Wikipedia talk:Did you know

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search


"Did you know ...?"
Introduction and rulesWP:DYK
General discussionWT:DYK
Supplementary rulesWP:DYKSG
Nominations (awaiting approval)WP:DYKN
Reviewing guideWP:DYKR
Nominations (approved)WP:DYKNA
Preps and queuesT:DYK/Q
Currently on Main Page
Main Page errorsWP:ERRORS
Archive of appearancesWP:DYKA
StatisticsWP:DYKSTATS
April 1 hooksWP:DYKAPRIL
April 1 talkWT:DYKAPRIL

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

Proposed DYK queue for Yoninah[edit]

  • Honoring Yoninah's memory: I was wondering if there was something that we could do to honor Yoninah's memory. She was one of the kindest people around here. One thought was to see if any of you knew her areas of interests well enough to create a prep / queue dedicated to her interests (without straying too far from any rules, written or unwritten, that we might have around set composition). Just a thought. RIP Yoninah. Ktin (talk) 21:53, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
    I love that idea and am fully willing to help write eligible articles, though I don't know what the topic would be. Feels like it would be a beautiful tribute. Eddie891 Talk Work 21:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
Please see Breslov Research Institute, which she wrote. According to the original (redacted) post about her death, she was a long-time editor there. According to her Commons:Yoninah, she was a resident of Jerusalem. She also was a fan of what she called the "Golden Era" of movies, the actors and films in the pre-television era. I think she was a huge fan of Sunset Boulevard (film) and would have liked to have seen a lead hook on it - we heavily discussed it - but it would first have to go through GAC to be eligible here. That's all I can think of. — Maile (talk) 22:17, 17 March 2021 (UTC) And also just thinking, Yoninah was not someone who could be pigeon-holed into any limited interest. She's the one who gave DYK the hilarious Rinse the Blood Off My Toga - she really did like Wayne and Shuster's humor. — Maile (talk) 00:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Yoninah gave so much of her time and passion to DYK that a tribute would be very nice. While not in keeping with the DYK rules, my suggestion would be to run a queue consisting of eight of Yoninah's best DYK hooks (perhaps with some sort of header referencing Yoninah) for a full 24 hours. She had her most-viewed hooks displayed at her user page: User:Yoninah#Most-viewed DYKs. People could suggest items from her list. Cbl62 (talk) 00:55, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    This is a great suggestion too! And, relatively easier to coordinate / implement. I support this idea. Ktin (talk) 00:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    I also like this idea. — Maile (talk) 00:59, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    This is a great idea. What a sad day. Black Kite (talk) 01:31, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
    I like this idea a lot, too. I am so very sad to hear this. —valereee (talk) 13:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe something like this (someone more eloquent could likely come up with better introductory leanguage):
It is with deep regret that the DYK and Wikipedia communities mourn the passing User:Yoninah who worked diligently for many years to protect the integrity of the DYK feature and to make Wikipedia a congenial and collaborative place. In her honor, today's DYK queue(s) consists of her past work.
Jane Withers
Jane Withers
Cbl62 (talk) 01:22, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
There's limited space on the mainpage, so shorter is better. How about: We mourn the loss of Yoninah with a selection of her most viewed contributions. Wug·a·po·des 01:43, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Looks good @Wugapodes. Minor edit suggesion: *loss of Wikipedian Yoninah with a ... Ktin (talk) 04:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Not that I do not think it is deserved, but I do not think we should have an explicit message on the mainpage for this, as it is based on now suppressed outing information. Crafting a special set is a nice tribute, but a public message feels a bit off to me as it stands. CMD (talk) 05:07, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Makes sense. So, we just go with a curated set. No header message. I think that is a good option. Ktin (talk) 05:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
The next question is timing. I would suggest 12 April, as it is both close and the date of Yoninah's first DYK. CMD (talk) 05:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I think what a header in the archive may be appropriate. --evrik (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I was looking for one such date / milestone. I support April 12. Alternately, the sooner the better. Open to both. Ktin (talk) 15:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Cbl62 Four of the hooks are about food. Please see User:Yoninah/DYK creations and expansions for more variety — Maile (talk) 10:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
@Cbl62, that Jane Withers hook maybe ran too recently? Since it's the image slot, it might be better to find something from longer ago. —valereee (talk) 14:17, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
This one's from 2010:
Mother and baby Asian Elephants
Gabi (left) with his mother Tamar
* ... that the birth of Gabi (pictured with mother), the first elephant conceived in Israel through artificial insemination, was viewed live by over 350,000 people in 108 countries?
—valereee (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I was going to suggest if Breslov Research Institute could be expanded for DYK purposes, but it appears it already run in 2010. However, with the proposal above considering doing an IAR re-run of her previous work, I do wonder if it's possible if Breslov could be IAR re-run asa well. The hook set idea seems nice, but while I understand the desire for privacy, I wonder if some kind of notice is still appropriate if only for transparency purposes. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:11, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I think swapping Breslov Research Institute for one of the food hooks above would be a good idea. — Maile (talk) 13:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Or maybe the above mentioned "Wash The Blood Off My Toga"? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
How about swapping both for two of the four food hooks? — Maile (talk) 14:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
I support swapping in different/more fitting hooks as those who knew Yoninah believe is appropriate. Cbl62 (talk) 16:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • RIP. Yoninah was one of the most vital contributors to the DYK area, without which the entire queue and prep curation process wouldn't have functioned as well. I do agree with running some of her best work in one queue as a tribute, but as Chipmunkdavis says, it may be a bit strange to have a public message for that. Epicgenius (talk) 13:45, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Here is a proposed rewrite based on suggestions above. Maybe it could be moved to a special occasion holding area for others to discuss and adjust as appropriate:
Justitia et pax, by an anonymous painter

It's hard to choose 8 from such a wealth of good hooks. Other hooks that seemed appropriate and could be considered include:

Cbl62 (talk) 17:46, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, do we have a list of "eighth hooks" (like in the final slot) that Yoninah did? I suggest we can do five or six of these, one picture, one GA hook, and her first-ever DYK. Epicgenius (talk) 20:25, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
  • Given all of these proposals and how it would be a shame not to include them all, would everyone here be open to a two-set run as opposed to a single set? We could even go to three if needed, with each set focusing on a different theme that she loved (for example, one set for Israel/Judaism articles, another set for her most viewed hooks, another set of other hooks, etc.) Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:54, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that we have to come up with something, and multiple sets seems like a good idea. Does it strike anyone else besides me as somewhat ironic that the ultimate DYK-gnome Yoninah, who wasn't looking for adminship and was content to work over here creating content and shepherding hook sets around, is now the one who is about to trigger an ultimate IAR scenario? Consider this a virtual standing ovation for accomplishing this. — Maile (talk) 02:39, 19 March 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree. --evrik (talk) 16:17, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I have said what I wish to say on her talk page about this sad circumstance. Nonetheless, in the end, advise editorially following the sprit of WP:NOTMEMORIAL here and not do this, and would note it's when policy gets in the way of something one has an emotional attachment to, that often it is still best to conform consensus with it. The purpose of this project, which she clearly was devoted to, was not to focus on her nor internal Wikipedia feelings/pov, rather to highlight recent improvement in content, recent content produced under the requirements WP PAGs - in the end, consistent service to readers, not self (including our own attachments). Alanscottwalker (talk) 19:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree that WP:NOTMEMORIAL applies. I view this as more akin to a special occasion set of hooks. In this case, the special occasion is Yoninah's anniversary of her first DYK contribution. The hooks themselves are still encyclopedic, and the thread above suggests that no public tribute will be posted on the main page, therefore there is no memorial that violates policy. Edge3 (talk) 20:26, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
It rather stretches credulity it is not memorial, given the above discussion, and that it is memorial is reinforced by it not complying with special occasion for DYK. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 21:08, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
WP:NOTMEMORIAL explicitly exempts WP:RIP from that rule. Further, Wikipedia:Deceased Wikipedians/Guidelines allows for memorial pages, saying: If the colleagues of an editor feel moved to do so, they may create a memorial page to honor the deceased, as long as the family has not objected and the user did not object to it prior to their death... Memorial pages are not mandatory; they are created by the community, for the community, rather than as a requirement. Edge3 (talk) 22:00, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
So, you are intending by this to create a memorial. But you are not working here on a memorial page, you are editing the main page. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:43, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I never said it's not a memorial. I said only that it's not a memorial that violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. WP:RIP is explicitly listed as an exception to that rule, therefore the policy does not apply. I should also note that WP:DWG is listed as an official guideline. Edge3 (talk) 13:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
Um hmm. I understand where you are coming from Alanscottwalker, but what is Deceased Wikipedians, if not a memorial to those we have lost? And you've been around long enough to know Wikipedia in general, and DYK specifically, deviates by consensus. What are all Wikipedia's halls of fame lists, where most of the honorees are deceased, if not partially memorials? In Sept 2016, we did two days of complete sets devoted to Star Trek. I seem to remember a great set for the deceased Frank Sinatra. And the list goes on. With Yoninah, it's not her life we celebrate, but her individual contributions to this project. We are not writing condolence memories of her for the main page, but celebrating what she taught us with her own examples. — Maile (talk) 21:55, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I agree with Maile. WP:NOTMEMORIAL is mostly about articles, not for things like this -- Guerillero Parlez Moi 22:06, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
Maile: There is difference in content in the standards we are to apply to editorial decisions, than in what we do for ourselves in internal space. And I am aware that walled garden actions are disfavored, and I that can't really stop you (even if you are now saying you are not doing this in her memory) but what I have been around long enough to know is that I should still offer my good-faith, PAGs-based editorial judgment. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 21 March 2021 (UTC)
I REALLY don't like the idea of doing this. As much as I enjoyed my interactions with Yoninah, I find this level of memorializing to be a totally inappropriate use of the Main Page. Pick a selection of her "greatest hits" and put it up on her user page with a note about what she did and how she did it here on Wikipedia, but not this. --Khajidha (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2021 (UTC)
I also disagree with using the main page of Wikipedia to recognize any editor. I appreciate the good intentions of many to say thank you, but the appropriate venues for doing so are at her user page, Deceased Wikipedians and The Signpost. Flibirigit (talk) 15:41, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
I, on the other hand, would support a one-off IAR re-run of some of Yoninah's hooks. But we can and should keep the symbolism to ourselves. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:01, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Signpost obit tribute in the works[edit]

A less formal one - the Yoninah DYK medal[edit]

Due to the sheer amount of DYKs that Yoninah has created, expanded, and nominated, I think we should make a medal in honor of Yoninah.

  • The Yoninah DYK Creation and Expansion Medal, conferred to whoever reaches the same amount of DYK Articles that Yoninah has created or expanded
  • The Yoninah DYK Nomination Medal, conferred to whoever reaches the same amount of DYK Articles that Yoninah has nominated

--Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 07:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Something like this is much more appropriate. I would advocate for yearly awards, with the recipient being the person with the most creations in the preceding year. --Khajidha (talk) 16:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Rather than a number of DYKs, for which there are numerous stars already, why not a DYK service type award? It could be voted on like the annual WP:MILHIST awards. CMD (talk) 16:24, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
@Chipmunkdavis: You're right. It should've been a yearly elected award. And I've been thinking about it - how about if we ask editors that were close to Yoninah to provide the silhouette of Yoninah so that we could use it in the medal (or did I miss some kind of privacy loophole with a silhouette?) Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 08:49, 1 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Please see List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. There are currrent editors who have created and/or promoted as many or more than Yoninah did. Not the least is the current statistical reigning active champ Gerda Arendt. And running neck-and-neck right behind Gerda is our admin Cwmhiraeth. Yoninah's contributions here were much more than statistics. I don't have an objection to creating something unique to recognize Yoninah, and I do like the idea of some kind of service medal. I have the feeling she would dismiss the idea of singling her out, but a service medal based on non-statistical contributions might be a good way to go. The selfless prep builders come immediately to mind. Yoninah was definitely riding herd over the prep areas, and since she is no longer here, I think we are finding how very valuable the prep builders are. — Maile (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
    I'd love to see recognition for the most prolific prep builders! —valereee (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Move to her page[edit]

  • Move this to her talk? I just added a little memorial to Yoninah to her talk:
  • and wonder if we should move this whole section there, as a tribute to what she stood for? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:25, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @Gerda Arendt: I wouldn't mind if we moved everything above here to a subpage of her personal page. Perhaps a link right below the "Deceased Wikipedian" notice at the top of the page. Otherwise, this is just going to end up archived at DYK and forgotten. — Maile (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
    Go ahead. I had little to do with it, and certainly not with archiving her talk. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:34, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't have time right now, but I can work on that. Also, I don't see people lined up to support any of the above ideas, and we can't do anything otherwise. — Maile (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Review of Yoninah's obituary[edit]

Hi all. A draft of Yoninah's obituary for the Signpost has been started at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Next issue/Obituary. Please note that the deadline is Friday night (approximately 00:00 UTC on Saturday, 27 March), so please review and modify at your earliest convenience. Thank you! Edge3 (talk) 04:31, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

All done, and appeared, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Curated set?[edit]

These need to go into Preps 4 and 5, I believe? I'm thinking move what's currently into those sets to later sets, and then start moving these in? —valereee (talk) 12:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean valereee. Is there consensus to do make two Yoninah-only preps for articles that have already featured on DYK? From what I've read about her, I think she would have been the first to argue against doing that. MeegsC (talk) 14:29, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Did we reach a consensus above about whether or not we ought to run any of these? The sets were suggested, and some liked the idea, but most DYK people have not participated in the discussion. In particular, several of our regulars have not weighed in on this. But if we are going to IAR for entire sets on the main page, we need a consensus. It does not serve DYK well, or Yoninah's memory, if we go ahead without a consensus. — Maile (talk) 14:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Happy to reopen discussion, and I don't think there is any magic to the April 12 date. I like the idea quite a bit and would like to see it happen unless there's consensus against it. MeegsC, we've rerun many hooks that have already run. We've rerun hooks simply to balance the main page, or because a few hours in a hook was pulled. —valereee (talk) 17:59, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
I feel the same way you do - what a wonderful testimony to Yoninah's time with us. Do you think a formal RFC? After that, if mostly nobody objects, then hopefully they also won't complain after the sets run. — Maile (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
Given that this is a major case of IAR along with how some editors did object to the idea, I'd agree that a formal RFC (similar to the one we had for the Apollo 40th anniversary set) would be a good idea. My only concern is that, with the 12th two days away, that date will probably pass before we reach a consensus, but personally I'd think it's the thought that counts rather than the actual date. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:51, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

April Fool's Day[edit]

Why does DYK continue to run April Fool's Day hooks? Every year we do it, and every year, we're the only place on the Main Page that allows it. But the hooks aren't even that funny, and just cause loads of additional effort, arguments, and prep reworking for the DYK process. It also allows people to ignore the special occasions rules (which say that articles for special occasions should be nominated 1-6 weeks beforehand). All in all, it seems to consume lots of DYK people's time- just look at how many threads/discussions we had about the setup of it this year- and is an unnecessary burden on this project for minimal gain. Would it not be better to just get rid of April Fool's DYK completely? FYI, trying to gage opinion on whether I should make a proper RFC on this matter. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Got my support Joe, bloody sensible idea. ——Serial 17:17, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Joseph2302, so you didn't catch Wikipedia:Today's featured article/April 1, 2021, then. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:20, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
Also Joe appears to have missed the positive responses on social media. We have people who come because they love DYK on April Fools. Not to mention the successes it led to in improvements for the articles featured, all of which made it to STATS for the second year running. I will be strongly opposed to any attempt at killing the one day we are allowed to have any fun on. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
As long as you can promise that incidents like the Hitler hook will not happen again. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
Reviewing DYK hooks themselves takes 10 minutes or less generally in my experience, and while yes discussions are aplenty about preparing the april fools hooks, as long as some group of editors is willing to do it, why should we prevent that just because we think they should spend their time elsewhere? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 17:57, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, I like it. It's a fun thing to do, and we need silly stuff in life. As long as there are people to make it happen at DYK once a year, I see no reason why not. If anyone is less than thrilled with our set of hooks, then maybe this could be a starting point where they could help come up with sillier ones they like better. — Maile (talk) 18:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't see what's wrong with April Fools Day hooks, they're just a bit of much needed fun in an area where we're way too serious most of the time. As long as the hooks aren't harmful or totally inaccurate, they should be fine. Now, whether or not hooks are actually good enough for AFD is another story, but it's something that can be worked on. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:53, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
They're great, readers like them even more than we do and literally nothing matters except readers (and BLP policy), stop complaining. (C of E, BLP policy trumps readers, just keep that one in mind.) Vaticidalprophet 12:23, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
As a side note, I'm happy TFA joined us this year and hope they will next. (If trends continue, I'll be an FA writer next year, so hopefully I'll have someone's ear.) Vaticidalprophet 12:24, 6 April 2021 (UTC)
  • There no exact requirements for an April Fool's Day DYK. Any of our hooks may be odd or amusing and we have a slot every day for the most quirky. So, it's not clear what the proposal is exactly. Is it that the hooks we run on April 1st should be especially chosen to be humourless and boring? That could be quite amusing but might be self-defeating like the interesting number paradox. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:33, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Steve Cherry[edit]

Just seeing if editors can help reach a consensus on the issues raised at Template:Did you know nominations/Steve Cherry to move the DYK along either way. SL93 (talk) 21:51, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

So should the nomination just be closed? SL93 (talk) 02:25, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
If the issues can't be resolved promptly then I'm afraid so. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 05:26, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
There's clearly an issue with too much of the article being reliant on a a self published source. I nominated the article for a GA reassessment because it should have never passed in the first place. It's not ready for DYK. 4meter4 (talk) 05:48, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Prep 4[edit]

"... that the tourist submarine Windermere operated for only two seasons on her namesake lake in Cumbria, England?" Technically, Windermere (aka Lake Windermere) isn't a lake, as per [1], [2] ("There is only one official lake - Bassenthwaite Lake. All the others are 'meres' or 'waters'"). My question is therefore should the phrase "on her namesake lake" be re-worded, or should it be accepted as fine (as most call it Lake Windermere, even if it is not technically a lake). Courtesy pings to Dumelow, Bloom6132, SL93, as the nominator, accepter, and promoter of this hook. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:07, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think it's fine as lake, "how many lakes are there in the Lake District?" is more of a pub quiz trick question than a technical definition. Our article on Windermere starts "Windermere is the largest natural lake in England" and we have List of lakes of the Lake District - Dumelow (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Yes, geographically these are lakes. I suspect the distinction with Bassenthwaite is that it's the only one that says "lake" in its title. But I can't see anything in the physical world that would suggest it's an outlier from the rest. I think this is fine as is.  — Amakuru (talk) 12:38, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
Particularly as the first source you've linked to, Joseph2302, starts "There are sixteen lakes in the Lake District, the largest being Windermere."! A "mere" is just a lake that is broader than it is deep, per this other page on the same site. MeegsC (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
I thought this might be the answer, but seemed like no harm in asking people before it goes onto main page. Especially as this is exactly the sort of thing I can imagine being reported at WP:ERRORS. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:24, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
That's a non-RS source for such a statement, and a nonsense definition - where would it leave the Great Lakes? Johnbod (talk) 15:17, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Sandra Kim[edit]

This was vandalism. Please do whatever you do to clean up. Uncle G (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

  • What is vandalism? The article is too old and too short. Deletion causes the least trouble. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
    • @Gerda Arendt: The user in question was a long term vandal. I've CSD'd the page because that's what CSDs are for; hopefully either @Uncle G: or someone else takes care of it. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:00, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
      • I removed the deletion tag, as we don't close out rejected templates that way. Instead, I formally closed it as rejected with a note that the nominator has been indef blocked as a vandal. The nomination would not have passed anyway, as the article is too old and not expanded as the template claimed. — Maile (talk) 19:20, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
        • I knew that there would be a procedure of some sort. ☺ Thank you. Uncle G (talk) 19:52, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
          • It had not even been transcluded to the log, so deleting it would have been minimal effort and also DFTT, but anyway. Appears to be resolved. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:18, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
            • For what it's worth, even if the nominator wasn't a vandal and even if the article was eligible, the proposed hook probably wouldn't have flown per BLP. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 22:54, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

RFC to IAR for hook sets of Yoninah's work on the Main Page[edit]

RFC regarding Proposed Queue IAR to honor Yoninah.

The death of Yoninah has left a void, and the above thread requests to IAR by compiling one or more sets of her hooks for the Main Page. Inasmuch as this is an unprecedented one-time change in DYK's appearance on the Main Page, there needs to be a consensus here before this happens. We have all felt her sudden absence, but not everyone agrees that it is appropriate to IAR to put one or two sets of her hooks on the Main Page. Some have suggested that this violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The majority seem to be holding back, silent. We cannot change our Main Page procedure without a consensus.

Please share your thoughts below. This RFC is for procedural correctness, and not a reflection on Yoninah's memory. In other words, we need our regular people, especially Admins, to weigh in on this, one way or the other. Please do not hesitate to be heard here. Either we move forward with the proposal by consensus, or we archive it and move on. — Maile (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Support IAR main page tribute to Yoninah[edit]

  • Support For all her work, it seems a good idea to me. I don't think an RFC is necessary to IAR. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support for why IAR exists -- making the project, in some small way, better. I say this as someone with a hook in one of the sets that would be delayed by this move; it is no skin off my back to go on the main page twelve hours later so we can honour the memory of someone so important to us. (Frankly, I wish 'actively naming Yoninah' hadn't been vetoed -- I think hiding that Wikipedia is made by actual people from its readers hurts us, not helps.) WP:NOTMEMORIAL is inapplicable here for the same reason it's inapplicable to WP:RIP -- it's an article notability/NPOV issue. It does not violate "don't write encyclopedia articles as panegyrics" to run Yoninah's hooks. Vaticidalprophet 15:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm also not sure exactly why the reluctance to mention her real name on Wikipedia given how her apparent real name seems to be the basis of her username and how said name has already been mentioned in a public source, not to mention those who had interacted with her through e-mail would have known a bit about it. While I do understand the privacy concerns, I'm not sure if they really apply here given the circumstances, along with how some editors whose real names aren't mentioned in their user pages are still mentioned by name on WP:RIP; some clarification would be appreciated. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Think of this as a special occasion set where we honor a person. We've had precedent for something similar in the past when we've had sets dedicated to Frank Sinatra or Beethoven, not to mention other cases like the Moon landing. I'm not sure if she would be against this if she were still alive, but I don't see any harm in doing it especially when we've done similar things before. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - I think DYKs readers deserve to know who was responsible for so many of these hooks. This does seem antithetical to the concept of Wikipedia, but so was taking a stance against SOPA. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    But if I understand the proposal right readers will not know who was responsible, just may wonder why something is presented as new content that they saw long ago. - My approach is writing new content in memory, the next hopefully Psalm 115 (which will need a lot of expansion, - help welcome, today or too late for DYK. The beginning is - quite matching this whole topic "Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory"). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    Once I mentioned it here: I managed to expand the article sufficiently, and nominated with a hook regarding Earth Day, 22 April, soon. Template:Did you know nominations/Psalm 115 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
It appears that I misunderstood the proposal. I have been quite ill lately. I still support the proposal. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Best wishes for your health! The Psalm hook is approved, could someone please move it to the special occasions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - I'd be happy for a "greatest hits" set of the best hooks that Yoninah created/promoted to go onto the main page for a day. We don't need to draw attention to the fact that it is for a memorial, but we would know. The fact it is old added information is not really all that big a deal to the average reader. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 10:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - As a one-off IAR special. We can do a quiet symbolic gesture without us having to go into details about the reasons behind to our readers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    To clarify, since apparently I appear "to be both supporting and opposing": Support running a set composed of previous hooks by Yoninah on the DYK section. Oppose any direct mention of her (similar to what Valereee is saying) while doing so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - It strikes me that there is an extremely limited universe for whom we would consider something like this, a universe of probably fewer than 10 editors. This is a good example, I think, of IAR. To be clear, IAR says that if a rule is preventing you from improving the encyclopedia, then it's best to ignore it. How would this improve the encyclopedia? To me, that's simple. It's a reminder to whomever stumbles on the main page that everything that is there—and everything that exists across Wikipedia—was written by real people just like them. If it encourages even one editor to make one improvement to one article, that strikes me as a net benefit. (This argument, of course, rests on including some public-facing mention of what we're doing.) Let's do it. Go Phightins! 12:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per IAR Eddie891 Talk Work 12:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The rules can be broken --Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support curated sets with no mention of why or of Yoninah. —valereee (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per all above.4meter4 (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. We don't need to do anything more than this, and the sets should not be marked as "special" on the main page itself, but I do think this is a nice touch and a good tribute to a DYK legend.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -- I don't think this is a violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. If anything, it's a continuation of what we've already done per WP:DWG. As stated above, the SOPA vote is a great example of Wikipedia making a public statement that doesn't directly relate to normal editing. I'm not too worried about setting a "precedent", because I trust that the community will be able to determine which editors deserve this level of recognition. This is akin to the Signpost, where getting an obituary is not automatic, but rather determined on a case-by-case basis. Edge3 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support a queue of DYK hooks that Yoninah was involved in, and also support some way to recognize the rest of her hooks - ex: via a link to a subpage dedicated to her hooks on the DYK section whenever this is run. We aren't a memorial, but we can still recognize great impacts people had on Wikipedia Main Page content - and I don't think that's a "memorial" so much as a "we recognize the contributions of this person". I also support if a direct link isn't provided that the "Archive" text is changed to "in memory of Yoninah" link - with a description of her contributions and all of those contributions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Seems like a nice and harmless gesture for a tireless DYK contributor. P-K3 (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support What is IAR for, if not for this. A fitting tribute to a great contributor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Oppose IAR tribute to Yoninah[edit]

  • Oppose. I'll start by saying that I didn't become active with DYK until shortly before Yoninah died, so perhaps I shouldn't vote here. But I don't think making the main page a memorial is appropriate – whether or not it's stated as such – and (perhaps more importantly) from what I've read of her, I don't think Yoninah would have approved of us making such a gesture. I do think the idea mooted above, of making a subpage of her "greatest hits" available from her page, is a great idea. And I like the idea of a Yoninah memorial award too. But not a rehash of her DYKs on the front page. Yes, we've done it before, but for important historic events, not for a single Wikipedian. Regardless of how awesome she was, that's not what this project is about! MeegsC (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as being antithetical to the concept of Wikipedia. The ideas of a "greatest hits" page linked from her user page or a memorial award are more appropriate. --Khajidha (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Using the main page to memorialize any editor is inappropriate and goes against the concept of Wikipedia. Flibirigit (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is against the concept of Wikipedia and I don't think Yoninah would be alright with such a thing. SL93 (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it doesn't seem in keeping with what Yoninah would have wanted or the way that she approached wikipedia. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 13:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. ——Serial 13:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Yoninah DYK service medal[edit]

  • Support This has also been mentioned in the original discussion linked above. Valereee commented that this would be a good idea to award prolific prep builders, the area in which Yoninah gave much of her service to us. If we could work out a system of how to award this, and what timeline for the service, etc., I think this would ultimately be the best recognition of her years with us. — Maile (talk) 17:57, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Yep, I like this one! MeegsC (talk) 20:22, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I like this idea. SL93 (talk) 23:04, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support but I would prefer this to be a general barnstar not just to prep builders but to DYK contributors in general, regardless of specialization. Focusing merely on prep building would be unfair to countless editors who are active in the project but in other areas. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:41, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    I like that idea too Narutolovehinata5. MeegsC (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    There are already awards for prolific nominators and effective hooks. Prep building is thankless. I think we need to recognize it specifically. —valereee (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I would also support this. It would be a nice tribute given we don't really have that many DYK medals or awards. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 08:08, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, and yes: for general helpfulness for DYK please. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:23, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • support- I think this is a no brainer. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs)`
  • Support per all above, Eddie891 Talk Work 12:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, something along the lines of an award named in Honour of Yoninah for service to DYKs. This would cover prep/building of DYKs, and perhaps also one for selfless reviews BUT not for nominators. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 13:05, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support a very nice idea to show that we/me/you value those who just make the whole thing work with an award remembering one of the people who was an online philanthropist who just made the whole thing work. Victuallers (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Why not? Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support as something that seems to have no downside. —valereee (talk) 20:46, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per all above.4meter4 (talk) 20:51, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support, I would support something along these lines. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Edge3 (talk) 02:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments[edit]

  • I have no problem whatsoever in a set of hooks crafted to "honour" Yoninah, but I would not support anything beyond that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No objection and a slight leaning towards support, but per my objection in the previous discussion, it should be limited to a set of hooks with no custom message or other outward difference from a usual DYK set. CMD (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I am with MeegsC thinking that Yoninah would not have wanted a Main page appearance of her "greatest hits", but if a majority of users alive thinks it helps them feeling better, I will not be in the way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In response to the support from Narutolovehinata5, there really isn't a precedent for this. Those people have articles and those hooks fit into special occasions - Yoninah does not have an article. SL93 (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What precedence do we set here? Will we memorialise all those who builds lots of sets? Those who generate lots of hooks? Those who review lots of hooks? Where is the line drawn? And what will other areas of Wikipedia think? Are prep hook builders more important than those who write ITN, or review FAs or generate OTD entries – all of which have no ability to do a similar "memorial"? To me, this just doesn't seem like the right way to do things. MeegsC (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I can answer some of your questions. The short of it, is that prep builders and admins who promote to the Queues (or otherwise keep things running behind the scenes) have been so routine that it's taken for granted someone will always do the lifting. Each project has its own drives and barnstars for hard workers. For instance Good Article recently had Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/GAN Backlog Drives/March 2021. DYK has Statistics that includes a DYK Hall of Fame, DYK Stats for individual hooks, and List of Wikipedians by number of DYKs. I'm not part of ITN or OTD, so don't know how they operate. — Maile (talk) 12:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Right. But none of them – other than DYK – have the ability to memorialise a Wikipedia editor on the main page. And if we do it once, it sets a precedence to do it again. That concerns me. Why should this project and no other have the right to do so? MeegsC (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see, you were referring to the proposed hook sets. I misunderstood and thought you were referring to the service medal. — Maile (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The only thing I can think of for precedence was when Dr. Blofeld (now renamed) was the first to reach 1,000 nominations (in 2012 I think) and we suggested running an DYK hook about him but that was rejected. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I was around for the effort to honor Dr. Blofeld on the main page. With the Yoninah proposal, I don't believe they want her name on the main page, just a set of her hooks, without mentioning her by name. My memory of the Blofeld proposal was that the request was not to feature any of his hooks, but as a banner (or specific hook) on the main page congratulating him on his achievement. That proposal went over WT:DYK like a lead balloon, because the main page wasn't designed for such personal messages . — Maile (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • @MeegsC: Any of the projects on the Main Page (FA, ITN, OTD, FP, and FL) can choose to memorialize their most valued editors in a similar manner. Edge3 (talk) 00:28, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
When I brought up precedence, I was referring to the previous cases of us having sets in honor of dead people (such as Frank Sinatra or Beethoven), not to mention the multiple hooks about recently-deceased people that DYK has run. While a set in honor of an editor hasn't been done on DYK before, it's not as if we haven't honored people who are no longer with us in other ways either. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Actually, when I brought up precedence, I was referring to us setting precedence. Surely you'd agree that there's a big difference between someone like Beethoven, who's world-renowned and has had a big Wikipedia article written about him, and someone like Yoninah, who doesn't. Personally, I don't think we should set the precedence of doing this for a DYK editor. Otherwise, what's to stop others from pushing for this to be done for every DYK regular who shuffles off this mortal coil? And while you may not think that's a problem, is it really fair to those who contribute elsewhere in the project? MeegsC (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The most I would support on the Main Page is a limited period during which hooks from Yoninah were used any time the section needed expansion for balance. --Khajidha (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

DYKHousekeepingBot rewritten in Python![edit]

This week I've rewritten DYKHousekeepingBot from Java & the JavaWikiBotFramework to Python & the Pywikibot framework. More details on my talk page. If you notice a bug, please let me know! Shubinator (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Mis-spelled Giovanni Ross template moved to Giovanni Rossi, messing up the access[edit]

Template:Did you know nominations/Giovanni Ross (anarchist)

  • DragonflySixtyseven you moved the above mis-spelled template to Template:Did you know nominations/Giovanni Rossi (anarchist). We don't usually move templates to a new name, because then we cannot open the corrected template name from the nominations review page. It doesn't matter that the template is mis-spelled "Ross", as long as all the spelling and link is correct in the hook. Can you please move the template back to its original mis-spelling, so reviewers can access it? Thanks. — Maile (talk) 01:58, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and moved it back for now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:12, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. Seems to be OK now. — Maile (talk) 02:16, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Requiring the use of the Note WikiEd template for nominations by WikiEd editors?[edit]

After a discussion took place late last year regarding the apparent high failure rate of DYK nominations by WikiEd editors (along with other issues such as their lack of transclusion and other failures to follow guidelines), the template {{Note DYK nominator WikiEd}} was created, which aims to inform editors that a DYK nominator is a student and thus may need further assistance or may not be available for comment. Despite this, it appears that as of this term, the template is still not widely used (I've had to add it multiple times, but only for nominations that I've noticed, so I may have missed some). The question is: should its use be required for all WikiEd nominators should they wish to nominate an article for DYK, and if so, perhaps some kind of script or other method could be done to make things easier for them? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Sorry Narutolovehinata5, but I'm not entirely clear. Did you mean to type "if they wish to nominate an article for DYK" instead of "deletion"? If the former, I don't think they should be required to use it, but I do think they should be encouraged to do so. If the latter, I don't know the article deletion process, so can't comment on that. MeegsC (talk) 14:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
@MeegsC: Apologies, I indeed meant to say DYK, "deletion" was a typo. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 14:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Maybe not required in the sense we'd automatically fail a DYK is not done, but required in the way that transcluding is required: you should, but if someone else notices they will do it for you. Though I would try to draw attention to it so that it isn't entirely other people adding it. Also ping @Ian (Wiki Ed): Kingsif (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Image note[edit]

Chestnut-capped piha
Chestnut-capped piha

Chestnut-capped piha has been promoted to Prep 1, without the image. As noted in Template:Did you know nominations/Chestnut-capped piha, the image has some small text in the lower left. I suspect that may be the reason MeegsC promoted it without the image. I've submitted a request to remove the text. My past, similar, requests have been taken care of very quickly. (If you don't see the text, it may have already been removed.) Just thought I'd mention it in case anyone thinks this would be good moved to an image slot. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 22:33, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Actually, Mandarax, I chose not to use the image because the color is really off. The bird is gray, not pinky-purple, in real life. But thanks for checking! MeegsC (talk) 06:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the reply. MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM 07:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hook edited in queue[edit]

So, my hook (for XYYY syndrome) was edited without my knowledge or input in the queue by @Cwmhiraeth, and I wasn't aware until it just got on the main page. The hook, ... that XYYY syndrome, a chromosome abnormality in which a man has two extra Y chromosomes, has only twelve recorded cases?, was changed to ... that XYYY syndrome, a chromosome abnormality in which a man has two extra Y chromosomes, has only been recorded twelve times?, which scans somewhat awkwardly and requires more work to discern the meaning of. I originally thought to take this to ERRORS, because it scans to me as outright incorrect grammar of the 'basic error to fix' kind, but I'm taking it to WT:DYK because it's also a bit of a broader question about hook-tweaking. It's a thing, I've done it, any of us who work in promoting have done it -- but when it's not just a basic typo fix but significantly moving around the sentence, isn't it good form to get the nominator's input as to why the hook was written how it was and whether the adjustment is really an improvement? Vaticidalprophet 12:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi Vaticidalprophet. I probably have to take much of the blame. I changed your hook to "... that XYYY syndrome, a chromosome abnormality where a man has two extra Y chromosomes, has only been recorded in twelve cases?". I made the change here. I nearly always check with nominators before changing hooks and apologize for not doing so in this case. To me, your hook read awkwardly too, and I tried to make it clearer. Unfortunately, it appears I didn't! MeegsC (talk) 12:32, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
As I understand the position, there have been twelve recorded occasions on which individuals with this syndrome have been identified. A syndrome cannot have a case, so what do you object to in my wording? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 14:00, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
"Cases of the disorder", like "case report" or "case study", is an entirely normal wording. The article and its sources use the term routinely (e.g. "Y aneuploidy: a further case of a male patient with a 48,XYYY karyotype and literature review"), as have similar articles I've written. Vaticidalprophet 14:10, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers[edit]

The previous list was archived a few days ago. The list below includes 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through the end of March. We currently have a total of 322 nominations, of which 152 have been approved, a gap of 170, up 35 from eleven days ago. 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. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Reviewing tool?[edit]

I don't know if this has been proposed before, but has anyone ever thought up of making a DYK reviewer tool that could help automate or at least guide the process, much like our new DYK nomination tool? For example, a hypothetical DYK reviewer tool could have a similar interface as the nomination tool, but would check for stuff like hook length, article length, creation/expansion date, as well as automate some things like tick giving or notifying nominators with the necessary messages. While we already have DYKcheck, that tool is article-based rather than nomination page-based, and editors will still need to do the actual review manually. Is such a tool feasible? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 02:35, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Every nomination template, when opened, has the DYK toolbox in the upper right hand corner. Are you asking for more than that? — Maile (talk) 02:44, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
I was thinking of a tool similar to the DYK nomination one (with the Twinkle-like interface). The DYK toolbox can be a bit fiddly to use especially for newcomers since they're so reliant on other links, plus the actual review is still done manually in any case. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 03:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Not able to do it myself, but I suspect someone could adapt DYKcheck to work from the nomination page looking from the date of the nomination rather than the current date. CMD (talk) 03:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Yup! It's on my to-do list. Rewriting DYKUpdateBot in Python is more critical though so it may be a while. Shubinator (talk) 00:16, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
As an aside, once Shubinator does his Python magic for us, please leave the existing tools in Toolbox, or let me know if you're going to eliminate them, so I can link them to one of my subpages. Because I find them helpful to me for other editing. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 00:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Queue 2[edit]

@Ashleyyoursmile and KittenKlub: Now in Queue 2, this hook is inaccurate because the biological reserve is composed of two separate parts. The gold mining project is in the region between these which is not part of the biological reserve. So we need to revise the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
"...is divided into two by land which includes the country's..." ? CMD (talk) 13:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
CMD's suggestion suits me fine. Ashleyyoursmile! 15:10, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. I have changed it in the queue to:
  • ... that the Lucifer Dékou-Dékou Biological Reserve, the largest wilderness area of France, is divided in two by land which includes the country's biggest mining project, the Montagne d'Or mine? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:38, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Prep 5: Sussex Drive[edit]

A couple of queries re the last part of this hook - (1) the article says "ceremonial road", whereas this hook says "ceremonial route". Why the discrepancy? (2) personally I'm not clear what the term actually means. We don't seem to have an article on either ceremonial road or ceremonial route, so should this be in quotes? (3) the article says it is "known as" this, but without telling us who knows that... this seems to be discouraged by MOS:WTW#Unsupported attributions, and we should at least say what evidence there is that it is "known as" that. (Note though, that as long as the article makes this point clear, there is no need for the hook to also do so). Pinging @Floydian and Sammi Brie: as nominator/reviewer. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 12:18, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Did a bit more digging and came up with a spate of articles from the 1980s referring to it as such and mentioning the National Capital Commission: [3] [4]. This refers to the title of a report commissioned in 1983 which appeared to consider Sussex Drive as part of a larger ceremonial route: [5]. Seems like the designer, John Abel, also used it: [6]. So it's been used to describe Sussex Drive alone and Confederation Boulevard, of which Sussex Drive is a part. Sammi Brie (she/her • tc) 13:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
So for 1/2, I'm not sure why ceremonial road / route (same thing) would need a link... it's a road/route/path/line that is ceremonial, or where ceremonies take place. You may be over analysing the term at more than face value. As for 3, I'd essentially be rewriting the lede sentence as "Known to Canadians, politicians, journalists, dignitaries, governments etc. as Canada's ceremonial road". Just the same as "also known as Ottawa Regional Road 93", the whom is "the public". - Floydian τ ¢ 14:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru Would one of Sammi Brie's links work as a reference for the hook? SL93 (talk) 21:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
@SL93: the problem isn't really with the sourcing, I was just genuinely unsure what a "ceremonial road" means. We don't have an article on the concept, and there doesn't seem a massive amount in literature. If it's something specific to Canada, you'd imagine that it would be in quotes. But anyway, it looks like nobody else is seeing issues with it, so I guess we just let it ride. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I have the same problem. In my understanding, a "ceremonial route" is a description of the path taken, not the pathway itself. That is, a ceremonial route may include one or more roads, but the roads are not actually the ceremonial route. And a "ceremonial road" would be one that is only used for these ceremonies, never for actual traffic.--Khajidha (talk) 12:18, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly either way about using "road" in place of "route" given that they are less synonymous terms elsewhere. Likewise if it gets switched to "part of Canada's ceremonial route". I've never heard of a road just for ceremonies and not traffic (sounds like a Kremlin thing), but the equivalent in the U.S. is Pennsylvania Avenue. - Floydian τ ¢ 14:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
But Pennsylvania Avenue is not a "ceremonial route". It's a road. Various ceremonies may have their routes follow that road, but the road is not those routes. --Khajidha (talk) 14:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
If this was my hook, I would just remove the ceremonial route part from the hook and article. I'm not sure how important it is to both of them when there is no context in the article. SL93 (talk) 15:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
If time is of the essence, then I can make do with it just being "The residence of the {Prime Minister of Canada} is located on Sussex Drive (pictured)", but what I'm aiming for here is a rendition of "Sussex Drive is to Canada as Downing Street is to Britain". The question is, how specific do we want to get with things? I could ping a dozen prolific Canadian editors and get something nice hammered out (not in 15 hours), but what would that ol' biddy Procedure have to say on that front? I'm honestly flexible, there's plenty to go with on this topic! - Floydian τ ¢ 21:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Old-age-security hypothesis[edit]

I think we can go ahead and remove this nom, as the nominator is not able to suggest a usable hook. Unless someone else can come up with one that works?4meter4 (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikilink for reference - Template:Did you know nominations/The old-age-security hypothesis. SL93 (talk) 21:43, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Prep 6: Gabriel Turville-Petre[edit]

@Krakkos, SL93, and Vaticidalprophet: The hook currently has "(pictured)" immediately following a possessive, which isn't normally good form. Would it be fine if we reworded this to "that Myth and Religion of the North by Gabriel Turville-Petre (pictured)" instead? I think this would probably make the wording a little clearer as well. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 22:26, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm fine with that. SL93 (talk) 22:32, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
Also sounds good to me (I paused a bit at the wording myself). Vaticidalprophet 04:40, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with that. Krakkos (talk) 05:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
 Done - I promoted this to the queue just now, but I've amended the wording as suggested.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Prep 2: Edward VIII[edit]

The Duke of Windsor in 1970
The Duke of Windsor in 1970

Not sure entirely what to do about this, but I find this a bit confusing. The hook says "Edward VIII (pictured)", but the pic is of him when he was no longer king, with the caption "The Duke of Windsor in 1970". This assumes that readers actually know Edward VIII and the Duke of Windsor are the same person. And it also looks a bit odd given that he wasn't king at the time of the pic, up-to-date or otherwise. Obviously I can see that the reason for that is that the article is about the interview, which was dated to 1970, but without clicking through to the article, or having a bit more context, it's not obvious what's going on here. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • I agree the caption is unhelpful, as people wouldn't know that Edward VIII was Duke of Windsor after being King. When I first saw that photo, I thought it was Prince Charles (who looks very similar). Joseph2302 (talk) 08:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I would look for a new hook. The current hook in no way establishes a link to the topic of the article, which is a specific interview, rather than the KingDuke himself. Also agree on picture caption, it should match the hook. Perhaps "Former King Edward VIII". CMD (talk) 11:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I think that the hook is fine because it is in the article. Though the image can be removed entirely if it could confuse people. As the promoter, I feel that it doesn't necessarily need the image slot. SL93 (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No Swan So Fine As the nominator, do you have any ideas? SL93 (talk) 15:38, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • How about...'in his youth/when he was younger, the Duke of Windsor wanted to be an 'up to date King'? I think the hook is fine, its about the duke linking to an article of which the duke is the primary subject. No Swan So Fine (talk) 18:22, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I like No Swan So Fine's idea. Amakuru SL93 (talk) 20:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    Sounds great to me. Thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:06, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
    I changed the hook. SL93 (talk) 01:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Question about hook[edit]

The hook for the Hunterdon Art Museum reads " ... that the Hunterdon Art Museum, located in a historic stone mill, was described as the “most charming and picturesque” museum in the state?" I suggested to the nominator that we replace "state" with "New Jersey", given that the hook has no reference to where the museum is located. The nominator wonders if it would be sufficient to link wikilink the word state to New Jersey. Comments? MeegsC (talk) 09:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree with explicitly mentioning New Jersey, as piping "state" to New Jersey is a bit of an WP:EASTEREGG, and I don't think specifying New Jersey makes it any less hooky. DanCherek (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Well Hunterdon Art Museum is in Hunterdon County, New Jersey, but I wouldn't expect anyone unfamiliar with NJ to make the connection.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

On the main page: Montero[edit]

How did that hook get through checks, when it just mentions something that happened in the video? Does the rule about PLOT not apply to music videos? Kingsif (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

In the past hooks about what happens in music videos have been approved and it can be argued that music videos aren't really fiction, although the hooks have not escaped controversy either. Maybe we need an RFC to clarify things once and for all? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Maybe, because I do think it goes against the spirit because the hook reveals nothing that merely watching the video doesn't tell you, the same as reading a book (and I know there's been controversy with non-fiction books) or looking at a work of art (we also haven't accepted art descriptions). Kingsif (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
"Gives Satan a lapdance" is fiction, as it was actually someone portraying Satan. Whether you believe Satan exists or not, the individual in the video certainly wasn't him. --Khajidha (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Can 'repeal PLOT' be an option in such an RfC? My views on PLOT are "it's the reason I'll never take another hook about a work of fiction to DYK again", and virtually every good fiction hook I've seen has just IARed it. Vaticidalprophet 11:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Then I would say that you have seen virtually no good DYK fiction hooks. --Khajidha (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
We actually did have an RfC on this very subject last year, and consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the rule. Even though I'm personally against it being used all the time, it just isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Indeed I haven't. I wonder why. Vaticidalprophet 15:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The golden rule is that hooks should be interesting. This one was definitely interesting, so I really don't see what the fuss is about here. FWIW it also references the real world, because it is about an actual music video.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1) We straight up LIED to our readers. The lap dance in question was not given to the Prince of Darkness. 2) That is not what "reference to the real world" means. We wouldn't allow something like "Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star in Star Wars" and this is the same sort of thing. --Khajidha (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Of course it's a reference to the real world. If the hook just said "... that Lil Nas X gave Satan a lap dance?" then it would be factually incorrect, and a violation of rule C6. But the context is laid up front, and the hook is a description of something real-life, i.e. the music video for the linked song. If anyone thinks readers will misinterpret and think the actual real-life Satan is in the video, then some degree of WP:COMMONSENSE has gone missing.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
No, describing the events in a music video is not a "reference to the real world". It's the equivalent of a plot summary. As I said, "Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star in Star Wars" is not a reference to the real world, even though it explicitly mentions the movie. This is the same thing. --Khajidha (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Khajidha: If you want to extend the rule to mean that no reference to any plot elements whatsoever is permitted, then go ahead and propose it. The rule currently merely says "the hook must involve the real world in some way", however, so does not prohibit references to plot elements.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't have to "extend" the rule to do that. That is what the rule means. A reference to a plot element is obviously not a reference to the real world. Unless you are doing something like comparing uses of similar plot elements in multiple works. --Khajidha (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
We straight up LIED to our readers. The lap dance in question was not given to the Prince of Darkness -- there are much, much bigger issues on this project to worry about, including actual factual errors, than claiming it's "lying" to readers to describe the plot of a fictional work (something any healthy person past mid-childhood can distinguish from reality). Vaticidalprophet 15:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
If it's a simple plot description, then it fails to involve the real world. There's a lot that could be said about this video's reception in the real world that would have been much more interesting than "work of fiction shows fictional event". --Khajidha (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
It could be argued that music videos aren't really fiction since they're tied to songs which are real things, plus when that rule was thought up I imagine what people had in mind were stuff like literature, film and television, not stuff like songs or music videos. What about scripted stuff like online videos then, do they count as fiction? The lines are admittedly rather blurry. Perhaps we really do need an RFC to clarify things? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: you mentioned above that there was an RFC about this last year. Please could you link to it?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 156#Can we please get rid of/modify WP:DYKSG#C6 already?. And my apologies, the discussion happened in 2019 not last year. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: OK thanks. What a depressing discussion. Not one person seems to have conme up with what I'd regard as a good reason for the existence of rule C6. Everyone worries about misleading or boring hooks, but that's already covered in the rules by criterion 3a. And then when a good fictional hook does come along, everyone says it's fine to IAR. So the rule C6 basically serves no purpose, other than to chew up our time in threads like this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The songs are works of fiction, too. Just quoting lyrics would also run afoul of this. --Khajidha (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Clarification of the real-world link hook requirement[edit]

Do certain kinds of works, such as music videos, song lyrics, documentaries, or certain kinds of online videos fall under "works of fiction" and thus require a real-world link in hooks about them? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging previous commentors: @Kingsif, Khajidha, Vaticidalprophet, and Amakuru: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • No, in significant part because the "real-world link" seriously limits the range of "hooks a reader might actually want to click on" available to a nominator and so forcing ever-greater expanses of art into the aspects of DYK that make so many people mock it does everyone a disservice, but also because they aren't. Vaticidalprophet 16:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes - descriptions of the events in these sorts of things is not a "real-world link". Real-world links are things about inspiration, production, reception, etc. --Khajidha (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - this seems to be inspired by the discussion above, but is a red herring in connection with that discussion as the hook in question did discuss the real world.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
No, it didn't. That's the point. "This fictional event happened in a work of fiction" is not a reference to the real world. --Khajidha (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • comment I was not familiar with the rule, but on the main page, the text says "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." This is a bit surprising and I suppose it came from some discussion, but I do not understand it. What is the context of that rule? Is there discussion to read somewhere? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. Fictionalized short video dramas set to music are still works of fiction. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment @Bluerasberry: Here is the diff where this first showed up in the rules in August 2010. DragonflySixtyseven first inserted a version of this in the rules, but I don't know if a discussion preceded that or not. The wording was edited by WaitingForConnection who has not edited since 2014. I was not a participant in this project until 2011, so have no first-hand knowledge to offer. — Maile (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes you're going to have two kinds of music video, performance and narrative. If it's a performance, the most you could say is "... that in Video, Singer dances and lip-syncs?" which is boring as hell (unless it's the hell Lil Nas is pole-dancing into). If it's a narrative, it is not meaningfully different to a short film at all, and the same rule applies. Kingsif (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, but... I can see why the rule exists, and it's mainly to prevent the types of hooks to which 99.9% of readers would react "so what?" (like the example just above this one) but I can see a minority of situations in which a genuinely interesting hook can exist without referencing the real world. And let's face it, many real-world hooks also suffer from the "so what?" problem. Black Kite (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    Per my comment above, my experience is real-world hooks trigger the "so what" problem more often. And considering that "so what" is DYK's death knell and the reason a sizable subset of the project would happily kick it off the Main Page, I've no enthusiasm to broaden that scope. Vaticidalprophet 06:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Location, location, location[edit]

What's the general feeling about our need to locate our "place" hooks in a place? The hook for the Seagram Building says simply "...that a head was displayed in the Seagram Building's plaza in 1968?" Should we say that it's in NYC? (Only one of the seven suggested hooks mentions that.) Or is the location unnecessary? MeegsC (talk) 12:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't view it as important unless it directly relates to whatever the hook is. The location is the building, and more context is in the article. City/country is important for prep builders perhaps, but not for the hook itself. CMD (talk) 13:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Steve Cherry Prep 1[edit]

Why was Steve Cherry promoted to prep 1 when the GA reassessment is still going on? Lee Vilenski SL93 (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It shouldn’t have been. I left a note for Lee Vilenski on their talk page.4meter4 (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I only posted here because I thought I was missing something important. SL93 (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I've pulled the article from prep for now. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 15:55, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for letting me know, although I don't think it required 4 pings. If it was undergoing a GAR, then it shouldn't really have been in the approved list. I see it has been pulled now, so that's grand. Fwiw, I trust Kosack to do a good article review, so I'm sure the GAR will be fine. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talkcontribs) 16:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Lee Vilenski the approval list is bot automated. Once an approval tick is on there it will move it, even if another hold up tick is placed after the approval one. The bot cannot differentiate status when there are conflicting ticks, so always read the conversation before promoting the article. FYI moving hooks out of the approval section is pointless because the bot will simply move them back if there was an approval tick given at any point of the conversation, so you always need to read to make sure nobody opposed a DYK approval tick.4meter4 (talk) 16:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Yoninah DYK service medal design[edit]

Wikipedia:Service awards

In the RFC above, this is one area where there are no Opposes. Is there any DYK person who is good at designing something like a barnstar or service medal? If so, samples might be good here. — Maile (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Queue 1[edit]

@Kieran207: This hook seems to be supported by neither the article nor the source. The online version of the Ridgefield Encyclopedia does not have page numbers, but searching for "Twain" brings up two results, neither of which refers to the station. I think we need a different hook, and I wonder whether this defunct station, of which no trace remains, is even notable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Relevant section of the source is "Cooper Station: On the west side of Cooper Hill Road where it crosses the track bed; included a post office; Samuel Langhorne Clemens of Redding, a friend of Colonel Edward M. Knox (q.v.) of Downsbury Manor (q.v.), would ride the train from West Redding to Branchville, to Cooper Station, where he was met by the Colonel; station named for neighborhood, said to have had a cooper with quarters nearby; called the “Milk Station” and “Zallicoffers” [P4/8/1909; [RN]". Per the Mark Twain article, "Samuel Langhorne Clemens" is the real name, and Twain died in Redding, so possibly Twain at a glance. It is one friend only, and I don't think we usually include words like "famed", but the hook seems plausible. No opinion on notability. CMD (talk) 07:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm very much not a train editor, and one may correct me. That said, I've read some writings of train editors, and my understanding is stations are what you might call inherently notable. The phrase "inherent notability" hits a red-hot button for a certain kind of person, but what that means here is that virtually any train station can be expected to have enough coverage to sustain a respectable (indeed, "good enough for DYK" is a solid line) article. There's some mergist vs splittist debate, but even the defunct and dismantled ones had enough lifetime coverage to pass GNG. This might be of interest. Vaticidalprophet 09:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Another question: isn't "famed" a peacock term? The hook works even without it. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 11:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)