and they shouldn't be confused as you have done above. Further, a 4/20 set could include any and all content related to the plant cannabis; and not just its use as a recreational drug. Medical marijuana is legal in most of North and South America, Australia, South Africa, and Northern Europe. Further, commercial products from cannabis like hemp are also widely used globally with China being the largest producer and user of that product. So, as a topic area I'm seeing a lot of possibilities here beyond a US perspective. That said, I'm not convinced a cannabis only set is desirable because it's a niche topic which is why I haven't outright supported it. 4meter4 (talk) 22:53, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to make it clear, I am not against the idea of a cannabis-centered set (whether full or partial) for April 20. In fact, I'd even support it. I just think that this proposal is far too premature and probably should have been discussed somewhat closer to the actual date, perhaps no earlier than the start of 2022. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:46, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I have expressed before similar thoughts to EENG regarding the odd incentive structure the current DYK rules can produce, and have also elsewhere suggested extending the special occasion hook timeframe to around 8 weeks. Special occasion sets are useful if they encourage editors to produce articles, and if a full or partial set would do so, that sounds like a useful idea. I don't think it's too early to be discussing the general concept, howeverI understand the sentiment that it's too early to start preparing hooks, and would agree they should not be submitted now. CMD (talk) 10:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • weak oppose My thoughts align with Maile66 - I feel uncomfortable about promoting THC in such a way on the main page Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:17, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
I don't think the legality of cannabis is itself an issue, after all we've featured illegal stuff on DYK before. The real questions are: 1. if it's even appropriate to be discussing such a set this early, and 2. if an all or predominantly cannabis-related hook is appropriate in the first place (a question that doesn't necessarily need to revolve on legality). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:22, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
I do think it's a good idea to discuss such sets this early. It lets other people know that, hey, if you've got an idea for a candidate on X topic for Y date, start getting it ready, maybe we can build a set. And it lets people know whether an idea is likely to be supported or not, so they can decide whether to bother to do the work. —valereee (talk) 12:36, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment it's a little late in the discussion, but we should probably point out a similar discussion from February, although given that it is October, the timeline is obviously a little different. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:38, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Seems like product placement, that together with the politicization, and I advise against. (Also, I don't foresee balance in a 4/20 set between 'happy and high' and whatever negative things sources have to say about toking or eating this, think of an imagined 1950s DYK tobacco day set). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:55, 30 October 2021 (UTC) day). Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:42, 30 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment okay, it seems like there's no consensus to allow the hook to be held, and no consensus at this time to make an IAR exception for a 4/20 set. I'll archive the discussion in a day or two if there's no objection. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:22, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
    There didn't seem to be much objection to holding Valereee's specific hook as a one off for April 20, I wouldn't mind that, although like others I wouldn't support having a full set of such hooks. Also, there's no need to "archive the discussion", the bot will archive it as and when it's run its course.  — Amakuru (talk) 18:24, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
    Most discussions are archived manually now, because the bot it set to take two weeks instead of one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:43, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's really accurate to say that "there was not much objection" for the one-off IAR exemption. From what I saw, there was little discussion about that article specifically, so at best it's probably a "no consensus" case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:25, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
Also, I have already objected, and don't believe this warrants an IAR exception: If people want do one or two hooks for that date about weed, then go for it, as long as they meet the usual DYK nomination time rules. If we start letting people invoke IAR for dates whenever they want, there's no point having the 1-6 weeks beforehand listed (though that is probably another conversation). No reason why this should be granted an exemption when other articles wouldn't be granted one. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:56, 9 November 2021 (UTC)

DYK-helper script improvements and auto-loading

Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#Proposal to turn the DYK helper into a gadget, a modified version of DYK-helper has been written that enables it to be used without needing to edit your JS files or fiddling with settings.

Please evaluate it and let me know if you have any feedback or encounter any issues with the interface:

For existing DYK-helper users: the plan is to make the "DYK" option in the menu link to the above-mentioned form. The article name will be prefilled. The only difference is that you would be entering your hooks and other details on a new page rather than inside a dialog on the article page. – SD0001 (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

The trial version looks good to me! Though, at the last, it gave me a code to copy-paste and make a nomination manually. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh oh, it was working all fine for me. Did you get any error message? – SD0001 (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@SD0001 – Yeah, on test.wikipedia, it said "Creating nomination page: Could not save the page because the wiki server wanted you to fill out a CAPTCHA." Then provided a code for me to copy, saying "Your DYK template wikitext is provided below, which you can copy and use to create ..." Does that happen just with me? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:51, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh That's because you're not autoconfirmed on testwiki! I gave you the confirmed flag on testwiki. – SD0001 (talk) 15:57, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
And its now Perfect! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:05, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I have DYK-helper installed, but Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination is coming up as a blank page. What am I missing here? CMD (talk) 16:50, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
It's blank for me too? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:08, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
That's weird. @Theleekycauldron and Chipmunkdavis: can you check if you see any error in the console (see point 6
of WP:JSERROR for how to open). – SD0001 (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@SD0001:

Refused to execute script from 'https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SD0001/DYK-helper/withJsMode.js&action=raw&ctype=application/json' because its MIME type ('application/json') is not executable, and strict MIME type checking is enabled.

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:49, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron thanks, fixed! That was a silly error (but somehow on my browser it was working despite it). – SD0001 (talk) 17:52, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
The "?" next to the date says "The date as of which creation/expansion has been completed." What's actually relevant to DYK is not the completion date, but the date when it began. Also, the dropdown with suggestions for the article title as you type is useful; is it possible to enable that for additional articles? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:22, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Mandarax: Are you sure about this? If someone began expanding an article on 10th of October and continued expanding it till 20th, and nominated it for DYK today, would it be rejected because expansion began more than a week ago? – SD0001 (talk) 17:55, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm sure we'd let them go on IAR, but yeah, I think that'd fall outside guidelines. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:01, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I too guess that we are not that strict on dates till around 10 days. But it will fall outside the rules, especially if more than 10 days. Even the DYK check script checks for the 5x expansion in past 10 days. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:09, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I updated the wording in the script. As to the suggestion of showing the suggestions dropdown for additional articles – that's possible but a bit tricky to get working. Will take a look. – SD0001 (talk) 18:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for updating the wording of the tooltip. Just FYI, the instructions on the nom page say: "list the page below under the date the article was created or the expansion began or it became a good article (not the date you submit it here)". As for the dropdown suggestions, I suspected it may be nontrivial, which is why I phrased it as "is it possible". I imagine most people will paste the titles in anyways, so if it's too much effort, that's fine. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
This is great! What does it display for users who are on mobile or don't have javascript enabled? Once it can handle those edge cases, I'd say it's time to clear out all the old junk in the nomination instructions and replace it with just a big blue "make a nomination" button. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 18:14, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
Agreed, love this tool! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:17, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
@Sdkb: The withJS mechanism to be used for loading this isn't configured to work on the mobile domain at all. (So all other forms like Wikipedia:Requests for page protection/Increase/Form also don't work). So for mobile and non-javascript users, some message will have to be put in the wikitext to point them to the wikitext "form" that uses the preload. You can edit the page and put the text inside the dyk-helper-container div (the contents of this div will be replaced by the script for JS users). – SD0001 (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2021 (UTC)
I agree. Shouldn't hold up this excellent piece of work, though. I think the blue button can be put there now. I just tried the form out on a phone (in desktop view) and while tedious, was probably 10 times better than the wikitext form. We should recommend that people viewing the page in mobile view switch to desktop view to submit the form. Enterprisey (talk!) 00:09, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • TLDR, but let me suggest that we not put this out "in public" just yet, but let experienced DYKers use it for a week first. They'll be better able to recognize any problems. EEng 16:42, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    The ALTs don't include a space between the colon and the ellipses? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:35, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
     Fixed [1] this was a problem in Module:NewDYKnomination that is internally used. – SD0001 (talk) 03:22, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
I am really mixed about this. I'll start off addressing my thoughts on the improvements here: it's great that this proposal actually cares about WP:QPQ, as before it was hard for me to get around actually reviewing other DYKs in return; and thank God that people don't have to install through shoddy Javascript anymore. Other than those, not much has changed. However, there is one major criticism to give. Why a new page just for a simple task like writing a nomination? I would hate to read an article I want to nominate, only to switch tabs, or worse, searching for it beforehand! Is this proposal meant to make life easier or more labour? On top of that, while the dialog box does cover parts of the article but that can be adjusted by size and moved around. Could you keep the old JS version of the DYK-helper running instead just axing it off altogether? Maybe you could update the dialog box to have the same features as the new one? —beetricks ~ 💬 · ✉️ 15:54, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
I think we'll definitely want to retain the option to do DYKs from the user menu; the withJS would just be an additional option, not a replacement. (Hopefully the code will be sourced from the same place for simplification.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:44, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

DYK helper close follow-up

Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 193#Proposal to turn the DYK helper into a gadget was just closed with the following:

There was consensus for the original proposal (to turn it into a gadget), following which the idea of using withJS was floated, and there seemed to be support for that too. So there is consensus for both of these options. Some editors were concerned that having to enable a gadget is not necessarily a great user experience either. Interested parties may wish to informally discuss (probably at WT:DYK) which idea would work better, after which that idea may be implemented.

I think it probably makes sense to do both, unless turning it into a gadget would make it harder for you to edit, SD0001, or have other drawbacks. Does anyone know what needs to happen on the technical side to make it a gadget? (Courtesy pinging Xaosflux, as it seems like the kind of thing you'd know.)

Regarding further implementation of the withJS, discussion is already happening on that above, so let's centralize discussion on that there. Cheers, {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:41, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

information Administrator note For gadgetizing: the script (or a slightly modified version of it) needs to be moved to MediaWiki space; then MediaWiki:Gadgets-definition needs to be updated to activate it to the gadget screen - whomever is going to actually prep that can drop an edit request at MediaWiki talk:Gadgets-definition when these are ready to test live. For the ?withJS option, either the same script could be called if suitable, or a similiar version will need to be put in MediaWiki space as well - once it is is ready an edit request on the associcated talk page for where that will live is fine. — xaosflux Talk 17:52, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

And Christmas hook set(s)

I like the proposal of New Year's hooks. We also ought to be thinking about Christmas around the world, as each year, it seems like a small few end up putting it together for a set or two. — Maile (talk) 19:35, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

If anybody felt like going through GA on Christmas Island, there's a potential hook in how it got its name. — Maile (talk) 19:42, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
Thinking of two or three Christmas pieces of music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:06, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Proposal: Minor adjustment of eligibility criteria 1d

Hello all. This came up in a conversation on the Wikipedia Discord server. Back in 2015, the rules were adjusted to include this rule (original diff, adjustment diff ):

An article is ineligible for DYK if it has previously appeared on the main page as bold link in "Did you know", "In the news", or the prose section of "On this day". (Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not count.)

This is a good, commonsense rule that stops the same article from appearing three times in a row if it's created, 5x expanded shortly after, then GA nom'd after that. However, "appeared previously ever"... well, "ever" is a long time. Maybe this restriction should be loosened so that really old main page appearances don't count? This rule already gets occasionally flouted by accident when a nominator / reviewer misses some ancient DYK from 2010 or the like. If an article hasn't been on the main page in a long time, just let it appear again, as long as it has a new hook at least. There's no harm in it, and it would have the effect of mildly encouraging 5x expansions / GACs, which are in some ways the best kind of articles to feature. The occasional article was featured twice back in the day, anyway (I DYK'd an article for a second time, at least). Maybe adjust rule 1d to something like this:

An article is ineligible for DYK if it has previously appeared on the main page as bold link in "Did you know", "In the news", or the prose section of "On this day" in the past seven years. (Bolded names with dates listed at the bottom of the "On This Day" column do not count.)

My only mild worry is that someone who likes collecting DYK credits more than improving the encyclopedia might be improving a set of articles, see an article at around wherever the threshold is, then intentionally decline to work on 5xing it / GA'ing it until the eligibility refreshes so that they can collect another DYK. But eh, that's on them for being silly, and it's all just guidelines anyway, so if someone is really set on garnering DYK credits, just let them promote anyway even if it was technically 6 years 9 months since the last appearance, so that incentives are aligned correctly to not intentionally stall a GA expansion / nomination.

Pinging @Epicgenius, SounderBruce, and DanCherek:, who participated in the original conversation. Thoughts? SnowFire (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

  • My inclination is towards severely limiting any exception in that rule, because it's not like this addresses any lack of hooks that we're running. The one circumstance where I think I'd sign off on that would be if the hook years ago was really uninteresting, and the article kinda just barely qualified at the time, and now someone's really put the work into it after digging it up and there's an interesting hook to be had. But honestly, we don't need to encourage reruns—roughly 100,000 articles have had a hook at DYK, and only 33,000 GAs in the entire project. There's lots of work to be done, and many unmined nuggets of interesting facts, and I don't see much of a need to broaden the field. If we were to do this, I'd much rather it only apply to GAs, rather than 5x expansions—An article brought to GA is much more likely to have something interesting, inherently. But really, it'd be narrow. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:07, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Did you have any specific article in mind? I use the DYK check tool in my sidebar toolbox, which pretty much pulls up all necessary info on size and past appearance, etc. My first DYK was 2011, back in the day before, I think, we even had nomination templates. If I do a DYK check on that, the tool still tells me what date it appeared on DYK. You are suggesting we overlook the rules on a case-by-case basis, which seems like it would become a voted-upon POV on each case. We are not hurting for nominations, and I see no reason not to keep the rule status quo. — Maile (talk) 01:27, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    • No, I think you're misinterpreting me. This isn't about a special favor for any one article, and I don't have any article I'm looking to get to DYK twice right now. I just think adding a year limit would be a good policy change. I'm looking to change the rules for everyone, fairly, not get a special exemption for me to "overlook the rules". I'm asking for the reverse of case-by-case votes - articles where the DYK appearance was very long ago are just eligible, no need to re-litigate every time. SnowFire (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I think it is a good idea, though generally I'd think 8 to 10 years is a good cutoff. While it is true that there have been a lot more DYK articles than Good Articles so far, I don't think the fact that a DYK has run before should preclude it from ever running again, especially if the original DYK occurred a very long time ago. I don't think this will affect many articles since, again, the number of good articles will likely be vastly outweighed by the number of DYK articles for the foreseeable future. Furthermore, for many of the GAs that have run as DYKs, they were only eligible for DYK after attaining GA status, not because they were new or expanded five-fold a while back. So this rule will not affect such nominations, since a GA that has run as a DYK is almost always ineligible to run again, unless someone either revokes the GA or expands it five-fold.
    As an example, I'll give 195 Broadway since I actually expanded it fivefold and improved to GA in 2020. However, it was not eligible for DYK since it had already appeared as a DYK article as of this edit in 2008. The fact that it was over 11 years between DYK (2008) and GA (2020) should make the GA-promoted revision of the article eligible for DYK, like it would normally be. But that DYK from 2008 prevented a DYK from running in 2020, even though I wasn't even active in 2008, which from the point of view of someone in my position could seem strange. To me, a slight change to the rules would lessen this somewhat, since otherwise we may be penalizing users for DYKs that occurred even before they started editing Wikipedia, let alone editing that article. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:31, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • exactly—that article is the kind of thing I'd support an exception for. However, there are lots of hooks from that time that don't have more potential than they used to—and there were a whole bunch that got deleted due to copyright infringement and I don't want, nor does the project need, to see those brought back and renominated, despite how long ago it was. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:36, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Can you clarify what you mean? Articles that got a DYK appearance then were AFD'd for copyright reasons, I take it, then resurrected? I don't think that's a very common case, but maybe I'm misunderstanding. And I'd definitely assume that there should be a new hook if an article does return for a second round at DYK. Also, per discussion with Maile66 above, I'm not a huge fan of lots of case-by-case discussions of asking for exceptions. Why not just expand eligibility in general? Less stress that way. (A bad hook / DYK proposal can always be rejected anyway, of course, but it'd be rejected on the merits, not due to the existence of an old DYK appearance.) SnowFire (talk) 02:42, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    @SnowFire: I forget exactly where to find them, but I came across a whole smattering of hooks for articles deleted for copyright reasons. It would've been long enough ago that someone could find them and renominate them, and I don't think that's quite necessary. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:45, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
    As for rejections, DYK doesn't reject hooks very often (not as often as I think we should, anyway), so I wouldn't count on that as a way out. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:46, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
  • In that, I agree with you. I would definitely like a culture change for DYK to feature more "friendly rejects" on articles that are neutral, sourced, new enough, but either too boring or too negative-aspects-of-BLP to be good DYK material.
  • I definitely wasn't thinking very much of the AFD'd then recreated case, I was much more thinking of either 5x expansions or GAs. If it would help, I would be happy to have the adjustment say so at the risk of being overly wordy, i.e. "an article can only get a single DYK for creation, period". (I would also be fine with expanding beyond seven years as another option if the current proposal is thought too generous.) SnowFire (talk) 02:53, 29 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the exception is a good idea, so please don't make any changes without a broad consensus here that articles can get a second appearance on the main page via DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:39, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

How about this revision: An article is ineligible for DYK if:

  1. it has appeared in the last ten years on the main page as a bold link in "Did you know", "In the news", or the prose section of "On this day";
  2. it has ever appeared on the main page as a bold link in "Did you know", "In the news", or the prose section of "On this day" more than once in total; or
  3. it has ever appeared on the main page as a bold link in "Did you know" under the same eligibility category (created, expanded, or GA).

King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:58, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Somewhat unrelated to this but there should probably be a footnote or clarification that non-bolded links, as well as articles that have been listed at Recent deaths, are still eligible for DYK. It's not uncommon for nominators to ask if articles that have been featured on Recent Deaths can still appear on DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:20, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
I've thought about this issue in the past, and this proposed reform set seems fairly common-sense. There's probably quibbles to make about, say, ten years versus five. Vaticidalprophet 10:12, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
it has appeared in the last ten years on the main page as a bold link in "Did you know", "In the news", or the prose section of "On this day" so that means that it could run on DYk twice, if it becomes a GA over 10 years after the last appearance? This just seems wrong to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:11, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
That would be the intent. What part seems wrong to you? The project is quite radically different between 2011 and 2021, and I don't think the majority of readers are hyperfocusing on these gaps. Our goal (amongst others) of highlighting new and improved work seems a bit hopelessly goodharted if it excludes significant swathes of the latter. Vaticidalprophet 14:33, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
The point of DYK is to show new content. If an article is new in e.g. 2010, and then just expanded a bit for GA, it's not really new content at all in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:37, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
Very frequently a GA'd or 5x expanded version of an article is almost entirely different than the new article version that hit DYK in 2008 or the like. Right now on the main page for Today's Featured Article is Climate change, which appeared on the main page in 2006, yet the article now is essentially a new article compared to the article in 2006. If your goal is to encourage new content, then this change will support that, not hinder it - in general, it will be new content appearing on the main page. (In the unusual situation of an article DYKing 7+ years ago, sitting around doing nothing, then passing GAC, then that would be against the spirit of this proposal and could be rejected if the reviewer really wanted to be a stickler - but I suspect this case will be vanishingly rare.) SnowFire (talk) 21:35, 31 October 2021 (UTC)
This seems sensible to me. I don't think there will be all that many cases where there isn't great change between creation/expansion ten years ago and whatever might happen to the article now, if that makes sense. Eddie891 Talk Work 14:59, 31 October 2021 (UTC)

Because we don't have enough to do right now

I ran into this from, like, 7 years ago, a proposal I made after we had a string of controversial hooks and images. But there were other fish to fry and there was never really much discussion:

  • Wikipedia does not suppress knowledge merely because some may find that knowledge offensive, but neither should the manner of presentation knowingly or thoughtlessly give offense when the same information can be communicated in a manner more broadly acceptable.
  • While DYK hooks are often playful, this should not be confused with excessive gratuitous vulgarity, shock value, or tastelessness.
  • Omission of a particular hook does not remove the hook's content from the body of Wikipedia's knowledge (as would omission of something from an article), merely from the prominence of the main page. The purpose of a DYK is to interest readers in a given article, not give exposure to a particular hook or image per se, so where there is significant concern about given hook or image, consider rewording the hook, substituting a different point drawn from the article, or using a different image (or no image).
  • When proposing a hook touching on issues (or employing language, or accompanied by an image) that may be of concern to a significant number of editors, get feedback early by raising the issue explicitly in the nomination instead of waiting for someone else to do so.

Perhaps some version of the above might fit at WP:Did you know#Content. Thoughts? EEng 19:05, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

  • I've mixed feelings about these. The first three seem to just remind users to not be an asshole. I think that the idea that hooks can't be rude or tasteless is firmly rooted enough in precedents that it's better left unsaid. Same goes for the idea of "don't dig your heels in and needlessly squabble for months on one hook, just go with another one". I do like the last one, though, that's good advice. The second one could work if it were changed to "shock value, excessive vulgarity, or tastelessness", just to emphasize the balance. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:33, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
    Added excessive. You're right about some of this just reminding editors of what they should already know -- that is, don't be an asshole -- but I think DYK is a place where it's peculiarly useful to do so, because it's where otherwise staid editors get to let their hair down, and sometimes they overdo it. EEng 05:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
  • That all sounds eminently sensible. I've had silly discussions before, where people thought WP:NOTCENSORED was a licence to put any old thing on the front page, no matter the likelihood that it would bring a slew of complaints.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
  • I am not in favour of anything that limits creativity or freedom to propose hooks that might challenge views. NOTCENSORED is a key facet of Wikipedia and it should be upheld so we aren't seen as imposing our own personal views on hooks we might find distasteful. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 20:44, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
    That's exactly why the proposal starts by restating NONCENSORED without actually naming it. EEng 05:43, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    And that's exactly why this proposal exists. To spell out in black and white the common-sense and long-standing convention that NOTCENSORED does not apply in full on the main page. Whatever editors' personal preferences may be, society as a whole regards certain things as taboo, and putting those taboo things on our most visible portal simply harms the reputation of the project and makes us less accessible as a global resource.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 30 September 2021 (UTC)
    @Amakuru: I always like to mention the essay Wikipedia:NOTCENSORED and the Main Page whenever someone cries "NOTCENSORED!"-- Pawnkingthree (talk) 14:16, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
  • More comments? EEng 01:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:CREEP. DYK already has a ridiculous number of rules – over sixty iirc. As it seems to have managed fine during the last seven years without these additional rules, they are clearly not needed. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:12, 13 October 2021 (UTC)
    There's nothing in it that's anything like a rule. It just suggests a way of thinking through potentially controversial content. And no, DYK hasn't managed all that fine in this area -- we regularly have unnecessary drama because (for example) controversial stuff didn't get ventilated at an early stage. EEng 23:26, 14 October 2021 (UTC)
    Whether you call them rules, platitudes or just noise, there are four bullet points in the proposal. But the number of examples of relevant cases is zero. Per WP:NOTLAW, proposals should be evidence-based. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:37, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    Template:Did you know nominations/John Knight (slave trader) seems like a notable case from my time here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:43, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    And to clarify, my goal in proposing this is not to make things harder for the kind of borderline content that everyone knows I personally delight in, but to smooth the way by smoking out and addressing objections well in advance, instead of risking the we-better-pull-it-while-we-decide mess such hooks so often find themselves in. EEng 18:17, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that this is worth stating. We've had multiple hooks get passed through that shouldn't have but no one objected to because of misinterpretation of NOTCENSORED. I also agree that it's not instruction creep. It's clarification that yes, it's fine to object to a hook on the basis that it's offensive. —valereee (talk) 18:17, 18 October 2021 (UTC)
    Looking at the one example, the idea seems to be to proscribe names like Fanny. I definitely oppose this now as it might mean that we might never do Dick Assman, even if we got him to GA. No, it's not fine to object to hooks that are supposedly offensive. That's the entire point of WP:CENSOR. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:56, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    And just to underline where I stand on such material, I'm offering your my very valuable services, as DYK's Premiere Hooker, on that very article:
    ... that celebrity was thrust upon Assman?
    No charge. EEng 23:57, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    "Premiere Hooker" is a better joke than the hook, to be honest—props theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    Well, they can't all be erection engineer Mark Barr or Dr. Young's Ideal Rectal Dilators being forcibly withdrawn after officials clamped down on them or the man in the missionary position who said erections indicated apprehension and penetration was difficult or the corporate executive grilled on the witness stand or the National Gallery having a picture of Trump urinating. EEng 03:09, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
    ... wow. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:51, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
You see now how ridiculous it is for someone to suggest that I'm trying to censor hooks. EEng 17:06, 24 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Just to reinforce what leeky says below: Quite honestly if you thought that valereee's (or anyone's) idea is to proscribe anything, then it seems like you haven't actually read the thread. EEng 19:26, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
    @Andrew Davidson: I think you missed the point of the example. The point wasn't to censor names like dick assman—it was to point out that someone who was involved in and perpetuated a brutal slave trade to a horrifying degree probably shouldn't have a hook that's "ha-ha his slave ship was called Fanny". It's insensitive and we'd look like doofuses. Or take Template:Did you know nominations/Jacob Wohl's ALT3—sure, it's funny, but because Jacob Wohl is described by sources pretty negatively, it'd look pretty odd juxtaposing the entire article with that hook. I think that's the idea of this proposal—we let editors let their hair down, crack jokes, make quirky hooks, but we also should remind editors to be respectful and maintain a consistent tone when needed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:16, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Ping EEng 04:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Centralized discussion

I made a proposal at the Village pump idea lab that may or may not involve DYK—feel free to participate and suggest ideas! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:24, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

This is re having audio versions of main-page items. EEng 04:37, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

we're above 120

@DYK admins: we're back to above 120 hooks, which means it's time to move to two sets a day. We're not doing great on queue promotion, so it would be fantastic if anyone could lend a hand during these soon-to-be-trying times. Sometime after midnight UTC (around 3 hours and 13 minutes from now), change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200, and we'll be squeaky. please don't do the switch before midnight.

As for special occasion hooks, there are two that are meant to run on November 14 in Queue 4—those should be booted to Prep 6. I don't think we have any other hooks at the moment, although BlueMoonset could probably fill me in on whether I'm wrong. Hold on to your hats, this'll be bumpy—I'll be around to make preps. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:49, 11 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, theleekycauldron, for catching this. For hook movement, actually, Sherita Hill Golden should be moved from Queue 4 to Prep 7, since it needs to run during the day in the U.S., and Prep 7 will run from 07:00 to 19:00 Eastern Time. Pinging Dumelow, who requested November 14 for Monument to the King's Liverpool Regiment to see whether it would be more fitting if the hook ran from midnight to noon UTC/GMT or from noon to midnight on that day, or if it doesn't matter. (If midnight to noon, then Prep 6; if noon to midnight, then Prep 7.) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:18, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah, good catch—I'll make room in P7. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:21, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Hi BlueMoonset, thanks for the ping. Midnight to noon please, so it covers the 11am silence in the UK - Dumelow (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
all right, there's space in p6 for the hook, as soon as an admin makes the changes theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:27, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
we're past midnight UTC; if an admin could make the change, that'd be great theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 00:10, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
 Done I moved some hooks from prep 4 to fill the gaps left in the queue. — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:26, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
thank ya thank ya theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:02, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Queue 4

Because of the s.o. swaps, it looks like Q4 puts two bio hooks next to each other. If the hooks could be rearranged by an admin into this order to correct it, that'd be much appreciated: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:08, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Corsi-Rosenthal Box
Corsi-Rosenthal Box

And the credits:

More preps need to be promoted to queues asap

We now have only two queues filled, which will be used up in about 20 hours. If some admins would please promote a few more preps, now that all the special occasion hooks have been moved to their new homes, that would be great. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

We still only have two queues filled, and all preps are filled, meaning that prep set builders can't work. Pinging admins Cas Liber, Amakuru, valereee, and Maile, in the hopes that one or more of you can promote some preps this weekend, so we don't run out of queues. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:40, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
I have cleared out two prep sets to queue. As per usual when I step in to help out, I have only checked the hooks are present in the respective articles and have a citation, and the review looks adequately carried out, not extended work such as verifying the hook is in the citations present, which I trust the reviewers and prep builders have already done. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:02, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
The promotions made the image, DYKmake area, and the ...s disappear from those two prep areas. It was an easy fix though. SL93 (talk) 19:38, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
@Ritchie333: Thank you for your help. You failed to do the second half of instruction 2 of the "Move to Queue" instructions. I have corrected this in both queues. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:45, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
All queues are now filled. There are three empty preps. — Maile (talk) 20:22, 13 November 2021 (UTC)
filled two of them; no reason to fill the third one. When we're in striking range of going back to one a day, we can fill everything one go—until then, we're fine where we are. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:54, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Image

I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Sky Pool, London to prep 3 without the image due to it not being clear enough at 100px and there are much clearer images to use in my opinion. I'm only bringing it up for discussion here because Victuallers said that the image is essential in their review. Also pinging nominator Heythereimaguy. SL93 (talk) 02:22, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Hard to get a good image of glass, unfortunately; competition for the image slot is high, I'll express my talk page stalker support for promoting without an image. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:25, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
No worries - it was "essential" to get the full impact, but as noted, its a competition to get the picture slot. Thanks anyway for your interest. Victuallers (talk) 09:11, 14 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh well, sometimes things don't work out. @SL93: thanks for promoting to prep 3! Heythereimaguy (talk) 12:50, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

St Collen's Church, Llangollen

I'm not very good at the intricacies of DYK. However, if anyone would like to pick up St Collen’s Church, Llangollen, begun today, I think it could have rather a good hook:

All the best. KJP1 (talk) 14:49, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

@KJP1: hi there! I've made a formal DYK nomination on your behalf. In the future, I find that this wizard is very helpful for making DYK nominations. If you need any help around here, feel free to shoot me a message my talk page! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:00, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Prep 3 minor refinement comment

I'm not sure how to suggest a minor refinement, but as I said on the article's discussion template, I suggest changing "album" to "2019 album" for the hook about Home (Billy Strings album), to let unfamiliar readers know this isn't about something that happened 70 years ago. More readers will be interested in a new album than an old one. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 21:30, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done: for future reference, as long as you weren't directly involved in the nomination, you can edit hooks directly (for substantial changes, a ping to the nominator is nice) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:39, 15 November 2021 (UTC)

Question on excessive quoting

In my review at Template:Did you know nominations/Time, Love, Memory, I raised a concern that the extensive use of quotes, even though accurately attributed, may run afoul of WP:LONGQUOTE or WP:OVERQUOTING. The nominator/creator (User:Artem.G) replied that they believe the quotes are fine and are a "valuable part of the article." The hook is good to go except for the longquote/overquote issue. I would appreciate it if someone more experienced with the issue could take a look and offer some guidance. Thanks. Cbl62 (talk) 22:15, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

Also, "Plot" for non-fiction? Perhaps, 'Synopsis'. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:55, 12 November 2021 (UTC)
The quotes in the "Reception" section are fine, and some of the quotes in the "Synopsis" section are probably necessary given the difficulty of paraphrasing specialized ideas. Some of the other quotes in that section could probably be readily paraphrased though. Gatoclass (talk) 02:19, 14 November 2021 (UTC)

Admins needed to promote preps to queues

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

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

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

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

Prep 2 Ineligible hook?

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

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

Adjusting WP:DYKSTATS guidelines

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

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

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

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

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

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

Nominations:

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

Belle Delphine

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

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

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

Post-posting comments

  • On the one hand, I fully support NOTCENSORED. But on the other: was this the uhhh...brightest editorial decision? Also, are we really sure that GIF is CC licensed? Like sure the video its taken from is CC, but its obviously taken from another non-CC video. CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:35, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
    @CaptainEek: damnit, well that's the last time I trust the review licensing system. I'm making a note on WP:ERRORS—if you or someone else could pull the hook, that would be good. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Theleekycauldron I mean, I'm not certain either. But it was my first concern. There was some discussion about it on Discord that it might be okay but I'm hoping for further input... CaptainEek Edits Ho Cap'n!⚓ 01:47, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
    Also commented at T:MP, but copying here too: Delphine does not own the channel, but the podcast she appeared on does. So the question is whether the podcast has the rights to the video of her. I'd generally think yes, per meta:Wikilegal/Copyright in Zoom Images. (for evidence of the "Cold Ones Clips" channel being owned by the Cold Ones podcast, see here). I think the GIF is fine. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:03, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • No objection to featuring Belle Delphine on the main page and no objection to the GIF on the topic page... there are many images that are orders of magnitude more adult than this in Wikipedia. That said, this image does strike me as possibly being a little too adult for the main page. Obviously, kids can find this and much worse if they search for it but we should consider a higher standard for content that is pushed into view (of young readers). No strong objection here but definitely seems worthwhile to have a broader discussion to shape future guidelines. - Wikmoz (talk) 01:49, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
    Perhaps this is the time to revisit Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 183#Because we don't have enough to do right now. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The looping motion makes a kind of upsetting (to me) image impossible to ignore, and doesn't do much to help showcase the subject. I had to block it with uBlock Origin. Aside from that, it seems like the discussion about the appropriateness of this "did you know" entry on a site that already has a gender disparity problem kind of got glossed over in favor of a discussion about the word "replicated"... Even if whatever Delphine does is empowering to women in some way, that doesn't make it empowering or even okay to say "fun fact, her popularity surged when she did ahegao faces!" on the front page of Wikipedia with no context. Autumnontape (talk) 01:50, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
    • And we wonder why women don't contribute to Wikipedia. Urve (talk) 02:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
This is an interesting issue. I was unaware of it before seeing your comment. I'll read up on it. It looks like there are other causes that are more significant in shifting participation. Maybe it's discouraging to some but encouraging to others. - Wikmoz (talk) 03:00, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
    • I just found the nomination. The sexual topic and GIF were favored specifically for the associated engagement potential? That seems like a dangerous game to play and possibly a good way to undermine Wikipedia's stance against censoring itself. Autumnontape (talk) 02:27, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
      of course it was—as I told Gatoclass earlier in the thread, If we do run this hook, particularly in the image slot, it won't be because we're making a brave point, or taking a stand, or becoming an edgier PBS Kids—it'll be because delphine is a known (and slightly controversial) figure across some parts of the internet and because we're looking to shock for attention. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:43, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • The animated gif is very tacky. Please rein in the quest for hookiness (and now apparently engagement metrics as well?) a bit. 2001:48F8:4002:684:9CD5:A12F:5EA5:7CE0 (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I did not know that, and I was happier then. MaxHarmony (talk) 03:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I think the audience and purpose of the main page needs some clarification. The main page is what you see waiting for you in a public library anywhere in the world, right?? What kind of audience is this designed to attract, and is that worth losing the kind it will discourage? It doesn't seem welcoming when you consider the wide variety of cultures that find an encyclopedia valuable.TommyB5000 (talk) 05:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm all behind NOTCENSORED and with these sort of controversies, regulars know I have been on the end of many of them. But with this one, did we really need to say "orgasm" in the hook coupled with a gif of a pornstar doing it? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 06:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm disappointed and upset, to be honest. Towards the reviewer and nominator, towards the admin to a lesser extent, and definitely towards myself. I understand that some of us thought we could send a message about empowerment and sexuality. Of course that was never how this hook was going to be received, and deep down, I knew it, too. I knew inside that I gave it an image slot because i was banking on a cheap hook that looked to shock instead of inform to try and get attention. I let an insubstantial and tasteless hook get the better of my judgement, and I, for one, am not letting that happen again. Not about to start censoring hooks, but come on—there were plenty of opportunities for us, for me, to make this right. We have a social responsibility at DYK, and here, the review process failed to meaningfully take it into account. I have more thoughts, but to prevent this from becoming a rant, i'm just going to leave it at "promoting this hook, particularly to the image slot, was a careless and shortsighted choice that I apologize for". theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:08, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
    Don't beat yourself up about it. I think the message we send at DYK is that Wikipedia covers everything. Even boring porn stars. The thing to learn here is that images, even if they seem devoid of shock value like this one, are always ten times more controversial than far more explicit descriptions in text. (We've had half a dozen Chinese porn novels on the Main Page in the last year, for example). —Kusma (talk) 15:58, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't believe this mustn't have run, as the main page has a documented history of WP:NOTCENSORED and we have featured much more explicit content. However, it is not something I would have chosen as the lead slot if I were prepping the set, just as a matter of taste. I can see an argument that this is a woman presenting a genuine aspect of her sexuality, not something to be shamed, and equally an argument that the image likely doesn't reflect any of Delphine's actual sexual desires, was produced for the titillation of men and is rather off-putting to most women. When it comes to the topic of porn, I think the most interesting facts are often non-sensationalist and lie in the similarities between porn production and any other form of labour (I've recently written articles like Adult Performer Advocacy Committee and Adult Performance Artists Guild). — Bilorv (talk) 12:18, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • What poor editorial judgement. It went for nothing but gratuitous titillation, poorly conceived and poorly executed. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:15, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that this whole thing is interesting considering DYK has featured more inappropriate hooks throughout the years with no issues. The only potentially valid action would be to have promoted a hook from the article without an image. I'm sure a different hook, even mentioning the face, could have been formed without the image. SL93 (talk) 15:41, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
  • There were several discussions about this in the Wikimedia Discord server. A few of us on that server, including me, had their hooks run concurrently with the Delphine hook. One user, who I won't name without their permission, expressed dismay that their hook had to compete with Delphine's, and I agree. While I do believe in WP:NOTCENSORED, I also think there might have been some problems in having a GIF, and a sexually connoted one at that, broadcast prominently on the main page. The threads at Talk:Main Page and right here describe that very well. Conversely, another user did point out that the hook's appearance didn't overlap with the school hours of many major countries; otherwise, I suppose there would've been more complaints. To be fair, I'm not saying the hook itself shouldn't have run, just maybe that we should've dialed it down a notch with having an orgasm face in the image slot. – Epicgenius (talk) 03:26, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
    I thought the same as I was updating the WP:DYKSTATS page today. From my experience at DYK, I think Train lights, Woman's Head (Picasso), and Samuel Gibbs French would have all had fighting chances at, if not smashing any records, at least crossing the 416.6 views per hour threshold needed to be recorded on the month's stats page. The fact that those hooks got 257.9, 228.5, and 296.4 views per hour, respectively, is at least partially attributable to Delphine's hook, which got over 3,000 views per hour. In fact, the middle six hooks (hooks 2–7) all got in the 200s range (hook no. 8, Epicgenius's, got 455 v/h). I mean, it happens—there'll be hooks (like the horned helmet hook from a few days ago) that are just so attention grabbing that they sap views from other hooks (although I'm not sure any of the other hooks in that set would have made it regardless). The argument that because Delphine's hook's ill-fittingness for the slot made it unfair competition is shakier, but the analysis of its effect on the other hooks is fair, in my opinion. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:00, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
There is no evidence that hooks "compete" with each other for views, indeed it could just as well be argued that when a highly popular hook is run, it draws attention to the DYK slot and results in more views for everyone. Certainly, it seems that every hook in that set did reasonably well for its interest factor, and not IIRC noticeably worse than similar hooks run on other days. And even without the GIF, the lead hook would have gotten a ton of views, because pretty girls who are celebrities always do. Gatoclass (talk) 04:14, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: Hmm, I'm not seeing strong evidence either way, pulling data from this month. The average non-lead hook got 256.1 views per hour; that number grows to 264.8 for non-leads under a lead with fewer than 800 views per hour, and shrinks to 241.9 for non-leads under a lead with over 800 views per hour. There are outliers, of course; Delphine's set had a non-lead average of 271.7, while Henry VIII horned helmet (which had a similar number of lead views)'s set had a non-lead average of 152.8.
There does seem to be a negative trendline, but it's small. On the other hand, I don't see as many strong non-leads in any of the other sets as I do in Delphine's, so I'm leaning towards the theory that running them in another set (or possibly running them in separate sets) would have helped. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 05:29, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron I didn't think of such a thing when I promoted the helmet hook because I honestly don't care about such things. The hook with the image was great and everything with the article was fine which is all that I cared about like always. Balancing hooks with that would be too complicated and I'm not sure if I would build preps if that was the case. I feel that it could come across as picking on editors for doing what they should be doing. SL93 (talk) 01:47, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@SL93: I don't disagree—prep building is enough of a task without that kind of balancing. There's only so many sudokus we can solve at once. I think the hooks would have done better in another set, but that doesn't mean I think they should have ran in another set. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:13, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Discussion notice: Belle Delphine GIF on the main page

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

Mahler's 4th symphony

Template:Did you know nominations/Symphony No. 4 (Mahler) (second nomination), is an approved special occasion nomination for November 25, 2021 (120th anniversary of symphony's premier). For November 25, it has to be in Prep 1, but Prep 1 is filled. I cannot promote it as I was the reviewer. Requesting @Theleekycauldron or @Cwmhiraeth to promote the hook and add it in Prep 1, with or without image on your discretion. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 18:01, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Kavyansh.Singh I took care of it. SL93 (talk) 19:28, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:30, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

November 26

The two special occasion hooks for November 26 should probably not be promoted until the second November 26 prep is open to match the time zone. That is unless we move back to 24 hour hooks by then. Just posting this here for prep builders and as a reminder of the special occasion hooks. SL93 (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2022 European Cricket League hook

Not anything major, but I feel like this hook is missing a comma or two. It's currently in prep 3, this is the present version:

Adding a comma after "Tunbridge Wells" and after the bolded link gives this, which I believe reads better. I think it could benefit from linking UEFA Champions League as well:

Might just be me, but I think this would improve readability. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 02:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

PCN02WPS Done. SL93 (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Ida Veldhuyzen van Zanten is now File:VeronicaMayInnes.jpg?

Pinging @Vysotsky and Victuallers: We ran a hook on Ida Veldhuyzen van Zanten with an image that we claimed was her, and now vysotsky says it's actually Veronica May Innes and has renamed the file. Vysotsky, are we sure about this, and if we are, should the wider DYK community consider issuing a correction? This seems like something we should address. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 10:09, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

The image's page at the Dutch National Archives here clears things up; the picture was originally misidentified as Van Zanten but has been corrected. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 10:16, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
i know this idea smacks of taking ourselves too seriously, but if this is the case, I think we ought to correct ourselves somehow. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 10:32, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
If the Dutch National Archives had the wrong person listed at that time, and we used that image, how is it our fault? And seems like a lot of hassle to invent a process to "correct ourselves", especially as Wikipedia is a tertiary source, and so just report what other sources say (and it's not our fault that the source was wrong). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:36, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
Oh, that's my mistake—i thought it was more our fault than that. It's probably not worth the hassle if the source itself was wrong. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 10:38, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
The source itself was unclear and mentioned both names (which should have been a warning sign). But the same image (well, the original and a cropped version, not this cropped one) was already in Commons, with clear explanation (and the wrong name mentioned), renamed to the correct person in Sept. 2020. So we could learn from it: by checking Commons itself more vigorously in the future. I will am planning to write a short piece about it for the next issue of The Signpost, so others can learn from it too. (And yes, I am definitely sure the image is Veronica Volkersz, née Veronica May Innes). Vysotsky (talk) 10:50, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
PS I will upload a different image of Ida Veldhuyzen van Zanten shortly. Vysotsky (talk) 10:52, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
There is already another image of her in the article, thanks to more research. Looks like we did a good job but based, as always, on imperfect data. We did not MAKE a mistake. Noting that we COULD have seen the error earlier is obvious in hindsight but this was a B class article. This was (and is) a good piece of research and the fact that Wikipedia has mistakes and omissions is not a recent discovery. We cannot wait for perfection before publication and we only need to do our best. Pleased to see that we have corrected the error. That is the news here, not the mistake. Victuallers (talk) 11:26, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

One filled queue, 7 filled preps

@DYK admins: One queue is filled and all preps are filled. SL93 (talk) 02:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

As a less urgent matter, we should fill as many queues as possible right now—we're at 108 approved nominations, and if we were to fill every queue and refill every prep, that's 108-6*8=60. So, if we keep every queue filled, we should be able to switch back to one-a-day (below 60) within a day or two. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm hoping for more prep builders to achieve that goal. SL93 (talk) 02:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
we can ping kavyansh, but I could honestly hold up the prep set end of that on my own theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Can definitely help in filling preps (really interesting!) But at this point, I really am considering this proposal again. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:31, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh: apparently it's a perennial proposal :l but yeah, Lee Vilenski, if you were looking for proof that the preps are filled at all time without enough admins around, poke around the history here. We've been backlogged pretty much all the time since we started this two-a-day run. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh, @Theleekycauldron, the problem is always the opposes because "if someone wants to be able to edit through protections, they should just run an RfA." Being able to move a prep to queue means that person would be able to edit through all protections sitewide. Someone with that right could in theory cause a lot of damage.
You know...the true basic problem here is that we have our admin instructions set up to say that by moving a prep to queue, an admin is saying they have done a final quality check. Maybe what we need to do is stop requiring that. I'd be happy to promote a set a day if it didn't require that quality check. The move to queue takes two minutes. It's rechecking eight hooks and articles, and dealing with any concerns found, that takes the time. But really someone else could do that final quality check. That part doesn't actually require 7 days of vetting by the community, just an experienced DYK regular who is willing to do that third quality check to catch anything the reviewer and prep builder didn't catch. DYK could designate those people internally, they could sign off on a prep, and any admin on the project could promote to queue, wouldn't take any special experience here at DYK. Hm. @DYK admins: ? —valereee (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The whole point of doing a quality check when you promote to a queue is that you are taking responsibility for that set. If you leave it up to somebody else, then you are not taking responsibility. Apart from which, there have been too many errors creeping through DYK recently and the last thing we need to do is further weaken quality control. Gatoclass (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree with this. The admin checks are a very useful part of the pipeline, particularly given that we have a diverse set of reviewers and nominators, and sometimes fairly obvious things creep through that need fixing. Admittedly I'm probably more pernickety than most (as per my Queue 2 points at the bottom of this page!) but I wouldn't like to do away with it entirely. I also don't really think we lack admins at the moment. I haven't done too many sets lately, but I'm always happy to help and it's partly because I'm usually pinged in the middle of the night and the backlog has often been reduced by the time I wake up.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Pinging @DYK admins: if you could promote a prep or two (or more, i promise i won't judge), that would be super appreciated. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I have done two sets this morning. Once I get through the checking of those, I'll look at doing one or two more.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Preps filled—this Allium specimen is going to sleep. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 10:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Queue 2: Doreen Nabwire

  • that Doreen Nabwire (pictured) is the first Kenyan woman to play professional football in Europe?

Just a minor point with this one - I'm not certain on this, but it feels like it would be better grammatically to say she was the first Kenyan woman to play professional football in Europe. On the grounds that the milestone in question was in 2009, she is now retired, and hence is no longer playing said football. I know saying "was" could imply that she's deceased, which obviously she isn't, but I'd have thought when it comes to mentioning a specific milestone, that past tense is better. Pinging @SL93, Narutolovehinata5, and Ampimd: as promoter/reviewer/nominator. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: how about we just emulate the lead and say:
... that in 2009, Doreen Nabwire (pictured) became the first Kenyan woman to play professional football in Europe? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 10:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
That would be fine with me. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't mind the new wording but I don't really see what's wrong with the original hook, I thought the idea seemed clear regardless if she's still playing or not. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:53, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I also felt the idea was clear however, I am fine with the new wording as well since it does not take anything away from the initial statement and even adds the date (2009). Perhaps that's a plus as well. Ampimd (talk) 12:15, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done - alt substituted. Gatoclass (talk) 14:08, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Can someone promote this?

Can someone promote Template:Did you know nominations/G. D. Sweet Famous Players? theleekycauldron can't as the submitter of ALT1 and I can't as the nominator. SL93 (talk) 07:36, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll leave slot 3 in T:DYK/P7 open for the hook, for whomever fills it. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Done! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Dianxi Xiaoge

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

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

I did a thing!

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

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

Queue 2: Cello Sonata (Alkan)

Apologies for late notice, but I have a couple of concerns with the attribution on this hook. Firstly, this use of the verb "seems" sounds like something that ought to be attributed to someone in the article - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and things we say in WP:WIKIVOICE should be facts, rather than things which "seem" to be true. Also, the "seems" in the article is attached to the line about people dancing after being bitten by a tarantula rather than the Mahler line. And, as a third point, the quote used in the hook (which in the article reads "among the most difficult and ambitious in the romantic repertoire ... anticipating Mahler in its juxtaposition of the sublime and the trivial") doesn't seem to be attributed to any named person in the article. Unless it's something that Brigitte François-Sappey said, in which case a reword to make that clear would be good. Pinging @Theleekycauldron, Gerda Arendt, and Corachow: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:08, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

  • My suggestion for resolving this would be remove the "seems" altogether, amending to the hook to something like: ... that the 1856 Cello Sonata by Charles-Valentin Alkan has been described as "anticipating Gustav Mahler in its juxtaposition of the sublime and the trivial"? and then making sure we name the person who described it thus in the article.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    I'm fine with that theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:46, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Queue 2: Falling for Figaro

....and the aptly named Sir Not-Appearing-In-This-DYK

Just querying the fact that there's no sourcing for the cast list in this film. I guess per usual convention that would be OK if we could use the film itself (or its end credits) as an implicit source for that cast. However, this cast list contains one entry for Craig Anderson (actor) that is marked as "uncredited". That suggests we wouldn't be able to verify it using the film itself, and some other sourcing is needed. It looks like the nominator, Filmomusico is blocked for two weeks, so we might have to pull it, but also notifying @SL93, Narutolovehinata5, Gatoclass, and Ritchie333: who were involved in the DYK nom. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:05, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Wouldn't the easiest thing be to just remove Craig Anderson from the cast list, since it's not verifiable? I can see a whole bunch of Google Hits for him; however, I can also see a bunch for Sir Not-appearing-in-this-film, so I'm not sure what's any good to use as a source or not. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:24, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, that looks like a good solution. Thanks, Ritchie.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Queue 2: Alatchakra: Circle of Desire

Sorry, but pretty much the same issue as the one above. Surely it should be "Alatchakra: Circle of Desire was the first 3-dimensional Bangladeshi film", unless we're trying to imply that it's still showing in the cinemas now or something... which seems a bit unlikely, 8 months after release. Not a definitive source, but at [2] the question of "he is the first" vs "he was the first" is asked, and the accepted answer seems to pretty much say that "he was the first to do X" is correct, and that if you want to use the present tense then it should be "he is the first do have done X". Pinging @Theleekycauldron, Graeme Bartlett, and FaysaLBinDaruL: as the relevant parties on this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

For works of fiction such as films and books they are basically timeless. They still now exist. And this film will always be the first, even in the future. Though I am just as happy with "was" Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Is sounds correct. The film will always be the first 3-dimensional Bangladeshi film no matter what. SL93 (talk) 13:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Was for me. —valereee (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I would say "is" because it was only released earlier this year and is therefore still current, or close enough to it. Gatoclass (talk) 15:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
"Is" is correct. Ten years from now or a hundred, still will be a film and still will be the first in that category. Think of it this way, do we say that the Mona Lisa is a painting or was a painting? ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 15:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
That's not analogous. Alatchakra is a movie, but it was the first of its kind. —valereee (talk) 17:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
The Birth of a Nation is a landmark of film history, lauded for its technical virtuosity. It was the first 12-reel film ever made and, at three hours, also the longest up to that point. —valereee (talk) 17:57, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
"Was" in your example modifies the verb "made"; it obviously is not continuously being made, but it does continually exist. "Was" would be appropriate in this hook if we used a verb like "made" or "released" which indicates a specific event in the past and not simply the film's existence. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 20:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
No, was does not modify the verb made in the example. If it had said something like "The Birth of a Nation was made in 1915", then was would have modified made. Bishonen | tålk 11:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC).
@Amakuru, clearly no consensus. I think you could totally do what you think. :) —valereee (talk) 21:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
OK, I have amended it to "was". I'm pretty sure this is the most common usage for any first event which is not clearly "in the present". See for example "Barack Obama is the first" vs "Barack Obama was the first". Cheers. And on films, see the GHits for "star wars was the first" (186,000) vs "star wars is the first" (63).  — Amakuru (talk) 08:55, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived prematurely nearly two days ago, so I’ve created a new list that includes all 18 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through November 14. We currently have a total of 192 nominations, of which 104 have been approved, a gap of 88, up 5 over the past five days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Moms for Liberty

I'm a newbie to DYK (which seems very complicated, going by the questions about hooks and queues above). So I have a stupid question. I've been reading the rules for eligibility, but I'm not sure whether the article Moms for Liberty is eligible for DYK. The current version has been expanded compared to what it was here, on 20 November. Per wordcounter.net, it's well over five times longer now, if the references aren't counted. But if they are counted, then it's only about 3,5 times as long. This comes about because the short version had a lot of references, which it didn't really use (compare this talkpage comment), while today's longer version has pretty much the same refs, put to better use (modestly spoken) to produce more content. So, would such an article be appropriate for DYK? Or not? Bishonen | tålk 21:44, 23 November 2021 (UTC).

Short and quick answer - Yes, the article is eligible. It is still classified as a 'stub' but, that tag just needs to go. I would say it is somewhere between a 'start' class and a 'C' class article. Also, per DYKChecker the article has been 5x expanded since November 20. So, you should be good there. Get working and submit this for DYK. Good luck. PS: See if you can remove the yellow banner as well. Ktin (talk) 21:51, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
References aren't counted in a 5x expansion, only "readable prose." Pawnkingthree (talk) 21:54, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Yep, Moms for Liberty was at 762 characters before expansion, and it's now 5991 characters, so that's a 7.9x expansion. (DYKcheck.js is a handy tool for checking whether an article is eligible for DYK.) Be sure to nominate it by 27 November at the latest. DanCherek (talk) 21:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the prompt replies. I did remove the stub template, days ago; Did somebody put it back? Uhh... I don't see it. Also, I've been regretting the orphan state of the article (the yellow banner), but haven't been able to think of a useful link to it. Can anybody help with that? Bishonen | tålk 22:05, 23 November 2021 (UTC).
Do not worry about the stub categorization, DanCherek took care of that here :) If you have not already tried these two scripts, I would recommend that you try them out -- pretty handy for DYK evaluations and submissions -- DYKcheck and DYKhelper. Good luck and thanks for joining us at WP:DYK. We are always looking for more editors to join us. We would also be interested in your learning from your nominating experience as you try those scripts or nominations sans the scripts. Ktin (talk) 22:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Bishonen, I made a link from Megyn Kelly. —valereee (talk) 22:42, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Great, Valereee, thank you. I'll try the helper script, Ktin. Bishonen | tålk 07:23, 24 November 2021 (UTC).
  • Update: I've nominated the article now, using the DYK-helper script. The script worked well, except it left me unsure of how, and whether, to format the name of the article. I guess it ought to have been bolded, but I can't tell how to do that on the page now. But that's a minor point indeed, and I'm sure somebody who knows their way around here can do it for me. Thanks everybody for helping, and please see what you think of my suggested hooks. 200 characters really isn't a lot. Bishonen | tålk 11:37, 24 November 2021 (UTC).

Yet another set proposal for New Year's

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

jewish people have quite a few different new year's celebration foods, but our new year is in like september so that's not helpful. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:48, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, actually, I was planning to include in that article NY foods for New Years that are celebrated other times than January 1. I just hadn't worked my way out to Chinese NY and Jewish NY yet. But, yeah, if an article was about Jewish NY foods, you might prefer to have it run September 25, 2022. :) —valereee (talk) 16:26, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
ah, fun fun! I'll consider writing something when August rolls around, then theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 17:22, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: Meant to comment on this earlier. I think this is a really good idea. Don't know if you're familiar with the Huell Howser California's Gold series, but I seem to remember an episode he did on New Year's day tradition of Japanese mochi pounding. Not just the eating of mochi, but the family tradition of having a mochi pounding on New Year's Day. Anyway, I think you have a good start on the article. Looking forward to seeing it on the MP. — Maile (talk) 01:55, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks @Maile66, and also for the Huell Howser suggestion! I found a link to that episode! —valereee (talk) 12:29, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: Oh, good, you found that episode. I think he might have done a lot of other cultural holiday tradition related episodes over the years, but that one pops out in my mind. I vaguely remember one he did on the Mexican tradition of creating the nativity in homes, and the visitation-ceremonial events that happen with that. Good thinking on his part to leave his entire collection to Chapman. — Maile (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2021 (UTC) Well ... heck ... I just clicked on that link, and the next one in Huell's queue is the Christmas tradition of tamale making. — Maile (talk) 14:14, 11 November 2021 (UTC)
I have a Christmas DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Jingle Cats. I just had to expand the article for DYK after buying the first cassette from a Goodwill Outlet for under $1. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
@SL93, do you actively object to a Christmas appearance, or are you simply not requesting it? Because I was just going to move it into that slot myself, as I think it's great for Christmas. Certainly I think it should appear within a few days before Christmas, at minimum. Maybe the 23rd or 24th? Wait, you still own something with which you can play a cassette? —valereee (talk) 13:59, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I was worried about it running on Christmas because I was worried about it being considered inappropriate on that day due to the end of the hook. I'm changing my opinion due to not censored. I actually bought a cassette player recently. SL93 (talk) 14:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Considering the very strong connection between Christmas and accusations of fornication, I can't see how plain ol' copulation should be a problem. :D —valereee (talk) 18:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Queue 4

  • ... that in 2018, 41 out of 45 members of the Malang city council were arrested under suspicions of bribery?

@Juxlos: I have just promoted this to the queue and find the wording awkward. They may have been arrested under suspicions of bribery but they were all found guilty and served jail sentences. I propose changing the hook to:

  • Sure, same thing for me. Juxlos (talk) 07:11, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

International Women's Day March 8th

International Women's Day is on March 8th each year. The user groups in NZ and Australia will be running some events on this day, possibly in conjunction with the UK and user groups other countries (discussions are ongoing and plans are still loose at this stage about what form the event might have). I had the idea to run a special occasion women-related set of DYK hooks that day, what do others think? DrThneed (talk) 21:48, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Short answer - yes, aim for it. Looking at DYK history on March 8 Wikipedia:Recent additions, looks like we've been doing it when there were enough hooks to fill a queue. Some years, I guess we didn't have the nominations. If you can get the articles, it looks like a good idea. — Maile (talk) 22:37, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
That has worked each year, check the archives, 2021 (look from 9 March 0:00), 2020, 2019 ... --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:26, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
I would support such an idea since we usually do have a women focus every March, though it's still a bit too early to discuss an exact set at this point since it's only November. At the very least, people could at least start planning on what to write as long as they meet the special occasion request guidelines (i.e. don't create/expand them too early). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:23, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks all. Great to know it is not breaking new ground. I appreciate I'm asking rather early, I was just looking to get a steer about whether it was OK or not so I could work with other editors in WiR and the like to time writing/expanding to suit. I don't think it will be a problem to have enough for a full queue. Thanks. DrThneed (talk) 06:28, 21 November 2021 (UTC)
@DrThneed, tell folks to try to get the stuff moved to article space between ~January 1st and ~February 15th, which will give DYK workers ample room to plan and develop a March 8th set. Have the nominators place in the comments section of the nomination "Requesting a Special Occasion slot for March 8th, International Women's Day." —valereee (talk) 23:00, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee thank you. That's a little earlier than the six weeks prior mentioned in the special occasion guidelines, is that OK? Not that I'm complaining, extra time is good, but good to know up front that it's OK to stretch the timeline! DrThneed (talk) 20:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@DrThneed, if something is moved to article space (or otherwise made eligible) on January 1st and nominated on January 8th, that would be 8 weeks before IWD, which as you say is earlier than recommended to request a date, but it's not so early that regulars here would likely object, especially when we're talking about trying to put together a full set (or two, depending on whether we're at 2-a-days). Also it can sometimes take a few weeks to get reviewed, and nominators can make the date requests after review but before promotion to prep, which some nominators will likely do once they realize their hook would fit into that prep. —valereee (talk) 14:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee thank you, the extra couple of weeks will be valuable. I will keep an eye on the nominations during that period so I can let nominators of relevant DYKs know about IWD so they can choose to be in it if they like. This should be fun! DrThneed (talk) 22:04, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@DrThneed, I am thinking about what I might be able to nominate! —valereee (talk) 02:14, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Prep 2 – Jonathan Roumie

I am not sure whether I should have brought this up here, but is the current hook, which discusses religion of a biography of a living person, the best possible hook we can get from this article? The source states "Jonathan Roumie, the actor at the center of the highest-grossing crowdfunded media project in history, The Chosen, credits his Catholic faith as the foundation of his portrayal of Jesus." Can we have another hook, or a rephrased version of this one? And of-course, if I am the only one who has issues with this hook, I'll retract the concerns. Thoughts? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Mikehawk10 (nominator), @Graeme Bartlett (reviewer), and @SL93 (promoter). – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:03, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh:in the source, Roumie is quoted as saying, "I was raised Greek Orthodox, baptized Greek Orthodox, but later transitioned to Roman Catholic," so I think that the hook is properly sourced—being raised in one religion and transitioning to another religion is the hallmark of a convert. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
No issues with accuracy of the hook, which doesn't seem to be the issue here. How about:
ALT: ... that Jonathan Roumie attributes his Roman Catholicism as the foundation of his portrayal as Jesus in The Chosen?
This one seems more neutral to me, as it implies that Roumie himself is attributing his religion, and its impact on his acting career. While the current hook just conveys that there is a man who plays Jesus in a show, and is converted to a certain religion, without stating any relation between his role and religion. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:00, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I don’t think that there is a neutrality issue in the hook that got promoted. I also think that it's fine DYK material. I tried a few ways to work it into a thing that was more explicitly tied to the way in which he plays role, though none of them seemed to flow as elegantly as the conversion tidbit. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 17:12, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
The "convert" hook does comply with the DYK requirements. I thought it was interesting enough to be included. It may not be the "best hook". And Kavyansh.Singh's topic suggestion for what to include could be OK as well. But I think it is more interesting that he was a convert, rather than his attribution of foundation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
I promoted the hook because I found no issues with it and I still see no issues. SL93 (talk) 21:18, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Kavyansh.Singh that the original hook is not up to scratch. He's a convert to a particular religion? So what? Millions of people are religious converts of one stripe or another, it's a completely banal statement to put on the main page. Unless his conversion can be linked to his work on the film in some way - if for example he converted because of his portrayal - then a new hook should be found IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 02:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

Actually, the bigger problem to me is the citation needed tag—that on it's own is grounds to pull the article, if I'm not mistaken theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 02:39, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I agree that an article should not be featured that has citation needed tags. It doesn't need to be pulled immediately, because there is still time to fix the issue, but it should not be permitted to go to the main page in that state. Gatoclass (talk) 02:46, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
CN tags fixed. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:08, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

With regard to a replacement hook, we could go with something like:

  • I think that should be changed to Jesus, not Christ? I don't think we need to say "several productions", either. Damn, i would much rather used the papal knighthood bit, but there's not good enough sourcing for it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:03, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Well I think it's pretty interesting that an actor has played the role of Christ in several different productions - that surely can't occur too often. As for Jesus or Christ - I'm agnostic on that. Gatoclass (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
well, author's preference on that—and, ba-dum tss theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:13, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict):**I've definitely seen photos of him and the pope on Flickr but alas with a non-commercial modifier on the CC license. I can check if there's something the Vatican put out about it. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Here is a source for another production (although it appears to have been a play) in which he has played Jesus. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Definitely use "Jesus" rather than "Christ" as it is more neutral and accurate. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 10:55, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron, Gatoclass, and Kavyansh.Singh: How about:

I personally prefer ALT2 for the overall fact, but I will say that the catholic church seems to have no shortage of impressive-sounding titles. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:15, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm ok with all of part 2 up until "eucharistic" (Christ should probably be changed to "Jesus" or "Jesus Christ"). The proper title for the Catholic minister is the longer form, and it's less than 200 characters so I don't see a reason to be less precise. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 03:21, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah, I see—if Gatoclass is fine with it, i've no objection. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:28, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
"Extraordinary minister of Holy Communion in the Catholic Church" is an officious-sounding mouthful though, isn't it? The average reader does not need to know the precise title. Why not just pipelink "Extraordinary minister of Holy Communion" from "eucharistic minister"? Gatoclass (talk) 04:24, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Wouldn't that be a bit of an WP:EGG when there's an article on eucharistic minister? — Mikehawk10 (talk) 05:14, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
How about just "lay minister" or something? Gatoclass (talk) 10:26, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
I think that the proper title, being that it is within the space requirements, is more precise than another equivalent. Lay minister also currently exists as a disambiguation page between licensed lay minister and laity, so it feels WP:EGG-y. — Mikehawk10 (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Well then, I would suggest pipelinking to your link from the simplified phrase "extraordinary minister", because that would not only get rid of the verbiage, but also likely be more intriguing to readers. Gatoclass (talk) 17:52, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
Gatoclass I'm wondering if I should pull the hook from prep until a new hook is chosen. SL93 (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

It's still nearly three days from the main page. Let's at least wait until Mikehawk10 has responded to my latest suggestion. Gatoclass (talk) 02:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The only thing I have is that "Extraordinary minister" has a technical meaning in the Catholic Church that allows both you and me to be extraordinary ministers (of Baptism, for example) without really it indicating anything special. Extraordinary minister of Holy Communion is a more concrete thing where you have to be deputized by a priest in order to perform it. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:30, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I understand that this might feel like I'm going through Catholic jargon land, but part of the reason that the Catholic Church has what Theleekycauldron described as so many impressive-sounding titles is because proper disambiguation between the bajillion roles in the Church bureaucracy is difficult without them. — Mhawk10 (talk) 05:33, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm just not keen on ALT3, apart from the long and overblown official title, it's really not very interesting anyhow. I personally think it's more interesting that he's played Jesus on multiple occasions, so why not just forget about the "extraordinary minister" bit altogether and go with something like:

  • ALT4: ... that actor Jonathan Roumie played the character of Jesus Christ in other productions before landing the same role in the television series The Chosen? Gatoclass (talk) 13:48, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - since it doesn't look like this discussion has reached any conclusion yet, and the hook was due to run tomorrow, I've swapped it out to Preparation 3 for now. Hopefully a resolution will be forthcoming, although I would suggest that if the current wording is used then the article should be amended since it currently talks of a "eucharistic minister" rather than the "Extraordinary minister of Holy Communion" mentioned in the hook. For what it's worth, I also share the sentiment above that his being an extraordinary minister is not really a matter of great interest to a broad audience - I did think "so what?" when I first saw it - so probably something else would be preferable.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:47, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    Catholics, in particular, might find something particularly Eucharistic about the man playing the role of Jesus also being an EMHC; there's something deeply meaningful about the symbolism in that for those that hold to a Catholic theology of the Eucharist (or really any Christian that believes in the real presence). I'm personally fine with ALT4 (though I'd prefer ALT3 or even ALT2 to it), with the small modification that we give a bluelink to Jesus Christ. — Mhawk10 (talk) 03:12, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Zeliha Ağrıs

Template:Did you know nominations/Zeliha Ağrıs has been approved by Victuallers on 23 November 2021. However, it is still not moved to the Template talk:Did you know/Approved from the Template talk:Did you know. Normally, it is done automatically so far I know. I guess it needs attention. Thanks. CeeGee 09:40, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

I believe you have to substitute the DYKtick for some reason i.e. use {{subst:DYKtick}} rather than {{DYKtick}}, which is what was being used on that nomination. I've changed it on the nomination, so hopefully it should move to approved when the bot next runs (which I think is 1100 UTC, as it seems to run every 2 hours). Joseph2302 (talk) 10:11, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
My mistake - oops - sorry - thanks Joseph Victuallers (talk) 10:34, 26 November 2021 (UTC)

2 queues filled, all 7 preps filled

@DYK admins: It's that time again. SL93 (talk) 02:53, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Ok....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:09, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for handling it :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Prep 7: Myanmar–South Korea relations

Pinging @Htanaungg, Juxlos, and Kavyansh.Singh as involved users. Current hook: (did you know...)

Unlike some previous hooks, I'm not seeing a great reason for this hook to violate WP:EGG (both bolded links go to the same article, Myanmar–South Korea relations). There's no indication that users know that they'll be clicking through to an article about the relationship between the two countries, and it doesn't add much good surprise value to the hook. I'd also argue that if there's no way to rework this hook without it violating WP:EGG (i am admittedly not seeing an obvious workaround), a new hook fact should be found.

In disclosing my conflict of interest here, running this hook would also disrupt my stats script and I really don't feel like fielding that at the moment. That's obviously less important, but I don't think this hook works as is. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Shall I provide another hook, theleekycauldron? Htanaungg (talk) 07:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
T'would be excellent if possible, Htanaungg—thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

We're below 60!

good god, finally. As we are at 59 approved hooks, the time has come to switch back to running one set a day. shame, my hook just got promoted :l Pinging @BlueMoonset and @DYK admins: I don't see any special occasion hooks in the queues [except for the lead hook of queue 3, of course :) (not really)], so in the next three and a half hours or so between midnight and noon UTC, so we'll need an admin to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400. Thanks to all the admins and prep set builders who lent a hand during this time! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:24, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for the memo, Leeky. I guess a more relaxing few weeks is ahead of us then!  — Amakuru (talk) 08:51, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
honestly, I prefer the two-a-day ride on the frothy white water rapids to the molasses tide of one-a-day, but I know it can be stressful on others—so I try to keep these periods as short as possible. College apps are due on tuesday, though, so it's probably for my own good. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:23, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
also, to our prep builders (@SL93, Kavyansh.Singh, and Vaticidalprophet): let's go back to leaving a prep set blank—we're off the hook for a while, no need to keep running our engines like it's the daytona 500. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 09:29, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Sure! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like a challenge. Anyone up to promote DYKs to more authors to get it to 8-hour hooks instead of 12-hour ones? Juxlos (talk) 10:56, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
please no, my family's gonna start making groundhog day jokes at me—if i see my shadow it's six more weeks of prep set building theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 11:12, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

quick question

are set index articles on given names or surnames (e.g. John, Smith (surname)) eligible for DYK if sufficiently expanded and referenced? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:59, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

I don’t see why they wouldn’t be. Juxlos (talk) 01:41, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
For a concrete example, see Template:Did you know nominations/Li surnames, which I came across the other day. eviolite (talk) 02:34, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
thanks :) that's what i thought theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:06, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/The Occupation of the American Mind

Hello @Theleekycauldron:. Thank you for moving my DYK sentence from Template:Did you know nominations/The Occupation of the American Mind to the Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1, but the original sentence has been changed from:

to:

Could you please explain why it has been modified? Thank you. Ghazaalch (talk) 11:55, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Hey, @Ghazaalch! Easier thing to explain first: I italicized it because it's a film, but I'm pretty sure that's not what you're asking. My reason for the language change derives from WP:VOICE—I don't think the hook made it adequately clear that wikipedia does not have an opinion on the show or its message. Hooks are short, and room for nuance is little—so I hedged it a bit. Even though it says "sought to show", for me, it still seems too close to "what we're going to say after this is what we believe, and this is how the film sought to show that". Yeah, I know, it'll get fewer clicks, i'm sorry about that—I wasn't comfortable with running the hook as is, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:20, 20 November 2021 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron there is a dangling bit at the end: the "its" in "its controversial actions" could refer to either US or Israel, and I wonder if there's an elegant way to clarify that.VR talk 21:44, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanation Theleekycauldron; but shouldn't you have suggested that change here before implementing it, for the sake of other participants like Pbritti, and the administrator (@Maile66:) who might also like to review it? Ghazaalch (talk) 05:40, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

@Ghazaalch: start to finish, it took four days for us to get from your initial flag here at WT:DYK to agreeing on a final version of the hook. While we had this discussion here, your hook moved all the way up the preps, and now it's going to go live in 5 and a half hours or so, with everything worked out. If I'd raised a flag on the nom page, those four days would have been spent waiting for everyone's responses, and waiting for everyone to be cool with it, waiting for someone to promote it, and then your hook starts moving through the preps and queues, adding four days to the turnaround time on your hook. Actually, it probably would have been more like seven—if I recall correctly, I plucked your hook somewhere from the top-middle of the page, so waiting for someone else to promote (keeping in mind that half the time, it's just me making promotions) would have probably meant your nomination working its way all up WP:DYKNA's backlog. This is what the prep sets and promotion process is for, Ghazaalch; it's another layer of review and oversight, but it also helps make quick-time changes to hooks without every ounce of discussion keeping the hook backlogged. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I am in agreement with Ghazaalch. I reviewed a hook and approved a hook bearing WP:Voice and legibility in mind. It’s reasonable to question my judgement; going over the head of the contributor, nominator, and reviewer is less than reasonable. This is the second instance in a week where I’ve seen you make decisions that are effectively cutting corners to expedite processes. Wikipedia shouldn’t be too serious a place, but a little courtesy and patience is greatly appreciated. As for the modified hook, I like it, too. ~ Pbritti (talk) 07:25, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that's entirely fair, although I see where you're coming from. First off, I considered the changes I made pretty carefully before I went through with it—I thought about how controversial the changes were (e.g. am I cutting anything serious or is this a detail that doesn't need to be in the hook), whether or not I was modifying the core hook fact, whether or not I was adding any new information, whether or not I was going against the text or spirit of the review, and yeah, I was right about to stop the promotion and work through the hook with both of you. The reason I didn't is because in the end, I saw it at the time as mostly rewording and detail-cutting, which I am allowed to do as long as I ping the nominator.
Looking back, I'm not sure if I would have made the exact same decision; it looks like everyone was pretty much on board with the change, which is a sign (although not an authoritative one) that the change was received as uncontroversial. I'm willing to accept criticism on the basis that you disagree with how I weighed the situation; but if you think I made a cheap decision because I couldn't be bothered, or otherwise skimped on something I thought/knew was necessary just to save time, then I think that's unfair. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:34, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I'll clarify because I do want you to know I think you did something right, which is to be extra considerate of the implications the Israeli-Palestinian issue on the main page. For that, you deserve some commendation and appreciation. However, my criticism is exclusive to your shirking of standard operating procedures of notification. While this is obviously not a huge deal–you didn't break any rules–I would encourage you to also weigh other's sentiments when processing DYKs. On a brighter note, your work with DYKs has proven extremely useful over your short time here and are appreciated, even if I've found minor faults in just a couple instances that don't really affect anything. Keep up the hard work and I do appreciate your commitment to keeping this space open to younger folks. ~ Pbritti (talk) 22:22, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Pbritti: Well, I can understand that. I'll keep it in mind as I go forward, thanks :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:33, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
That's a pretty major change to not bring up here, with a ping to nom and reviewer. At minimum the nom should be notified via edit summary. The delaying of moving the hook isn't a problem, we pull hooks regularly because they're already in prep or queue when a question is raised that can't be dealt with quickly enough. —valereee (talk) 23:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: just for the record, i did ping the nominator in my edit. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 23:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
The change is a complete whitewash of the original hook, and should be rejected. This goes a little beyond 'rewording and detail-cutting.' Use the original imo. Parabolist (talk) 00:15, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

While I appreciate your hard work in this page Theleekycauldron, It seems that your edit had been controversial enough raising objection from three editors and you are the only editor supporting your own action. To be honest, it was not fair coming out of the blue changing a reviewed hook. Do you think we could revert the sentence now with the help of Gatoclass or Htanaungg? Since you have actually changed the core and spirit of the hook, I believe. Ghazaalch (talk) 08:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Ghazaalch, I'm sorry, but your hook already saw its time on the main page three days ago. To be honest, if you wanted a reversion, I'm not sure why you didn't say that from the outset instead of us spending five days talking about my method of acting unilaterally. And I think the characterization that three editors objected and only I stand by the change is inaccurate—neither Pbritti, Valeree, nor even you explicitly objected to the final text of the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:38, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination

Quick follow-up to note that the above page is now available for creating DYKs (without installing any userscript/gadget). You may want to modify the instructions at T:DYKT.

There was some disagreement in the earlier discussion (@Beetricks @Sdkb) about what should be done to the helper script (User:SD0001/DYK-helper.js) now that this is in place. There are two options:

  1. Keep the helper-script as it is now.
  2. Modify the helper-script so that when you click on "DYK" in the dropdown menu, the new nomination page is opened in a new tab like this. Note that the article name from which you clicked the button gets pre-filled!

I personally much prefer (2) because MediaWiki:DYK-nomination-wizard.js which powers the new nomination page has some subtle improvements over the helper-script (you are alerted if you accidentally try to close the page without submitting the nomination, textarea size grows based on amount of text entered, clearer submit/preview buttons, etc). Also, a single script is easier to maintain rather than two.

Thanks, – SD0001 (talk) 08:22, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

@SD0001, is there any reason you shouldn't just kill the script and leave a message telling people to go to the page? —valereee (talk) 22:49, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Because it's easier for people to navigate to a script they have used hundreds of times, rather than to a page they won't know the exact name of. Frankly, I don't see why we created a page for this when we already have a script for it, seems like pointlessly re-inventing the wheel. Although pointlessly re-inventing the wheel does seem like the speciality of DYK right now...... Joseph2302 (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
It sounds like it’s easier for the maintainer? —valereee (talk) 05:00, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
and it's more friendly to newer users, imo. I won't lose any sleep over the fact that Joseph2302 and other veteran nominators will have to spend a few minutes re-adjusting themselves to a new script if it means that fewer new nominators will be deterred by the complexity of DYK's nomination process. (and hey, at least I wasn't name-checked this time) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:31, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes making it easier for new users was the primary intent. It isn't re-inventing the wheel because most of the code is the very same. (It may look different at first because the blue background colour in the userscript version is not there here.) – SD0001 (talk) 11:52, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks SD0001. This looks great. Nicely done. My vote is for Option 2. Also, can someone also help create one of those acronym-ed access for this page. e.g. WP:DYKNC. Also, someone will have to update the instructions, if not already. Nice work again SD0001! Ktin (talk) 06:28, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

I was going to add this to T:DYKT and honestly, that whole page just needs to be simplified. With the script and now this new nom page, do we even need those manual instructions any more? All they're really doing is making the process look daunting. Is there any reason we shouldn't just remove them and add a button to this new page? —valereee (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

My vote is for doing away with the manual instructions and just having a button linking out to this page. Cheers. Ktin (talk) 06:29, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Taylor Swift

Anyone know how many times she's appeared on the front page? Any chance we could maybe at least not use any more photos in DYK? —valereee (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

So far, as a today's featured article, there's Taylor Swift, 1989 (Taylor Swift album), Blank Space, Style (Taylor Swift song). For DYK's pictured slot, there's Speak Now (upcoming) and I Knew You Were Trouble and probably more that I haven't found. Pamzeis (talk) 01:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
well, i think it's great that the collective spirit and soul of a thousand generations of main page workers is also a swiftie.
Seriously, though, I don't see it as a huge problem—although maybe we'll shy away from it a bit more. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 07:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Considering we have way more picture hooks than image slot spaces, surely we shouldn't be filling up the picture slots with the same people time and again? Most people know what Taylor Swift looks like, so a stock image of her on DYK is less interesting than many other of the images nominated. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
For DYK articles, all wikiproject taylor swift dyks + more taylor swift dyks that are also FAs theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:10, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Swapped it for an image of a creative who has never appeared on the main page :D —valereee (talk) 13:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Comment - I Bet You Think About Me nomination - since this issue came up. The image used is the video's producer Blake Lively. She only has a one-sentence mention as the producer, repeated in the lead. And her image does appear in the article. We all like to have the lead hook in a set, but in this case, I don't think one-sentence mention of the producer warrants the lead hook. — Maile (talk) 14:17, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Maile, I usually just promote those without an image—competition for the image slot is fierce enough without humouring every tangentially-related ride-along. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:04, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe we give the Taylor Swift WP an award for most MP appearances and then stop using image slots? Kingsif (talk) 21:38, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm not comfortable with that, no—there may be a dyk that we really do want to feature in the future. There's no reason to arrest ourselves this way. If there's exceptionally good work, we want to reward it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:41, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Exceptional work = FA. I'm sure there'll be more TS FAs in WP's future, as clearly her fans are willing to do that work. I definitely don't think we should give TS image slots for DYKs if there's been a TS on the MP in the past ~year, and personally I question whether TS DYK image slots serve readers at all. It's not like there's anyone out there who is going, "Who's this TS whose photo is in the DYK?" But there are, OTOH, many many many images that might actually contribute to readers' understanding of other topics. —valereee (talk) 22:56, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes-there should be some sort of restrictions with regard to this case. The image slot should really work to help others with understanding new things. Repeatedly showing someone in DYK goes against the soul of DYK, I believe. --Mhhossein talk 12:29, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
And we can always IAR, if there's something some nominator/reviewer/promoter think really needs that image slot in order to be understood. Like the slot is about something actually visual rather than simply being yet another photo of TS. —valereee (talk) 19:30, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Lead included in prose count

Reviewing an article now, is the lead to be included in the overall prose count? Looking through the archives, I can't find this addressed anywhere. I am operating under the assumption that it does not count. Therapyisgood (talk) 14:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

The lead should be included in the overall prose count. But it should be an appropriate length relative to the rest of the article (i.e., it should not be excessively long for the sole purpose of pushing the article over the minimum length requirement). A 750-character lead summarizing a 750-character body doesn't really make sense, for example. DanCherek (talk) 14:40, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Lede is prose. Why wouldn't it count? Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 15:02, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm similarly very confused by this assumption. DYK prose counts are usually done using either Prosesize or DYKcheck, both of which count the lead. Vaticidalprophet 15:57, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
If the lead sentence or paragraph is not including text in an infobox or bullet points, as far as I am aware; it's fair game to be included as part of the prose count according to how the rules are written. So I would say, yes it does. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:36, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely the lead text is included. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Similar to what DanCherek said—if the lead is too top-heavy (like, 800-700 split but parts of the lead aren't mentioned in the prose), then I'll count it as a stub anyway, since not being a stub is a separate requirement to length. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:14, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Creating a type of DYK Wardens level to monitor Preps and Queues

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
The main proposal was to create a class of non-administrator "DYK wardens" who could be responsible for final quality checks as DYK hooks are moved to a queue to be featured on the Main Page—a responsibility that currently rests with the administrator who moves the hooks. This proposal was opposed by a consensus of discussion participants, including among administrators involved with DYK.
Proponents of the idea stated that it could reduce burden on administrators and that there are already some editors that they would trust for such a role. However, specific concerns were raised that the administrator performing the technical move to the queue would feel the need to re-check the hooks anyway; that the responsibility for managing content appearing on the Main Page should be restricted to administrators who can assume accountability for that content; that eventually these DYK wardens may also feel burned out by the task; and that the editors qualified for such a role may not be interested in taking it on.
Several editors also brought up the expectation that the proposal would face opposition from the wider English Wikipedia community, even if it were to gain consensus here at DYK. For now, qualified candidates who wish to help with promoting hooks to queues should consider requesting adminship. —DanCherek (talk) 01:30, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure why this was archived while being actively discussed:

[Begin archived content]
@Kavyansh.Singh, @Theleekycauldron, the problem is always the opposes because "if someone wants to be able to edit through protections, they should just run an RfA." Being able to move a prep to queue means that person would be able to edit through all protections sitewide. Someone with that right could in theory cause a lot of damage.

You know...the true basic problem here is that we have our admin instructions set up to say that by moving a prep to queue, an admin is saying they have done a final quality check. Maybe what we need to do is stop requiring that. I'd be happy to promote a set a day if it didn't require that quality check. The move to queue takes two minutes. It's rechecking eight hooks and articles, and dealing with any concerns found, that takes the time. But really someone else could do that final quality check. That part doesn't actually require 7 days of vetting by the community, just an experienced DYK regular who is willing to do that third quality check to catch anything the reviewer and prep builder didn't catch. DYK could designate those people internally, they could sign off on a prep, and any admin on the project could promote to queue, wouldn't take any special experience here at DYK. Hm. @DYK admins: ? —valereee (talk) 12:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

The whole point of doing a quality check when you promote to a queue is that you are taking responsibility for that set. If you leave it up to somebody else, then you are not taking responsibility. Apart from which, there have been too many errors creeping through DYK recently and the last thing we need to do is further weaken quality control. Gatoclass (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I would agree with this. The admin checks are a very useful part of the pipeline, particularly given that we have a diverse set of reviewers and nominators, and sometimes fairly obvious things creep through that need fixing. Admittedly I'm probably more pernickety than most (as per my Queue 2 points at the bottom of this page!) but I wouldn't like to do away with it entirely. I also don't really think we lack admins at the moment. I haven't done too many sets lately, but I'm always happy to help and it's partly because I'm usually pinged in the middle of the night and the backlog has often been reduced by the time I wake up.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:00, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
[End archived content]
But does it need to be done by an admin? We are BEGGING for people to move prep to queue. We literally are begging, regularly. Why does that final check need to be done by an admin? Why do we need an admin to sign off on this? Why can't the admin just take the word of some trusted user that, yes, this has received a final check? Why can't a non-admin provide the exact same level of quality control as an admin does? —valereee (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
sorry about the archive, my bad. To answer, I think that when a mistake is made, and mistakes do get through, it'll be a lot more heat when people know that we didn't get an admin (who has been thoroughly vetted by the community) to make the rounds, and instead just did something under the table. I'm not saying I agree with that; I would trust quite a few non-admins here to perform the final checks. But people don't trust our non-admin regulars. So, unless we were to create a formal position for it, it'd bring a lot of scrutiny on DYK. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm suggesting a formal position, people who are expert at and willing to do the same checks I do when I'm checking a set. These folks don't need to be vetted like an admin. They don't need to be trusted with blocking and protecting. They just need to be people that other DYK regulars go, "Yeah, that person knows what they're doing and doesn't let mistakes through often." Why does it need to be an admin? —valereee (talk) 19:52, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron:@DYK admins: First of all, I agree with Valereee that the admin check can be a time-consuming pain. But we knew it when we took on the job. If we have to squeeze by on a last-minute promotion with all previous Queues empty, sometimes you have to make a choice between holding up the main page rotation because all Queues are empty, etc., or promoting it first and then checking and hoping you don't miss anything. But things are sometimes missed, anyway, no matter how diligently we do it. I disagree with adding to the bureaucracy by adding another position. Glimpse at all the admins who have passed through here, or the ones who used to be active and then moved on to other things. That same thing will happen if we add a position - the editor(s) will be diligent for a while, and then not be around when we need them - it's human nature. A new formal position would be another level that only these select users would get. Also, Theleekycauldron, I'm probably not the only one who sees adminship in your future. Hee! Hee! Hee! Hee! — Maile (talk) 20:42, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Run. ;D —valereee (talk) 20:50, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Better run through the jungle * du nu nu nu nu nun * / Better run through the jungle / oh don't look back, ya see
Actual question about that, though: I'm probably going to be building lots of preps even if I do get access to the queues, and I can't promote preps I've built. So, say prep 1 is next in line for promotion, but I built that one. Prep 2 was built by someone else, say, Kavyansh.Singh. Could I swap Prep 2 with Prep 1 manually, promote prep 2 (which is now prep 1), cycle the preps, and wait for someone else to promote the prep I built? Or do I just have to wait until someone promotes prep 1? theleekycauldron (talk contribs) (they/them) 20:58, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't recall that ever coming up. Maybe @BlueMoonset: or @Gatoclass: have some tips for that. Also, you give yourself away quoting Creedence. Now I feel like going over to YouTube and absorbing that song. — Maile (talk) 21:13, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't advise it. Sometimes there are unlabeled special occasion hooks, and swapping them means that a hook doesn't end up on the main page when it ought. Mind, if this sort of thing is to be done, a prep swap is infinitely preferable to promoting preps out of order, which gets the prep and queue numbers unsynched and mass confusion results. It's much easier to request another admin to promote the prep that you can't, and then promote the one you can. But this is an issue that's well in the future, so not one to spend time on now.
Getting back to valereee's original question as to why it has to be admins: it's because admins have both privilege and responsibility—in this case, to the main page and its content. An admin has been given certain privileges to approve material for the main page, and in the case of the prep to queue promotion, are saying that they have done their best to check all the hooks against their articles and the sources in them and these appear to be accurate. Many DYK people—as noted below, Yoninah was certainly one—did careful checks when they promoted, but nobody's perfect, and sometimes they make errors. I wasn't immune back when I built sets. If we were getting tired at the end of the day, there was always the knowledge that the admin would also be taking a look at prep to queue promotion time. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:27, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@Maile66, but if we could designate a certain number of non-admins who could also do this final check job, wouldn't it be helpful? When I saw that Yoninah, who had zero interest in becoming an admin, had built the set, I knew damn well I didn't need to spend two hours. I could just check anything that had been nom'd and reviewed by anyone inexperienced. —valereee (talk) 20:54, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: in theory, that's supposed to be happening in prep anyhow. And we do see postings here that others pay attention. They either want to, or they don't. And if they want to, we're already hearing from them. Just giving somebody a title isn't going to change this. Yoninah was unique in the Wikipedia universe. However, she was also a professional editor in RL, so it came natural to her. I miss getting emails from her when she wanted me to change something of my own, she was like a dog with a bone. Yoninah would not back down on what she believed enhanced the end product. — Maile (talk) 21:06, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Just coming up to speed on this conversation. I think just designating a few folks as DYK Wardens, who have had some experience doing this, should just be as fine. I do not know if they need some sort of systems rights to edit the queues, but, if that is not an issue or can be solved easily, I would perfectly be alright in recommending some fine non-admins from amongst us to be doing this job. Good luck. Ktin (talk) 21:18, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

Firstly, admins have a level of accountability that other users do not. If as an admin you serially screw up, you are likely to lose the bit. By contrast, there are no consequences for errors made by non-admins. Secondly, who would want to do this job anyway? It's an onerous, time-consuming task that nobody wants to do - as this very thread testifies. Thirdly, even if somebody could be found who would be prepared to do it, I know that I personally would still be checking all the hooks before promoting, because everybody no matter how competent or diligent can miss things. Fourth, there is no real "problem" here that needs addressing anyway. Whether or not the queues are full, the preps will be quickly filled regardless when one has somebody as keen as leeky on the job. We've had the same issue before, remember when we decided to go to seven preps and queues? - that was supposed to help alleviate the backlog, and just as I predicted it made no difference.

The only thing that matters is that there is always a set ready to go to the main page on time. It doesn't really matter if there are empty queues, because the rate of set promotion remains the same so sooner or later all the preps get filled. If we went and filled all the queues now, leeky would fill all the preps in five minutes so we'd be right back where we started. A solution in search of a problem IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)

Well, Theleekycauldron Gatoclass has certainly noticed your M.O. I know I've started to notice that. Empty preps don't stay empty long. Sometimes not even as long as five minutes. — Maile (talk) 04:06, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, I've wanted to get back into prep building since returning to some level of activity but have been unable to. Vaticidalprophet 05:41, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet: there's an open prep set—would you do me the honour of getting back in the game? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:32, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Leek -- no worries. ;) I genuinely do like watching the enthusiasm. It's genuinely a fun job, and I get why you like it. Vaticidalprophet 06:38, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I really do, it's a lovely way to contribute :) that said, they're not my prep sets, so if you're ever feeling that vibe, shoot me a ping and I'll leave one open for ya. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
I've a more detailed response, but homework is murder at the moment so I shall have to return to this :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 06:33, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
DYK's backlog should function like a near sawtooth-wave: gradual rise, followed by quick reset.
:) @Gatoclass: so there are parts of this I agree with, and parts of this i don't.
Truth to be told, I don't want to keep the backlog down as much as I want to keep the backlog steady. If there were a way to keep at a consistent number of hooks (whether it's 60 or 90), that's the best case scenario for me. In fact, I'd like to set this in a broader theme about what I've noticed on the backlog in general, and whether we're targeting our goals with that correctly.
There's probably no good way to keep the backlog at a specific number of hooks, so instead, I'd like the backlog to look like a "sawtooth wave" over time: rise gradually, stay low for as long as possible, and then when the backlog gets too high, make a sharp downturn, get out as many hooks as possible in a short time, and start the process over again with the calm one-a-day. There are basically three important attributes of this sawtooth wave:
  1. The horizontal length of the rise, or how long we stay in the one-a-day (seems to be about 20-25 days)
  2. The horizontal length of the fall, or how long we stay in the two-a-day (seems to be about 10-15 days, although I can see longer periods in the archives)
  3. The height of the fall, or what range of hooks we're oscillating in (for now, that's between 60-120)
Pretty much the only effect DYK wardens would have is on #2—it would shorten the length of the two-a-day periods by a little bit. Take right now, for instance; We have 87 approved hooks and 27 empty slots, so we would be much closer to falling below 60 if we kept all the queues filled. But this is kind of a jolt-y solution: the problem is that the only way to smoothly affect both the length of the rise and fall is to change how fast we burn hooks, i.e. changing the number of hooks we run in a set, or the number of sets we run in a day.
Pretty much the only way DYK wardens help is in getting out of the backlog quickly, which isn't nothing, but it's not much. What I'd like to see are ways to keep the one-a-day periods long and the two-a-day periods short that aren't just "if we push and pull and beg, we can put in a bunch of effort and then everyone goes home, only to repeat". If nothing else, then fine, but it's inelegant.
On the subject of actually getting people to do it, I agree. Prep building is fun, if you're like me; you get to talk to lots of people, it's a fun puzzle, you get to know what's going on with pretty much everything. Anyone who actively wants to spend hours of their life just checking over someone else's work in promoting preps to queues has to have a jonestown-like obsession with the inner workings of DYK—that's really not that many people. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:14, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with Gatoclass and Amakuru on this. When we promote preps to queues we are functionally making an edit to the main page. Any edit to the main page is a serious matter, and any admin doing that must be prepared to take responsibility for it. Even with such a role, I can't imagine I would not do checks myself anyway. At this point I think the only real solution is to get some of the newer DYK regulars to run for the sysop bit. — Wug·a·po·des​ 06:29, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
    @Wugapodes, so, my thinking here was that if four editors, including one very experienced at DYK, had said, "Yes, this edit is good to go," then the actual move is more like closing a deletion discussion. The admin isn't actually saying "I agree, this deletion decision is correct" when they close a discussion and delete (or not) an article. They're saying, "Here is what I am finding consensus is saying." In the case of DYK what the admin would be saying is "I find consensus that this has been okayed for the MP." —valereee (talk) 22:41, 26 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with the OP that the requirement is excessive and should be dropped. The primary responsibility for a DYK belongs to its author(s). The review is then the formal quality check. Prep-builders provide additional oversight by ensuring that a review has been done. To require another detailed and onerous review is doing things in triplicate and that's risk-aversion contrary to WP:BOLD and WP:BURO. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:03, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Even if we as the DYK community could somehow agree that such a new role was the way to go, I predict that the wider WP community would not concur. The main argument would be that mainpage edits can only be done by admins. Period. Hence it’s a moot point to discuss here in my view. Schwede66 18:00, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Valereee you've been at DYK since around 2015. The first item you mentioned in your 2019 RFA was that becoming an admin would give you a chance to help promote preps to queue. I also understand that people get burned out on repetitive processes, and that's where you are right now. Our process is what it is, and the extra layer of bureaucracy you are suggesting sounds a lot like unpaid internship. You know, that process whereby the underling does all the work, but the person at the top gets their name put on the work and gets the credit. The person who does the promoting to queue is the one whose name goes out on the individual notices. If you're burned out, removing your name from Template:@DYK admins might help you. But an admin's job is to make the final check, in a long line of checks by others involved in each nomination. — Maile (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I sure don't care about any credit. It's not so much burned out that it is frustrated that so many who nom regularly and could help don't. If every admin moved a prep to queue for every nom they made, we wouldn't need to beg for help. But aight, I guess I'm being a pain, and I apologize, I'll take my name off and try to ignore and not feel guilty about ignoring the begging pings. I'll move a queue when I make a nom and try to tell myself it's okay to ignore the pleas for admin help that show up multiple times a week. Oh, there's one from an hour ago lol... —valereee (talk) 03:54, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
I share your frustration, and probably most admins here do. Perhaps the cause of the "disappearing admins", is that they all reached the point you have, and that I often have. People move on to other interests. — Maile (talk) 11:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Which is why I'd like to see us make this less burdensome on admins. I'm not actually burnt out on the project. If I were, I wouldn't be here arguing about how a problem might be solved.
I have a lifelong philosophy that if no one else is willing help with a certain volunteer activity, maybe that's because no one else thinks it's worth doing. If regular nominators don't think this a job worth doing, maybe it's not actually worth my time. And when the fact we almost always do get something moved to queue in time is being used to argue there isn't a problem, then I feel like I'm helping support that argument every time I move a prep I didn't really feel like moving. Maybe if we all just stopped moving any preps we didn't actually feel like moving, people would listen. But I feel bad when I look at the queues and see the same people are always ending up doing the work. So even though I've got an article I'm creating or whatever that I'd rather use my time and energy on, I move a goddamn prep to queue. :D —valereee (talk) 12:37, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
a DYK admins general strike would be a sight to see. In all seriousness, it's okay :) I'm happy that you did what's best for you in taking your name off. DYK'll manage. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:17, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Actually I think remaining on the list is probably okay. I can just ignore the pings, but at least I'll be aware of when, if it sounds like fun, it would be helpful. :D —valereee (talk) 19:47, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
(I'm not a DYK regular so take my comments with a pinch of salt.) ... and the extra layer of bureaucracy you are suggesting sounds a lot like unpaid internship. It doesn't have to be that. There's a more systematic way of doing things:
  • Unprotect the queues.
  • List the usernames of DYK wardens on a fully-protected page
  • Amend DYKUpdateBot so that it checks the edit history of the queue and refuses to promote the queue if there are non-reverted edits by users who aren't DYK wardens or admins.
Updating the main page requires a lot of trust, indeed, but that doesn't necessarily have to come from adminship. Non-admins can already be template editors (who can edit templates transcluded on millions of articles) and edit filter managers (who can technically write a filter to block every single edit to the 'pedia). Is indirectly approving content for the main page (which has already been vetted twice) a more critical job than those? – SD0001 (talk) 11:48, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
What SD0001 said. —valereee (talk) 12:40, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes, but it doesn't solve the problem of (a) finding people with the competence to do it, and (b) finding people with the competence who actually want to do it. And then there's the issue of !voting for the "wardens" - that could get quite awkward, given that there are probably very few people who are non-admins whom I personally would actually trust to get it right. And then, there's the fact that non-admins are not held responsible for their errors in the same way. Not to mention, as I have said previously, that this is still a solution in search of a problem. Gatoclass (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
You've done 11 moves-to-queue this entire year. Clearly you aren't feeling overburdened by that, but I'm not sure it qualifies you to assess whether this is a "solution in search of a problem"? In a typical month we need ~60 moves made. You've averaged 1 per month. If all admins were performing at your level, we'd need sixty admin regulars here. There are currently 7 on the DYK admin ping list. —valereee (talk) 19:35, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Yes Valereee, I have not been very active recently on Wikipedia or indeed anywhere else, since I have been struggling with significant health issues this year. But also, I haven't been needed much since Cwm got the bit - she has beaten me to the draw on a number of occasions. But since we're counting contributions, I see you have done exactly 25 updates yourself this year, which is slightly more than two per month, so you have not "overburdened" yourself to a much greater degree than I have - but only one of us is complaining about our workload. For the record however, I along with a handful of others were the main contributors to the project for a couple of years when it was first taking off - we did most of the hook verifications (no QPQ then), put together the sets, promoted them to the main page and gave out the credits - all of which had to be done manually back then (no bots). Over time we also helped establish a fair chunk of the ruleset that has guided the project ever since. In short, I think it fair to say that I have a familiarity with all aspects of this process, along with an institutional memory, that are probably shared by relatively few current contributors. So with respect, please don't suggest that I am not qualified to have an informed opinion about DYK matters - I think my qualifications are as good as anybody's, regardless of my decreased activity more recently. Gatoclass (talk) 08:05, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
GC, I'm doing less because of this issue. That's why I'm calling it a problem. You're doing less because of health issues, and I'm sorry to hear that, but the point is that you aren't in a position to call this "a solution in search of a problem".
As Maile points out, I've explained my perspective. It's fine if others don't agree with me. But don't dismiss my point of view just because you don't agree with it. —valereee (talk) 18:39, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
To remove some abstraction here, let's make the list—which DYK regulars do y'all trust to make these moves? It's not like we have an excess of overqualified active prep builders to begin with. I'd trust Mandarax, Ravenpuff, and BlueMoonset to do the more minor fixes and swaps they usually do, but in terms of other active and undoubtedly qualified prep builders, SL93 is the only name that comes to mind—and not for nothing, their chances in an RfA are pretty high (in my opinion). Do you trust any other names I'm missing? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:39, 27 November 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for mentioning me as trustworthy, but I would rather not edit the queues. SL93 (talk) 19:49, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
I thought there might be a chance of that, after so many years. So, we're pretty much running dry on potential candidates anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:58, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
All this discussion and we haven't had so much as a poll of who would even be interested. SL93 (talk) 20:04, 29 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I know I'm not doing enough to help here at the moment (but standing ready to help if needed more desperately), but I think we need to keep admins engaged with DYK work more. Ideally, the people who fix DYK problems at WP:ERRORS should be experienced with DYK processes, and if we remove admins from prep-to-queue, there's no longer a reason for admins to regularly work at DYK. If there are not enough admins at DYK, then nominate DYK regulars for adminship and vote "support" at every RFA. —Kusma (talk) 11:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I haven't read through all of the above but I think Valereee raises a good point; the admin part of the process and the final check need not be inherently linked. If a non-admin can perform the final rubber-stamp and indicate that it has been checked off and needs moved by an admin, then an admin should be able to do that move separately without needing to further check everything. Rather than creating an extra layer of bureaucracy we could be stripping away some of the hassle for the admins and making it easier to entice a little more mercenary work. If a non-admin can simply leave a <!--note--> in the prep set approving it then an admin can finish up on the basis of that existing approval without further vetting anything. ᵹʀᴀᴘᴘʟᴇ ꭗ 14:10, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Insight on adminship

You all might find it enlightening to read: Wikipedia:Former administrators/reason.

Admins are not called "the mop and bucket crew" for nothing. There's no glamour to it, and an admin is likely to be pinged at inconvenient moments. Valereee has stated her perspective above, and if she has other things she'd like to use her time on, let her go. But please don't add another level to the bureaucracy, because those editors will also drift away. Some of my favorite admins over the years are gone, for a variety of reasons. Let her go. We move on with the admins who are available. — Maile (talk) 13:19, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

I'll keep helping, but I'm starting to feel pretty comfortable doing just exactly what I feel like doing and not feeling guilty about not doing more than that. :D —valereee (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2021 (UTC)

Been here before

This proposal, such as it is, for a new class of user called "DYK Wardens" is basically just a rehash of Vanamonde's proposal for a new "main page editor" user right that went nowhere. I therefore suggest that we just close this thread now in order to waste no further time on a proposal that has very little hope of being accepted by the wider community. Gatoclass (talk) 03:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

  • Close discussion - I completely agree. We need a non-involved editor to close this. We would need a consensus of admins to pass this, and that isn't happening. You can't change admin responsibilities without the consent of a majority of the admins. — Maile (talk) 11:56, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Close discussion agree, if there's not a consensus amongst admins about this, then this isn't going to happen. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:06, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Close discussion As I said above, this is never going to be accepted by the wider WP community even if we gained consensus to proceed here. Schwede66 22:32, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Close discussion: a shame, but yeah, we're not getting anywhere. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:39, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Opinions on article title

Just seeing if I can get opinions on what an article title should be - Template:Did you know nominations/Song Zhuo Qun. SL93 (talk) 02:26, 28 November 2021 (UTC)

Does this help? - Wikipedia:Naming conventions (Chinese), — Maile (talk) 03:07, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
(For the record, I am the person who first brought up this issue.) That page suggests "The encyclopedia should use the name more familiar to most English readers", which in my opinion is "Zhuo Qun Song" or possibly even "Alex Song" because the subject is also Canadian (having represented Canada in the International Mathematical Olympiad, which he is notable for) and the (primarily Canadian) media coverage uses first name first. eviolite (talk) 03:17, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Certainly "Alex Song". I looked at several of the refs & only one I saw doesn't use that, and that used Western name order with "(Alex)" in the middle. Do any sources actually use "Song Zhuo Qun"? Johnbod (talk) 04:09, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
As a Princeton student, he published four mathematics papers under the name Zhuo Qun Song ([3] [4] [5] [6]). Given his choice to use that name in preference to "Alex" in this context, and only weaker evidence for "Alex" being the name he is better known as, I think that we should go with that name in that name order (and in particular not the Eastern order "Song Zhuo Qun"). —David Eppstein (talk) 09:01, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Page moved – admin needed to fix

In Queue 1, Golden Years (song) now redirects to a dab page. Please change that to Golden Years (David Bowie song). The credit should be * {{DYKmake|Golden Years (David Bowie song)|Zmbro|subpage=Golden Years (song)}}.  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  20:25, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Done, thanks for the note! —Kusma (talk) 21:48, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Other opinions on interesting to broad audience

I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Amabilis uchoensis and I don't think the article hook is interesting to a broad audience, but I could be wrong. I'm seeking other opinions on the nomination page - not on this talk page. SL93 (talk) 23:59, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

As I have stated before, "interesting to a broad audience" should NOT be a criterion for nominations. The situations its supposedly in place to prevent should be addressed in in case by case basis, not with a highly ambiguous rule that no one can ever agree on.--Kevmin § 00:15, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
We are addressing this on a case by case basis—the reviewer signaled that the hook might not be interesting, and now we're weighing in on it. No one else has put this in the broader context of rule's validity—we're supposed to be discussing whether this specific hook will be interesting to a significant number of our readers. My read is no, so is SL93's. More people are probably going to weigh in. What else are you looking for? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 00:23, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
SL93, did you intend to say "hook" rather than "article"? We don't have a requirement that an article be interesting to a broad audience, as long as you can somehow extract a hook that is.  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  00:45, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I did. I fixed it. SL93 (talk) 00:47, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Article deleted for copyvio that appeared on DYK before

I noticed that an article was deleted for copyright violations and I can recreate it. I thought of a DYK hook for the article, but I just noticed that the article was featured at DYK in the past. It was over ten years ago, and the hook I thought of is different from the hook that was run. Copyrighted text is excluded from the five fold requirement, but I am assuming that the new article, even though the DYK'ed version was copyvio, would not be eligible should I recreate it cleanly? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I thought about the same when scrolling through the archives—there's actually a bunch of those articles if you look back at the 2010-ish range, there was a consistent contributor to DYK who was banned for repeated copyvio (i'm forgetting their name). I think the current criteria is that no, the articles aren't eligible for renomination. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 00:29, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
It's probably the same author you're thinking of. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Discord channel

Hello, just gauging interest here to see if there's any interest for a channel for Did you know-related discussion over at the Wikimedia Community Discord channel (see WP:DISCORD for more information). Some of us regulars are already there, but is anyone else here interested in a dedicated channel? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:15, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

I think that could be seen as secretive and not open in terms of discussion. You can imagine the situation where a hook might be disallowed or altered based upon a discussion there and someone saying "as we said on Discord..." as an explanation. Some people don't have it so could be shut off from an open and accountable discussion that we would normally have here or on ERRORS. If there's another reason for having it, I'm very open to hearing it. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:24, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah, that's not the thought I had when I proposed the channel. The channel would talk more about stuff like asking if any interested editor (not just regulars) could adopt a nomination that's been abandoned or where the nominator hasn't been responsive. It could also ask for help in fixes for article issues, as well as asking for advice on stuff like hook suggestions and the like. The actual discussion of reviews would still be on-Wiki. It's kind of like how the other project-specific Discord channels work, where the channels are more for discussions about relevant articles and how to address issues rather than off-Wiki opaque decision-making (which from experience is frowned upon in the server). I do see where you're coming from, though. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:37, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: That is good to hear, that does put my mind at ease here. I am glad that Wiki editors in Discord are against off-wiki discussions involving decision making. I'm not on the Wikipedia Discord but would be open to it. I'll wait to see what others think. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 11:07, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I'd be strongly opposed to this. We have discussion pages on Wikipedia; there is no reason for another secretive venue - Wikipedia:Consensus#Pitfalls and errors exists for a reason. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:20, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
If it's just being used for finding editors to adopt nominations/ collaborate with other people on joint nominations, then don't see an issue with it. As long as any decision-making for how DYK works or whether to accept/reject noms is not done there. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:22, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not so sure Discord is super "secretive"-- anyone can join and messages are generally retained for anyone to read. Additionally as Joseph says above, there's nothing in this section advocating for consensus on nominations (or anything else for that matter) to be determined off-wiki, just suggesting using it as a place for informal discussion -- I for one find discord very useful for asking for hook suggestions and it's a good place to ask more informal questions and (generally) get a quicker response than on-wiki. Eddie891 Talk Work 13:36, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sold on the use, although for different reasons. I'm reasonably active on Discord, and DYK discussion of the type that would happen here (finding people to adopt nominations, collaborating on co-noms) happens without issue in the server's general channels. I'm not sure it's frequent enough to sustain a stand-alone channel. Vaticidalprophet 12:44, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
My thoughts on this generally align with Vaticidalprophet's above. Almost all of the WikiProject channels are based on subject-specific content topics rather than a behind-the-scenes activity like DYK—with the exception of #wpcci, which is so active that it would completely inundate the general channels if it wasn't sequestered. I just don't think there's enough DYK chatter on a regular basis to warrant splitting it off into yet another channel, and if someone wants to brainstorm hook suggestions in the Discord setting, it'd be helpful to hear from people hanging out in the general channels anyway (i.e., non-DYK regulars). DanCherek (talk) 15:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm in favor of this. I do concede I'm relatively active on Discord, but I don't check the Wikimedia server as often. While DYK nominations do get brought up in the #general or #english-wikipedia channels, they often get drowned out by other conversations. I considered proposing something like a #quality-content discussion channel, covering not only DYK nominations but also GA and FA nominations, but that may be prone to canvassing. This planned channel is a little better, but to Dan's point that "it'd be helpful to hear from people hanging out in the general channels anyway", it is often the DYK regulars that propose hooks whenever someone asks for feedback on Discord.
To address the secretiveness aspect: such conversation happens on the server quite often already. While it's technically a "private server" because it only has a single invite link on WP:DISCORD, anyone who can access the WP:DISCORD project page can join. In practice, it is a public server; any editor can join, and the server has over 3,000 members, so it's not a small secret club either. – Epicgenius (talk) 01:38, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I am on the fence on this one. I like the community aspect of a network like Discord, which I think is healthy. But, I am also weary that it might create a parallel track to communications between here and there. Ktin (talk) 01:46, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm pretty suspicious of any use of offwiki forums. Unless we know exactly what's been posted to Discord, how can we evaluate the people who come in here to comment on a discussion? And, sure, anyone can join, but I really don't need another forum to have to keep track of to be confident that someone wasn't posting "Hey, other editors are objecting to ALT1a, we need people to come in and support it as okay so that consensus doesn't go against us." Why not just post here that there's an abandoned nom? That's what this talk is for. Sorry if I seem like the grumpy old lady shaking her cane at these damn kids with their skateboards. But why can't we just work here? —valereee (talk) 22:15, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Valereee's opinion. I'm not convinced about the need for DYK issues being off-wiki. SL93 (talk) 22:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: well, in my role as a professional "damn kid with the skateboard" sixteen year old, I agree that keeping the boards centralized is kind of important. I also think, especially because it's been a slow news day here at DYK for the past few days or so, that there really isn't enough chatter on here to justify another server. Dead chats aren't useful—almost dead chats where someone writes a distress signal into the void every week or so are detrimental. If WT:DYK had a discord-like function, that might be worth discussing, but I don't see discord as being useful. Also, from a minor's standpoint, I'd like to add that we should be careful about encouraging off-wiki discussions—my perception is that it's more difficult to sanction off-wiki conduct. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 22:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • AGF that the intent of the Discord channel is a think-tank for fresh ideas, or solutions, or anything else. But I believe that it's best to have our conversations here, where it's all archived together. Every now and then something comes up that we have to go searching for the thread where a decision was made. We have good solutions, or policy changes, arrived at here. And sometimes our RFCs ramble in all directions and never arrive at anything. But it's all in one place and archived in the same place. — Maile (talk) 03:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Update on my shenanigans with DYK stats

yes, i am working on the DYK wrapped, but I'm tired so give me a minute Should there a be a time when no one is around to use my script to update the stats page, I've created a template that makes adding a row easy: {{DYK stats table row}} will add a row for a single hook, and i created {{DYK stats table multi begin}}, {{DYK stats table multi}}, and {{DYK stats table multi total}} for adding a multi-article hook. I'm working on making their documentation pages understandable right now. Cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:10, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Really, though, for a single hook, it's pretty easy: just use
{{DYK stats table row|Article title|File name|DYK date|Views|Views per hour|Hook}}
and it'll just—work! it's genie magic, if the genie were a manic sixteen year old with too much time on their hands for unknown reasons. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 08:49, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Your parents are going to cut your access to WP if you don't get those college apps in. :) —valereee (talk) 19:17, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm resourceful—I'mma be here 20 years from now, building prep sets with a TI-84 calculator if i have to ...
in all seriousness, I handed in my college apps on the first, which is quite the weight off my shoulders :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 21:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Twitter?

Any objections to me making a twitter bot to spread some DYKs around and reach into another platform? originally, I thought it'd post every hook in a day, spread out over even time intervals, but I'm thinking that 8–16 tweets in a day is waaaay too many, so it should probably just post the most-viewed hook or two of the previous day. What do y'all think? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 05:42, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I follow this account already but I'll follow any Wiki-related Twitter so I'm no judge of what's a good idea or not! DrThneed (talk) 06:05, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
ah! fun—I think blurting out eight tweets at once, once or twice a day, might not be the best decision—any idea who runs the account? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 06:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
No, sorry. But I agree they'd be better spaced out, they always appear as a big chunk on my timeline.DrThneed (talk) 07:22, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Good idea. The Women in Red bunch promote their work on Facebook, Pinterest, Twitter and Instagram. — Maile (talk) 21:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
So, I tried this sometime back and failed -- I tried to reach out to the person who ran the Wikipedia twitter account and tried to sell them on the idea of posting some of our articles from WP:ITN (and I forget if I included WP:DYK in the request). No success. Ktin (talk) 05:55, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Found the person. Here goes User:AJohnson (WMF). Good luck. I would like to piggyback with some WP:ITN articles as well, if you are able to get some engagement from them. Though, I suspect they do not monitor their talk page. Ktin (talk) 06:00, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Fair-use image when image of a person in costume is available

I'm probably being over cautious here, but just a quick query about the Syaoran Li article which is linked from Queue 4 at the moment. The article has an image of a person wearing a costume of this character, which appears to depict all the key aspects of the character including the hat, the colours of the robes and the symbols. As such, does that make the fair-use image of the manga redundant? The rationale for fair use at File:Syaoran Li.jpg says that the image is necessary to recognise and identify the character, but since we have the alternative free image of the costumed person, wouldn't that achieve the same purpose without need for fair use? (And this is assuming the costume itself isn't copyrighted, which may be one of those grey areas...) Pinging @Theleekycauldron, ISD, and Sammi Brie: who were involved with this hook.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm just pinging @Tintor2: as he too has been helpful in developing this article. I would argue that the original drawing (or drawings, given that there several Clamp character articles that have both the art and cosplayer images in them) is still the most accurate depiction of the character in question. I added the cosplayer images to the article as an afterthought, having discovered that these were free images on WikiMedia Commons. ISD (talk) 12:54, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
When it comes to images, I find the original author's portrayal to be the most important. If it's a liveaction character, then the infobox needs the such image. If it's a manga character primarily, it's obligatory that the character has a manga artwork. Cosplayers image are kinda redundant to the articles unless they are commmented by writers or there is another Wikipedia like the Spanish one that can't use no nonfree images.Tintor2 (talk) 13:14, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know/Preparation area 4

(DYK nom page) I think it should be "presidency of" instead of "presidency over", since one is a president of an organization. I also think adding "in the 1970s" after "National Council of Churches" provides some interesting historical context that this vote happened more than four decades ago, given that the United Methodist Church (a member of the NCC) has not progressed to supporting same-sex marriage even today. DanCherek (talk) 14:25, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

fair enough, changes added theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 15:41, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! DanCherek (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

What's the purpose of the "Source" field in the DYK form?

Hi, in all my previous DYK noms, I've cited the source text and source link for the hook as the instructions stated in the template. In the new template, there is a field on the form for the "Source". In reviewing 2 current noms, I've been advised by the nominator that this is not required provided the hook is cited in the article itself. Is that right? If so, what's the point of the "Source" field? Bermicourt (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The source field is helpful for the reviewer, but I don't think it's required per se. You should keep doing it if you're already used to it, though—also, as long as we're on the subject, could we please restructure the way the nom template works to follow Drmies' guide for lists? a * followed by a :* is not what's supposed to be happening there. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 22:08, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree that it's optional. I say "several" when more than one (to not clutter the nom), and write a bare url if a specific one. It should be clearly referenced in the article, or isn't good. - The indenting guideline is by RexxS, sadly missed. It's just that I remember where Drmies posts it prominently, and can write that more easily than refer to the less obvious position on my user page. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass and BlueMoonset: I can't remember if it's required, or if it was added as a convenience for the reviewer. It is helpful, especially if it's a non-English source. — Maile (talk) 22:21, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
It was always described as optional and was clearly introduced to help the reviewer check the source of the hook, but any good reviewer should be able to do that easily from the article if it is any good. As far as I know it remains optional because it's in the article that the hook needs to be sourced, not in the nom. The problem I have with it is that it makes the noms much harder to read, introducing big chunks of text that really aren't necessary and gold-plating that makes the process more complex and bureaucratic, as evidenced here where Bermicourt quite reasonably thinks it is a legal requirement that must be met before they can tick. Philafrenzy (talk) 22:59, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
it also muddles up the hook in source-text promotion—it would save an admittedly very small amount of time if the hooks were cleanly presented instead of with a bunch of small text after. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 05:48, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
In which case, where the hook is stated more or less word for word in the article, it should be made clear in the guidelines that there there is no requirement to add the same citation in the nom. However, if the hook is an amalgam of two or more sources, I think it's reasonable to require them to be clearly stated in the nom. It's not the reviewer's job to try and work that out from the article and from piecing together different citiations. The argument that citations clutter the nom is a presentational issue that could be sorted by amending the template. I used to force the citations onto a new line with <br> to separate them from the hooks, but that's not possible with the new form; the word "Source" automatically follows the hook... Bermicourt (talk) 08:37, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Another question: if the citation is offline i.e. the reviewer cannot see it, is it not reasonable to ask for the actual wording to be cited in the nom? I think it's a good check for the nominator and also enables a second pair of eyes to confirm the citation affirms the hook. Of course, we have still to take in good faith that the wording is a faithful copy of the original. Bermicourt (talk) 08:44, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Adding the source in the nomination template is encouraged but not required. But while I agree that there's generally a much better case for quoting the sources in the template when the hook fact needs two or more sources to confirm, I also think it would complicate things excessively to make that a requirement. A requirement for quoting offline sources in the template, however, is an interesting idea that I might be inclined to support. Gatoclass (talk) 10:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Maile, the proposal was originally made by EEng in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 129#Another bright idea back on 13 September 2016, and boldly implemented by them four days later—you were part of that discussion. (I'm not about to try to search out further discussions; no time.) I've seen reviewers claim that the source must be included, and refuse to go any further without it, which was instruction creep at its finest. I've also seen sources on the nomination page accepted as sufficient even though they weren't in the article, or were, but not supporting the fact—the whole point seems to make it easier for the reviewer to check the hook, yet they still need to find the fact and that same source supporting said in the article by the end of the sentence with that fact. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
BlueMoonset You have a good memory. Personally, I find that source area in the nomination template really handy, and makes things a little easier for the reviewer. I'm all for making the process easier for any reviewer. — Maile (talk) 23:24, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
It seems reasonable to expect nominators to supply a quote from an offline source that supports the hook, particularly if it is requested by the reviewer. AGF is a thing but everyone makes mistakes and we want to be sure that the hook and article are correctly interpreting and summarizing the source. If the nominator is the only one able to examine their hook's wording because the source is inaccessible to everyone else, that makes it harder for the reviewer, prep builder, and admin to do the ir usual checks. DanCherek (talk) 16:39, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Providing the source and the appropriate quote from the source is helpful to anyone reviewing, very helpful to anyone promoting, and hugely helpful to any admin moving a prep set to queue because it cuts the time required. As the nom is the person most likely to know which source and what that source said, it's an easy way to make your nomination easier to review/less likely to need a query. —valereee (talk) 19:11, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

last one of these, i promise

Template:Did you know nominations/Maw Htun Aung:

this hook doesn't seem up to snuff, too wordy and complicated and not hooky; I would fix it, but engaging with this nomination is burning me out a little. If someone else could weigh in, that would be quite helpful. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 04:43, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The article is a bit lacking on possible hook facts, but perhaps a hook on him criticizing the junta despite being a deputy minister could work? Or would that be a BLP violation? Another possibility could be a hook about his father's bankruptcy due to a gemstone law inspiring his career. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:47, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
They subject is not and does not appear from the article to have ever been a deputy minister of government. He was appointed to the government in exile months after the government was deposed. The framing of both the article and the hook do not meet NPOV, and are likely actively misleading for most English speakers. CMD (talk) 11:22, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Prep 4: Atari 810

Looked at this by accident, as I was attempting to review queue 4 and instead looked at prep 4, but might as well raise it anyway... I'm not seeing the first part of this hook mentioned in the article, namely that it was "the only drive available for the Atari 8-bit family". In fact, the article mentions a "third party replacement" which is cited at [7] and appears to be an alternative to the 810 manufactured by Percom. Atari's own 815 is also mentioned as an alternative. This probably needs some tweak, like maybe to say the 810 was the first, or that it was the only one available in a certain time period. Pinging @Maury Markowitz, Ezlev, and Theleekycauldron: as nom/reviewer/promoter.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:40, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

The first then. The 815 did not appear until later and never really entered production. Percom was two years later. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:52, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

would y'all mind lending an opinion

  • ... that in the board game Cartographers, players who fail to surround monsters on their map lose points?

Over at Template:Did you know nominations/Cartographers (board game)—I think the hook is in-universe because it merely describes gameplay without context, Flibirigit disagrees because it describes how real people play. I see where he's coming from, but I'm not sure I agree. Any chance others could weigh in? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 10:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

I've never been a fan of the "in-universe hook" clause, because it creates an artificial line in the sand when the question we should really be asking ourselves is whether the hook is interesting to a broad audience or not. If an in-universe hook is interesting, then we should include it. If it's not (which is probably the case for the majority of such hooks, hence why the rule was invented in the first place) then we shouldn't. In this case, I think the hook does fall down on the interest criterion - surrounding monsters on the map lose points is simply an aspect of the gameplay and doesn't really hook me in at all, so I'd probably fail it on that ground.  — Amakuru (talk) 10:44, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Amakuru. The current hook might not be completely an "in-universe hook", but I don't think its that interesting to what we consider a "broad audience". Any chances of getting a better hook? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I think this type of hook is fine if it tantalises and excites people's curiosity to find out more even if they don't know the context. However, I agree this isn't the most interesting example. Bermicourt (talk) 11:07, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I think this is a good example of why we came up with the rule against in-universe hooks: it's inherently boring to say what boils down to "Did you know that in (a fictional universe), (anything can happen)? How in the world is that ever interesting? —valereee (talk) 13:27, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
After reading the article, there's only one mildly-interesting hook I can find:
I share the concerns about "in-universe hooks" and ALT1 is a good way to avoid any issues. Thanks, Valereee. Schwede66 18:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I've struck the original hook, added ALT1 to the nomination, and also added an additional ALT. Mindmatrix 01:40, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Amakuru and Bermicourt that a tantalizing in-universe hook is better than a less-good hook from the real world. Is there an rule against in-universe hooks for movies, fiction, etc.? More people will be interested in a hook that mentions dragons, or barrels of whiskey than in a hook about crowd-funding or Spiel des Jahres, in my opinion. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

To answer your question, yes there is such a rule (WP:DYKHOOK): If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way. DanCherek (talk) 14:46, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
ALT1 looks bad to me- there's nothing interesting or unusual about being crowdfunded, a lot of board games and their expansions are crowdfunded on Kickstarter, like this expansion was. A variation of ALT0 to be less in-universe would be far preferable in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:53, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
@Joseph2302: we have better ALTs on the nompage now- i agree that that one wasn't good. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 19:43, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a recurring issue at WT:DYK. The in-universe hook ban sometimes works from a 'limitations breed creativity' point of view, but it's never been uncontroversial and it leads to plenty of situations where hooks are weakened by ruling out the best options. In turn, these conversations tend to crash headfirst into the subjectivity of 'hook interest' -- DYK regulars seem roughly split between people who think in-universe hooks are always uninteresting and those who don't, and each tends to come up with hook suggestions unsatisfying to the other. It's a big limiter on DYK's handling of fiction (broadly construed). I concur that ALT1 is not a hook I would personally approve at DYKN. (That said, neither is ALT0, even though I support permitting in-universe hooks. ALT2 is nice.) Vaticidalprophet 15:01, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with this assessment. It seems like the rule stems from two tangential points, namely that (a) hooks are rarely failed on the lack-of-interest criterion, which means that if we didn't have the rule then a lot of boring in-universe hooks would simply be nodded through; and (b) in-universe hooks are very often uninteresting. Neither of these points mean that we should have a blanket ban, however. I would probably downgrade the rule to become more of a "strong suggestion", which people can use for quick fails of boring in-universe hooks, while reserving the right to use one if it's genuinely of interest. As an aside, there is another perennial question with respect to DYK, which is whether it exists primarily as a vehicle to the main page for newly-created newly-GA articles, or whether it's actually meant to be interesting. Some articles simply don't have any DYK-style interesting facts in them at all, but we've become loath to reject such articles outright, perhaps correctly.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:44, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it stems from the fact that telling people their hooks are uninteresting is just not something anyone wants to do—you don't make friends by telling people that their work (which they are often significantly interested in) is downright boring. There's something deeply personal about that that doesn't apply to, say, telling them that the article needs a copyedit.
To go off on a bit of a tangent, my least favourite variation of the "hook-isn't-really-interesting" scene is the hook that is blatantly sleep-inducing except for the fact that they it has a passably good image, because a hook like that makes the promoter feel like they have to put it in the image slot. Sometimes I'll ask the nominator and reviewer to come up with another hook so that the promoter isn't forced to use the image, but other times, like in Template:Did you know nominations/William John Seward Webber, I just hold my nose, close my eyes, and promote to the image slot. It's really frustrating for me—DYK isn't for boring hooks that are made less boring with their image. Submit the image to TFP and get your exposure there. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 21:07, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I have strong opinions on hook interest. I've also seen strong opinions on hook interest crash against reality, which is about 70% of the reason I don't go through DYKNA kicking half the nominations back to DYKN until they find better hooks (the other 30% being the aforementioned complexities of telling people their hooks are bad). There have been a few high-profile incidents where suggestions of "let's avoid this formula because it produces weaker hooks" have ended up making hooks worse, not better, according to majority consensus -- even excluding controversial cases such as the in-universe ban.
I've flirted many times with soft-power driving the system closer to "yes, you need to legitimately have a good hook", as have a few other people, and a few more have done so more explicitly. Results have been mixed. I think it can genuinely be done, but it would need a very deep respect for subjectivity, and DYK does not always handle that well. Indeed, trouble handing subjectivity is why it's an issue. Everything relating to the Main Page tends to make tempers flare -- none of TFA, ITN, or DYK have a reputation for being the calmest and most peaceful parts of the project.
I like the "in-universe hooks aren't banned, but can be vetoed more quickly" proposal, and I think it might work reasonably well. The big issue with hook-interest-and-subjectivity is that hooks written by committee are often quite weak, and replacing hooks written by the author with hooks written by committee can and does go very wrong. It's possible this suggestion will avoid those issues. It's also possible it'll run headfirst into them, but the current situation does that routinely, so at least it wouldn't be a new problem. Vaticidalprophet 21:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I have placed my review of the nomination on hold while this discussion is ongoing. I'm willing to continue if this discussion is resolved or closes. All comments are welcome, but it's not necessary to ping me. Cheers. Flibirigit (talk) 16:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I have no idea how people got the notion that the rule has anything to do with hook interest. To me, it's completely obvious that the rule is simply intended to ensure that the hook contains a real-world fact, to prevent entirely in-universe hooks like ... that according to Kosh, "if you go to Z'ha'dum, you will die"? [8]  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  21:29, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Pretty much. From past discussions, the reason why the rule exists wasn't due to hook interest at all, but to prevent hooks about works of fiction being solely being about fictional stuff. The criterion was created to prevent hooks that went like "DYK that Ash Ketchum is the first champion of the Alola League?" instead of something like "DYK that Ash Ketchum is named Satoshi in Japan, after Pokémon creator Satoshi Tajiri?". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:34, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's this. I've said it before, the overwhelming majority of in-universe hooks are really little less than "DYK thing exists?" - add to that the fact that a lot of those start treating the fictional world as real, are incoherent to people who aren't familiar with the thing in the first place, and are difficult to fact-check (especially with games), yeah, there is no good reason to have an in-universe hook, and plenty reasons not to.
And, well, if the nominator thinks the most interesting thing about a work is something that happens within its world/prose, there really is nothing interesting enough about the thing's existence in the real world, which is theoretically a disqualifying factor for other boldlinks (that don't have a fictional element to fall back on). Like, we don't allow hooks of buildings that are just plain descriptions of their appearance, why give books etc. (including non-fiction) a pass to allow plain descriptions (i.e. things anyone with access to the thing will know, so no point in using Wikipedia)? Kingsif (talk) 21:48, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Another one

For Template:Did you know nominations/Fortune-499: theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 19:58, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

  • ... that in Fortune-499, the main character has to prevent monsters from acquiring the company where she works by playing rock paper scissors with them?
What's wrong with that? I like a hook that crashes two incongruous things together: monsters, from fairytale land or horror-movie land, roaring into the utterly everyday and harmless (playing rock-paper-scissors). It's a fine example of the art of the anticlimax. Bishonen | tålk 21:21, 7 December 2021 (UTC).
it is technically in-universe, but it's not uninteresting... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 21:31, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
leek, I'm not convinced that it is in-universe, nor am I convinced that the initial hook at Cartographers was (though I do agree that that one was uninteresting). As disclosure for anyone reading this who doesn't know, I wrote and DYK-nominated Fortune-499. I think the relevant DYK rule is C6: If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way. References to "players" (Cartographers) or "the main character" (Fortune-499) make these hooks real-world descriptions of what the games' plots are like rather than in-universe information from the games' plots. Another example that comes to mind is Template:Did you know nominations/Long Live the Post Horn! which was another of my noms and ran with the hook
Again, I would argue, not an in-universe hook but a description of what happens in the work of fiction, as flagged by the word "protagonist" which plays the same role as "players" or "main character" in the two hooks being discussed here. An in-universe hook would be one like Mandarax's example above, which (from MOS:INUNIVERSE) describes the narrative [...] from the vantage of characters within the fictional universe, treating it as if it were real and ignoring real-world context and sourced analysis. A description of plot or gameplay isn't inherently in-universe by that definition. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:05, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure I agree... you may be right that the hook technically views the plot from outside of the universe, but if it's still solely focused on plot, I'm not seeing how it does involve the real world. I don't know, ezlev, do you really believe changing a few magic words changes the scope of the hook? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 22:09, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it probably depends on the intent of rule C6 more than the letter of it, and I trust you and many of the others in this discussion to interpret the intent better than I'm able to. In the meantime, I'll work on an alternate hook or two for this nomination. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:14, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I really appreciate that :) spirit of the law, by the way, I'd totally be fine with running the hook—it's pretty interesting. in-universe or no. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 22:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
If a hook like this that is purely about a plot point does not count as in-universe, then I do not know what does. Using English words or names that also describe things or actions in the real world does not in itself make a hook connect to the real world, or there would be no way for a hook to possibly fail this criterion. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:24, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
I do have to note that in the past, hooks that were primarily about in-universe events (i.e. plot) were rejected based on that criterion, even if they referenced the real world. So for example, a hook that went "DYK that Anynovel takes place in the real city of Vladivostok?" (boring hook example, I know) would likely still be declined based on previous experiences, but a hook that went "DYK that the plot of Anynovel was inspired by the author's experiences as a navy officer based in Vladivostok?" could work. Personally, I do wish that the real-world criterion were loosened a bit or IAR exemptions could be granted for really good fiction hooks, but consensus has been against that in the past and I doubt things would be any different now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:28, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
Two decidedly out-of-universe ALTs are now at Template:Did you know nominations/Fortune-499, pending review. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 22:33, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

One thing that should be noted is that, while usually knowing when a hook is in-universe or not is clear, there are sometimes gray areas. This discussion has primarily focused on board game hooks, given that it's not clear if gameplay mechanics count as in-universe or not (for transparency, I'm leaning towards the "not in-universe" camp because you're still talking about how a game is played, not what happens in the game's plot). The same can be said for video game gameplay hooks as well. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:42, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

The issue with hooks based on plot devices is that it's very difficult to apply an objective "hook interest" standard. The basic criterion for assessing hook interest is whether or not the hook is citing an unusual fact - or to put it another way, hooks which are based on mundane, everyday occurrences are by definition uninteresting. But how does one apply this criterion to a work of fiction? In fiction, anything can and often does happen, so it's not at all unusual to find weird things happening. The question then becomes, how does one decide which is a truly remarkable plot device and which is not? Take for example a hook like "Did you know that in video game X the hero Y has to defeat hordes of three-eyed munchkins?" Now I would argue that that is an uninteresting fact because video games typically feature heroes defeating hordes of one kind of weird monster or another. But somebody else might think the hook is interesting because no other game has three-eyed munchkins and it therefore it meets the "unusual" criterion. In short, the element of subjectivity is much greater for in-universe type hooks, which is why it could quickly become problematic if we began to accept them as a matter of course. Gatoclass (talk) 13:26, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 December 2021

Please update my book, with only one chapter, and one sentence of only five words, as the Worlds smallest novel. 2A02:C7F:4A09:AA00:B954:52EE:324A:2A8F (talk) 17:50, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: this is the talk page for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Did you know. Please make your request at the talk page for the article concerned. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/MLS Cup 2021

Wonder if this hook can be crammed into Queue 4 to make it in time for the event? SounderBruce 03:07, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

I'll ping the @DYK admins but I warn you, my hopes ain't high on this one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done, but I was unable to move the hook I deleted to make way for it because you didn't leave any room in prep, so please add it to the next available set or it might get forgotten - thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 06:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
understood. this is why i'd like a prep set 0... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
What would prep set 0 be for? Just a temporary set that isn't used regularly? I'd think a better solution would be to simply add more, prep and queue 8,9 and 10, and then remove the expectation that all 10 prep sets would be full at any time. I know a few people found the 7 thing useful during 1-a-day periods, but I can't think of another reason not to increase the number.  — Amakuru (talk) 07:44, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
It would be better to leave the seventh prep set empty so that prospective set builders are not turned away by finding all the prep sets full. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:48, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. If the preps are always full, it discourages other participants who tend to drift away. And I don't see any need for yet more preps and queues - it's nice to have somebody as enthusiastic as leeky working on the preps, but when they eventually drift away as almost all participants eventually do, we would end up with a ton of empty preps/queues that we wouldn't know what to do with. Gatoclass (talk) 10:38, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree, if we're at one set per day, then if 10 queues/preps are done, that means we're ready 10 days in advance. In that case, we don't need an 11th one done. I've occasionally done some prep promoting, but the fact it's always full means I haven't bothered even looking at doing it for a few months. Leaving preps open will help with the issue above, and also encourage spreading out of workload IMO. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:41, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Personally I don't see any downside with having more set slots available. Having "a ton of empty preps/queues that we wouldn't know what to do with" doesn't sound like a reason to me. We know what to do with the queues, just fill them in the correct order. If a few are empty, then fine. No harm done, in fact it's good because sometimes you need slots as noted above. But if they're all full all the time, that's a capacity constraint per Joseph above, and will deter additional people turning up to help.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Absolutely it makes it much, much, much easier to swap things out if there's a prep set left empty or nearly empty. There is no reason to keep all seven prep sets full, and it actively makes the work more difficult if you can't swap anything until the date changes. —valereee (talk) 16:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I don't think that adding more prep sets is more likely to leave them a bunch of them empty as much as it is just going to put a little bit more strain on the prep set process. But it does make sense to leave one empty; that's usually what I do during the one-a-days. I'm going back to leaving it empty during most of the two-a-days, too, but when we're about to cross the 60 or 120 thresholds, it's beneficial to temporarily fill that set. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 17:21, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
No, it's not beneficial. We need that space to make swaps if we're about to switch from 1 to 2 sets per day. It's even more important that the bottom prep have slots open. In fact sometimes we need to swap more than 1 hook during a switchover, and if there aren't multiple slots open, it has to be done one-by-one rather than all at once. —valereee (talk) 21:00, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
I usually check the s.o. area and the queues before filling the last set, to make sure I don't bump up against that problem. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:09, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Didja see the OP? :D Things change. New hooks get added late. We need that room, and literally it's at minimum 3.5 days away, which is plenty of time. I love your enthusiasm, but it is not helpful to fill the bottom prep. It's just not. —valereee (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
And I think this is a very good point, too. We need to encourage new prep builders, and having empty preps regularly is a requirement for that. The only deadline on filling them is that we need at least one set ready to move to queue before that queue moves to the main page. I like to see three or four queues filled and three or four preps filled, and ideally I like to see the bottom set empty or nearly empty and it's even good to have open slots in the second-to-bottom prep for balance issues. Keeping the top 3-4 preps filled should be the priority. —valereee (talk) 21:14, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, just pretend the bottom set is Prep 0. The bottom prep set never needs to be filled ever. Just ignore it. At minimum leave the image slot and at least one other slot unfilled in the bottom prep. —valereee (talk) 16:13, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
valereee: tell you what, I'll go back to what I used to do; I'll leave it empty unless there's a reason it needs to be filled right then, such as we're about to make a switch between one and two-a-day or vice versa. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 17:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, even if we're about to switch to 2-a-days, that last prep is days away. Even if all queues are empty and we're on 2-a-days, the bottom prep is 3.5 days away. There is never a reason the bottom prep needs to be completely full. At minimum I for one would extremely strongly prefer the image slot and at least one other slot in the bottom prep be empty at all times in order to allow for swaps. Things can fall through the cracks if we don't have that space to move around in. —valereee (talk) 20:57, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: I'm not sure I agree that there's never a reason—if we're at 66 approved hooks, and that number probably won't stay stable another day, it's worth filling most or possibly even all of the set + other shenanigans to go back to one-a-day. Personally, I'd prefer that we keep counting hooks in the one-a-day/two-a-day cycle until they're on the main page, so that it doesn't matter how many preps and queues we keep filled; but that idea doesn't seem to have consensus yet. Scout's honour, there'll be one image slot and one other slot open at all times. But I don't think that set needs to remain completely empty. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:08, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, I disagree. We don't want to go back and forth more quickly. We want to make the switchover when we've actually slowed down. Just because we're at 66 doesn't mean we should pull out all the stops to get down to 60 tomorrow, which inevitably means we make another switchover in two weeks. Let it ride. If we're really in a slowdown period, it'll happen naturally. —valereee (talk) 21:17, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
This is diverging into three different threads, so my head is spinning a little. Long and short of it is, I think I just got a bit of a better understanding of how prep-set building affects the number of hooks and the length of the two-a-day periods over time. I'll keep what you've said in mind as i make these kinds of decisions, thanks :)
p.s. we want to make the switchover when we've actually slowed down has stuck in my head for the past hour ... I was wondering why the lengths of the two-a-day periods seem to shrink so much right around mid-august. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
TLC, you'll get some good info re:that during January/February, when WikiCup starts up. It's very interesting. I recommend you sign up for the WikiCup newsletter, I think the easiest way to do that is at Wikipedia:WikiCup/Newsletter/Send (someone correct me if I'm wrong) as it will let you get a feel for why those first four months of the year get such a high number of noms. —valereee (talk) 22:58, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Theleekycauldron More and more, I keep thinking, "Ask not for whom the adminship bell tolls, it tolls for thee." See, we could use extra Queue promoters. The other prep builders will fill in when we promote you. — Maile (talk) 16:34, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
    (: i think my usefulness as a queue might be a little limited by my attachment to the prep sets; but I'm happy to help out there whenever I'm trusted to. I'm definitely planning on getting more invovled with WP:ERRORS if I ever [redacted, as not to jinx it...] theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:22, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
    [Rubs hands together] and then you will see the value of empty preps, young Skywalker. —valereee (talk) 21:24, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
    Well, if you ever seriously consider the Admin route, Wikipedia:Miniguide to requests for adminship is a good thing to look at before you leap. When, and if, you toss your hat in that ring, the DYK regulars won't be the majority of the voters, because upwards of 150-200 editors weigh in. Editors toss in questions about their favorite issue, and all you can do is give your honest perspective on whatever it is. I was recruited, and was shocked that I passed. I'm still shocked. — Maile (talk) 22:47, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Maile66: I took an ORCP two months ago, and the general consensus is that I'm doing fine experience/judgement wise, but that I need to grow up a little. So, I've been working at that since. I'm not sure I'm ready yet; I'm happy to bide my time, and I think it's soon. Until then, thank you for the miniguide, I really appreciate it! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:12, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

Approved nominations are at 120 = back to two sets a day

@DYK admins: What the title says. SL93 (talk) 00:24, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

... already? good freaking god. more details to follow theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 03:46, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
okay—there are no special occasion hooks in the queues, so sometime between now and noon UTC (eight hours and eleven minutes from now), an admin needs to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200. Hold on to your hats, y'all! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 03:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
just as a reference for how short this 1-a-day period was, the current set (and the set on-deck) was built during the last two-a-day period. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 03:56, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I wonder if there was a way to at leas partially automate the process since it seems like a lot of work to do discussions and changes whenever the thresholds are reached. Of course, there's the issue of making sure that special occasion hooks end up in the right place, but that's why I said partial automation. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:39, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

When the 120 limit was first proposed, I said at the time as I recall that I thought it was too low and would result in too frequent swings between 12 and 24 hours cycles, which in my opinion would not be a good thing. It seems those concerns are now being borne out. I'm inclined to think the upper limit should be raised to at least 150 if not higher. Gatoclass (talk) 10:35, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

I would agree to raising the upper limit. — Maile (talk) 15:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Concur. 24-hour periods always tend to be very short and mostly serve to build the backlog back up. Even 150 might be conservative in higher-activity periods -- 120 isn't working out. Vaticidalprophet 15:30, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it's working fairly well, actually. Clearly we're in a period where 2-a-days is the norm. When we get below 60, we need to stop doing 2-a-days for a short period, but we generally move back to 2-a-days pretty quickly. I don't think we've had many periods of 1-a-days for more than a week or two, and then we'll have several months of 2-a-days. We went to 1-a-days kind of artificially this time -- people were trying to get us there by filling every queue as fast as possible and encouraging people to fill every queue. We likely wouldn't have gone to 1-a-days if that hadn't been the case. No matter what the upper limit is, we're going to end up going to 1-a-days artificially if we do that. —valereee (talk) 19:06, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Relevant data dump (history of time-switches in the past year):
  • 1 set per day: 2020 December 15 – 2021 January 6 (22 days)
  • 2 sets per day: January 6 – February 13 (38 days)
  • 1: February 13 – March 1 (16 days)
  • 2: March 1 – May 12 (72 days)
  • 1: May 12 – May 26 (14 days)
  • 2: May 26 – June 20 (25 days)
  • 1: June 20 – July 7 (17 days)
  • 2: July 7 – September 4 (59 days)
  • 1: September 4 – September 18 (14 days)
  • 2: September 18 – September 27 (9 days)
  • 1: September 27 – October 21 (24 days)
  • 2: October 21 – November 1 (11 days)
  • 1: November 1 – November 12 (11 days)
  • 2: November 12 – November 27 (15 days)
  • 1: November 27 – December 5 (8 days)
  • 2: December 5 – present (0 days)
  • Average one-a-day time: 15.75 days (mean), 15 days (median)
  • Average two-a-day time: 32.71 days (mean), 25 days (median)
It does seem as though the two-a-day periods are getting shorter, though... take what you will from all this theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 20:47, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I think that's kind of the point, which you have so conveniently detailed above. We don't necessarily need to be flipping three times a month, which makes it just a little more flippy if a special occasion hook is factored into it back and forth. Two would be sufficient. Maybe raise it to 175 for a while and see how that goes. — Maile (talk) 21:02, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree that raising the upper limit makes sense. If it takes 15 days on average to go from 60 to 120, that suggests that the pool of hooks increases by an average of 4 a day. If that theory is correct and things are linear, going to 150 would add another 7 days before we switch. That's still too often and I therefore support 175 as suggested by Maile. Schwede66 21:14, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Hmm... I also want to keep the backlog down, so I think we should be considering messing with the lower limit as well. I'm not sold on this just yet, but if we do, I think we should consider doing 40–150 instead of 60–175. 175 is a lot of hooks to be keeping track of, particularly since we don't automatically move hooks to the SOHA. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 21:21, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
We can't put the upper limit arbitrarily high or we'll run into the kind of problems with transclusions that FAC regularly has. Not sure how high we can go before things break. —Kusma (talk) 21:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
Now that you bring that up, I do seem to remember that we once had a transclusion snag on the Approved page, something or other because of too many backed up over there. @Wugapodes and BlueMoonset: would probably remember that a lot better than I do. — Maile (talk) 00:02, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe we need to change; the recent more frequent switches are likely to stop in early January, and we might not have changed this soon had we not had a queue backlog. Part of the reason the switches are happening more frequently lately is that there is more pressure to get down to below 60 to ease the strain on admins needing to promote at a two-a-day rate, after which fewer preps are moved to queues by admins, fewer preps are open for promotion, and the number of approved hooks balloons. It hasn't helped that we've had some unusually large nomination days in the past month, with three having 20 or more nominations, and as I type this, we've had nine days in a row with 10 or more noms, including yesterday. This has also been an unusual period, with preps generally all filled (not how things used to be) and queues varying between mostly filled and mostly empty. (We're at the latter at the moment.)
One drawback of our methodology is that we base our count solely on the number of approved hooks, rather than the total of approved plus prep and queue. So we can swing between under 60 approved yet 10 preps and queues filled (another 80), to 120 approved but with 6 preps and queues filled (another 48). The actual difference is a move from 139 approved including preps and queues to 168 approved including preps and queues, a move of 29 in total, but 61 in unpromoted approved, just because of varying activity in prep building and queue promoting.
The reason we haven't gone lower than below 60 on the low end is because prep set builders have complained that there isn't enough hook selection for balanced sets when you get down into the 50s; making this much lower (like 40) would exacerbate the problem. I'm trying to remember how high we went before the Approved page stops transcluding, and I can't: we could always set a number like 150 or 175, but with the rider that if the page stops transcluding, we automatically go to two a day, since it isn't the number of transcluded nominations, is the amount of text transcluded by these nominations. (Some reviews are short, some are extremely long.) I wouldn't start at 175, though; it seems awfully high. And remember that when the WikiCup starts in January, we're going to go back to even higher levels of nominations, which will keep the two-a-day periods longer. If you look at last year, the first four rounds of WikiCup (through the end of August) kept very long two-a-day periods, with shorter one-a-day ones. (The July GA backlog drive also contributed to our backlog, as we had an significant increase in GA nominations at DYK with the many newly passed.) It was only the final round (September/October) when our two-a-day periods became much shorter. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree the lower trigger should not go below 60 as there isn't enough variety below that. But I disagree on the upper limit. IMO the upper limit should be as high as practicable, because the less frequently we switch the better. It not only saves the fuss of having to make the switch, but also makes the project more predictable for readers.
With regard to the upper limit the software can handle, as I recall it was generally high 200s to low 300s, but I might be wrong about that. Certainly I would have thought the software could handle 175 or 180 fairly comfortably, but we'd find out soon enough if we tried. Gatoclass (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset and Gatoclass: how could it be possible that WP:DYKN is currently transcribing 221 nominations without issue, but WP:DYKNA can't handle 175? Going by Wikipedia:Template limits#Background and considering that the current "post-expand include size" is at roughly 61.5% capacity for 123 hooks, we should comfortably be able to go up to 190, no? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 09:03, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Certainly, that would correspond to my recollection of the number of noms the software can generally handle. Gatoclass (talk) 09:12, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm a little worried that if we go higher right before WikiCup starts, we could end up not being able to keep up once we hit 190. If we're having 20-nom days now, we could easily run into 30-nom days in January. If we hit a transclusion issue during a period like that, we could literally need to go to 3-a-days to dig out. —valereee (talk) 13:19, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Just a random pick at the top of the Approved page: Template:Did you know nominations/Albruna - it was 1,121 bytes when created, and 7,047 bytes when approved. — Maile (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
granted, but even so, 175 shouldn't cause the software to break a sweat. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 18:37, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, what gives you the idea that WP:DYKN has 221 nominations on it? The table's "# of hooks" total is a combination of the DYKN and DYKNA pages; right now, with "# of hooks" at 211 and "# Verified" at 115, that means there should be 96 on the DYKN page and 115 on the DYKNA page (not including any special occasion hooks, which aren't counted by the bot), with a possible variation plus or minus a couple if the DYKN page has any that have just been ticked and/or the DYKNA page has any where the tick has been superseded due to subsequent issues. With the Special Occasions section likely to be moving to the top of the DYKNA page later this month, instead of being the first to fail to transclude, it will be the most recent approvals that do, and while there are only six there now, I'd expect there to be ten or more as the holidays approach. Count me as one who opposes a change to 175 or more. If we must change, then try 150 at most. One of the things that has contributed to the lessening of the number of nominations we can fit before we hit the limit is the increased use of the DYK checklist template, which adds a lot of text to a transcluded nomination, filling up the DYKN and DYKNA pages that much more quickly. (Even if the text doesn't show because it's "hidden", it still counts toward the page size limit.) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
However, there is 40-150 limit is ok, because I don't want the DYKNA page to have so many backlogs. And the switch, we can use a bot to do that, but if there are too many backlogs (175 nominations), we need another queue 8 and prep area 8 to prepare about this. But personally, I don't think we should change for a long time. If it's frequently changed, a bot would do that, but honestly an average of 11-13 hooks approved per day is enough for 1.5 queues (half 1/half 2), but we have to change the time of the hooks. (Personally I think of Prep 8 and Queue 8 because the preps are quickly filled up) Thingofme (talk) 01:15, 7 December 2021 (UTC)
What's a bit hidden in the data is how much we use (or not) the slack in the preps/queues. There could be any number of hooks in there from about 8 to 112. If we drop below 60 with all preps and queues filled, maybe we don't need to go to 1/day immediately. If we go above 120 with only 20 in the preps/queues, perhaps we don't need to go to 2/day right away? —Kusma (talk) 15:16, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
we could achieve that by counting prep/queue hooks as well as approved hooks—it would put less stress on admins, since filling every queue doesn't decrease the count. A steady output of 8 or 16 hooks per day theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 18:23, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Yes, because it's important to stack the prep/queues. We should have the limit 60/150, with the number of hooks in the preps and queues count as approved hooks, they are 164 approved hooks not go to the Main Page. (164 is a bit too high, and only fall to 8 every 12 hours, and at this time it would increase by 5-6 hooks) Thingofme (talk) 03:15, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

DYK update is overdue

@DYK admins: not by much, just six minutes so far, but the update may need to be done manually; keep an eye out, please! Pinging Shubinator as well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:07, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

It looks like it happened?
FWIW, today's DYK seems to be unusually long, which makes the MP unbalanced. It's helpful to balance by length so that a particular set isn't composed of all longer hooks. —valereee (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Still waiting on the update, actually – Queue 3 is the one that needs to be pushed to the Main Page, and the current MP hooks are from the previous set (Q2). DanCherek (talk) 00:32, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Now about 45 minutes late. I'm available for a while to take care of the article talk notices and user credits.  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  00:45, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
{{doing}} — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah looks like I was a few seconds too late, I can get the bot up and running. Shubinator (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Done, DYKUpdateBot is back online :) Shubinator (talk) 01:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done as well. If only I had waited a few more minutes T_T — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, Wugapodes for the update and Shubinator for getting the bot back up. I've completed the article/user credits.  MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM  01:28, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixing the timer

@DYK admins: It looks like the manual fiddling yesterday resulted in the timer at Template:Did you know/Next update/Time being changed and now all the updates listed at Template:Did you know/Queue#Local update times are an hour and sixteen minutes later than usual. Could an admin reset the update times to the usual 0:00 / 12:00 UTC? DanCherek (talk) 12:14, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually, it looks like if we do nothing and wait another hour for the new hooks to be posted, the bot may be able to reset its own timer for the next set. Sorry if this ping was unneeded. DanCherek (talk) 12:21, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
And it's fixed. I'm just glad it's resolved! Canadianerk (talk) 13:31, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I’ve created a new list that includes all 35 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through November 26. We currently have a total of 219 nominations, of which 107 have been approved, a gap of 112, up 24 over the past twelve days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to thank you for bringing these up, this helps a lot! Canadianerk (talk) 18:12, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Prep 1 William Thomas Sugg

Ha ha, well this is sort of vaguely funny I guess, but unfortunately I don't think it washes. According to the dictionary, gaslighting as a single word can only refer to the meaning of "psychological manipulation of a person usually over an extended period of time that causes the victim to question the validity of their own thoughts..." It is not a synonym for the two-word "gas lighting". I'd also have to question whether it's a good idea to label this individual with what is effectively a very negative epithet. He died ages ago so it's not a BLP issue, but still. I wouldn't like to be described as "famous for gaslighting" even 100 years after my death, and even if it's just because I was a gas engineer. We could I suppose split it into two words such that it's accurate, i.e. "William Thomas Sugg is famous for gas lighting" but there's also ALT1 approved which is "that William Thomas Sugg's firm installed the gas lights on Tower Bridge". I'd probably go with the latter myself, perhaps moved to be a picture hook in a different set as it's a really nice image of the bridge, although we'd lose the implied humorous tone. Pinging @Dumelow, Whispyhistory, and Theleekycauldron: as nominator/reviewer/promoter.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:21, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

Excellent idea there, ALT1 as a lead hook.— Maile (talk) 13:27, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
No objections here. I added ALT2 as a bit of an afterthought (I didn't clock the spelling difference between the two uses) - Dumelow (talk) 15:10, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru, Maile66, and Dumelow: Is there any way we can compromise on this one? To be honest, ALT1 is boring as rocks to me and I'm not inclined to use the image—it's a daytime photo, the lamps aren't visible.
If we have to split the word, so be it, but I'd really rather use the pun—there isn't much else that keeps this hook interesting for me. Also, if I were a gas lamp engineer, i would literally never stop making gas light puns—it would be on my tombstone. Probably just me, though. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she?) 18:31, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, since the queue is due to go live at midnight tonight, I've swapped it out into Prep 7. I've gone with the Tower Bridge hook for now, as that seems to be the rough consensus above. I take your point about it being "funny" Leeky, but personally I don't really like the idea of associating the guy with gaslighting at all - if the term were a neutral or silly one then fine, but it appears it's actually rather a nasty term to use about somebody if it's not true. Obviously it's still up for discussion though and I'll happy go with the majority consensus, whatever that is.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:25, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: All right, that gives us more time to discuss. Look, what I'll say is that gaslighting is a super negative term. It's a horrifying thing to have happen to you, and I understand not even wanting to put someone's name within twenty feet of the word. I absolutely get that notion, and I agree with you that running the hook at the top isn't optimal. I think that if we write that someone gas lighted a bridge, though, the general understanding of our readers is not going to be "William Thomas Sugg and his firm brutally, slowly, and inexorably manipulated the Tower Bridge until it was an emotionally traumatized wreck, questioning its own reality after losing all meaningful connections". It's gonna be "Wait, but how do you do that to a bridge? That seems weird..." And then they click through and it's "oh, ha-ha, gas lamps, very funny". I think the upside of the hook I proposed above is that it has the eye-catching grabbiness of the word(s) "gas light", but it also neutralizes it; anyone who comes away with the idea that Sugg was a serial manipulator didn't read half of the words in the hook.
As for running it in the image slot, it really does bother me that we're running an image of the tower bridge in the broadest possible daylight on a hook that addresses the bridge's lighting—I don't want people looking at the image and going "well, where's the gas lamps?" We could use this one, but I'd bet my bottom dollar that those aren't gas lamps, so probably not. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 17:15, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, this isn't a good choice for the image slot. This isn't about the bridge. —valereee (talk) 21:05, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Any other thoughts on the revised hook? Amakuru, Gatoclass, Maile? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:57, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Currently, this hook is in Prep 1, swapped out from Queue 3 two days ago by Amakuru, per the above dialogue. — Maile (talk) 21:27, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
    all right—i'm not going to push this much further, then. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:40, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
    SL93 opted to switch it from being a picture hook to a non-picture hook, although the text is pretty much still the Tower Bridge one. That is still my favoured choice, per my comments above, but as ever I'm happy to be overruled if there's consensus in another direction.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
    I switched it to a non-image hook due to the comments from theleekycauldron and valereee. I agree with them about the image slot. I don't have any opinion on what a good hook would be though. SL93 (talk) 23:16, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Oldest nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list is nine days old and over two-thirds used up, and would normally have been archived by now, so I’ve created a new list that includes 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 3. We currently have a total of 184 nominations, of which 77 have been approved, a gap of 107, down 5 over the past nine days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:03, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Prep 7: Mo Drake

Sorry, I pulled this one from queue 1 just now at the last minute as I spotted an inconsistency between the hook and the article. The article says that the slogan "was used almost continuously by Heinz for 30 years" which doesn't match the hook, which has switched the "almost" to be referring to the 30 years rather than the continuous nature of the advertising. Furthermore, I'm not sure what the 30-year figure is referring to. I can't access the sourced articles, but I've seen others such as [9] which say that the slogan has been in use for more than 50 years now. Either way, we need to make sure the hook matches the article and also matches what the given sourcing says. Pinging @Theleekycauldron, Dumelow, and Whispyhistory: who were the promoter/nom/reviewer.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping Amakuru. I think it is because Heinz have switched between the slogan and something else a few times (eg. the 1993-96 period "Heinz Buildz Britz", mentioned in the article). Would it be better to just say that he "came up with the slogan "Beanz Meanz Heinz" for Heinz Baked Beans (pictured) in 1967"? and avoid any attempt to work out how long its been in use? - Dumelow (talk) 13:24, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Dumelow: I'd be happy with that if you are.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:56, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Yep, fine by me - Dumelow (talk) 13:57, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
OK,  Done.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:19, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Prep 7: Soetardjo Kartohadikusumo

Another one I swapped at the last minute before it went live... again, the hook doesn't quite match the article. Here we say he "faked" his age, which implies some sort of deliberate attempt to deceive people on the part of Kartohadikusumo or his carers. The article, on the other hand, simply says "as the age limit was 6, his registered age had to be adjusted" which doesn't really tell us who it was who did the adjusting here. At first glance I might assume that it was the school which "adjusted" his age rather than Kartohadikusumo himself. I noticed that reviewer @Caribbean H.Q.: did mention this issue at the nomination page, and @Juxlos: who is the nominator responded that there had been "Fraud, in a way, by claiming that he was born in 1892 to the government"; however, that detail does not appear to be in the article, and hence is not verifiable per our usual hook standards. I'd suggest that the article text needs amending, and if there was actually "fraud", to make sure that is fully verified in the cited source. Also courtesy pinging @Theleekycauldron: as the hook promoter. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I will quote directly from the source cited with translation:

Soetardjo pada waktu mau masuk ke ELS umurnya sudah 8 tahun, padahal syaratnya berusia 6 tahun, karena itu umur Soetardjo terpaksa dimudakan 2 tahun.

translated to English:

When Soetardjo wanted to enroll at the ELS, he was 8 years old, but the requirements were that children were 6, henceforth Soetardjo had to be made 2 years younger.

Or maybe it's best to reword the hook? Juxlos (talk) 13:16, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Juxlos: thanks for your reply. So if I understand correctly, we're not actually sure who made the decision to change the age. "had to be made 2 years younger" could mean his parents faked his age, or it could mean that they colluded with the school and everyone involved was in the know about it. Maybe a minor point, but I would like to see the hook wording match the source so if there's no further info on who made the decision, we may need to tweak the hook a little. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: maybe:
nothing like quoting directly. Juxlos (talk) 14:53, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
@Juxlos: that sounds good to me, I've changed that in the hook. I've also taken the liberty of rewording the article slightly so that it's clear where this quote comes from, avoiding an attribution issue. Let me know if there are any issues with this. CHeers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:10, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Managing QPQs

Hello all. This might be a very specific question. So, pardon me if that is the case. How do you all manage QPQs? The QPQ Check tool tells you whether a nominator has less than 5 nominations and hence does not need a QPQ. But, is there another tool that tells you which QPQ has been used against which nomination? Specifically, I want to use this to keep track of my QPQs and the nominations I have used them against so that I do not double count. If there is no tool, I can go to using a simple notepad / text file at my end. But, I was wondering if there was a more elegant way to doing this. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 21:51, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

I just click on What links here if I need to see if I used a review as a QPQ already. SL93 (talk) 21:52, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a cool and neat idea! Let me do that. Ktin (talk) 01:41, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
By the way, Ktin, I also use "what links here" when reviewing QPQ submissions; it's good to check that a qpq hasn't been used twice from the reviewer's standpoint as well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:48, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I keep a list at my own user. For me that's easiest. Also it provides a convenient place for people to come and be impressed by my amazing contributions. —valereee (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
Yup. Seems the right approach. You have a truly impressive list there, btw! Ktin (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Pshaw, I'm still wet behind the ears —valereee (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
the ladder isn't that tall, is it... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:16, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
lol. In DYK terms, yeah. :D There are many many regulars who have a ton more DYKs than I do. I probably only nom 1 in 3 articles that qualify. —valereee (talk) 03:29, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I just do a new QPQ whenever I need one, and don't bother keeping track of extra ones that I never used. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:39, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
JIT inventory management :) Ktin (talk) 01:42, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I use "What links here" in the toolbar when reviewing, and a combination of that and my contribution history for my own nominations. I have considered creating a section on my contributions page. Someone might be able to make a tool that searches for the QPQ line text of all nomination template pages and those pages' creators, but that causes issues with double noms and donating QPQs etc. Kingsif (talk) 00:13, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
That simple tool would be cool wouldn't it? I wish I could write some of these tools. Thanks for sharing. Ktin (talk) 01:43, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm certainly not as prolific of a DYK writer as those above, and typically I've just reviewed immediately after nominating, but I keep a table at User:Eviolite/DYK that uses a template to format each row. eviolite (talk) 00:57, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Yup seems like a local list makes sense. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 01:44, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
You could also try looking through your list of contributions to the template namespace. For me, at least, most of these are from DYK nominations and reviews. —David Eppstein (talk) 08:52, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I do the same as Eppstein, although the what-links-here and templatespace search tipoffs led me to two reviews I don't seem to have used anywhere, which is nice to know and potentially useful. Vaticidalprophet 09:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
Most of the time when I review nominations I use "reviewing" as my edit summary, then if I need to find a review I just search all my edits that have "review" in the edit summary using that edit summary searching tool. I then use Special:Whatlinkshere to see if I've already used it or not, but since I have far more reviews than nominations I have such a backlog that finding a review to be used for QPQ purposes is not difficult. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:31, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Per David Eppstein, I just do a new review for all my nominations, that way the reviewer can see that it's a fresh review. I also see it as a service to the project to do a new review rather than relying on old ones. Gatoclass (talk) 06:44, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

The first thing I do before nominating an article is do a review, as per Gatoclass. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:48, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Another systemic failure on hook interestingness

A hook currently on the Main Page (in the lead slot, no less) is this:

Mary Earle
Mary Earle
  • ... that Mary Earle (pictured) was born near Ben Nevis, and although she became a professor of food technology in New Zealand, she never forgot her Scottish roots?

This boils down to "person was born in X, moved to Y, but kept ties to X", something that could be said of nearly any emigrant. Bluntly, it's an utterly boring hook. I'm not seeking to call out any particular editors involved here—when hooks like this reach the Main Page, the failure is not individual but systemic. Nominators either lack the experience to write an interesting hook or wish to nominate an article for which no interesting hooks are available, reviewers just doing their QPQ don't want to rankle feathers by rejecting a nomination on interestingness grounds, and promoters don't see it as their role to evaluate interestingness. Something in our process needs to fundamentally change to push us toward interesting hooks—this is not serving readers.

As background reading, see this VPI discussion from June on the same topic. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 21:51, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

I've discussed the issue of hook interestingness with you before -- and I think our conversations on it spell out the problem, which is that though rough consensus exists many hooks do not fulfil the "interesting to a broad audience" criterion, no one agrees on what is interesting to a broad audience. I still have prominent memories of the "no more 'first to do X' hooks" fiasco, and while the hook you're calling out here isn't my favourite of the ones I've seen lately, it's also not one I'd be inclined to call out as "particularly bad". Tracking DYK stats, I've similarly observed difficulty predicting what the broad audience actually wants (every genetic disorder hook I ever wrote made it to DYKSTATS, which was...not intuitively expected).
In prep-building, I've considered evaluating interest an important part of the role. This received substantial pushback, which turned me off from prep-building for a while (I got better). Similarly, I've had my hooks criticised prior to promotion without improving the hooks but leaving them sitting at the top of DYKN for two months while people argued. The tricky thing here is that while hook interestingness is a problem and there's enough agreement about that to say it, no one has figured out a solution better than the problem. Hooks written by committee often end up worse than the original proposals (which is an unsolvable problem -- it's fundamental to everything that's written-by-committtee versus written-by-auteurs), and individual ideas of what hooks are particularly bad and need fixing vary, and it leaves everything stuck at baseline simply because the alternatives are just as unpalatable. I believe this is a solvable problem and we can get to a point where hook interestingness is a valued consideration, but I also think you tend to see it a lot simpler than it is in ways that backfire. Vaticidalprophet 22:10, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with most of what you've said, and particularly the distinction you've made between the subjectivity of hook interestingness on an individual level vs. the established consensus that overall hook interestingness is a problem on a collective level.
Regarding solutions, there are clear ones that have been proposed by EEng and others, but editors don't seem willing to touch them. Listing them out:
  • Remove the newness requirement, opening up a vast number of more interesting, less niche articles to DYK.
  • Incentivize (through QPQ) editors to nominate others' work rather than their own.
  • Sharply reduce the frequency of DYK rotation, so that hooks have to compete for slots and only the interesting ones get through.
All of those would have a major impact, but we seem too stuck in our ways to give them the serious consideration we need to if we want to unbreak DYK. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:27, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I've seen the EEng Option (I don't recall if I participated in the June VPI discussion, but I lurked it at least, and participated in many of its adjacents). I don't think #1 is a good idea because, fundamentally, DYK isn't a newness requirement anymore -- most articles are, uh, bad, and people can and do rack up DYKs by improving those articles. (About a sixth of my credits are expansions/GA.) One thing I de facto do while prep building is institute a preference for GAs to run in the juicy spots in particular (lead and quirky), and more broadly for them to run at all, but I don't think enshrining this would be a good idea as long as "pedantic conformity to many and often opposing !rules" is a problem DYK is dogged by. (To a substantial degree, I think hook-interestingness would be partially solved by turning a blind eye to things like "oh no, those two US hooks might be placed too close in the set" more often -- prep building requires nontrivial cognitive overhead invested simply in recalling ten billion moving parts, and many of those moving parts are only tangentially related to the fundamental goal of building diverse, complex, interesting, and harmonious sets.)
Fundamentally, our disagreement is that you think DYK is broken and I think it's more...faulty. I don't think DYK has to be 'torn apart and rebuilt', I think it just has to clear out a bunch of the crud it's accreted. If anything, DYK is less dysfunctional than it used to be (fewer copyvios on the main page these days) and has been steadily progressing in quality and workmanship. It needs reform, but not revolution, and it's been sucessfully reformed enough that more can be done. Vaticidalprophet 22:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Addendum: One area where we do strongly agree is about rerunning, broadly construed. I would enthusiastically propose or !vote in favour of a proposal for removing the "no ITN/OTD" clause, and also support letting GAs run DYK if they ran as non-GAs sufficiently long ago. This is one of our low-hanging fruit re. interestingness. (Although I'm also unconvinced ITN is a net positive.) Vaticidalprophet 22:46, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I've been bumping up against this a lot as well, as a promoter (and I do see it as my role to evaluate interestingness as a participant in the process, by the way). My default is to suggest a better hook, and if I absolutely can't do that, I'll turn back about half the nominations i find boring, but there's just too many—you don't make any friends telling people that their work is boring, and people don't like working with you if they find you arbitrarily strict. I don't see a solution beyond asking reviewers, promoters, and possibly admins to gum up our spines.
Or, possibly, we could penalize particularly boring hooks—if a hook doesn't crack, say, a combined 80 pageviews an hour (e.g. only the most uniquely boring hooks), we could revoke the DYK credit for the articles in the hook. I see problems with this, but I'm going to throw it out there anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:13, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
My inclination is that we need to start saying either "try again" or "DYK is not great for all subjects" more often. I intentionally don't take a fair few of my new creations to DYK for that reason - if you can come up with an interesting thing to say about something like The Last Hurrah: Sterling Price's Missouri Expedition of 1864 or CSS Tuscarora, you're doing better than me. Some things you just can't make a good DYK hook out of, and that probably needs stressed somewhere in the instructions. Hog Farm Talk 22:19, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
a hook like "... that no one knows how the fire that destroyed the CSS Tuscarora started?" is better than quite a few hooks we run, but I'm glad you set higher standards for your own hooks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:24, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Both those articles are outside my zone enough I'm not certain, but the latter was accidentally set on fire and left a shipwreck visible from low tide twenty years later -- that sounds like a hook. The former is trickier, but "about an understudied/underrecognized campaign" is close enough to plenty of hooks I haven't had qualms with. Broadly, as I alluded to with the "how are the genetic disorder articles so popular?" note, I worry a "DYK isn't appropriate for all subjects" blanket response to trying to improve hook interestingness is throwing the baby out with the bathwater; often readers seem to like hooks that we assume are too obscure or dry. The tricky thing is distinguishing what we worry will be obscure or dry from what actually is obscure or dry. There are enough DYKSTATS nowadays that true data analysis might be possible, but it won't be trivial and I've been shocked by outliers in both directions often enough to wonder how useful it'll be in the end. Vaticidalprophet 22:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
One distinction to make is between niche articles and niche hooks. Right now, DYK prioritizes niche articles, since most non-niche articles have already been written. That means there's a lot of topics that are just barely notable and don't have a lot of content to mine for interesting facts. By contrast, it's possible to find plenty of niche hooks in less-niche articles. For instance, I was looking at Alfred Nobel the other day and wishing that we allowed ourselves to run ... that Alfred Nobel created the Nobel Prize after reading an erroneous obituary condemning him as a war profiteer? Those sort of hooks that combine a topic about which readers already know (that gives them a reason to care) with a niche fact that they probably don't could do really well. But so long as we limit ourselves to mostly new articles, we can't run a page like Alfred Nobel, despite it having way more potential than most of what we do run. (And yes, we could run it if someone put in the massive amount of effort it'd take to get it to GA—requiring massive effort isn't the way to encourage behavior we want.) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
My motto as DYK's all-time champion most promiscuous hooker is: "There are no boring articles -- just boring hooks". There have been just a very few times I've been unable to find a good hook in an article, once I set my mind to it. See User:EEng#dyk. EEng 00:29, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
And yes, we could run it if someone put in the massive amount of effort it'd take to get it to GA—requiring massive effort isn't the way to encourage behavior we want. Going to call that bluff here, as The Guy Who Got Prehistoric religion To GA. Alfred Nobel is a C-class choked with cleanup tags and questionable sources. The Core Contest is running again soon -- anyone want a suggestion for what to work on? It's absolutely viable for that article, or for pretty much any other low-quality interesting article, to run DYK. I would heavily encourage it. Vaticidalprophet 22:42, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Looking again, it's actually not viable even if it got to GA because it's already appeared on OTD. Has there been a referendum on the no-rerunning if OTD/ITN clause recently? If not, I fully agree with what you said above, and I'd love to see a formal proposal to eliminate it. (Another hook we could run if we did that: ...that in 1870, The New York Times declined a five million dollar bribe (equivalent to 108 million dollars today) from William Tweed to not publish an exposé about him?) {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:54, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
No OTD/ITN focus lately I'm aware of, but there was a fair bit of discussion (not formalized) on "could we rerun DYKs that ran a long time ago?" that had a reasonable amount of support. I suspect a T:CENT referendum on OTD/ITN reruns would have a real shot. Vaticidalprophet 22:58, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
And I'll note, that while I believe that pageviews is a pretty accurate measure of how hooky a hook is, hookiness is not the be all end all of hook quality. That being said, it's a little one-sided—it's easy to say that hooks that get the most clicks aren't necessarily good hooks (e.g. Belle Delphine), but it's harder to argue that hooks that can't even crack 1,000 pageviews in 12 hours are valuable (although some definitely are). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:22, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
Feels an odd image to get through as well, given image slots actually have competition in that not every image gets through. Sometimes an image might save the hookiness of a hook, but I don't think that happened in this case. CMD (talk) 22:34, 15 December 2021 (UTC)
I think one thing we have to note is that, while hook interestingness is a subjective thing, there are often cases where a hook proposal is obviously a bad idea to begin with, but reviewers are reluctant to reject it out of courtesy. I agree with one of the sentiments raised above in that we do need to push the "not every article is meant for DYK" message more: some editors (myself included in the past, I'll admit) have sometimes proposed hooks that were clearly stretches in terms of hook interestingness and were only proposed because there were no other possible options but the editors really wanted that article to be on DYK. I understand the feeling of not wanting to hurt feelings, but it's not uncommon for bad hooks to push through simply because no one wanted to step up and say "this isn't a good idea, surely there's a better option right?" and so my suggestion would simply be, if it's a non-hooky hook, be frank if necessary and say that it's non-hooky. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:26, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Prep 4

The image for Bridle Trails State Park in prep 4 seems a bit blurry to me at its small size. Pinging nominator Mccunicano and promoter Kavyansh.Singh. I may be wrong, just looking for opinions. SL93 (talk) 01:43, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

How about this cropped image? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:17, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
(watching:) we have too many attractive images which we can't use, - why this one? It looks like a normal sign (letters too small even in the cropped version, at least for my eyes, and text just the article title anyway) in a normal forest. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:07, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree. How does this image help the reader better understand the hook or the article subject? It's much easier to get certain images than others -- anything outdoors in an easily-accessible area is easy to get a photo of. That means those hooks tend to be almost invariably accompanied by images. That doesn't mean we should disproportionately favor exterior images. We should choose images because they're in some way useful to understanding something about the hook or article subject. —valereee (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I removed the hook from prep 4 and placed it in prep 7 without the image. SL93 (talk) 23:37, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for that! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 07:12, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Chninkel

  • ... that Chninkel, a Franco-Belgian comic mixing Tolkien-like fantasy with Biblical themes, has been translated to several languages but not English?

No source explicitly states that no english translation exists—this hook rests on the fact that no sources state it does, either, with the exception of the unreliable tvtropes. So, i'm going to bring this to larger discussion—i don't really have a problem with it, it looks like primary sources supplement the same, but I think the wider community ought to have notice on this one. Pinging @Piotrus and Gerda Arendt as nom and reviewer. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I am pretty confident in my google fu, and I couldn't find any indication that an official translation exists or was announced. Can we say so in the text? There's WP:OR, yes, but there's also WP:CAPTAINOBVIOUS and like. Granted, this is not common knowledge, but it is something readers can be assumed to want to know, and we also know it is true - plus it's not controversial, etc. Best practices? Ask at WP:ORN, perhaps? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm only the reviewer, and - read the nom - saw this coming. I think we could leave the "but" phrase without much change to attractiveness. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:53, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. In any case, it doesn't seem remarkable that such a bande dessinée has just been translated into local languages as only the most famous comics like Asterix will get such attention (and I preferred reading Asterix in the original French as the jokes about cervoise tiede seemed funnier). Anyway, the editor you really need for this topic is Fram. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Queue 2

there seems to be a stray bracket, if an admin would like to fix that theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

there are three }'s on the dykbotdo template theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:07, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
Removed it - Dumelow (talk) 08:24, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Queue 3

@Juxlos: I'm not happy with this hook. The article just states that "During this period, Surachman would often personally hold onto the government funds - storing the cash in suitcases inside of his home." which is not the same think at all. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:26, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

@Cwmhiraeth: How would you word it? Maybe something like:
Juxlos (talk) 15:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I think ALT1 is fine. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 16:36, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
Just noting that the set has been updated to use ALT1. Schwede66 22:19, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

basically out of non-U.S. non-bio hooks

Out of our current 68 approved hooks, only eight are both non-U.S. and non-biographical. Of these, I am unable to promote any:

  1. Broken toe: I ticked it, outstanding WP:SANDWICH issue
  2. Hungry Ghosts: Mao's Secret Famine": hook not in article
  3. Chronicle of the 20th Century: approved hook is slight variation on my own
  4. Canal (garden history): saved for image slot
  5. Chninkel: outstanding WP:OR issue under discussion
  6. Woody plant encroachment: new ALTs of my own proposing under discussion
  7. Third circle of hell: saved for image slot
  8. Drinka pinta milka day: saved for image slot

Combined with the fact that we don't have enough U.S. hooks to up back to four (although we could maybe go to three?), I'm faced with an issue. I'm going to start swapping hooks out of other prep sets to deal with this for now, but y'all should know that we're running a shortage at this point. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:06, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

And there are just 66 hooks approved, which may soon fall below 60 (and that may cause issues due to large number of special occasion reserved hooks) – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:11, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
well, all the prep sets are now topped and locked ... or stock— ... top— ... they're full of people. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 11:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Yo! Prep builders and Queue promoters!

Because of the recent pull, I have added the below Commons links at Wikipedia:Did you know/Admin instructions and Wikipedia:Did you know#Images:

Good to keep handy. Commons has done a fairly good job of amassing the information in a way the average person can access and understand. — Maile (talk) 00:11, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

copy that! thanks so much :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:34, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
But honestly, did five people (nom/review/prep/queue/promotion) really think an entire brand design was going to be free to use like that? Maybe refresher lessons for all, or a reminder in reviewing instructions that just because an image is on commons, doesn't always mean it should be. Kingsif (talk) 02:10, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
well, four; queue and promotion are the same. But, yeah—I asked Dumelow about it, because I wasn't sure how an image like that could be owned by the photographer. Looking back, I don't think I properly processed the argument in my head that the image 1. wasn't original enough to be property of Heinz but 2. original enough to be the property of the photographer. so, trouts for the four of us. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
No trouts. There's a lot to know on the MP. It's always worth asking if you aren't sure. I've moved preps-to-queue where I ended up with 4 queries at talk for that prep. —valereee (talk) 03:01, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Indeed. Don't beat yourself up over these things. There is way too much to know for anyone individual and licensing is a total minefield. If something goes wrong, it gets pointed out at Errors and we deal with it. Problem solved. As volunteers, we certainly shouldn't worry about making mistakes. Schwede66 07:54, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
i appreciate the words :) i have a motto, "make every mistake once and you'll know everything"—it's a learning experience, and life goes on! that's all I really meant, i'm not trying to put myself or anyone else down. also, i always pronounced heinz "high-nz"—so is "beanz meanz heinz" just frustratingly close to rhyming or am I pronouncing something wrong? only time will tell... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the info. We did have a discussion on this at Template:Did you know nominations/Mo Drake where I stated I was no expert (at that point I should have asked for input from someone who was) but could someone please clarify Commons:Copyright_rules_by_subject_matter#Product_packaging for me? My understanding is that text and simple geometric shapes are not copyrightable, does this image fall foul of copyright only because of the picture of the beans on the front of the can? I did suggest an alternative photo of two cans which were only text and shapes (would these have been OK?) and a plate of beans which would have definitely been OK - Dumelow (talk) 06:12, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
That link broke for me
Basically, product packaging that could be in copyright because of date is always best avoided, as there's almost no modern product packaging that qualifies for free use. The beans can actually has a lot going on -- the shape of the label itself is unusual, the '1 of your 5 a day' is in the same shape, the words Heinz and beans are on a curve, beans is spelled beanz, the '57' is in the familiar script Heinz has used for decades. In my understanding, which is limited, any one of those things would make this image not free-use, and we don't use fair-use images on the Main Page. —valereee (talk) 11:58, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the clarification Valereee, much appreciated. I think I must reset my threshold of originality much lower! But that's good to know for the future - Dumelow (talk) 12:24, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Personally I find the general approach to "originality" to be very lax on Commons, but I've come to accept that it's the way it is. Images like File:Microsoft Office Outlook (2018–present).svg, File:Pizza Hut 1967-1999 logo.svg, look like a clear case of geometric elements and letters arranged in a specific way to produce a unique logo, which I'd think would be protected, but Commons policy deems otherwise. And US law has tended to concur, although as I understand it there has ben some disagreement on this issue in the past, perhaps between the courts and those who register copyrights. Can't remember the detail. But really, through my nonexpert lens I'd have thought the photograph of beans on the front of the can is the only aspect of this which would fall foul of our usual interpretation of "simple geometric shapes or text". Perhaps if you take the layout of the can in its entirety, that adds an extra layer of originality on top? But either way this is certainly a grey area.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:32, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
My understanding is that Commons has many product packaging images which are fine for fair use but not free use and shouldn't be on Commons. —valereee (talk) 14:02, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Clause 2 of the list in c:COM:PACKAGING of items which are OK says "Packaging which carries only a printed design which is so simple as to be ineligible for copyright protection." As far as I can tell the beans can meets that requirement with the exception of the beans image, which is complex. The rest is just geometric shapes and text. The style and placement of such items has historically not been considered original on Commons, as per the examples above. As such, I would imagine that the suggested alternative of File:Heinz 2.jpg shouldn't be a problem. I really dislike the copyright area though, because so much of it is interpretation and opinion!  — Amakuru (talk) 14:30, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I'll cede to anyone who is an expert. I'm totally not. :D —valereee (talk) 18:49, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I asked at [10]https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Village_pump/Copyright. —valereee (talk) 19:14, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, they can't decide there, either. :D —valereee (talk) 18:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
As I have read at commons discussions, a simple geometric logo is fine. A product that is not complex in itself (so, a tin can) carrying only that logo is also fine. But a combination of design elements, whether they are all simple or not, can be copyrighted - i.e. the color of the label, the simple logo, the placement of the image of beans in relation to the logo, in this specific combination, is a complex image. Glad it has been asked again, though, because some things that are images of brands (and which should be used with caution because of the branding)/trademarked are still too simple for copyright. Kingsif (talk) 22:23, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm glad to see this good healthy discussion happening here. Back in the day when I submitted to FAC, the one thing that kept coming up was image licensing. No matter the subject, defining what is usable in articles - and what is not - is still sometimes confusing to me personally, even with the Commons links above. — Maile (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Note that Main Page images need not necessarily comply with Commons policy. For example, we accept photos of buildings from around the entire world, relying on {{FoP-USonly}} if the country the building is located in does not have FoP. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 18:00, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Zdzisław Najmrodzki - Prep 2

This thing seriously needs a copyedit. Example: In 1980, after he got arrested, his criminal co-workers had hire a lawyer, that had caused, that Najmrodzki got imprisoned in the arrest in Gliwice. When dealing with him, the militia officers had taken precautionary measures. While being transported, the vehicle had parked in front of the building's doors, faces with its back doors towards it, with militiaman, pushing Najmrodzki inside the building. While in arrest, he managed to smuggle a letter with the blueprints of the building and the room, in which convicts were awaiting trial. His co-workers had partially saw off the bars of the windows, which, on 23 July 1980, allowed Najmrodzki to break them, and slide down the line outside the building and get to the awaiting him coworker, with a motorcycle.[4]

Pinging Piotrus as he approved it and may be able to copyedit it appropriately as he knows Polish. If it can't be copyedited in time it will have to be pulled. Gatoclass (talk) 17:58, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gatoclass – I read the article and tried to copy-edit (my edits) it. Still, more is required, as I could not understand quite a few sentences. I am even unable to assess the notability and reliability of the sources (also, the title needs English translation). Is the article improved? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:12, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Hmmm, I guess I am a tad too lenient when it comes to prose. Ping User:Nihil novi? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 20:23, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
I've moved the hook to Prep 7 as a stop-gap, since Prep 2 might be promoted to queue at any time; if there are still issues in another day or so, it might be best to pull it from prep entirely until things are fully settled. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:21, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I've edited the "Zdzisław Najmrodzki" lead and "Early life and education" section. In the process, I had to consult the Polish-Wikipedia article and, on that basis, correct the English version.
I suspect that the whole article may need retranslation from the Polish.
Nihil novi (talk) 05:18, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I and several others have now given the article an extensive copyedit. All that remains is for two [clarification needed] tags to be resolved, and for the paragraph above to be rewritten according to the sources; I can't do it because it is too confusing to be able to figure out what the author was trying to say exactly. Piotrus, is there any chance you could take a look at the original sources and make the appropriate corrections to said paragraph? Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Gatoclass, I fixed a few items. I will see if I can fix more when time & will permits. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 13:22, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Oh, there are also a couple of unsourced sentences: Najmrodzki subsequently promised to focus on business or farming instead of crime. He later changed his surname to his mother's maiden name in the "Later life" section that need to be sourced. Gatoclass (talk) 13:05, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

I wonder, how notable really are Zdzisław Najmrodzki's life and career? His apparently most notable exploits – escaping from careless, drunken policemen, and escaping through a window whose bars had been sawed out by other prisoners – were due to the negligence or efforts of others, not to his own ingenuity or intrepidity. Nihil novi (talk) 19:39, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, it is very misleading to render the Polish People's Republic term for "police", "Milicja Obywatelska" as "militia". "Militia" means something entirely different in English. Please, the word to use in this article is "police". Nihil novi (talk) 19:46, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
The article on the topic explains where the term "militia" came from, which sounds legitimate to me. Gatoclass (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
There remain issues with the article, including the fourth paragraph under Career, which remains tagged as "needs copyedit", so I have pulled it from Prep 7 rather than move it to yet another distant prep. Further discussion should take place at Template:Did you know nominations/Zdzisław Najmrodzki. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:12, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Was this expanded 5x?

I'm curious on if Template:Did you know nominations/Dharwar Craton can be considered as being expanded 5x. It may be a stretch to say that when the initial 5x expansion was moved from a sandbox to article space back to a sandbox and then finally to article space again. The character count and dates changed with each move. Pinging nominator Graeme Bartlett. SL93 (talk) 01:07, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

@SL93: The previous pre-expansion version was this on 5 July 2021: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dharwar_Craton&oldid=1032165651 1707 characters. I moved the sandbox finally on 08:48, 29 November 2021‎ and restored the history. But 08:48, 29 November 2021‎ was when the size suddenly jumped. Now the size is 11333 characters. You may be confused by the history, which includes the history of the sandbox, as well as the earlier history of the article. sandbox was created on 16:25, 24 September 2021‎, so earlier history is from the article. I would count the 5x expansion according to what happens in article space, rather than the gradual growth in a sandbox. But I did move the sandbox to article on 12 November 2021‎ and then back to sandbox on 16 November 2021‎ on writers request for more cleanup in sandbox. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Graeme Bartlett It's the last part which I think may be an issue. SL93 (talk) 13:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
This is an odd situation, SL93. The article expansion was in mainspace for four days before being withdrawn, and it was 5x during that first mainspace period. Interestingly, the nomination page was created on November 16, the day that the article was (temporarily) withdrawn. Although Graeme Bartlett could have left the expanded article in mainspace, in which case its eligibility for DYK would be unquestioned even if the nomination itself hadn't been transcluded, the proper thing to do was to withdraw it in all its imperfections until it was in better shape and then move it back, which happened on November 29 (at which point the DYK nomination page was updated from November 16 to November 29 to reflect the expansion's return to mainspace). My inclination would be to allow it to proceed given the good faith exhibited in the withdrawal, the clear fivefold expansion, and an application of IAR for this particular circumstance. As reviewer, though, it's up to you. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:03, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I created DYK nominations early on, but did not transclude them till I had some sort of hook to go in and done a QPQ. Last year I was very slow with the nominations, so this year I tried to be fast. I asked the students who wrote the pages for their most exciting thing to say on the topic. I am happy with whatever way the nomination goes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 20:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

Is this QPQ valid?

I was trawling over some recent entries and came across Template:Did you know nominations/Marie Herndl; the nominator uses Template:Did you know nominations/Yasmin Miller as QPQ, which is an article I reviewed. The nominator did verify an ALT. Anytime I verify ALTs or quick fail nominations, I do not use them for QPQ, so I was curious about what constitutes a completed QPQ. WP:DYKCRIT states "qualifying QPQs need to be full reviews", and Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines doesn't mention it. Mindmatrix 15:00, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Mindmatrix, what constitutes a completely QPQ is a question that isn't really settled; for example, if a passed nomination is sent back for more work and a new reviewer takes over, generally there's enough review work needed to qualify for QPQ credit. In this case, it's clear that your review encompassed the ALT, so Bruxton's review was duplicating what you had already done. However, as this appears to be one of the five nominations Bruxton has made so far, a QPQ is not required for it. In future, though, their QPQs should generally be full reviews of nominations where a review is not already in progress. (Their review at Template:Did you know nominations/Francis Bacon (American football) appears to be a full review; I'll be leaving a comment there since it's not quite done.) BlueMoonset (talk) 15:38, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
The bar I use is that if a review gives a complete assessment of where a nomination stands with respect to the DYK criteria at any point in time, without relying on the judgement of previous reviews, then it counts as the QPQ. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:08, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Christmas set

We could still use another Christmas-related hook or two for the Christmas set as we currently still only have five hooks for that set (six or seven if you count the two either-Christmas-or Boxing-Day hooks). So if anybody has any ideas for some more Christmas-related articles, please get started on them now, or if you don't have time, make your suggestion here as somebody else might want to pick it up. Thanks all, Gatoclass (talk) 13:17, 16 December 2021 (UTC)

After a bit of Googling I found that there is a decent amount of coverage on the idea of ghost stories near Christmastime, such as [11][12][13][14][15][16]. I'm currently in school so won't be able to start writing for a few hours, so I'm posting it here in case anyone else would like to. eviolite (talk) 16:40, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I wouldn't accept any of those as reliable on cultural history like that. This is exactly the kind of subject people think they can just write random junk about. EEng 17:02, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
That's a fair point. There are some scholarly articles on Christmas fiction/literature more generally but that might be too broad to quickly cook up an article on. eviolite (talk) 18:21, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
How about Template:Did you know nominations/Honda Z50RD, aka the "Christmas Special Honda" - Dumelow (talk) 17:18, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
If the hook has "Christmas" in it, it's in :) Gatoclass (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I have an approved hook at Template:Did you know nominations/It's Christmas, Eve that needs to be moved to Christmas Eve. SL93 (talk) 20:11, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
@DYK admins: If we only have the hooks for one Christmas set, we should consider only running that one set on Christmas day, instead of having a twelve-hour christmas set and a twelve-hour banal set. Come to think of it, that's what we should've done for halloween... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:14, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I see two good image hooks, and it would be sad to sacrifice one to the "one-set" idea. I'd split the hooks as evenly as possible among two sets. Quite generally: I suggest to run European hooks in the second set, because Europe mostly sleeps during the first. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:37, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
They're both good, but I much prefer Bernard Walter Evans's image to Adoration of the Kings', and i'm not sure I'd run the latter under normal circumstances anyway. In any case, I'd much rather pick the narrow better of two images than make two mediocre, halfsies christmas sets. If we have a theme, we should stick to it. If we do end up running two, i agree that we should run some euro hooks in the second set. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:48, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
What is Christmas on DYK without Johnbod's greeting card? I don't remember any. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:57, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
If there isn't enough content for two proper sets but two good lead hooks, we could IAR and run some of the hooks across two sets (i.e. some hooks get 24 hour exposure). That'll service Europe better than just running one set during American times. Schwede66 22:27, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I like the Evans image too, but it can be run on Boxing Day whereas the nativity scene is really only suitable for Christmas Day. Other than that, it looks like we will only have enough hooks for one Christmas Day set, unless we get a radical number of new submissions in the next week, so we will probably end up running the one set for the day and any extras can be run either on Christmas Eve or Boxing Day, with the Evans hook featuring as the lead on the latter if possible. Gatoclass (talk) 05:26, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm working on a Christmas-related food article right now: see User:Mindmatrix/Skunkworks/Bisciola. If somebody's willing to fast-track it through DYK, I can have it ready by late Friday (EST) or thereabouts, but it's certainly not ready in its current state. I'll also have to find something hook-worthy to include in the article. Mindmatrix 23:00, 16 December 2021 (UTC)
I've now published the article at bisciola, and nominated it for DYK at Template:Did you know nominations/Bisciola. Mindmatrix 20:27, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
reviewed --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:59, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I've just created Template:Did you know nominations/The Jew's Christmas, which could definitely run on or around Christmas. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 05:15, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
If more hooks are desired, Merry Crisis is ripe for expansion, since the article is just 1200 bytes. The slogan was used in recent protests in India and several other contexts since the article was last updated. I don't have the time to do it at the moment, but someone could. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 06:00, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm actually working on Bartlet for America, a West Wing christmas episode—i could definitely get a christmas hook out of it!! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:09, 17 December 2021 (UTC)
Done! Template:Did you know nominations/Bartlet for America theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 05:41, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm working on Stefan Keil, which if long enough might be good for a Christmas hook, although he just died, - or is that not a good idea? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
done: Template:Did you know nominations/Stefan Keil --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:33, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
Just reviewed and approved this one - Dumelow (talk) 08:23, 19 December 2021 (UTC)
I'll also see what I can do as far as Christmas hooks go. I remember 'stealing' refs from a Glee Christmas album, I might see if that article could be expanded. Kingsif (talk) 22:06, 18 December 2021 (UTC)
If any more hooks are needed, I just set up the nom for Template:Did you know nominations/Glee: The Music, The Christmas Album. Kingsif (talk) 06:08, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

I started work on Merry Crisis, but hit a roadblock in my desire to find sources. If others are willing to help, I'll join a collaborative effort. Z1720 (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

I might be interesting in pitching in... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 03:14, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Z1720, sorry for being the grinch but I’ve put a photo used up for deletion. Schwede66 08:17, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Christmas hook timing

Okay, we should probably decide how we want to deal with the christmas set timing this year before we start filling prep sets. Right now, I think we have ten christmas hooks, two of which are imaged, with another hook pending. Do we want to run one full set and one partial set, snub three hooks, or run one set the whole day and switch out a couple of hooks halfway, IAR? open to hearing suggestions and thoughts. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:32, 19 December 2021 (UTC)

Another option is two sets with an even balance of 5-6 Christmas hooks and 2-3 non-Christmas hooks. Mindmatrix 00:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Trying to get Francis Pharcellus Church to 5x expansion by tomorrow, which might be good for a hook relating to "Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus"? Eddie891 Talk Work 01:42, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Meh. I think it may fall about 1000 b short of 5x-- I'm not finding terribly much more Eddie891 Talk Work 02:36, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Looks like it may reach it, after all. Just about 100 B short now, by my count! Tks also to PRRfan and Z1720 Eddie891 Talk Work 17:15, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm happy to help, but what do "5x expansion" and "100 B" mean? PRRfan (talk) 17:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@PRRfan: "5x expansion" means the article has gotten 5 times bigger. An article can be nominated at DYK if it is a new article, has gotten 5x bigger, or is a WP:GA. Since the Francis Pharcellus Church was created in 2002, and because it is not of high-enough quality to be a GA yet, it will need to become 5 times bigger in the span of a week. I think 100 B means 100 bytes, because the article is 100 bytes short of becoming 5 times larger from Eddie's first edit earlier today. Z1720 (talk) 17:25, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Nominated at Template:Did you know nominations/Francis Pharcellus Church. Better hooks welcomed. Eddie891 Talk Work 17:54, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
... and approved. Can this be slotted in? Eddie891 Talk Work 19:37, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
done-dunino! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 22:21, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Personally, I would like to see two full sets (ideally, also a Boxing Day set, etc...) - I'd be happy to work on articles to help get it there. Kingsif (talk) 06:18, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: we're at pretty much twelve articles, so if you've got four more in your back pocket, that'd be appreciated... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:26, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: I have the nom open for Template:Did you know nominations/Glee: The Music, The Christmas Album, I'm sure I could drum up a few others. Some of those songs don't have articles, so... Kingsif (talk) 00:00, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Oh, I was really joking more than anything, but I really appreciate that! Although, I'd caution you against making too many glee articles, there's only so many (one) we can put in a set... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:04, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
Haha, they only did covers, so it's other people's songs. Despite prompting and tangential interests, I am not up on Glee, otherwise I would have cleaned up all that taskforce's articles long ago. Kingsif (talk) 01:41, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
for now, I'm going to promote all the hooks in the area, and leave the rest unfilled—we'll figure out what to do after that theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I've promoted the seven I can touch. Someone else will need to take care of the two (and soon three or four) that I can't promote, and I have an outstanding WP:OR issue with one. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:59, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I see the image slot for the first set is Adoration of the Kings (Bramantino), depicting the visit of the Magi. Wouldn't this be more appropriate for Epiphany (6 Janaury)? - Dumelow (talk) 08:13, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Agreed. The Magi should be for Epiphany. That's what I always did whenever I had a hook ready about them. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 09:31, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
If we do move it to Jan. 6 (and I'll ping Johnbod and Gerda Arendt—something about a christmas card), that actually makes assembling the sets a hell of a lot easier—we could put pretty much everything into one set, running it the full 24 hours. maybe a handoff in the image slot, but probably not. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 10:17, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
I have already one about the Magi approved for 6 Jan, - do we want two or more then? - I'd also go for two sets, evenly filled with Christmassy hooks, and the others better something nice, something that could be a present. I have one open about books, for example. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:22, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
We've had Magi on the 25th several times before, and is there an Xmas pic alternative? I think the strict church calendar escapes most people. If you mean the one about the "film described it in 2019 as "wrapped up in the anti-Semitism of the time"" - that doesn't strike the right note, imo. Otherwise I just saw a vaguely wintery landscape. We've often spread the seasonal hooks over 2-3 days before, so per Gerda. I might add I was asked if I was doing one by Gatoclass, and so did. Johnbod (talk) 11:33, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
could someone tick the ALT1 I've proposed at Meri Kuri? (i just learned of the template dykn, this is fantastic) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:09, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Nativity scenes are traditionally associated with Christmas for the wider public, only the well informed IMO would associate such a scene with the Epiphany. Having said that, it has occurred to me that we could switch the nativity scene to Christmas Eve, where it would look just as appropriate, and run the Honda image as the Christmas Day lead for a change. Other than that, I think that I personally would prefer to see a full set of eight Christmas hooks run for 24 hours on Christmas Day UTC, with any remaining hooks run on Christmas Eve or Boxing Day. Not terribly keen on the notion of running two partially Christmas Day-related sets on the day in question. Gatoclass (talk) 13:23, 20 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Doesn't this also depend on whether we're at 1 or 2 sets per day? We're close to the threshold (60) for reverting back to 1 per day- I believe we're at around 70 excluding date requests (which I'm not sure if we count towards the 60/120 threshold?) Joseph2302 (talk) 17:20, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
No it doesn't depend on the cycle, we have changed the cycle for a short time quite frequently when running special occasion sets in the past, it all basically depends upon how many hooks we get for a particular special occasion day. Gatoclass (talk) 18:53, 20 December 2021 (UTC)
Well expecting people to change DYK update times on Christmas Day seems ridiculous. Especially when it's just for one day, and not for the agree upon reasons for switching from 1 to 2 sets a day or vice versa. Joseph2302 (talk) 00:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
It's just one person who makes the switch, and we've done it before—2019 April Fools', 2017 April Fools', Something that has to do with Star Trek, 2015 April Fools', and probably more that I'm missing. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:31, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Not sure if it's too late now, but I just nominated Template:Did you know nominations/When Harry Met Santa for a Christmas hook if this is helpful? —🎄☃️❄️ Season's greetings from AFreshStart (talk) ❄️☃️🎄 09:24, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@AFreshStart: Thanks so much! you'd have to ask an admin about that, the completed christmas sets are in queue. If an admin sees this, I'd recommend putting this nom in the Boxing Day set, along with Kingsif and Gerda Arendt's extra hooks. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 12:26, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

State of the christmas sets

Madam Speaker, Madam Vice President, members of the 118th Congress, I stand here today to tell you that the State of our Christmas Sets is resoundingly... meandering. We currently have nine hooks, spread out over two sets, with three still in the SOHA (i can't promote any of them), one unapproved, and one more we can take from the SOHA if we need. Basically, what I'm saying is that we're at 14 out of 16 hooks if we really stretch it, and even then we'd need to run two hooks for 24 hours.

That is, if we do two christmas sets, keeping christmas eve separate. What I think we should do is have two christmas sets, running one on Dec. 24 and one on Dec 25. we have two christmas eve hooks, so that takes us up to 16, or two full sets. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:47, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, regardless, someone is going to need to take the three christmas hooks out of the Dec. 25 SOHA, since i can't touch them. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:48, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
And we have a bit more than twelve hours until the queue is backlogged again, so I guess we should decide this soon. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:52, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
I think the Christmas Eve idea leaves a question of logistics, being that we already have an approved queue for the first half of the 24th UTC (and that a bunch of hooks would have to be moved to/from preps 2 and 4, but that's less of an issue). Personally I don't really see anything wrong with having a few non-Christmasy hooks in the Christmas sets (also since it seems that did happen in years past), but I can see why it would be unappealing especially when it's possible to avoid it.
For the record, I promoted two of the SOHA hooks, leaving one US-related one that could fit in Prep 4, though I'd rather wait to see people's opinions on this before promoting it. eviolite (talk) 00:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
right, that puts us at four christmas slots open; we have one that can be filled from SOHA, one that can filled by yoinking Gerda's hook for Dec. 27, one pending, and two in the Dec. 24 spot if we decide to merge. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:47, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok, I have the nom for Glee: The Music, The Christmas Album that will either need IAR on expansion or someone to very kindly do a GANR in the next two days. I am about to nominate new article Surfing Santas. I will say I am hoping to churn out two more Christmas noms in the next 24 hours, but if I can't, will those two bring the numbers up to two complete sets (or were you already talking about the Glee one? In which case I can push for three more...). I can also see about promoting what's left of special occasions and will obviously review anything anyone else nominates. I may be less active in here now, but themed sets are very much my jam. Kingsif (talk) 00:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC) I didn't explicitly say it, but, yes, I think rearranging 12-hour to 24-hour hooks at this hour would be clunky unless we either give one editor permission to executively decide what is going where or we all agree some arrangement... Kingsif (talk) 00:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: - Template:Did you know nominations/Surfing Santas Kingsif (talk) 01:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Reviewed and approved. Z1720 (talk) 01:29, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
promoted :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:45, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: whatever we decide on, it's probably gonna be me putting most of it together, so I don't think there's too much to worry with visa-v bureaucratic hassle. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 01:43, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: oh yeah, it would be a hassle to discuss putting things together, but then if we give one editor the Power (TM), and something goes wrong, ERRORS will be all up on their ass alone rather than our collective ass. I'm happy to turn it all over to you, and wish you luck. If nobody at DYK offers a GANR soon, I'll go beg at GA talk, or kindly ask you to IAR ;) (I do prefer to go through the process properly, though) Kingsif (talk) 02:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The number of people whose permission I need before I can do whatever the hell I want... Let me tell you something - there's really a lot to be said for fascism. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Completely random thought: two of the Christmas hooks also talk about Honda products, we're not accidentally promoting Honda, are we?
Prep 3: "... that the Christmas Special Honda minibike, which struggled to sell upon release in 1986, is now worth nearly $10,000 as a collector's item?"
Prep 4: "... that the Florida beach festival Surfing Santas, which attracts around 10,000 festive surfers every Christmas Eve, was inspired by a Honda commercial?"
A total coincidence, but it's not like there are any other brands permeating the hooks. Kingsif (talk) 02:18, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it's fine if the hooks are in separate hook sets. Z1720 (talk) 05:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
then again, what purpose does DYK serve, if not to promote The Hybrid that Does It All: The best-selling crossover over the past decade that's also available with an advanced hybrid powertrain, offering all-wheel drive and an electrifying ride, the Honda CR-V. beats me theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 06:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

So, is the plan to run prep 3 for 24 hours and prep 4 on Boxing Day? Or are both of these sets going to run on Christmas Day only, leaving nothing Christmasy for Boxing Day? Gatoclass (talk) 08:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I don't think we have the hooks to do something on Boxing Day, although Gerda'll have a hook for Dec. 27—I want to run one full set on christmas eve and one full set on christmas day. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:00, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron, now you are confusing me. Prep 3 is currently set to run on Christmas Day, there doesn't seem to be anything in the queue for Christmas Eve. Gatoclass (talk) 09:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Putting this here to keep Christmas set talk in one place, pinging @Theleekycauldron and Z1720: the GA has passed, so that is good, I am drafting an article for Starbucks Red Cups and desperately expanding Christmas (surname) so we can run the hook "we don't know the origins of Christmas". Does this help with filling sets for two 24-hour runs? Kingsif (talk) 16:37, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
    @Kingsif: at the moment, we're already good to go with two 24-hour sets, so it isn't needed, per se. If you have your heart set on including it, you could ask to swap out one of your other hooks, or put one in the Boxing Day set, but I'm not inclined at the moment to do a massive rearrangement and pull admin strings (or more accurately, yank admin chains) to run two sets on Christmas Day. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 18:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I’ve created a new list that includes all 35 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 13. We currently have a total of 180 nominations, of which 79 have been approved, a gap of 101, down 6 over the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:02, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

NPOV uncertainty during review - help appreciated

During review, Environmental defender has left me struggling to figure out whether WP:NPOV is satisfied. Nominator was able to make some changes which helped in one particular section, and other concerns seem to have been properly addressed, but overall I'm stuck and need more experienced reviewers to look through the article, to help discern if neutrality is met. Any help is appreciated! Template:Did you know nominations/Environmental defender Canadianerk (talk) 08:53, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

yeah, I'd say this doesn't meet NPOV guidelines. Just off the bat, it accepts the premise that an "environmental defender" is someone who does all of these things, which it isn't—it's a term used to describe those people. Some of the people in this article are nowhere described in the sources as "envrionmental defenders", merely as "climate activists". The line Many front-line defenders do not self-identify with term, preferring a very broad range of other identifications such as: water protector, grassroots environmentalist, life defender, nature defender, ecologist, environmentalist, community leader, and many others also suggests to me that this is not as clear-cut a term as the article might make it seem. and it has been suggested that they are on the front-lines of a global environmental justice movement seems blatantly POV to me.
As a side note, these kinds of articles really annoy me, because they're the kind of articles that contain every point that I agree with, detailing the stories of people I support, and even have the full support of the consensus of RS—but this POV-pushing just provokes this reaction in me to turn away. Some people who spend a lifetime campaigning and advocating don't seem to understand that on Wikipedia, the most convincing article for a good cause is a neutral one. People have a bullshit detector, and stuff like this makes for a false positive that ends up harming the movements they support. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:10, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, the distinction between people and a 'term used to describe people' is a little fuzzy to me. The peer-reviewed sources say that Environmental Defenders are people.
I hope that the article didn't make this seem 'clear-cut'. That wasn't my intention at all. It's rather funny to take a quote from my article that makes it seem like it's not clear-cut and then say that the article makes it seem clear-cut. I don't really understand how that works.
As far as the global environmental justice movement quote: This peer reviewed article entitled, "Is there a global environmental justice movement" says that, "12% of conflicts report ‘deaths’ of environmental defenders." I could rephrase this to say that they are 'part of a global EJ movement'. But fronts are where people get killed. So while I can hear if you don't like the way this is phrased, I don't think it's fair to say that it's 'blatant POV pushing'
Really, where I'm going here is that I don't actually know what POV I'm supposed to be pushing. I think this is a very complex topic, because ED is an extremely broad and problematic term. I have tried to acknowledge the problems associated with the term in this article, and I think most of the content keeps to the sources pretty well. I'm not really attached to any of the content, and if comments are actually constructive, then we could have a collaborative process that improves the article. I'm not able to make many constructive edits based on the above comments though. Larataguera (talk) 14:01, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
hey, Larataguera—to start, I hope you don't think I consider you to be a POV writer. The article'll need some fixing up, though. I don't think WT:DYK is the best place to go through it all, so where would a good place to leave comments be? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 18:46, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, seems like talk: Environmental_defender is the best place? Larataguera (talk) 19:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)
sounds good—I'll leave a bit there some time soon. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 19:25, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Jack Lemley

(NON-ADMIN CLOSURE)
Closing this one based on the very precise and clean guidance provided by TLC! Thanks.

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.


I had worked this article based on this base version and expanded the article more than 5x and nominated the article to WP:DYKN. The reviewing editor has a differing view of 5x expansion because the article had been WP:STUBIFYed earlier in this version.

Based on the expansion made, I believe it meets the definition of fivefold expansion as provided here Former redirects, stubs, disambiguation pages, and other pages in which the prose portion has been expanded fivefold or more within the past seven days are also acceptable as "new" articles. The content with which the article has been expanded must be new content, not text copied from other articles.

Greatly appreciate the group's views. Tagging the reviewing editor DanCherek as a courtesy tag. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 00:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

@Ktin: This 2020 RfC on the Fivefold expansion rule should clarify; 5x expansion is calculated from the longest version of the article the day before the expansion began. if you hacked and slashed an article two days before you do a 5x expansion, that'd be against the spirit of the rule. But you should be in the clear, since the article was stubified by someone else for legitimate reasons, with no connection to your DYK aspirations for the article. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:55, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
If an article were at 5,000 characters of copyright-infriging material, you cut it down to 1,000, and then re-expanded, that would count. If the article were at 5,000 characters of just bad material, you cut it down, and then re-expanded, that wouldn't. If someone else cuts it from 5,000 to 1,000 because it's bad, and then you independently find and expand it some time later, that's not a problem either. at least, that's my interpretation of the guidelines. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 00:56, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, I was unaware of that RFC. It should be codified at WP:DYKSG, a year and a half later, to prevent confusion in the future. I'll proceed with reviewing Ktin's nomination. DanCherek (talk) 00:58, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a lot TLC and DC! Much appreciated. Onwards and upwards! Ktin (talk) 01:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

We're below 60!

@DYK admins: the readout is showing 60 approved, and I just promoted a hook, so we're at 59. So, in the next three-ish hours, we're going to need an admin to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400 to switch us back to one set a day.

So, let's talk about what this means for the christmas sets. Instead of running in Q2, P3, and P4, we're gonna have a Q1 (christmas eve) and a Q2 (christmas day). If we also want to use Q3 and temporarily adjust the update time for Christmas day, fine, but I'd honestly rather not do that because 1. it is kinda clunky and 2. I'm not sure we'll have the hooks for that, and i want a failsafe in case we end up don't end up having enough hooks. At the moment, we don't have enough hooks, even if Kingsif's GA goes through. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @Kingsif, Eviolite, SL93, and Kavyansh.Singh as well. Does anyone have an issue with running our christmas sets over two days? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Also, @Narutolovehinata5 and Z1720. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I guess it really depends on how many Christmas hooks there are. If there's enough for four sets then I wouldn't mind. In all honesty though I'm kind of getting tired of these 60-120 switcheroos, not only because the switches have become too frequent (it's not uncommon for us to run one set a day for just over a week or two before going back to two a day) but also because it's confusing. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:03, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
enough for four sets? i am tooth and nail trying to scrape together enough hooks for two sets. Also, we should seriously discuss changing the parameters of the swaps, yeah... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I'm not sure what to do, given that we now have almost two full sets. I did kind of think that the Evans hook was going to lead for Boxing Day, which IMO would be a good fit. But whatever happens, the third circle of hell hook should definitely not be following directly after Christmas, indeed I would not run that until after the Christmas season is over. Gatoclass (talk) 09:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
good call, absolutely good call—when we do the switch, the hook won't air until the 30th, but I'm probably going to push it back further than that. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Given the way things are currently set up, I think we would have to run both those sets on Christmas Day, as we'd probably get complaints if we ran an almost-full set of Christmas hooks on Boxing Day. My conception was that we'd run a full set of Christmas hooks on Christmas Day, and distribute any remaining Christmas hooks between Christmas Eve and Boxing Day, but that would require a rather radical change at this point. Gatoclass (talk) 09:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: sorry, I'll clarify. Right now, we have fourteen approved hooks for Christmas, two approved hooks for Christmas Eve, and one approved hook for Dec. 27. What I would like to do is take six of the christmas hooks, put them with the two christmas eve hooks—that's eight hooks that can run for 24 hours on christmas eve. Then, the eight leftover hooks will run the full 24 hours on Christmas day. Gerda's Dec. 27 hook will run on Dec. 27, and we if get any extra hooks, we can see about moving that Honda motorcycle into the image for Boxing Day. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think we have the hooks to run two full sets on Christmas day, since two are specifically for Christmas eve, and I'm not optimistic about the chances of pulling two hooks out of a hat at the moment. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron, I like that solution, though I'm unsure what you mean about leading the Boxing Day set with the Honda hook, since the Evans hook seems a better fit for that to me. Gatoclass (talk) 09:54, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Also not a bad idea, it's generally a wintry festive vibe :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I had hoped to put something together at Christmas in Kenya before the day, and I still might, but I wouldn't pin any hopes on it!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:56, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Let me know if you do! I'd be happy to pull any strings you might need :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
two hours until noon UTC—could an admin please perform the switch at User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 09:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@DYK admins: can one of you look at changing this? Joseph2302 (talk) 10:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Maths isn't my strong suit, but won't that cause Q5 to run on the 23rd and Q6 to run on the 24th? Gatoclass (talk) 10:10, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: we'll need to rearrange some of these sets anyway, I'll give you what sets to put where when I've hammered it all out. In the meantime, the window is closing, so I'd rather change the bot timing and then rearrange rather than wait for everything to be in the right place beforehand. We have time :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 10:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
In other words, we're coming up on noon UTC—if we do the switch now, we don't have to wait 12 hours until the window starts again. If we do switch now, we can always make the queue moves we need to make later (especially since we'll have to do some moves anyway). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 10:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
 Done. Gatoclass (talk) 10:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

What you could do is move the Honda hook to the lead for Christmas Eve, and replace the 3d circle hook post-Christmas with the canals in gardens hook. Gatoclass (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I just want to express my frustration in the removal of the backlog. My entire purpose of nominating "Boris Johnson Is a Fucking Cunt" was to give the follow-up, "Boris Johnson Is Still a Fucking Cunt", some much-needed publicity in the UK Christmas charts battle. Thanks to the backlog being cleared, the entry now appears at the exact point the charts close. I know there is no way you are going to put the article out tomorrow, I just want to express my annoyance, and tell you might experience some vandalism from supporters of the song. ISD (talk) 12:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing a joke because I haven't had enough coffee, but we don't actually put stuff on the MP to help create publicity. In fact we've got many editors who would argue we need to actively avoid trying to do that. —valereee (talk) 13:04, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I didn't mention anything about publicity with the nomination. It was all going to be a surprise for everyone in support of the song. ISD (talk) 13:13, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@ISD, that actually makes me even more uncomfortable. Frankly if your sole motivation was to give a commercial entity "much-needed publicity", for me it seems like a COI, and any COI absolutely should be disclosed. Who is the "everyone" that you want to surprise, and why do you think they need Wikipedia to be in support of the song? Are you talking about someone you actually know? —valereee (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't know any of the people involved personally. The performer did win an award back in 2011 of which I am now a member of their judging panel of, but I joined this panel in 2019 and had not heard of him back then. I support the song because I agree with the sentiment. The "everyone" in question is the performer, who has been censored by the BBC and who have been refusing to play both songs, and those supporting them. ISD (talk) 16:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah, that everyone. I doubt our own Borish Not Goodenough would be very surprised. But dear old Aunty Beeb often bans things that have bad language. Not just 'cos they're anti-BoJo. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
You say that, last year they at least meantion the original song was about Boris Johnson. This year, they ever refused to mention that connection. Also, there are plenty of SFW versions of the track they can play, but they have refused to do so. Look, if my nomination violated DYK? rules, I'm happy for it to be removed. ISD (talk) 16:55, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The nom doesn't violate rules. The motivation is very shaky, though. We do not do promotional work here, and we don't really care about the charts. —valereee (talk) 18:50, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I would think being banned by the BBC would generate all the publicity any song could possibly need. :) —valereee (talk) 18:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
God Save the Beeb. Martinevans123 (talk) 19:02, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I have swapped the hook into Q5 - it was slated to run before Christmas originally anyhow, and I'd prefer it to run before Christmas rather than after - it seems a little profane to be running in the middle of the Christmas season. Gatoclass (talk) 17:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. ISD (talk) 17:53, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass, but why before Christmas, then? Why not after New Year's? I'm still uncomfortable with the promotional aspect. Why are we trying to give a boost to a song in the charts? —valereee (talk) 18:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
It's hardly promotional, given that it's just for some "Christmas chart". Certainly no more promotional than, say, running a hook about an upcoming sporting event, which we do frequently, in the name of topicality, and nobody ever raises concerns about that, I don't see this as any different. Gatoclass (talk) 19:09, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
It should also be said that the hook doesn't mention the Christmas charts, just that one song existed and that it spawned another one. The only way it is promoting it is by telling people this song exists, because many media outlets including the BBC are refusing to mention it. ISD (talk) 19:17, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Implementing the christmas hooks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Okay. So, there wasn't room in the prep sets (I can't overwrite the existing christmas sets because one of them is already in queue, and that gets super messy), so I built the Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and Boxing Day sets in my userspace. All three of these have been constructed with already-approved hooks from P3, P4, and Q2, I didn't promote anything to my userspace that wasn't already promoted. So far, we're running with this:

Not all of these hooks have been put in queue, so all three sets are going to need to be checked by an admin before they are put in queue, as if it were a prep set promotion.

So, in this order, here's what should happen (BlueMoonset, could you please check that I'm spelling this out correctly? Admins, probably don't do anything until we get that check):

  1. Check User:Theleekycauldron/P8 as if it were a normal prep set in line for promotion.
  2. Overwrite Queue 2 with the hooks currently in Queue 6
  3. Promote User:Theleekycauldron/P8 to the newly emptied Queue 6
  4. Check User:Theleekycauldron/P9 as if it were a normal prep set in line for promotion.
  5. Overwrite Queue 3 (currently empty) with the hooks currently in Queue 7
  6. Promote User:Theleekycauldron/P9 to the newly emptied Queue 7
  7. Check User:Theleekycauldron/P11 as if it were a normal prep set in line for promotion.
  8. Overwrite Queue 4 (currently empty) with the hooks currently in Queue 1
  9. Promote User:Theleekycauldron/P11 to the newly emptied Queue 1
  10. Clear Prep set 3 (do not promote)
  11. Clear Prep set 4 (do not promote)
  12. Set the prep counter to 5

@Mandarax and Ravenpuff: feel free to copyedit the sets as if they were normal prep sets as well.

In case you're wondering why I can't just start building these in prep, it's because the Christmas Eve hooks were already promoted to Queue, and the non-christmas eve hooks in that set are going to be ran on Boxing Day. Also, the queues that need to be filled aren't next in line for prep promotion, there's going to be some queue rearrangement because of the prep sets. So... this is the best I got. Cheers! I'm going to sleep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by theleekycauldron (talk • contribs)

  • I'm trying to remember whether a straight copy/psste of the entire code from userspace works, or whether it needs tweaking to keep from breaking something? I created the Yoninah set in my user space, but I think someone else moved it into the actual prep. And I think I might have moved an entire prep before and ended up with something not happening, maybe broke a subst or something? —valereee (talk) 12:58, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
    • Theleekycauldron We shouldn't be clearing prep sets just because you decided to violate processes and make prep sets in your own userspace. That is literally just a bureaucratic waste of people's time, as we'd be removing prep sets, re-opening noms and then re-promoting them in a few day's time. If you'd used the proper prep sets in the first place, there would be zero issue, but your massive ownership issues on wanting to do all of DYK's promotion is the problem here. Or if you left prep sets empty like people keep on telling you we should do.... Joseph2302 (talk) 14:57, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Please note that I am in the middle of implementing the instructions above, so please nobody start moving sets around until I'm done or we will have an awful mess to try and sort out. Gatoclass (talk) 15:49, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
  •  Done, hopefully without screwing anything up. I will be reviewing these sets when I have some more time tomorrow. Gatoclass (talk) 16:11, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Artificially below 60

I'm a little leery of building three preps in user space, which artificially gets us below 60, which artificially moves us from 2-a-days to 1-a-days more frequently than is actually needed. The actual backlog was 84 hooks, not 60, because there were 24 hooks in user space. —valereee (talk) 13:07, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

I agree that DYK is not really below 60 approved hooks, and any switch to two-per-day sets should wait. Flibirigit (talk) 14:33, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
(It's the other way 'round -- we moved from 2 to 1, and now we're in 1-a-days even though we aren't actually below 60.) —valereee (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
We shouldn't be building preps in user space and removing those from the approved list (where they're way more easily visible). If we need more prep sets, it should be agreed on by the community (and last time we discussed this, people were against creating extra prep sets). But creating fake prep sets in user space will just add confusion for anyone else trying to create preps- we shouldn't have just 1 person creating all the preps like we do right now, and people adding fake prep sets in their userspace will just make it impossible to share the workload. Joseph2302 (talk)
And demanding people use the prep sets you've setup (without consensus) in your own userspace seems like a massive ownership issue to me. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
I don't think that is what happened. TLC made these sets in parallel to the normal process, so the "below 60" is real. —Kusma (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
All of the hooks that went into the userspace preps appear to have been previously placed in a real queue/prep (and then rearranged), as shown on the nomination pages, so the <60 count on WP:DYKNA is accurate. (And now that everything has been placed into Queues 6-1, it certainly is now.) eviolite (talk) 16:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
This is a little unfair. The Christmas sets have to be prepared, and it's better to prepare them ahead of time. And two of those sets could have been prepared in Preps 2 and 3, leeky just found it easier to do them elsewhere because of all the hook swapping needed. Pretty much the same deal for the third set, so this isn't really a case of building extra sets outside of prep, but just an easy way of swapping a large number of hooks around that were already in prep in the most convenient way. Gatoclass (talk) 15:39, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Yeah, eviolite is correct :) I definitely wouldn't promote a hook directly to userspace, that would artificially screw with the hook count and store the hooks in an unsafe space. I also didn't move any hooks into userspace before we were below 60—the first userspace edit I did for this was this one, creating a userspace p10, at 10:21 am UTC. I announced we were below 60 over an hour before, at 8:50 am UTC. So, no, I didn't use my userspace to artificially create sets—the reason I ended up using my userspace was because 1. there wasn't enough room in prep to build 3 sets because 2. one of them was in queue. That's all, really :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 18:08, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
TLC, that's the point: there wasn't enough room in prep space, so you created three new prep sets, which artificially lowered our backlog. Why not just create 100 preps and avoid going to 2-a-days for the next six months, at which point we'll have 107 full preps? Going back to 1-a-days before we should is not the goal. —valereee (talk) 18:16, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: that's the thing, it didn't artificially lower the backlog. As I said, by the time I started using the userspace (10:21am), we were already below 60 (by 8:50am). Also, those artificial prep sets didn't use any new hooks from DYKNA; it just took hooks from P3, P4, and Q2, and rearranged them into my P8, P9, and P11, which were promoted back to Q6, Q7, and Q1—that doesn't affect the DYKNA backlog, it doesn't promote any new hooks, it just moves around the ones we already had. I would've done it in prep space, except one of them was Q2, so I wasn't able to touch it. The getting to below 60 was done completely in prep space; when that was done, I used the userspace, not as new prep sets to promote unpromoted hooks, more as sandbox to move around hooks that had already been promoted in prep space. (and I didn't move a hook to userspace, leaving more room in prep that i refilled—like I said, we were below 60 before I started using the userspace). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 18:23, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
Aight, I'll take your word for it. FFR, maybe don't announce it's time to move to 1-a-days when you have 24 hooks in your user space, as that's likely to confuse at least some people about what our actual count is. —valereee (talk) 18:48, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, I would like to commend you for your actions. Given the scope of the reshuffle and the fact that a queue was involved, this could only be carried out by an admin. Prepping the reshuffle in your user space made it easy for an admin to action this. Thank you; that was super-helpful. Schwede66 22:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
well, I appreciate that, Schwede :) this'll be a fun segment for the wrap theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 02:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/2022 USFL season missing

Hi there - I believe this hook, which was pulled off of queue 4 about two weeks ago for a date-specific hook (see this discussion) did not end up getting added back to a prep area or another queue. Here's the diff where the USFL hook was pulled for the MLS hook; the user that performed that move noted on the talk page please add it to the next available set or it might get forgotten and I fear that this might have happened. I very well may be wrong, or missing something obvious, but I've done a little ctrl-F searching and haven't found it at WP:DYK/Q, WP:DYKNA, or WP:DYKN. No DYK pages (apart from the initial nomination page) are shown at Special:WhatLinksHere/2022 USFL season either. Is there a way this could get moved back into a queue? Thanks, PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 18:32, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey, PCN02WPS! I'm sorry for the mix-up there—I've re-opened the nomination page and put it back on WP:DYKNA—it'll most likely be promoted at the next set. Thanks for the heads up! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 18:36, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Preps 6/7

We have hooks that need to be swapped in from SOHA. —valereee (talk) 21:05, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

on it :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:12, 22 December 2021 (UTC)
done! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:27, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

dyk on soloturk is factually wrong

  • 1) The article says the plane is combat ready
  • 2) The F-16 is not a demonstration aircraft, it's a plane designed for combat
  • 3) All the Air Forces around the world use combat planes for their acrobatic teams, not acrobatic demo aircraft, so this "fact" is boring and not special DYK, which is also factually wrong

do your homework! 70.161.8.90 (talk) 01:15, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The current hook is "... that the aerobatic demonstration aircraft (pictured) used by SoloTürk is also used in military operations of the Turkish Air Force?" To me, "aerobatic demonstration aircraft" would refer to the fact that it is an aircraft, combat ready or not, that is used for aerobatic demonstration. Though I'm not against the hook being tweaked more. Typically there is a reasonable explanation for major DYK errors occurring, but I'm not sure what this one is when it comes to the original hook which referred to SoloTürk as the name of the aircraft. SL93 (talk) 01:27, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  1. The article lead says it's combat ready. The section "Demonstration aircraft" says "Despite being painted in a special livery, the aircraft still has combat capabilities and is sometimes used in trainings and minor operations carried out by the Turkish Air Force" and proceeds to cite 3 sources.
  2. Sharing the same view with SL93.
  3. Not all of the aerobatic teams use actual combat aircraft, some do, but actually using the aircraft in combat is something that is pretty rare, and definitely DYK worthy. ~StyyxTalk? ^-^ 07:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Boris Johnson

Seriously have to use this title…and at Christmas time? You should be ashamed! How horrible I’m done with you! 2601:200:4300:85F0:8CEB:1025:5BC8:75F (talk) 01:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The above was on the nominations page, so moved here. — Maile (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Lol Kingsif (talk) 06:35, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
yeah, honestly, i'm with you—i can't even begin to take this criticism seriously. we don't change what we consider encyclopedic because some people don't like dirty words next to the names of political leaders. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 12:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
This is just downright childish, can somebody explain to me in what way can this trivia be considered useful knowledge worthy to be on Wikipedia's DYK? Considering that this is the first page people will see when visiting Wikipedia, it gives people an unprofessional impression. Come on guys, this is an encyclopedia, not mainstream news outlets to which it could be acceptable nowadays to do this sort of thing. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 08:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
In retrospect, in the right context this would be acceptable if the aim is to raise awareness about these dangerous people and how society has degraded enough to spawn such tasteless critique. But given how people react nowadays, it might not be wise to share this trivia as it could cause untoward attention to the group instead. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 09:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
It's fine. This song stands a good chance of being the UK singles number one for Xmas. If "words" upset you, best avoid the encyclopedia altogether. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 09:08, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@Jay.zero21 9911 Hooks are evaluated based on the criteria of DYK. If there is a policy reason it shouldn't be there - please feel free to present that argument. Moral objections about "unprofessional", "useful" or "childish" content are not a basis to deny a nomination - "useless" information is often interesting; "unprofessional" articles that meet all other guidelines should be WP:NOTCENSORED; and we evaluate hooks based on reliability of its source, its "hookiness", etc - not whether it is "childish". Canadianerk (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Sadly, I think it has reached a point nowadays that it's futile to hide the present mentality of the crowd. Perhaps, I'm on the wrong assumption about the average intellect of visitors on the site, in hindsight, most people who deliberately checks Wikipedia everyday may have some good educational background and would understand the context of published material on the site. Carry on. Jay.zero21 9911 (talk) 11:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I think it provides a strong and clear message on the consistency of his leadership. Martinevans123 (talk) 11:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTCENSORED applies, and I also imagine it will be a well-viewed hook. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
My bigger concern is whether publishing a current song that's aiming for Christmas #1 is in violation of While it is fine to cover topics of commercial or political interest, DYK must not provide inappropriate advantage for such causes (e.g. during election campaigns or product launches). Joseph2302 (talk) 11:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
In the interests of research, can I ask WMF to buy me a copy? Martinevans123 (talk) 11:52, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
We don't run hooks to send political messages on anything, including Boris Johnson's leadership. Any message or otherwise that the song sends is irrelevant outside the context of whether the hook or article is biased/violating WP:NPOV (edit: and Joseph2302's point about providing inappropriate advantage) To comment generally, not just you specifically - defending the nom by citing politics as a defense, is undermining the hook's validity. Seeing the nominator in another section of this page saying the sole purpose was to advertise the song was troubling enough, continuing that implication is just asking for problems... I'm new to DYK and don't want to pick a fight, but come on - even if the rationale is to annoy/antagonize the person who started this thread, this is getting off topic at best. Canadianerk (talk) 11:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Canadianerk, I have to imagine that Martinevans123's point that the hook provides a strong and clear message on the consistency of his leadership was just him using the hook to make fun of Johnson (martinevans does that quite a lot), not really a comment on why we ran the hook. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 12:33, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Apologies. He also often forgets his irony marks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
While I appreciate the attempt to offer context Theleekycauldron, that only shifts my thoughts to WP:TPG, the aforementioned DYK is not, and WP:SOAP. I did specifically say it wasn't just him - and that the jokes, political commentary or otherwise, is making me question the hook's validity, and at this point whether it should be pulled - but now that you've pointed this out... I can't help but also wonder if it's not a comment on the hook, why is it here? Canadianerk (talk) 13:04, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • To be frank, regardless of a subject's political leanings I personally think it's usually bad taste to write hooks that make fun of politicians. In many cases they aren't even hooky and just feel like an excuse to put criticism of a politician on the main page (full disclosure: I personally lean to the left of the political spectrum, and I would have said the same thing even if the hook mentioned Keir Starmer or Joe Biden). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:41, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • The battle for the UK Christmas No. 1 is traditional and topical. It's become more notable this year because it's essentially a re-run of last year. Some years it's all for cherridey, some years it's making fun of someone. It's not the hook "making fun", it's the subject matter? Martinevans123 (talk) 14:55, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Regardless, I really don't think hooks that say anything negative about politicians is a good idea most of the time, even if the politician is someone you personally do not agree with. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:59, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
So, how about "hooks that say anything positive about politicians"? Are they equally forbidden? If you think this hook is "making fun of a politician", do you think a hook about the Sharpeville massacre would be supporting racially motivated murder? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Ideally, hooks about politicians should be neutral and shouldn't push a particular POV (either for or against them). For example a hook like "Joe Biden once worked as a lifeguard?" would be fine IMO. Something that overtly praises or criticizes him though, I'm not really comfortable about that. I just don't think we should be using the Main Page to push our own personal political beliefs. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:37, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I agree with you there, and we have NPOV for that, but I don't see any reason we should abstain for covering any song that is inherently critical of a politician. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 17:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Edit request to complete TfD nomination

Template:Did you know/Time has been listed at Templates for discussion (nomination), but it was protected, so it could not be tagged. Please add:

{{subst:template for discussion|help=off}}

to the top of the page to complete the nomination. Thank you. Q28 (talk) 05:40, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done – SD0001 (talk) 07:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Hook substituted - verification needed

Queue 6 contained the following hook:

Apart from the fact that the hook is a yawn, the source for it only states that Rimes planned an eleven-city tour - we don't know if she completed all the dates or indeed if she played more dates later. Since there were no alts at the nomination page, I have therefore substituted one of my own:

Verified here. — Maile (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

- but since I can't verify my own hook, somebody will have to verify it before it goes to the main page in approximately 17 hours. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 08:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

thanks for finding an ALT! I thought the hook was yawn myself, but i don't always make a fuss about it (especially if I don't have anything constructive). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 12:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Still no verification for this. @DYK admins: ? Gatoclass (talk) 17:58, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Or maybe Theleekycauldron? SL93 (talk) 19:49, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: See tick above. Is that what you need? — Maile (talk) 19:57, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Ah, there it is. Thank you very much, Maile :) Gatoclass (talk) 20:02, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. SL93 (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
thank y'all :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:51, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Christmas Day set

While I originally nominated the Santa Claus hook with the suggestion that it run in the quirky slot on Christmas Day, now that it's there[17] it just doesn't look right to me. Would it bother anybody if I swapped the Santa Claus hook with the bisciola hook above it, to put the latter in the quirky slot? Since "Santa Claus" is my own nomination I just want to be sure the shuffle won't bother anyone. Thanks, Gatoclass (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

@Gatoclass: I don't think the Santa Claus is a fantastic quirky hook, but in my opinion, it's the best one in the set—plus, we have four u.s. hooks in the set, and when you have four u.s. hooks (or four bios), you either have to have one in the quirky or one in the image to prevent u.s. hooks being squished together. So, I'll leave those objections here—it's a fine quirky :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 20:53, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
I prefer Santa Claus in the last slot, as I think it is more quirky than the biscoila one. @Gatoclass: why do you think it "doesn't look right"? Z1720 (talk) 21:10, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
The problem with having it in the last slot is that the hook basically says "this is not about Christmas" which is an odd and kind of downbeat way of ending a set about Christmas. The article itself is also not actually about Christmas - it's about a steamboat that just happened to be named "Santa Claus" - I think it would be more appropriate to round the set off with an article that is actually about a Christmas topic. Also, I would not have proposed this move if I had not already tried it out, and the bisceola hook fits very nicely in the quirky slot. The concern about "two US hooks together" is overblown - the clause pertaining to that is supposed to be a guideline, not a hard and fast rule, and it doesn't hurt to ignore it from time to time. Gatoclass (talk) 21:21, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Good point on the tone of the ending, and given the special occasion is a connection of all hooks (and the fact one of the sets has or had last I checked three American albums in it), we really are ignoring the "try to keep similar hooks separate" guideline anyway. Kingsif (talk) 21:48, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
well, i mean, it's a quirky—for those who pick up on that tone shift, it doesn't seem like a huge negative that a quirky throws you for a loop. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 23:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

For the record, this is what the set looks like with the hooks swapped:

- Gatoclass (talk) 21:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I have reshuffled the proposed set above to avoid the juxtaposition of US hooks. Gatoclass (talk) 11:14, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Surfing Santas Q6 (next)

Hi, Theleekycauldron, Kingsif, and Z1720:

  • that the Florida beach festival Surfing Santas, which attracts around 10,000 festive surfers every Christmas Eve, was inspired by a Honda commercial?

This hook may need two minor tweaks... "attracts around 10,000 festive surfers" - but they're not all "surfers", most are spectators. Change to 'festive beachgoers/spectators' or similar? Also "10,000 surfers every Christmas Eve" - article says "In 2018, around 10,000 people attended", so remove "every"? JennyOz (talk) 15:25, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

beachgoers works, yeah—and i agree, the festive doesn't work anymore (especially with "festival") theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 17:29, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
How 'bout we drop the festive too? It sounds hokey in context. Are there typically solemn beachgoers? Petulant beachgoers? 15:36, 23 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEng (talk • contribs)
Have you ever been to Blackpool? Yes, I wrote it as shorthand for "dressed as Christmas characters". Kingsif (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

There was no easy fix for this, so I just dropped the mention of crowd size altogether and changed it to:

  • ... that the Florida beach festival Surfing Santas, held regularly on Christmas Eve, was inspired by a Honda commercial? Gatoclass (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm fine with Gatoclass's change. Z1720 (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Also support this Kingsif (talk) 21:45, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Queue 2

any way someone could change "Bond" to "James Bond" in the aqueduct hook? no reason not to make it clearer... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:40, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

How about covalent bond instead? EEng 07:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC) "Won't you join us, Mister ...?" "Bond. Covalent bond."
little known fact: the "007" is actually just the total number of valence electrons. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:08, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
It's now James Bond (i.e. italicised) in the hook. Schwede66 08:09, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
@Schwede66: I think you may want to link to James Bond (literary character), unitalicized, if i'm not mistaken... although to see a book franchise do some backflips off an aqueduct, I may actually get some tickets. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 08:16, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Promotion

Just seeing if someone can promote Template:Did you know nominations/Felix O'Day (novel) when they get a chance. I can't as the nominator and theleekycauldron can't as the one who came up with the alt. SL93 (talk) 22:34, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

 Done. Just drop me a ping in future, and I'll be there to help. Thanks! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
Ok. I will. Thank you. SL93 (talk) 15:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)
kavyansh is very helpful that way :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:40, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Two meters is 6.5 feet, not 6.6

feet are base-12, not base-10.

6'6" = 6' + .5 feet, 12/2 = 6, not 5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:405:4900:43F:31C0:7B30:B596:6DD5 (talk) 09:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps, this is about the Disappearance of Bruno Borges hook currently on the main page. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:38, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, to be very precise, 1 meter = 3.281 feet, so 2 meters is 2 × 3.281 = 6.562 feet, rounded-off to 6.6 feet. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure expressing a height in decimal feet is good practice. It should really be in feet and inches? Looking at Disappearance of Bruno Borges, the second source does indeed say "A escultura de mais de dois metros". But the standard convert template actually produces 2 m (6 ft 7 in), or 2 m (6 ft 6.74 in) if we're being more precise? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:59, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

The statue is not exactly two metres tall – the source just gives a vague measurement of "more than two metres" (mais de dois metros). To use decimal places in conversion is therefore false precision. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:09, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

That's true. So the blub should say "over 2 m (6 ft 7 in) tall", or maybe "over 2 m (6 1/2 ft) tall"? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
Well, "over 2 m" can be anything over 2 meters. How about "over 2 m (over 6 ft 7 in) tall"? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 12:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
No objections. Both make sense. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:33, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
No, putting in an elaborate conversion into inches is just more false precision which will tend to distract by introducing a third unit of measure. The exact measurement is not important and we don't seem to have one. It would be better and simpler just to say "large statue". Andrew🐉(talk) 12:52, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I feel a bit underwhelmed if the most notable aspect of this student's disappearance was the fact that he left behind "a large statue". Statues can be large? Wow, who knew. But I guess this is how DYK "works". Martinevans123 (talk) 13:00, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Q1 Jan 2

Template:Did you know nominations/Steve Jastrzembski

BeanieFan11 Htanaungg Theleekycauldron, each para at the article needs to end with a citation to meet minimum DYK requirements. I've added tags to those missing that citation, can someone fix? —valereee (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

valereee I added a ref to the first para, the next that was missing a ref I couldn't find the article that verified it, so I removed the sentence. BeanieFan11 (talk) 16:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, @BeanieFan11! —valereee (talk) 18:21, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_183&oldid=1085472031"