Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 186

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 180 ← Archive 184 Archive 185 Archive 186 Archive 187 Archive 188 → Archive 190

At 121 approved nominations

@DYK admins: We are at 121 approved nominations so it looks like it's time for one set two sets a day. SL93 (talk) 21:55, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

two, i think. Now's probably a good time for me to jump back in in earnest; I'll scan for special hooks in the queues. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:56, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Oops. Sorry. Now changed to what I meant. SL93 (talk) 21:57, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
good good :) okay, no special occasion hooks found. Sometime between midnight and noon UTC (starting just over two hours from now), an admin needs to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200. Thanks! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:59, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
There is one in prep 6 for May 20. - ... that at the age of 26, Lucy Moss became the youngest female director of a Broadway musical before directing a TikTok musical that raised $2 million? SL93 (talk) 22:01, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
I swapped it with p3, that should be good to go.
On a separate note, we've come quite close to have no filled queues a few times. Admins, are you sure that the current available talent is up to a two-a-day stint right now? I wouldn't want to put the project under more strain. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:06, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Pinging Cwmhiraeth, in the hopes that she'll be around in a few hours and will be able to make the switch to twice daily sets and also promote a set from prep to queue. Thanks for whatever you can do, and what other admins are able to do. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
I've changed it to two sets per day. Schwede66 04:22, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Schwede66. Much appreciated. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)
We've dropped down to 80 rather quickly. Could everyone reading this go and review two DYK nominations? That way we could keep the number of unreviewed noms under control and prevent having to switch to 1/day again very soon. (It is also nice to have a store of QPQs saved up for a rainy day). —Kusma (talk) 10:04, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Prep 7: 2022 CONCACAF Champions League Final

I moved this form Queue 7 to Prep 7 just now. Not sure if the DYK community will be concerned about this or not, but thought I'd push it out a few days just to make sure it's OK. Also noted that Queue 7 already has a US sports hook at the top so useful to move it for balance anyway.

The concern I have is that the article doesn't have any prose on the two matches that make up the main subject of the final. Obviously it was expanded and nominated before the matches took place, but given that they have now taken place I'm thinking maybe we should have a brief write-up of the matches before sending it live. Certainly if this came up as a nomination at WP:ITN/C I would ask that some prose be added before considering it suitable for posting, but the DYK rules may differ in that regard. @SounderBruce: if you're able to add something that would be great. Happy to hear any other thoughts on this too. Pinging @Legoktm and Z1720: as reviewer/promoter.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Working on it, but I've been busy offline for quite some time and haven't been able to gather as many sources in that time. SounderBruce 03:16, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Finished the summaries. SounderBruce 06:50, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
@SounderBruce: excellent, thank you that looks great now. The hook is in Queue 7 again now, so will run in a couple of days. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:41, 20 May 2022 (UTC)

Promoting nominations with un-discussed hook changes?

This has been mentioned before, but the problem is now becoming more widespread. Some promoters choose to promote nominations with their own un-discussed hook changes, when the creator, nominator and reviewer have not been alerted.

Not everybody can consult their watchlist daily (some of us have to earn our living too). I consult mine daily, but this situation means that I now also have to check every promoted nomination that I've been involved in, on the day of promotion, then I have to check it on the preps and queues page daily until it appears on the main page. Not everyone has time for this, and not everyone realises that it is necessary. The creator is usually the best witness for accuracy of hook facts, but I doubt whether they are always automatically pinged when un-discussed changes are made to the hook.

This has happened to me as creator and as reviewer a number of times now. So far the changes have been mostly acceptable, but on one occasion I had to intervene because the hook-change made the facts incorrect, and therefore left the hook unsupported by citations. So please could we now have some kind of protocol in which creator, nominator and reviewer are always notified as soon as an un-discussed hook change has been made at the moment of promotion?

I'm not just talking about obvious fact-changes. Sometimes a re-phrasing for better syntax might seem OK, but in fact the wording has changed the meaning, and the promoter does not realise that. In my opinion, this should not happen at all at the moment of promotion, other than clear wikifying changes, such as inserting "pictured". So perhaps it should be made clear to promoters when it is better to hold up a promotion for approval of a changed hook, and when it is better to promote it e.g. when the promoter has only made a typo correction. Your opinions, please? Storye book (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Storye book (talk • contribs) 19:44, April 15, 2022 (UTC)

You are talking about only the promotion to prep process, to the point that a promoter changes the wording at that time? I do know that we admins sometimes correct hooks while they are in queue. But just to change something around because the promoting editor feels they can make it a better, or more accurate hook, I don't think I've done that part. I don't normally promote to prep. — Maile (talk) 19:53, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
To my experience, theleekycauldron changes a lot, but notifies in the edit summary, - I like that solution. Most changes are fine, a few get discussions. Did you see the problem above, that the hook stayed, but the article was modified, removing the hook fact (which I only happened to see on my watchlist)? That seemed worse to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 19:59, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I did a lot of promoting today, including rewording the hook for Template:Did you know nominations/European Theatre Convention when I promoted it to Prep 3. I left a message in the DYK promotion template, describing which Prep it has been moved to, that changes had been made and why I made those changes. I did not post my rewording in the DYK template because it is my understanding that when someone proposes an ALT, they are highly discouraged from promoting that hook. Since there are limited prep builders, this delays the hook's promotion and reduces my options for building sets. This is coupled with waiting for replies from the two editors about the new ALT, further delaying the process and making it difficult to build preps. If I think I am changing the meaning of the hook in any way, I will propose an ALT and not promote. In the future, I will ping all editors involved in the process if I make any changes to a hook as I promote it. Z1720 (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
I think one of the problems is that hook changes at the point of promotion are frequently notified only in edit summaries, and what we need is direct notification - it is too easy to miss an edit summary if one has a lot of items on the watchlist. I appreciate that there are lots of innocent and well-meaning promoters out there - you don't need to defend your actions, I am not looking to witch-hunt - I am just looking for ideas for general guidelines which will prevent creators, nominators and reviewers from missing those changes which inadvertently change hook facts and/or diverge from citation content. Storye book (talk) 20:34, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps I wasn't clear: in edit summary with a ping which will call your attention --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
@Storye book: I have a bot that can detect changes in hooks and record them on the nomination talk page—I haven't started an RfC to get it online, but is that something you'd be interested in? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:36, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
That's a great idea, leek. I look forward to seeing that, because at the moment, even when I spot a promotion-hook-change in an edit summary, it is a tedious matter to find the prep or queue that it's now in. Storye book (talk) 20:41, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

RfC: Post-promotion hook change recording bot

Should DYK employ an automated system that records changes made to hooks in the prep sets and on the main page? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

Executive summary: It's my understanding that the consensus needed to go to WP:BRFA requires an RfC; if I'm wrong, feel free to remove the RfC tag. This bot would detect changes to any hook in the prep sets, queues, or on the Main Page. When the bot detects a change, it'll leave a note on the talk page of a nomination; for example, for C. J. Cregg (nom), changes will be recorded at Template talk:Did you know nominations/C. J. Cregg. The bot will not (as of now) detect changes made during promotion. Detecting interested parties is a bit too computationally expensive and unreliable, so if you want to know when your hook's being modified, you would have to keep the nomination page on your watchlist until after the hook is taken off the air. Thoughts on implementation? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:02, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

  • Support - I think this is an excellent idea. Those of us who work the preps and queues have a tendency to assume it's our job to tweak the hooks we promote, or even just peruse. But that leaves both the nominator and the reviewer with no consultation on whether or not the change was justified. — Maile (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support per Maile Rlink2 (talk) 22:51, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Z1720 (talk) 23:06, 15 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support Can't think of any significant downsides. DanCherek (talk) 23:20, 15 April 2022 (UTC) Addendum: I specifically like the fact that this proposal will not be bothersome to nominators who do not want excessive pings or talk page messages. DanCherek (talk) 01:20, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Strong support This has been an issue for me many times. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:16, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support but I don't think being reliant on the Template talk thing is the best way to inform editors about hook changes. Many editors don't bother putting the nom page on their watchlist or otherwise don't check it, so it can be easy to miss changes. At the very least, if such changes are to be done, I think they should also either ping the relevant editor(s) or leave them a talk page message. As for relevant editor(s), given the "Detecting interested parties is a bit too computationally expensive and unreliable" part, at the very least I think the nominator should be informed by the bot about any hook changes; if other editors (like co-noms) should be contacted, that should be left to the discretion of this RfC. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Seems like a no-brainer. NLH5's proposal immediately above of pinging the nom also seems like a good idea, and I assume it's feasible on the technical end, but my support isn't contingent on its implementation. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 01:54, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment: I'm unclear why placing comments on the nomination's talk page would bring nominators coming; if they don't currently come to check on their nomination when promoted to prep, and monitor thereafter, it seems unlikely that they'll track the nomination (talk) page post-promotion. Wouldn't it be more effective to post a note to the nominator's talk page? The nominator can easily be parsed from the nomination page. (For that matter, the other people on the nomination line could also be parsed.) I can see that other participants on the nominations page could be problematic. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:05, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    @BlueMoonset: I mean, say you're a nominator, and compare the two scenarios. Currently, you get a watchlist notice that your hook was promoted; depending on the promoter, there won't be a link to the prep set, so you've gotta find the prep set, check on your hook, and (since it's probably been like three weeks since you made the nomination) cross-reference with the original only to find about half the time that no changes were made right then. Then there's the possibility that someone actually modifies it afterward, but by then you're already not paying any more attention until the hook goes live.
    By contrast, by leaving a record of the changes made on the nomination talk page says unambiguously that a change has been made, and lists what it is. I think that encourages nominators to pay attention by leaving it in a clearly accessible place without the pretense of whether it's even been modified. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:42, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    theleekycauldron, you've lost me. The one thing I always see is a notification on my own talk page. (My Watchlist is quite long, and it's easy to miss things.) Why wouldn't it be preferable/more useful to have the bot post a note to the nominator's personal talk page informing them that their hook has been changed in Prep X (or Queue Y or the main page) from "... that ABC?" to "... that not ABD?", rather than put that information on the nomination template's talk page where I'm much less likely to notice on my watchlist that an edit has occurred? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    @BlueMoonset: you really want a talk page message every time Ravenpuff puts in an {{nbsp}}? I think that's going to get excessive... I can have an opt-in list for both pings and talk page messages, but I'm hesitant to make it the default. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:49, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    If anything, I'd probably prefer it to be opt-out since I've seen multiple editors in the past complaining about hooks being edited beyond their wishes, and in these cases the editors have even tended to be editors who aren't DYK core regulars. In such cases, if they were opt-in rather than opt-out, it could be easy for them to miss any pings especially if they didn't put the nomination on their watchlist. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:02, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
    If it's that form of Ravenpuff edit, theleekycauldron, then I didn't format my hook properly to begin with, so yes, I'd want to know. Even though I'm the sort to monitor nominations until they hit the main page. I also think that an opt-out is preferable to an opt-in; if people don't want to know about changes, an opt-out in the message would let them stop it after that message (or, of course, they could block the bot from posting to their talk page), but at least then they'll have themselves to blame if a hook change is made that they don't want. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. Thanks for this work Theleekycauldron Qn -- how easy is it to modify your bot to post the comment at the nomination page and then also post a message at the nominator's talk page telling them that their attention might be required on the nomination. Support this one, btw. Ktin (talk) 03:29, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support. In my view, the nom talk page is exactly the right location for the bot to leave a note. Anybody who is involved has the chance to (at least temporarily) put that onto their watchlist. This is by no means foolproof (e.g. when a watchlist is not being monitored regularly) but it strikes the right balance between the current situation (which is hit and miss) and bothering involved parties unnecessarily (e.g. through pings) as it gives editors the chance to determine whether they want to be notified (through watchlisting). Schwede66 06:06, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  •  Support. ― Qwerfjkltalk 06:50, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
  • Support We've had a number of complaints over time about undiscussed/stealthy hook changes. I think perhaps the talk page of the article(s) bolded in the hook would be better than just the nom, though? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
    • I only see article changes, if I have it watched and manually check my watchlist. Is there a different way? But with a talk page notification, since Preferences gives us no choice in this, in that as soon as something shows up on our talk page, we get that glaring notice at the top of our page. — Maile (talk) 23:09, 16 April 2022 (UTC)
      Detecting interested parties is a bit too computationally expensive and unreliable, sounds like a talkpage notification might be too difficult. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:21, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
      One possibility could be to merely ping nominators rather than "detecting interested parties". The ping being limited to the nominator probably shouldn't be too difficult to code. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
      yeah, the work required to find the nomination page in the first place brings you most of the way to finding the nominator anyway. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:30, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Support - Seems pretty intuitive to me. – Epicgenius (talk) 02:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)
Comment - Not so long ago we decided that a ping to the nominator in the edit summary was sufficient. What is suddenly wrong with that strategy and why do we now need a dedicated bot? Also, why the nomination page? Those pages get closed by the bot, if a change goes to that page, the discussion has to be reopened, meaning somebody is going to have to go and manually close it again. And as others have pointed out, many nominators don't watch their nomination pages closely anyway.
If we must have a bot to notify nominators of changes - and I'm not at all convinced we do - then surely the notification should go to the nominator's talk page. But some users are going to end up getting multiple notifications if a hook is changed multiple times (which happens more often than one would think), which could trigger a whole sequence of unhelpful discussions. That's why I think we'd be better off sticking to the previously agreed-upon method of manually notifying in the edit summary when a change is substantial enough to warrant one. Gatoclass (talk) 09:16, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Gatoclass, if I may offer an observation: I have a couple of queues on my watchlist and I can tell you that changes to hooks are regularly not accompanied by the ping that you talk about. Schwede66 09:32, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Well Schwede66, maybe those changes are not substantial enough to warrant a ping? Or perhaps some of the newer DYKers are simply unaware of the guideline? Indeed, I don't think it was ever added to the guidelines anywhere. So maybe all that is required is to have the guideline in a more prominent place where editors can actually see it. Gatoclass (talk) 09:51, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
Hook changes in the queue are obviously made by admins. Schwede66 16:08, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
The fundamental problem with "notify only if changes are substantial enough to warrant one" is that we should notify for all changes that the nominator will deem substantial, and it is really difficult for anyone other than the nominator to do triage this. The important case is that of changes that look insubstantial to the person making it, but turn out not to be. This doesn't look like a substantial change until you notice that it introduces a substantial error (should be "his satirical novel"). —Kusma (talk) 10:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Support, I see no downside to trying this even if it could be improved later. Perhaps we could include a "subscribe list" on the nom talk page (could be automatically added by our tools in the future) and then the bot could ping interested parties. —Kusma (talk) 10:56, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 25. Only 10 on that list were reviewed; I hope more will be taken care of this time. We currently have a total of 278 nominations, of which only 82 have been approved, a gap of 196, down only 3 over the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other 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) 06:57, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Queue 5: Template:Did you know nominations/National Women's Day (Pakistan)

Reopenining nomination page, so please add further comments at Template:Did you know nominations/National Women's Day (Pakistan)  — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

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.

Two things really - (1) this hook seems awfully long-winded and hard to parse, meaning it is borderline if it meets the "hooky" criterion. And (2) can a 1983 women's march be said to be "repressed"? Seems a slightly odd word to use, and it's usually people that are repressed, rather than marches. The word doesn't appear in either of the linked articles. I assume it means that the police tear gassed and arrested some participants? Anyway, I think a reword of the hook might be in order, unless others disagree with me. Pinging @Victuallers, Bookku, SusunW, and SL93: as nom/rev/prom etc. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:21, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Amakuru I took the word repressed as referring to what happened. SL93 (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
... that National Women's Day in Pakistan is on February 12 to mark the 1983 March made against a law that negatively affected the testimonies of women? SL93 (talk) 17:29, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
.... alt1 contains some words that are not in the article, but that is fine and it is more succinct and just as hooky. Fine by me, (I would replace "negatively affected" with "devalued") Thanks SL93 Victuallers (talk) 18:34, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
You're welcome. I was just going for a summary to make people interested in clicking. Devalued works. SL93 (talk) 18:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Sorry, that I do not have a constructive suggestion, but, I think introducing the phrase "half of" might have some DYK appeal. Ktin (talk) 21:00, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    It was "half of" that got my attention in the original hook. However, reading both articles, the march was protesting against a proposed law; neither article says that the law actually passed to cause this testimony reduction to occur. Unless this reduction by half did become law, and the articles altered and sourced accordingly, none of the hooks are usable unless modified. For example, assuming the law was proposed but never enacted, the original hook might read, in the middle, "against a proposed law that would have reduced"; and the suggested revision might read "against a proposed law that would have devalued the testimony of women by half?" (Query: should "March" be capitalized when the full title of the event is being replaced, or should it be 1983 march? I'm inclined to have it lowercase.) BlueMoonset (talk) 22:04, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    I'm dubious that the article title should be capitalised at all per MOS:CAPS. It looks like a descriptive title rather than a proper name, and isn't really used in caps by sources.  — Amakuru (talk) 22:10, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
    @BlueMoonset There is much more to write, I wish to expand the article with academic sources but some how remained distracted. It was implemented in mildly diluted form a little late, few things repealed after few remnants still remaining. You may refer to Women related laws in Pakistan#Law of Evidence The relevant para says ".. As part of the same process, the Evidence Act was replaced by Qanun-e-Shahada on 26 October 1984, though it did not come into effect until 1987. As of that year, in cases of Hadd, the evidence of women is not admissible. Further, in cases involving financial or other future obligations, written instructions and documents must be attested by either two men or one man and two women. In other legal proceedings it is left to the judge's discretion whether to admit a woman's testimony as equal. .."
    Btw, Suitable rewording rephrasing as needed is okay for me
    Thanks and warm regards
    Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 04:32, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
    Taking couple of suggestions in above discussion alt options may also be possible on following line.
Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 16:27, 20 May 2022 (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.

Nomination of Atomitat

Hello all. Not sure what I am supposed to do regarding this nomination. It was approved, but I think it has been pulled because of a question about the hook. I have a notice on my talk page but I am confused about what I need to do. Bruxton (talk) 13:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

After it was promoted, unpromoted, and reopened, the nomination was never readded to WP:DYKN, so I have now done so. DanCherek (talk) 14:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
@DanCherek: Thanks for the message and for assistance. Bruxton (talk) 15:06, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Queue 5: Nga Tet Pya

  • ... that when asked by the king to choose the weapon by which he would be executed, the outlaw Nga Tet Pya reportedly replied "I choose your most beautiful queen Saw Omma"?

The word "reportedly" is strongly discouraged at the WP:WEASEL guideline, as it implies some ambiguity and gives us no clue as to who "reported" this fact and how much we should believe it. Ideally the article at least should give some clue as to where this fact comes from. I don't have access to the sources, so perhaps you can update this with some attribution, @Hybernator: ? Also pinging @Extraordinary Writ, Kavyansh.Singh, and SL93: who reviewed or promoted.  — Amakuru (talk) 17:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru: In this case, I think it's okay- DYK hooks are more akin to the lead section of an article than anything else, and weasel words are okay in the lead as long as attribution is provided in-text. I think if our readers want to investigate who said they said it and why, they can always click through and investigate the sourcing – but DYK hooks are meant to be lightweight. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:38, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
reping to @Amakuru because my pings weren't working for a hot minute there theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:05, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: sure, you're quite correct there. We can use "reportedly" in the hook if the article spells out the attribution for the quote more thoroughly. The issue here though, is that it doesn't. It's left unclear what the basis for this assertion is, meaning the reader can't make a clear assessment of how valid it is, which is precisely why WP:WEASEL discourages this sort of construct. Hybernator appears to have been offline for some time, so unless someone else has access to the sourcing we may have to put this on hold for a while. I think the cited line in the article should obey the MOS really, for the DYK to be valid. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:45, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
Amakuru The author of the book used for the hook is notable per this source and others. We could add a bit to the article and then write a hook stating that Shan historian Sai Aung Tun said it, but I think that is only allowed if the author has an article. Though if someone wanted to create an article on the author, that could be a great double nomination. SL93 (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • @Amakuru:, @Theleekycauldron:, the reportedly here refers to as reported in the Hmannan Yazawin chronicle, which is provided as a source. (Htin Aung 1967) and (Aung Tun 2009) are academic sources that also report this famous episode. I didn't know reportedly was a weasel word here; it's not apparent to me as to why it would be in all the cases. Anyway, that's ok. We can remove "reportedly" from the sentence: "... that when asked by the king to choose the weapon by which he would be executed, the outlaw Nga Tet Pya replied "I choose your most beautiful queen Saw Omma?" Hybernator (talk) 02:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Hybernator Since you verified that three sources state it, I agree with just removing reportedly. I was wondering about the hook not being directly cited after the quote though. SL93 (talk) 02:58, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
    I see. I've just added the citations right after quote in the article. Thanks. Hybernator (talk) 03:03, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
    Hopefully this is good to go now. SL93 (talk) 03:04, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
    Great, I have removed "reportedly" from the article and hook per the above comments. Just to reply directly to a couple of points though, @SL93: the issue not whether the person who said the quote is notable - they might or might not be, and including quotes from non-notable people is fine as long as the quote makes sense, e.g. from an academic historian who doesn't happen to meet the requirements for WP:GNG but is nonetheless an expert. The problem with saying "reportedly" without attribution is that it conveys doubt about the assertion without giving the reader the opportunity to assess the legitimacy of it. And that should be in the article prose, not relying on the reader to access the sources used, which isn't always possible. That's the gist of what WP:WEASEL says about this.  — Amakuru (talk) 08:30, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Should we be formatting this as a direct quote by the subject, in English, when the article itself doesn't format it as a quote and when what they said was undoubtedly not in English? —David Eppstein (talk) 18:48, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure the best way to quote it, but the book was published in English. SL93 (talk) 19:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Queue 4: Magna Lykseth-Skogman

Morning @Ipigott and Gerda Arendt: I just wanted to verify whether the source for this definitely says this was the first performance of the opera in Sweden? The German line appears to read "Sie war eiene hervorragende Wagnersängerin und kreieter in Stocholm für Schweden..." - my German isn't good enough to interpret this exactly, but creating it "for Sweden" might not be the same as saying it was the first ever performance? Also pinging @Kavyansh.Singh and SL93: Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 09:52, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

It is not meant to mean "ever" (which was in Munich in 1865) but "first performed at the Royal Swedish Opera in 1909" - which naturally is first in Sweden, - this monster of an opera would not have been first performed in Sweden but in Stockholm. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Clarification regarding reviewers proposing hooks

If a reviewer proposes a new hook that's different from the original hook but does not introduce any new hook facts, are they still allowed to review it themselves or must they let another reviewer review it? For example, the nominator's proposed hook (about a streamer named Jane Doe) is something like "Did you know that Jane Doe, who started playing video games at the age of five, livestreamed FooBar for 24 hours straight to celebrate the 10th anniversary of ACME Gaming?". The reviewer doesn't like it, and instead proposes "To celebrate the 10th anniversary of ACME Gaming, Jane Doe livestreamed FooBar for 24 hours straight?". Is the nominator allowed to approve their own hook in this case or is a second opinion needed?

In addition, if a reviewer proposes a cut-down version of a previously proposed hook, are they allowed to approve it or is a second opinion needed? For example, would a reviewer cutting down "Did you know that Jane Doe, who started playing video games at the age of five, livestreamed FooBar for 24 hours straight to celebrate the 10th anniversary of ACME Gaming?" to simply "Did you know that Jane Doe livestreamed FooBar for 24 hours straight to celebrate the 10th anniversary of ACME Gaming?" be allowed to approve the latter hook, or no? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:05, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Seems like a good idea to allow the reviewer and nominator to sort it out. The process becomes clunky if we need another editor to intervene. I am all for streamlining the process. A promoter and an admin also have eyes on the hook and article along the way. Bruxton (talk) 17:36, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I think so too; if a reviewer proposes a new hook fact, the nominator should be able to give their seal of approval. And the promoter can always provide an extra check here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Disagree. There have been any number of times where the new hook fact has been problematic, and caught by an independent reviewer. The original nominator is not an adequate check, though they should be informed of the proposed new hook. An independent reviewer is required if the reviewer proposes an ALT hook with a new hook fact. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:11, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
Hook changes that do not introduce new facts should not require a new reviewer. —Kusma (talk) 17:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I think so too. I treat it as the same information when I promote those alt hooks. Doing otherwise wastes valuable time. SL93 (talk) 17:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I alwasy though a second reviewer had to introduce hooks proposed by the reviewer. What am I missing? --evrik (talk) 15:59, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
It really is pointless if its simply the information being reworded. Its called IAR and not wasting time for a nonsense reason. SL93 (talk) 17:02, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
The edits that prep builders and admins later make to hooks should rather be made by the reviewer if possible. —Kusma (talk) 18:26, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Prep 7: Bea Alonzo filmography

The cited source appears to mention that she was in the series concerned, but it doesn't say it was her "breakthrough role" (it does call her "a relative greenhorn" but not sure that's quite such a strong statement?) @Pseud 14, MelanieN, and Theleekycauldron: is it possible to provide a more concrete source to say it was her breakthrough role?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:13, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru, MelanieN, and Theleekycauldron: These sources provide context to support "breakthrough/breakout role". Also added in the article [1] (via Khaleej Times) [2] (via ABS-CBN Entertainment) Let me know if this will suffice. Thanks --Pseud 14 (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
Using the word breakthrough seems to be original research. SL93 (talk) 18:15, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I think it's appropriate – they're synonyms. A breakthrough role, also known as a breakout role... ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 20:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
I guess so now that you mention it, but it would be simpler to use "breakout" to not cause any potential complaints. SL93 (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I didn't notice this lack when I approved the hook. Sorry about that, and thanks for your careful review, Amakuru. And thanks for the new sources, Pseud 14, particularly the Khaleej Times which specifically calls it her "breakout role". I actually think "breakthrough" is a better word than "breakout" to describe a role that basically launched her career or propelled it to the next level, but since "breakout" is what the source says we should probably use it. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

I changed it to breakout. SL93 (talk) 03:59, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I do agree with @MelanieN and Ezlev: since most BLPs and filmography list articles term it a "breakthrough". See example of a hook taken from Emma Stone's filmography. I do not have a strong opinion about it either way. I only meant to cite a precedence and a reference. Pseud 14 (talk) 17:21, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru, Pseud 14, SL93, and Ezlev: I hate to bring this up at this late date, because I should have noticed it when I approved the nomination. But just now when I read "she portrayed the role of a lawyer at the age of 15", it occurred to me that some people could read it as "she portrayed the role of a 15-year-old lawyer". What would you think about changing it to "she portrayed the role of a lawyer when she was 15 years old"? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:29, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

MelanieN, that sounds good, or we could swap the clauses of the original for "at the age of 15, she portrayed [the role of] a lawyer". "The role of" feels a bit redundant too. ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 23:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Prep 4: Lynching of Deborah Yakubu (nom)

The article calls this a murder and a lynching. The hook calls this a lynching. I raised the point (at the nomination and on article talk) that this was probably inappropriate, since it judges people who have not been convicted of a crime as guilty. I failed to put it on my watchlist, so I only realize now that I was asked to make a "Change 'X' by 'Y'" argument somewhere, but I don't know what this means, or how changing the article alone makes the hook okay. Is there an alternative here? Pinging nominator Bookku and promoter SL93. Thanks. Urve (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, Urve, I think you're referencing WP:BLPCRIME here, but I don't think it applies Neither the article nor the hook name any living people as murderers or lunchers, so we're not screwing anyone specific over in the prose; users could always click to see names in the sourcing, but I assume that those sources also describe this as a murder or a lynching, right? At which point it doesn't really matter what we said in the article. Of course, if my assumption is wrong and sources don't describe this as a murder or lynching, then that should totally be fixed. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME are separate sections, so they should be read separately. (See the surplusage canon.) The title saying that this was a lynching means that we believe a lynching occurred. Typically, people view that as a criminal action. Even unnamed living people should not be judged guilty by Wikipedia before a court does the same. (And I doubt most news articles are saying in their own voice that a murder or a lynching happened - haven't checked all, but many don't. The article has serious source-text integrity deficiencies; it calls this a murder, citing CNN, when CNN simply doesn't.) Urve (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Urve: Okay, so full assessment of sources cited in the article:
Nearly every source seems comfortable calling it a murder, but only one calls it a lynching. I think "murder" is the desirable title. As for source-text deficiencies, that should definitely be worked out. To start, are you on board with moving this? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:36, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
This isn't just about ctrl+f "murder" in an article... Reuters is the wire service providing the story to the Guardian; "Two suspects were arrested in connection with the murder of the student" is not saying that it was a murder, but that they were arrested for murdering this student. PremiumTimes is not saying it in their own voice. I don't read the Guardian Nigeria saying it in their own voice either. Moving it to what? If it's to "murder" - no. Urve (talk) 08:49, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine counting TG and reuters as one source if you want, but they are two independent and reputable institutions both fine with using the word. Also, Reuters doesn't say that they were arrested and charged with murder, it says they were arrested "in connection with the murder" (emphasis my own), which means Reuters is (whether or not they were guilty of it) definitively calling it a murder. The first sentence in The Guardian Nigeria is "A 200- Level student of Home Economics at Shehu Shagari College of Education was yesterday, lynched by fellow students for alleged blasphemy against Prophet Muhammad" (emphasis my own). Premium Times was an honest mistake and I've struck it – but I didn't just hit "ctrl+f", I checked. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@ Urve,
Brief: Suggesting alt hook " ... that "What do you hope to achieve with this?" were the last words of the Nigerian college student Deborah Yakubu while she was being attacked for her alleged blasphemy? .. " Let me know if you can agree with this change.


Detail: IDK what is the problem in providing "Change 'X' by 'Y'" for the hook and for that matter the article title and content too, though this is a forum limited to DYK as such we can think positively if reasons given stand nuanced scrutiny. Though IMHO I do not foresee argument to stand nuanced scrutiny. Still we take it in good faith, at minimum level the student was attacked may be she did or did not die due to attack but due to some other reason and death was strange co-incidence. This is now our speculation. @ Wikipedia we work as per sources and what does the source say? Sources clearly say she did die due to mob attack.
Source used with the hook vanguardngr states " .. Outrage has continued to trail the killing of a .. female student, Miss Deborah Samuel by a mob in Sokoto on Thursday over alleged blasphemy.." Is this not killing by mob? What Guardian says " .. A female student in Nigeria was beaten to death and set on fire by fellow students who accused her of posting “blasphemous” statements in a WhatsApp group, two witnesses have said. .." is this not killing by mob? You quoted CNN what does it say " .. A female student in northern Nigeria was killed by a mob who stoned, beat and set fire to her for allegedly posting a blasphemous statement against the Prophet Mohammed, according to police. .." is this not killing by mob? To whom CNN is quoting ' Police '. Then there is ( actually are) eyewitnesses, what does eye witness account quoted by vanguardngr says? " ..One of the students of the college, who witnessed how Deborah was flogged, killed, and burnt described the scene as the most horrible she has ever witnessed. ..". Every day Wikipedia has to take note of several instances of violence even before court pronounces judgement take for example gun violence in US.
If a student in US gun violence would have said same sentence as Deborah Yakubu and a source would have reported I would have taken that to DYK, because Deborah's calm pleading sentence gets quotability.
You have seen some sources describe it as killing as quoted above, You want to see word murder in the sources? The Nigerian Tribune says 'The murder of Deborah Yakubu' You want to see word lynching in the sources? guardian.ng " .. The police have arraigned two suspects, .. and .., over the lynching of Deborah Yakubu, .."
Simple google search for definition of word lynching says " .. (of a group of people) kill (someone) for an alleged offence without a legal trial, .. "
So help me understand, how using word 'lynching' is not reasonable paraphrasing?
It is clear enough from above the objection raised does not stand logical scrutiny.
Still if you are in disagreement, it's okay, at least I was requesting and expecting an alternate hook suggestion or alternate word; if you had given alternate suggestion I had not written so long analysis, still I take one more step forward from my side by suggesting following change, would that be okay for you?
  • ... that "What do you hope to achieve with this?" were the last words of the Nigerian college student Deborah Yakubu while she was being attacked for her alleged blasphemy? .. "
Let me know your opinion to this alt hook.
For article related objections if any over to @Mooonswimmer:
Thanks and warm regards Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 09:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
It is clear enough from above the objection raised does not stand logical scrutiny. - what, the principle that murder requires murderers, and we shouldn't say that any living person, named or not, is a murderer if they haven't been convicted? That article titles can be expressions of our own speech, so extreme care should be taken to ensure we respect living people and their rights? This is why I noted the canon of surplusage - that names are not the end-all-be-all of violating BLP!
This whole affair is bizarre and, I think, extremely dangerous - what does "murder" accomplish that "killing" (as is common with most other homicide articles pre-conviction) does not, other than to judge the situation from a few sources? If some sources call it a murder, and some sources don't (CNN, WaPo), I think even if it were acceptable to base titles like these off of whether the word is common or not, that reliable sources do not converge anywhere.
Since you asked for my thoughts on your proposal, I don't like it, because I don't think a singular witness testimony should define our coverage of an event on the main page, even if it runs in the headline of a paper. But I was hoping to have the nomination opened again with this discussion to raise the point; since I'm not interested in having my name attached to this article, the nomination, or the hook at all, I don't care what you all decide to do. Urve (talk) 09:59, 25 May 2022 (UTC)


  • ... that "What do you hope to achieve with this?" were the last words of the Nigerian college student Deborah Yakubu while she was being attacked for her alleged blasphemy? .. "
IMHO Publishing this DYK would have impact of positive discussion. Incidence had multiple witnesses and any lying would not stand. IMHO Wikipedians need not be afraid of calling spade a spade. If Wikipedians do not easily believe in Chinese courts then how does one suggest to believe in north-Nigerian sharia courts for whom killing of a blasphemer is almost a legitimate punishment and not a murder. Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 13:38, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Anyways I take one more step forward to propose another factual and well sourced alternate hook

Let us discuss this one.

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' (talk) 14:15, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Moving the SOHA

I just archived the discussion on special occasion hooks. It seemed like the takeaway with the most chance of success would be moving the Special Occasion Holding Area to the top, instead of leaving it at the bottom where it's often ignored by prep set builders who usually take older hooks for a set. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 16:48, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Like I said on the previous discussion, if anything helps the reviewers to spot a special occasion hook faster, let it be done. Moving SOHA to the top of the page is fundamentally a good idea. But, in my opinion, it is useful if, and only if we have all the special occasions hooks in the holding area. Otherwise, it doesn't take anything more than pressing that page down key to see that same SOHA at the end of the page. Now, as it is being discuss, can someone help me figure out why do we have a SOHA on awaiting nominations page, when we are not allowed to nominate them in that section? Thanks for starting this discussion! – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 16:59, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
It's probably a remnant from the time before the Approved hooks had their own page. CMD (talk) 17:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm not convinced, but in any event I do not support moving anything until Shubinator is contacted and we make sure the move will not break DYKHousekeepingBot's creation of the Count of DYK Hooks table—I also do not support any move until the bot can be updated accordingly. Frankly, that table is far more valuable to DYK as a whole than the placement of the Special occasions section. CMD is correct about it being a remnant, and Maile that I was the one who did it (I'm pretty sure I also set up the Approved page): the stub of the Special occasions section was left on the main nominations page as a pointer to its new location when the Approved page was created to split those nominations off from the main page when it became overloaded and incapable of transcluding all the nominations. The reason you can't nominate the hooks in that section is the same as why you can't nominate ones for April Fools' Day on its page: these are ordinary nominations until they are reviewed and passed, and need to be reviewed without special priority or sequestration along with contemporaneous nominations. The idea of putting nominations in a special section at the bottom either privileges or disadvantages them, and is something I would absolutely oppose. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: I wouldn't support nominating special occasion hooks in a separate area either—but I'm not sure why you don't want to move the the SOHA for only the approved hooks, as long as it doesn't break the bot? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 03:52, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
BlueMoonset I agree, and I don't suggest to add SO nomination there, but if it serves no purpose than just pointing to the new location, is it really needed there? – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
What's the benefit of it being at the top rather than the bottom? It's always been at the bottom, so prep builders should know where it is, the times when I've built preps, I've always been able to find the SOHO fine. Don't see how it being at the top would mean people check it more than at the bottom- if prep builders are missing it, then it is their error. This just seems like a pointless discussion over nothing, in my opinion. Which seems to be the OP's forte on this talkpage at the moment- trying to "fix" things that aren't broken, "fixing" hooks by cutting content on them for no reason.... Joseph2302 (talk) 19:08, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Fundamentally its a good idea, but in its current form, it looks to me more like a solution looking for a problem. At the end, its as simple as pressing the page down key to see that same SOHA at the end of the page. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:16, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
i really just thought that if it were me, it's easier to remember all the hooks there if i have to pass by them and be reminded by them every time i build a prep set. it sometimes slips my mind otherwise, so i thought it might help. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 19:34, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Just mentioning that I am not a experienced prep builder. If regular prep builders find it a useful suggestion, then let it be done. Thanks! - Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 19:43, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
The benefit is that prep builders, who should be starting at the top of the page and working down, will see those SO request first thing. —valereee (talk) 20:29, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Vibes are happening on this page. Check the time stamp of my post below, with the same message. — Maile (talk) 20:37, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
Yep, DYKHousekeepingBot will break if this change is made today. If there's consensus for the change, no worries, we can coordinate to avoid disruptions. Best to also check with the other bot operators for bots touching the noms or approved pages: WugBot and MusikBot. Shubinator (talk) 01:01, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

Advantage of moving the special hooks sub section to the top - it's a short list, and would make it less likely to accidentally overlook a SO request. The prep builder will know right away if they should include a SO in the set they're building. After a glance at that short SO list, the promoter can scroll through the oldest dates on the routine promotions. As is, maybe by the time they get enough hooks for a set, they didn't remember to also have a look at the SO hooks. We're human - we make mistakes. — Maile (talk) 20:27, 23 October 2021 (UTC)

  • Not sure if this is resolved. EEng 04:36, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
    It's not. I really wasn't expecting this to be as controversial as it is, but we need more input for a consensus. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 04:49, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Support

  • I would support moving SOHA to the top of the approved nominations page. Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 22 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support moving it to the top. —valereee (talk) 00:14, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Support placing the special holding dates to the top of approved nominations, which seems logical to me. As for the Kavyansh.Singh question about SOHA notice also at the bottom of the nominations page: I think there was a reason for it, but it escapes my memory. BlueMoonset would likely have the answer to that, and might have been the editor who placed it there. — Maile (talk) 00:26, 23 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I support moving the SOHA to the top; there would appear to be benefits in doing so. Schwede66 10:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I support it. Personally, I start at the top and work my way down when I work on balancing prep sets. SL93 (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Oppose

  • I realized I never voiced an opinion in this discussion. --evrik (talk) 23:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Neutral

  • To me it doesn't matter, either seems fine and the same. So happy to defer to what other people think is most helpful. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:54, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • I have no opinion on this and don't mind either way. As long as its still accessible to put hooks in. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 13:24, 1 November 2021 (UTC)
  • Consider me neutral on this. No major issues with moving the special occasion holding area, if helps the prep builders. But in my opinion, both the ways appear more or less the same. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:39, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

Close?

It's been seven days. Is there anything we need to do other than move the code to the top of the page? —valereee (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: If the closer finds that there's consensus to do this, then we have to talk to shubinator first—the DYKHousekeepingBot will break. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:14, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, do you think we need a formal close? There's no formal opposition, just support/neutral. —valereee (talk) 18:19, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
I don't, but we're the proposers here so that's probably a decision for someone else. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:22, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe Shubinator could do the honour of closing (and then tweak the bot). :-) Schwede66 09:05, 10 November 2021 (UTC)
@Shubinator: I think that's a fine idea, how about you? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 01:08, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
Is there anyone else who can tweak the bot? It looks like @Shubinator might be taking a break. —valereee (talk) 21:17, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
@Valereee: the bot isn't open-source, so no, we'll have to wait. In the meantime, we should ping @Wugapodes and MusikAnimal to let them know this change is happening sometime soon. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 18:14, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
To be quite honest, I probably won't get this done until mid-December. This is a non-trivial change that I'd want to test out before letting it loose, and my schedule's filled with meatspace deadlines, grant review, and arb elections. I'll know more next week after I review the code and come up with a game plan. I'll keep you all posted. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Maybe after this is closed, it should be archived to a separate page for adopted, but unfulfilled, proposals? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 21:01, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
I'd want to make sure it didn't get overlooked and forgotten. I'd rather just collapse it and pin it here as a reminder that there are still steps to be taken. —valereee (talk) 12:19, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Could I get a high-level overview of what exactly is changing? MusikBot only adds new date headings to Template talk:Did you know. Are we simply doing that in a different place now, or just the structure of the page is changing? — MusikAnimal talk 18:10, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal: Currently, the "Special occasion holding area" is at the bottom section on Template talk:Did you know/Approved. The approving reviewer moves them there, not the bot. The above discussion was to permanently move the "Special occasion holding area" to the top of that page. What I see, are four editors who support the move, zero editors opposing the move, and three editors who are neutral. — Maile (talk) 19:02, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
Okay, thanks. So we're not moving the "Special occasion holding area" section on Template talk:Did you know? If not, no changes are needed to MusikBot. It would be a simple fix anyway, if needed. — MusikAnimal talk 20:02, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
@MusikAnimal, we might move the "special occasion holding area" at WP:DYKNA from bottom to top, if there's consensus. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/them) 20:47, 28 November 2021 (UTC)
Ah sorry, I generally check my user talk and I'm not as great with checking notifications. Let me know when the other bot operators are planning to make it happen and I can help with DYKHousekeepingBot. Shubinator (talk) 00:42, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
Good to know! I actually wondered if that might be the case, as I saw BlueMoonset had posted there multiple times, but I didn't like to nag if you were just busy IRL. :) —valereee (talk) 12:38, 6 December 2021 (UTC)
@Wugapodes, did you see this from Shub? —valereee (talk) 19:57, 9 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping, my attention was elsewhere so I missed this. I'll work on the changes next week and should have something deployed before the 22nd. I'll keep you all updated if it turns out to be sooner than that. I'll post on Shub's talk page as well. — Wug·a·po·des​ 01:09, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
DYKHousekeepingBot now supports either top or bottom placement of the Special Occasion Holding Area :) Special:Diff/1059709544 Shubinator (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Thanks! Wugapodes, how we lookin'? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 07:41, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
There's an active arb case right now, Wug's first, and four open amendment requests, which seems like a lot. Maybe people were waiting for the new committee? At any rate, maybe we wait to reping Wug until things slow down over there? There's no particular urgency for making this change, and I don't know how much work Wug has to put in to adjust the bot. —valereee (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
fair enough—this can keep, to be sure theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (they/she) 21:53, 3 January 2022 (UTC)
@Wugapodes, how're things with you? It looks like ArbCom has slowed down a bit? valereee (talk) 17:22, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee and Theleekycauldron: Things have been better. In addition to my regular job and joining the arbitration committee, I'm recovering from covid which has limited my throughput. The required change to wugbot isn't massive but it's also not trivial. A lot of requests on my time are getting triaged ahead of it, and with covid fatigue it's hard to get deep into backlogged requests, so progress on an otherwise normal-sized change gets slowed. I'll have it running as soon as I can, but my backlog has generally been growing, not shrinking, since December. — Wug·a·po·des​ 02:15, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wug, no worries, and I'm sorry to hear you had COVID! That sucks. IMO this is something that can be treated as completely not-urgent -- welcome when it happens, but nothing more than that. valereee (talk) 13:35, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Wugapodes, pinging to remind you that this is still waiting. I hope you're feeling well, and will be able to address this soon so we can finally get it off the talk page. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:57, 12 May 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset Should make the switch in the next update. I'll keep an eye out in case anything goes wrong. Thanks for your patience. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Wugapodes, that's great. Please post here when the switch has been made, so we can move the section once it's safe to do so. Thank you! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
It makes the switch on its own. If you notice anything out of place, let me know. There seems to be some bug where it keeps adding newlines to the SOHA, so I'll have that fixed soon. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:12, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Can the color of the section be changed to set it apart from the rest of the page? --evrik (talk) 03:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Sure, you can do whatever you want with it. The only two things to remember are don't feed wugbot after midnight (1) The "==Special occasion holding area==" must remain exactly the same or WugBot won't find it. (2) WugBot considered the "==Approved" section as marking the end of the SOHA. Anything between those lines can be changed and WugBot will just copy it over. I put an example div that can be changed (or removed) as people like. — Wug·a·po·des​ 05:11, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Initial implementation (and reversion)

Wugapodes, it looks to me that WugBot wasn't clear on how to deal with the end of the moved "==Special occasion holding area==" section, and was encroaching on the "==Approved nominations==" section. The bot itself appears to have done the move, which puzzles me, but the move was done at 01:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC). DYKHousekeepingBot worked fine through 07:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC); what broke it was WugBot's edit at 09:01, 30 May 2022, which removed the blank line between the closing div tag and the "==Approved nominations==" header, putting the latter after the former on the same line and preventing said header from appearing on the page. WugBot's next edit at 11:01 got rid of the closing div tag entirely and moved the header to the end of the final transcluded nomination, where it left things until you moved the SOHA section back to the bottom of the page.

My suggestion is that WugBot stay away from the Special occasion section: don't let it adjust spacing or anything, including before the Approved nominations section. What it does within that section should be completely under its control, but not before then. I had dropped a note on Shubinator's page about the problem, but now that I know that DYKHousekeepingBot was handling things just fine before the Approved page was corrupted, I'll let him know that all's well on his end. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

That's a great observation, and thank you for investigating this. Yes, the newlines have been giving me a problem. It's partly how the page is parsed and recombined which I've had to tweak a few times because I agree that ideally WugBot should just copy over whatever's in the SOHA. It should be an easy-enough fix. I'll have an update soon. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:30, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: It should be fixed now. I've switched the SOHA position again and will see how DYKHousekeepingBot responds. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:03, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Wording help welcome

English is not my first language, and I encounter one reviewer who lets me feel that. I'd like help for several nominations, including Template:Did you know nominations/Aleksey Semenenko. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

  • To misquote Vizzini, working on hooks with Gerda is like making the mistake of fighting a land war in Asia. I will look and see if I can offer an opinion. --evrik (talk) 03:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Prep 2: Divertimento No. 15 (ballet)

In the review, Gerda suggested this to be a special occasion hook for 31 May, the anniversary of the premiere. (I nominated the article in April and it took a month for it to be reviewed, so the special occasion never occurred to me) It is currently on prep 2, for 30 May. Is it possible to move the hook to prep 3? Corachow (talk) 12:44, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I support that. Sorry, I was busy in real life, so failed to move it to special occasions once approved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:00, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I support this as the promoter. I would move it now, but I have to head to work soon for 7 hours. SL93 (talk) 13:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
I'll move a couple of hooks to deal with that. Schwede66 08:05, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
 Done Schwede66 08:09, 26 May 2022 (UTC)
thank you! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:16, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

We're below 60!

The readout is currently showing 57 approved hooks. Does that mean we need to switch back to 1-a-day, or are there reasons to stick with 2-a-day for a bit longer? We're currently at three queues filled and six-and-a-half filled prep. Pinging theleekycauldron. TSventon (talk) 09:19, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

@TSventon: hmm. Well, I'm not seeing any special occasion hooks in the two upcoming queues, so there's no reason to wait another day for that (although some swaps may be needed, I'm not going to check at the moment). I will point out that it's only been a week since the previous switch-over, which is awkward. On the other hand, building preps has become difficult; the overwhelming majority of hooks in DYKNA at the moment are bios, particularly U.S. bios. Relief from the pressure of two-a-day would be rather welcome for the preps. So, I'd say that the switch should be performed today; pinging Cwmhiraeth to see if she can help out, and I think Amakuru and Schwede66 would also be awake at the moment. Help would be much appreciated! Before noon UTC (around two and a half hours from now), an admin would need to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400. Appreciate you using "We're below 60!" :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:35, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 Done Schwede66 09:45, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Schwede :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:14, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
theleekycauldron I shamelessly copied your recent section for consistency and to ensure I included the relevant information. TSventon (talk) 06:55, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was just archived, so I've created a new list of 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 10. We currently have a total of 281 nominations, of which only 101 have been approved, a gap of 180, down 16 over the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other 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) 02:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

DYK check as the arbiter of the 1500 character threshold

Looking at Wikipedia:Did you know#Eligibility criteria, rule 2a says, Articles must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose (ignoring infoboxes, categories, references, lists, and tables etc.) The number of characters may be measured using [DYK Check] (most accurate) ...

Now, I've gone looking in the archives, and have had no luck, but I could swear that there was an ENTIRE DISCUSSION where it was determined that the DYK check tool could be the arbiter if an article was larger than the 1500 character threshold. Any help here? --evrik (talk) 03:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

  • DYK check can't tell you whether all of these 1500 characters are new content (could be copied from other articles or PD sources) so it can't give you an authoritative answer for eligibility. —Kusma (talk) 18:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not concerned about newness, just settling the question of the length of an article. --evrik (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • My point was that articles with more than 1500 bytes prose can fail the length criterion. —Kusma (talk) 18:40, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Sure, but DYK excludes most things that would make an article "fall short" in length. --evrik (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Not the one I was looking for, but thank you! --evrik (talk) 18:36, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks for those links. I'm currently in a circular discussion with someone who keeps insisting an article is too short, despite all the evidence to the contrary. I seem to remember a discussion where this was hashed out ad nauseum. I'm looking for something authoritative so I can exit the circular argument. --evrik (talk) 19:09, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
  • It would help a lot if you could cite the discussion, evrik. Is it the one at Template:Did you know nominations/Kim E. Nielsen, or somewhere else? Articles with a lot of quoted material can, like those with material copied from other articles, have those portions disqualified from the count. DYKcheck isn't capable of determining those exceptions, so it can't be the absolute arbiter, but the reviewer can count the non-original characters and deduct them from DYKcheck's number. DYKcheck is the "gold standard", but it can occasionally count material as prose that it shouldn't, and I believe that some foreign character sets can cause it to inflate numbers for text in those characters. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:43, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Kim E. Nielsen. --evrik (talk) 15:55, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Yes, excessive quoted material should be subtracted from DYKcheck's count. I believe DYKcheck doesn't count BLOCKQUOTEs; other long quotes should be manually subtracted. But a reasonable number of reasonable-sized quotes should be allowed in the count. (BTW, there's a DYKcheck shortcoming I've never seen mentioned anywhere, and I'm not going to, since it could be exploited by unscrupulous users.)  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  20:30, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
    @Mandarax: If you have found a bug, please do not keep it to yourself, but report it. Bugs in prosesize counts (one that I noticed that Izno then diagnosed was fixed recently, see Wikipedia talk:Prosesize) can be bad in various ways: overestimating a pre-expansion size is bad for a 5x expander, while overestimating a new article or 5x expansion leads to too short articles accepted at DYK. So they can be both harmful or helpful for someone trying to get an article onto DYK. —Kusma (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    I don't know how difficult it would be to fix, or if a fix would slow down DYKcheck, so I never mentioned it before. But, since you recommended reporting it, I've now sent an email. It's not something that would affect normal users significantly (or at all). Most DYKers are honest, but I have seen a few instances of people trying to get away with shady things. What I'm talking about could be exploited to artificially inflate the prose count. (Also, have you checked to see if that Prosesize bug also applies to DYKcheck?)  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  22:20, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    Good point, that bug does still affect DYKcheck even though it was fixed in prosesize. (Compare [3] and [4]: the first one does not have 1900 bytes more prose). —Kusma (talk) 22:50, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
    Pinging Shubinator, in case they don't know about this DYKcheck bug, so they can fix it when they get a chance. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Pentecost

I just noticed that we have nothing for Pentecost (5 June) this year - my fault - but mention Christmas twice in the set for the feast (now prep 1). Intended quirkiness? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

It was an oversight. I'm not sure how it could ever be considered quirky when that refers to the last hook in the set. I fixed the issue. SL93 (talk) 22:27, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Should I say "quirky". What's the right word for having a Christmas hook on Pentecost? And then two? I'd move both to different sets. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I said that I fixed the issue and that it was an oversight - my oversight. SL93 (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
About moving both, I would wait for more discussion. SL93 (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Would you (all) think a Pentecost hook would be a good idea for Christmas? If no, then why would a Christmas hook be good for Pentecost? My 2ct. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
As someone who doesn't follow religious dates and such things, I honestly have no thoughts on the matter. Though discussion is fine since it won't be up for a few days even with two-a-days. SL93 (talk) 22:43, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
If you want to move only one, could you please move "mine". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Maybe someone else will. I already moved one because you didn't make such a statement before and it's such a collaborative project that I'm sure another editor will do it. SL93 (talk) 22:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Right now, I'm dealing with something more pressing below. SL93 (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I just pulled the hook for later promotion. SL93 (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck

With or without a username, you can use the DYKcheck tool without installing it; just put this

javascript:importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); dykCheck();

into your URL and hit Enter when you're viewing a mainspace page.

What it mean?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basshunter/javascript:importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); dykCheck();

Then what? I think this instruction does not make sense. Eurohunter (talk) 08:05, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

@Eurohunter: the DYKcheck tool should now appear in the left lower sidebar as you browse wikipedia. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: There is no DYKcheck tool - it just search for article Basshunter/javascript:importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); dykCheck(); which does not exist so I'm confused. Eurohunter (talk) 08:10, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: oh, i see- yeah, that's pretty confusingly worded. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Eurohunter: Go to User:Eurohunter/common.js and add importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); //DYKcheck tool as a line, then save and refresh your cache. Now it should load like other scripts you have. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 08:31, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: Yes but then above instruction is incorrect/fake? Eurohunter (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
No, you have to follow it literally - put just javascript:importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); dykCheck(); in the URL and hit enter. JavaScript execution via URL is discouraged nowadays because of its use by malicious users to trick others to execute malware code. So browsers like Chrome may strip "javascript:" when you copy-paste into the URL bar - reinsert that if necessary. – SD0001 (talk) 13:07, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
@SD0001: How to do that if search URL with "javascript:importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); dykCheck()" (not web search) redirects me to Google search? Eurohunter (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2022 (UTC)
Make sure what's pasted in URL is same as what's copied. Chrome specifically removes "javascript:" from the beginning which would indeed cause the remaining code to be interpreted as a google search query. – SD0001 (talk) 11:19, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

About a year ago, I investigated this using every browser I had (and I think I downloaded a few more for testing). I found that it worked exactly as described for a browser or two, for others some other action was required (like entering it in the JavaScript Console), and for others, I couldn't get it to work at all. I kept detailed notes for every browser in a file, but – you guessed it – I can't find the file. I'm not going to reproduce that, but I can give instructions for a few popular PC browsers. In all cases, start out on the page you want DYKcheck to analyze, then enter the code importScript('User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js'); dykCheck(); where directed to. The first time you do this produces an error, but you can still click on "DYK check" in the sidebar under "Tools". Or you can enter the code again and it will work without having to click on "DYK check". Note that I've omitted the javascript:, but it's optional. These will all work for an IP.

  • Chrome or Edge: Ctrl ⇧ Shift j – enter code at the > (top of the page).
  • Firefox: Ctrl ⇧ Shift i – enter code at the >> (bottom of the page).

For other browsers, you can probably figure it out by experimenting. Also, some browsers may have a setting to allow just entering it as in the instructions on the DYKcheck page, but none that I know of.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  01:21, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I've updated the instructions on Wikipedia:Did you know/DYKcheck#Using DYKcheck without installing it. (I wish I'd done that back when I had data from more browsers.) Anyone should obviously feel free to further update it, although I don't think this feature has ever been used much.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  21:07, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I also updated the instructions on that page for prosesize. If anyone still has User:Dr pda/prosesizebytes.js installed, please note that it doesn't work any more, so you should uninstall it. See my instructions for installing the prosesize gadget.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  01:51, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Too soon?

Urgggh. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive, but I think it's too soon to be joking about assault rifles. I know there are shootings every day, but could we hold ... that AK-47 is reportedly "much more gentle than you'd imagine"? (currently in Prep 3) at least until the Robb Elementary School shooting item is no longer on the Main Page (ITN)?  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  22:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

How long will that be on ITN? Prep 3 won't be on the main page for a while. I'm not entirely sure how ITN works. SL93 (talk) 22:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
If we hold at one a day (which doesn't seem likely, although I want to), it'll be 6 June. If we switch to two-a-day, we should be thinking about a pull. Either way, running now would be an absolutely terrible idea- very good call. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I see that I missed yet another discussion - this time about the two-a-days. SL93 (talk) 22:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) ITN is unpredictable, because a new news item kicks the oldest one out, but sometimes there's no consensus that something new is worth posting for several days. - I am not happy with jokes about rifles, anytime. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not either, but I tried making my point about similar topics before. I was talked over and the hooks went through. SL93 (talk) 22:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Are we seriously thinking we're going to run this any time soon? What's wrong with this place? EEng 22:42, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Mandarax does make a point with the statement that there are always shootings. So in my mind, I vote for never promoting it. I promoted it and I would repromote it later after more time passes if pulled even though I completely hate the hook. I try not to fight a battle that I know I will lose. I'm not sure where your comment comes from - I already mentioned that I didn't realize how soon the hook could be on the main page, I'm against the hook entirely, and no one said such a thing. SL93 (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
  • The gun violence is happening too frequently, seems like a weekly event - civilian, police, countries. Likely never a time when we can joke about it on the main page. — Maile (talk) 22:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm surprised that someone actually agrees with me that it shouldn't ever be on the main page. SL93 (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps the article could still appear on DYK, just with a different non-jokey hook? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:00, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
It seems like when it comes to the promoter, there would be no winning either way. SL93 (talk) 23:03, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
SL93 A few years back, I turned on my TV one day and saw the minor-age son of someone I knew, on a rampage, eventually taken down by police. But not before he had wiped out his entire family, and a large part of a neighborhood and many at his own school. The gun was a mail-order gift from a family member, one of those things you assemble at home. And at least once a week or so in the United States, this gets repeated. — Maile (talk) 23:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
@Maile66, wow. I'm so sorry. valereee (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
@valereee the scary thing is that this happened when the President was in town, and this kid had a record of violence. The US needs to do something more substantial about mental health. This kid had been in court-ordered counseling for years before this happened. Gun laws are only half problem. People who have their heads screwed on right, don't take this route. But, needless to say, we shouldn't make light of the issue on the MP. — Maile (talk) 21:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't think it is a good idea to run that hook. Per the content guideline at WP:GRATUITOUS, objectionable material should be included "if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available". The hook does not treat the topic in an encyclopedic manner and there are plenty of equally suitable hooks that could be used. I agree with others that jokes about gun violence on the main page should generally be avoided. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:48, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
    I agree. We should never joke (or be "quirky") about gun violence. Schwede66 01:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
    But to be clear, hooks based on Ted Cruz stuffing his head up his own ass [5] are always appropriate. EEng 03:28, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
    Regardless of anyone's views on Cruz (or any US politician for that matter, Republican or Democrat), a hook like that would likely be rejected over BLP concerns. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
    Thank you, Captain Obvious! Naturally I'm referring here to a BLP-compliant hook about Ted Cruz stuffing his head up his own ass. EEng 22:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • sounds like there's pretty clear consensus to shelve this hook. I'll strike it from the nom page. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:27, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
  • It was far too soon - if ever appropriate. Good spot! ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:48, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

What happened to Verified column of Count of DYK Hooks?

Hi, I see that you reverted your question, did you find an answer? TSventon (talk) 13:36, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Not exactly. But it looks like Wugapodes has been doing some general cleanups of various things. Whether or not that is related to this, I decided to just wait and see if this all clears up by the end of the day. I'm sure he's one of the first persons to notice if that doesn't clear up. We're in good hands there. — Maile (talk) 13:42, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I think that some of the bots aren't talking to each other correctly any more. I've raised this with the operator of User:DYKHousekeepingBot at User_talk:Shubinator#Wikipedia:Did_you_know/DYK_hook_count. I don't know at which end this should be fixed, though. —Kusma (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
As I expected, another editor, Thingofme, has asked about the Verified column. TSventon (talk) 14:43, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
It seems that the approved nominations had suddenly set to zero but there are approved nominations (but the bot just turn to zero). Thingofme (talk) 14:31, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
This is almost certainly because the special occasion holding area has been moved from the bottom to the top, and Shubinator will have to tweak the bot to handle it.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  16:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I've reverted WugBot to the last version before the SOHA move until we can figure out a plan. Thanks everyone for your vigilance, I didn't notice the hook count. — Wug·a·po·des​ 21:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Switched back and watching the DYKHousekeepingBot. It runs a few minutes after wugbot, and didn't freak out this time, so this should be fixed, but we'll know more around 23:33UTC. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Housekeeping bot updated without a problem at 00:04 so it seems like this is resolved. Let me know if anything else comes up, and thanks everyone for the help! — Wug·a·po·des​ 00:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much, Wugapodes! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:40, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

The use of technical terms and jargon in hooks

What is the status of the use of technical terms or jargon in hooks? For example, if a hook uses a term that has a specific meaning within the subculture of the subject but said meaning is obscure or confusing outside of it, should such terminology be avoided or can they be permitted? As an example, take the hook "... that Tom Kenny created the role of SpongeBob SquarePants?", with "create" in this context meaning "was the first to play the role". Should such wordings be allowed in hooks, or would this sense of "create" cause confusion considering Stephen Hillenburg, not Kenny, was the one who conceived the character? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:29, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't have an answer, but I think you have a valid point. Never thought of it before, because (for instance) an actor who first acts a role in a production, is said to have "created" the role, when the role was in fact created by the author. See the caption below the lead image on actor William Conrad, "he created the role of Matt Dillon on the radio version of Gunsmoke". Or Lee Dixon (actor) which says he "created the role of the Scarecrow" in the Wizard of Oz. But I believe you are correct in asking for some standard here at DYK. — Maile (talk) 01:44, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
From Wiktionary: 5. (transitive) In theatre, to be the first performer of a role; to originate a character. So I don't really see a problem with this – it does not make a hook misleading to use a concise and valid definition of a word. (If you want to ask about opera, just say so; the spurious sample hook is a bit of a straw man. It's unsurprising that a phrase like "originated the role" or "created the role" makes substantially less sense when you take it out of a dramatic context and replace it with... SpongeBob.) DanCherek (talk) 01:59, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
The example I gave was "create" but I was also asking in a more general sense and not only talking about that specific terminology. I've seen some examples in the past where hooks about scientific or medical subjects were rejected or revised because they were deemed too technical for a broad audience (unfortunately I cannot remember the exact example I'm thinking of, but one was just from this year). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:12, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
Create seems particularly problematic as it has a more general meaning and is thus very likely to be misconstrued. I am less concerned about a technical term which simply wouldn't be known. That said, I don't think we need a DYK specific rule as MOS:JARGON should apply here too. CMD (talk) 03:11, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
You beat me to JARGON, and I didn't know that particular meaning of create, but I'm wary of rewording it when it is in my basic dictionary. —Bagumba (talk) 11:35, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
  • Hooks are meant to get people to click. Sometimes they do that by being intriguing, even a bit puzzling, and a bit of jargon might be part of that. It's OK. EEng 22:38, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
    Except I wasn't puzzled because I know little about Bob, so I wouldn't question who created him. No extra click.—Bagumba (talk) 11:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 1 June 2022

Regarding the Paul Gosar hook, please change "...that Paul Gosar once posted a Twitter video in which an anime character with his face kills other characters..." to "that Paul Gosar once posted a Twitter video in which an anime character with his face kills and attacks (without the italics) other characters..." in order to fully reflect what reliable sources state. Thank you. Cheers! Fakescientist8000 10:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done  — Amakuru (talk) 11:16, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Who Proofread This?

"that a giant breast destroying a spaceship Mark Zuckerberg in the music video for "Ay mamá" is a criticism of Meta's censorship of female nipples?"

Did anyone proofread this? This makes no grammatical sense. It's as if the spaceship is named Mark Zuckerberg but that's not clear either. 70.161.8.90 (talk) 20:43, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I thought it was just me, getting too old to understand the urban slang of a new generation. This is the article text it comes from the "Music video" section:
"The music video for "Ay mamá" was released on 1 May 2022" (from verbiage in the first paragraph, then drops down to the next paragraph)
"It depicts Bandini trying to compose a song without disturbing her young child. While doing so, she notices a photo of her mother, and imagines herself embodying all women from prehistory to the far future, when women have four arms and fly."
"In this future, a spaceship shaped like a sphinx with Mark Zuckerberg's head, with a Meta logo on its forehead, approaches a pink planet with a prominent volcano, which looks like a spherical breast and its nipple. The nipple then shoots a laser beam and explodes the Zuckerberg ship. At the end of the video, Bandini's son wakes in the music studio and she rushes to comfort him."
"The Delacroix painting mentioned in the lyrics, Liberty Leading the People, also appears in the music video, with Bandini's head superimposed on Liberty. The inclusion of the Zuckerberg ship, which also resembles the Imperial Star Destroyer from Star Wars, being destroyed by a giant breast is a condemnation of his company's social networks censoring female nipples."
— Maile (talk) 21:09, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
The DYK still doesn't make sense. They botched this and from what Maile says I'm not the only one that thinks so. 70.161.8.90 (talk) 23:20, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
Off the main page now, so this can be archived. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: That doesn't excuse the sloppiness in the writing and approval of this DYK. 70.161.8.90 (talk) 03:13, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Got over 10,000 views, and was shared by depths of Wikipedia. Nobody went to ERRORS with it. Nothing sloppy about it, just a bit wordy, but the hookiness seems to have done the trick to overcome that. If you really want your bogus claim about poor grammar addressed, I must tell you that "a spaceship X" (or any other thing instead of spaceship) is a common way of condensing "a spaceship version of X", which everyone else seemed to understand. Kingsif (talk) 03:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Kingsif is correct. Sorry, OP, but your sensibilities are too rigid. EEng 04:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Assuming English is your first language, that is. Otherwise, you're just one more poor soul whose excellent grasp of English works against you when attempting to parse certain sentences on the English culture language Wikipedia. Primergrey (talk) 04:45, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can parse that, actually. EEng 05:39, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
Must be your rigid sensibilities acting up. Primergrey (talk) 00:27, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I'll have to lay off the Viagra. EEng 16:39, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I hear it gets very hard to do so. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:54, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
If your editing session lasts longer than four hours, consult an admin immediately. Primergrey (talk) 05:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
"I must tell you that "a spaceship X" (or any other thing instead of spaceship) is a common way of condensing "a spaceship version of X", " That's news to me. And I'm a native speaker nearing my half-century mark. I didn't see this on the Main Page, but I agree that it was incomprehensible and should have been pulled.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Prep 6: Synapturanus danta

As far as I can tell, this quote originates from some random bloke on Twitter and I'm not convinced this nugget of information rises to the level of notability and importance to be worth highlighting here in the hook. Others may disagree with me, of course! Pinging @Casualdejekyll, Doug Coldwell, and Theleekycauldron: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru: I thought it'd be fine because the quote is republished in a reliable secondary – but we could talk about the Harry Potter chocolate frog comparison, too. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I think we should just drop the quotation marks per WP:BLUESKY – it's very clearly a smooth lil fella, just look at it! /jezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 19:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Guh!?! I blink for one day and all of a sudden not only is my nom in prep, it's getting challenged in prep? The last time I looked nobody had commented?! Things go fast around here. Harry Potter also originates from Twitter, but like theleekycauldron, I assumed since it was mentioned in the Mongabay RS it'd be fine. casualdejekyll 22:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
OK, so although I prefer the hook that was moved to prep, we could still go with ALT1: ... that Synapturanus danta is a frog named after the Spanish word for tapir? Source: https://www.popsci.com/animals/tapir-frog-new-species/, which was approved by Doug as well. casualdejekyll 22:53, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
  • not convinced this nugget of information rises to the level of notability and importance to be worth highlighting here in the hook – What??? Hooks are positively allowed to highlight the absolutely trivial. Assuming it's in the article (regardless of its ultimate origin) it's fair game. EEng 00:11, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Special Occasion Juneteenth

Did you know nominations/Juneteenth flag

Hi all! I expanded an article about a flag for a June 19th U.S. holiday and I am hoping if it gets approved it can be a special occasion hook. The article is Juneteenth flag and it comes with an image which I think is free. Thank you for your consideration. I am sure I will fuss with it more in the coming week, and I expect and hope others will as well! Cheers Bruxton (talk) 04:39, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset, Theleekycauldron, Cwmhiraeth, Amakuru, Kusma, and Nikkimaria: We need some copyright feedback on the nomination template, where I have started a thread about this. Please post your answers there. — Maile (talk) 17:33, 28 May 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset, Theleekycauldron, Cwmhiraeth, Amakuru, Kusma, Nikkimaria, Maile66, Evrik, and Alanscottwalker: Hi all, I tagged all of the Juneteenth copyright violations for speedy at commons and I erased the image from consideration at the nomination. It is the consensus that the flags are a copyvio. Next we can upload an image of the flag locally since it is the subject of the whole article. Thanks for having a look and for lending your minds for the nomination. I think it can still be a great dyk article without an image on the front page. Bruxton (talk) 22:28, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. If there is not another Juneteenth article, I think this should go in the top spot on June 19th even without the image. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, I nominated another Juneteenth related article. Perhaps it can also run on June 19th if approved. Bruxton (talk) 02:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

7 day time limit for QPQ

Nominators are supposed to have 7 days to supply a QPQ, but BlueMoonset and theleekycauldron have offered a long-time DYK contributor an opportunity to supply a QPQ at Template:Did you know nominations/Babou (ocelot). I'm not trying to argue, but I do feel that we should remove that rule if we are going to give an exception to experienced DYK contributors especially when they know about QPQs. I would understand if the editor was new to DYK. I have no idea how it seems like I'm the bad guy on the nomination page for trying to enforce a rule for an experienced DYK contributor. SL93 (talk) 10:55, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

I think seven days are plenty. Ideally the QPQ should be provided at nomination time. On the other hand, perhaps we should indeed chuck out all the rules that are not enforced. —Kusma (talk) 12:26, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
SL93, WP:DYKCRIT as quoted by Narutolovehinata5 says Ideally, a QPQ should be submitted within a week of a nomination. After one week, and a reminder to the nominator, a nomination may be closed as "incomplete.". I think that BlueMoonset and theleekycauldron have interpreted the current guidance reasonably as words like ideally, should and may suggest that discretion can be used. Backlog mode may have teething problems when it is finally introduced, so I would support leaving this policy unchanged at present. TSventon (talk) 16:18, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I'd be okay with keeping the policy unchanged (allowing the QPQ to come a week after the nom) but to change the wording. Surely it is better to provide the QPQ right away, as most people do. Ideally people should do the QPQ before the nom, not a week later. —Kusma (talk) 16:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I agree with Kusma on both counts. Yes, ideally, QPQs get provided with the nomination and that’s what I suggest the rules should state. But if we aren’t prepared to even stick with what has been written down maybe we should have a clean out of those rules. In this particular case, the QPQ is so overdue that we ought to reject the nomination (or indeed drop the rule). Schwede66 17:33, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
However, the reminder was part of the May 14 review. That is my issue. SL93 (talk) 17:34, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Either we start closing nominations after QPQs don't get done, or we just let people do whatever. People shouldn't need reminders for it. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:39, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
It’s reasonable to be more lenient with newbies giving that the rule book is long and complicated. Schwede66 17:49, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
Sometimes newbies read through all of the rules before submitting (I know I did), so they may be more aware of newer rules than more experienced users. Users who have been around for a while may think they know the rules, but may not know about newer rules. This one was added in August 2020. It's always a good idea to remind (and ping) users with any level of experience about any rules being invoked. In this specific case, while a request for QPQ was made on May 14, the seven day rule wasn't mentioned until yesterday, so the user should have a week from then to complete it.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  19:05, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
By the time a newbie reads through all of the rules, he's likely to have already missed the 7-day deadline. EEng 07:10, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
There's a reason why 7-day deadline is often waived for newbies, especially when the "miss" is only by a few days. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Personally, I don't really see why it matters when the QPQ is done, so long as it is before it is promoted. If someone gets pinged a few times and still doesn't do it, then it can be closed. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 17:53, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The reason we don't require a QPQ at the time of nomination is that for many nominators it's all that they can do to get the article ready in seven days. Hence the allowance of "nominate now, QPQ later". The reason I gave the seven days is because of DYKCRIT's "and a reminder to the nominator"—I didn't feel the May 14 reviewer had given a reminder of the one-week deadline, just a "let me know when the QPQ is ready". This had nothing to do with the nominator's DYK experience—perhaps seven days was too generous given the circumstances, but it's pretty much hardwired into me after all these years. I must say that based on the astonishing bad faith in the nominator's response to SL93, it's not something I'll be offering that nominator again. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I do agree, Philafrenzy's response was out of line. I don't think offering another week was the wrong thing to do, just given how lenient we are in practice, but it's a shame it went there. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:09, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
No matter what the rules are, we will always have problems with people who ignore the rules. I believe the rules are a good standard to follow. However, I always lean towards being more generous. --evrik (talk) 18:31, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with BlueMoonset, theleekycauldron, and Philafrenzy disagreeing. Those were just my thoughts and discussion on rules happen frequently on Wikipedia. If I really wanted no discussion, I wouldn't ping Narutoloveshinata and I certainly would try to mark the nomination for closure. My first response and second response to Philafrenzy was to hopefully get across that assuming bad faith doesn't feel good for anyone. SL93 (talk) 18:58, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm going to drop out for now since there is a good discussion going which is what I wanted to achieve. SL93 (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

We're nearly above 120...

... but I don't think we should switch yet. We made our last switch five days ago, and a week before that – the unreviewed backlog is just too large right now, and it's causing some instability. Let's keep airing one set a day, so that we can focus on clearing the unreviewed backlog; once we're up to 150 or something, then we should start clearing out the approved backlog with 2-a-days. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:52, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

We're at 120, which is the specified switching point. We're there because we've been getting a large spate of reviews which has taken the gap between total noms and approved noms down from 207 to 164 in five days even as it increased the approved count. The primary cause of the instability is the preps and queues, not the high number of nominations: right now, we have only two queues filled, and one prep empty, which has restricted the ability to get approved nominations into sets. And, with only two queues filled, we're not ready to start two-a-day just now.
My suggestion: ping @DYK admins: to promoted some preps to queues so we're set up to handle going back to two sets. If a prep set or two can be built, that would take us below 120 for a little while longer while we build up the total number of queues and preps filled. Then we should be ready to handle the switchover, which at the current rate of new approved hooks can't be held off much longer. (I'm not in favor of waiting until 150, which strikes me as artificially high.)
Note that there is a hook in Prep 6 for Wayne Cooper, which is set to go on the main page in time for the start of the NBA finals, 02:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC), aka 21:00, 2 June 2022 (ET). It will need to be moved assuming we're back to two-a-day by then, which seems likely. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:37, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
We have a GA backlog drive and handling them will cause DYK nominations to rise again, and the review rate may have to rise. Thingofme (talk) 10:43, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
BlueMoonset We are back at above 120 approved nominations again. We should probably move to two sets a day. SL93 (talk) 22:29, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
The preps and queues are reasonably filled, and the GA drive is likely to keep noms high, so we should go and switch back at the next opportunity (after midnight UTC and before noon UTC). —Kusma (talk) 22:38, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry I wasn't on before midnight. However, since the next set, Queue 6, has a special occasion hook that needs to hit the main page at 00:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)—the Wayne Cooper one mentioned above—it would probably be easiest to hold off switching to two a day until shortly after 00:00 on 3 June, or about 22 hours from now. That would also give us time to get a few more preps promoted to queues; the three we have now will be gone before you know it. Pinging @DYK admins: again—with thanks and apologies—to promote those preps, since we're full up there. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:07, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Top prep has a nom I reviewed, so it's probably better to leave it to someone else. —Kusma (talk) 11:13, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Pinging @DYK admins: again. SL93 (talk) 00:10, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
So... I'm a little unclear what precisely needs to be done right now? ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 00:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
ONUnicorn We needed more preps moved to queues which Maile66 did. We still need to move to two sets a day. SL93 (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
We also need an admin to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 86400 to 43200 right away, since it's after midnight UTC. Thanks to whoever does this. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:48, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
 Done — Maile (talk) 01:01, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

The state of the stats page, and proposed changes

Hi, y'all! I've put a crap ton of work into the WP:DYKSTATS page over the past few months, and I want to both update the wider community on how that's been going and propose some changes for the future. If you don't want to read the infodump that's about to go down, the proposed changes are in bold.

See, the current way the monthly stats pages work is that if your hook gets over 416.6 views per hour while on the main page,[a] your hook gets added to a table at Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics/Monthly DYK pageview leaders.[b] In ye olden days of DYK, this updating was done manually and arduously – past stewards of the page include Yoninah, Gerda Arendt, Cbl62, and anyone else who wanted to add their own hook to the page. So, in a sense, the "bar" for a hook to make the stats page was somewhat out of necessity – there can be anywhere from 224–496 hooks in a month, and adding each one to a statistical archive page would have just represented a waste of time. By 2015, somewhere around 13–15% of hooks would have cleared this bar. Today, that number is up to 23–25%.

Fortunately, time of manual updates has essentially passed. Instead of manual checking and insertion, updating the stats page these days basically amounts to clicking a button.[c] In addition to the button updating the stats page with more hooks, it also collects collated statistics on every month's hookset and notifies credited users when their hook has been featured on the page. Because of a lack of a BRFA, this is done semi-automatically instead of automatically, so my first proposal is that a bot be allowed to update the stats page.

But the information that's contained on the stats pages can actually be pretty useful. I generally want to know how my hook does, whether it makes the stats page or not – and just as the stats page, as it currently stands, serves as a guide for how to write clever and interesting hooks, nominations that don't make the stats page can be valuable for their guidance on what qualities might be undesirable for one who wants their hook to perform well. Cbl62 did the same when they compiled their list of some of the lowest-performing hooks. For that reason, I think that the monthly stats pages should include a record of every hook. Now, well-performing hooks do still deserve recognition – as I mentioned above, my script leaves a template on users' talk pages when their hook makes the page. It's actually pretty nifty, it looks like this:

Hook update
Your hook reached 10,000 views (416.6 per hour), making it one of the most viewed hooks of May 2022 – nice work!

As long as we keep that going, nominators will still have a reason to celebrate the performance of their hook, while not necessarily providing an incomplete record for those who want to make their own tables. Sigh, my apologies for the length of this; I wanted to share a lot more, but this was unspooling, so I did my best to keep it on topic. Look forward to hearing your thoughts! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:50, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

Happy with both of your suggestions. —Kusma (talk) 17:59, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I think a bot would be great! valereee (talk) 19:09, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Might as well list all of them. The current standard for inclusion is so low that it's almost meaningless. It's more like a participation medal. 98.186.217.255 (talk) 21:32, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you Leeky! I appreciate your work! Bruxton (talk) 03:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that's a great idea. When assembling prep areas I would often consult the list, trying to guess what hooks people would like to see. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment: Thanks, all! I'm in the process of updating the stats pages; I'll let discussion continue for a little while longer before going to BRFA. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:00, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Notes

  1. ^ which comes out to either 5,000 views for a 12-hour cycle or 10,000 views for a 24-hour cycle
  2. ^ it used to just be Wikipedia:Did you know/Statistics, but I moved everything to subpages because it was proving to be pretty clunky.
  3. ^ Followed, from experience, by the button sometimes not working, and having to figure out what went wrong in 300+ lines of code, and cursing out theleekycauldron for not just doing it manually before finding the misplaced parenthesis in the code or the bad manual formatting in the stats page.

Prep 5: Expansion (sculpture)

  • ... that sculptor Paige Bradley broke her sculpture Expansion (pictured) on purpose, and with the pieces created what is thought to be the first bronze sculpture to be illuminated from within?

A couple of queries regarding this. (1) the hook seems slightly misleading, as it suggests that Bradley smashed the bronze sculpture and then reassembled it, while in fact (according to the article) it was a wax cast that she smashed, and she only then fashioned the bronze sculpture from the pieces. (2) aside from the usual issues with saying "thought to be" (which is a violation of WP:WEASEL, and needs attribution), I'm slightly sceptical whether the "first bronze sculpture illuminated from within" can be fully verified. The source used is from a gallery which sells these sculptures and is therefore almost a primary source with a commercial interest in promoting the piece, and therefore a slightly dubious authority on whether it really is the first such or not. Plus, a quick search reveals items such as this statue of Jesus: [6] which can also be said to be a bronze sculpture illuminated from within. Who's to say there haven't been numerous other such lamps or ornaments produced over the years? With a better source I could accept this, but probably does need that Pinging @Bruxton, Gerda Arendt, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 10:39, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that "first" is not even needed to make it interesting, but a description might work. Trying:
... that the bronze sculpture Expansion (pictured) is lit from within, after Paige Bradley broke its wax model intentionally and assembled the cast pieces leaving cracks? - Better wording welcome. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:51, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that sort of thing could work, thanks Gerda. Will wait to see what others think.  — Amakuru (talk) 11:15, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with Gerda's wording. SL93 (talk) 12:46, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Amakuru Do you think that removing the gallery sentences entirely is an option? Though it would need to be expanded somewhere else due to the article only being 1395 characters long after that. SL93 (talk) 21:49, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
How about saying (only in the article) that the gallery claims it's the first? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:02, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that could work. SL93 (talk) 22:03, 1 June 2022 (UTC)
Not related to the hook issue, but I've tagged the image as no permission on Commons. It was uploaded by an account with very few edits and no proof that they are the copyright holder. We would need confirmation through VRT that the artist released the sculpture under a free license to be able to display the image without a claim of fair use. Spicy (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
??? @Spicy and SL93: Stop the madness. I wrote to the artist and she uploaded the photo. The image is 100% artist upload. Grrrr. Same thing I did with the Dancing with Dandelions [File:Dancing with Dandelions at Night.jpg] on commons. Artist upload Bruxton (talk) 00:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
That's fine but the permission needs to be documented through WP:VRT - otherwise there is no way for anyone to independently verify that without emailing the artist themselves. Spicy (talk) 00:46, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
@Spicy: Do you realize the kind of work it takes to go through weeks of emails and managers and handlers, and then insist the artist upload a photo herself and share it with the world for free? There are enough hoops to jump through already. I am officially ruffled. Bruxton (talk) 00:54, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
My helper for image licensing is GRuban. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:08, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Hello. Yes, what Bruxton writes is completely correct, it often takes multiple emails back and forth before the image owner releases the image to VRT (formerly OTRS) satisfaction, and it can be frustrating. But as someone is questioning that the uploader is the image owner, that is what needs to be done. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Wikimedia_VRT_release_generator is usually the most effective hoop to jump through, but still sometimes requires more. A possibly easier solution is that the artist post the image and "Released under https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/" on a page on https://paigebradley.com/ but all too often our article subjects don't know how to edit their own websites. --GRuban (talk) 11:44, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt and GRuban: Thanks you both for your support. Gerda you are a treasure and I appreciate you. In the case of this image, there is no evidence of a copyright issue. If I understand the issue, one editor is suspicious based on the artist's edit count. WP:5P4 comes to mind here: Act in good faith, and assume good faith on the part of others. Be open and welcoming to newcomers. I will keep on keeping on and I will look forward. I am putting this in the rear view mirror. happy Thursday everyone! Bruxton (talk) 13:57, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I'd also be very suspicious based on the copyvio deletion history of the uploader. If the file doesn't have documentation, it doesn't have documentation, but there are other issues here with the image licensing: did the artist also take the photo? If not, it needs the photographer to freely license their photo AND for either the artist to, I believe, do something that gives up copyright of the design elements OR the image to have been taken within the parameters of freedom of panorama, which indoors (as it is) rarely is. I don't think this is going to be resolved quickly at all. Kingsif (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks @Kingsif: That sounds like a different issue than the rationale presented above. In any event our viewers will just have to google an image. I won't be pursuing the licensing for this image, I went deep enough into this rabbit hole. Bruxton (talk) 15:17, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
@Bruxton: Would you object if I were to write Paige Bradley at her website and request that she provide the release by email or web page? If she uploaded herself she may be interested enough to send an email or edit a web page as well. It is a beautiful image, might be worth a bit of white rabbit following. --GRuban (talk) 18:22, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@GRuban: Sure, there is a contact on her website. That is how I started. Bruxton (talk) 18:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the contact on her page wrote back:

Hello George,

Paige Bradley cannot release the image if this is how is what must be agreed to:

I acknowledge that by doing so I grant anyone the right to use the work, even in a commercial product or otherwise, and to modify it according to their needs, provided that they abide by the terms of the license and any other applicable laws.

Her works are copyrighted and she does not want anyone to use the work without her permission. This has been an ongoing issue for several works, most notably, Expansion. We are appreciative of the wonderful article on Wikipedia, but cannot allow the image to be published.

Keli for Paige Bradley

Paige Bradley Fine Art

So we should remove the image. Sorry. --GRuban (talk) 23:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)


That was a 180 degree turn around from this:
Hello Ted,
Paige reviewed the Wiki page you created for Expansion and very much liked everything.
We can provide an image of Expansion for the page, but wanted to inquire first if there is anything else required.
All the best,
Keli for Paige Bradley
Paige Bradley Fine Art
My message after they said they could license an image:
That is great news! Perhaps someone from your side can upload it to Wikimedia Commons. As I said no freedom of panorama in the United States for sculpture, so it would have to be uploaded by the one responsible for creation of the sculpture and image. I hope to have this on the main page of Wikipedia sometime this month and having a photo would certainly get much more interesting.

Hello Ted,

We have uploaded an image of Expansion. Here is the link from Wiki

File:Expansion third(DarkPatina).jpg
Expansion, Bronze Sculpture with Electricity by Paige Bradley

HTML link: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Expansion_third(DarkPatina).jpg

We are happy to allow use of this photo.

Thank you,

Keli Pharaoh

And it was not the image I wanted to use. Bruxton (talk) 00:38, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm guessing she just wanted to give us her image, but not the world. However we need to make our content free for everyone to reuse and edit, including her image. So it goes. --GRuban (talk) 11:02, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
My thoughts don't matter right now. It can't be on the main page with the tag. SL93 (talk) 00:48, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Though I thought it wouldn't matter in this case because the artist themself uploaded it under their account. SL93 (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
See my comments above: if the artist isn't also the photographer, then it's not freely licensed, nor does it seem to be valid because of FoP. Kingsif (talk) 14:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
There are two creative works here: the sculpture and the photograph. Since the sculpture doesn't appear to be in a public place, and therefore potentially covered under freedom of panorama, both creative works would need to be freely licensed. Even if the same person authored both works, limited permission for use by Wikipedia is not sufficient to satisfy a CCBYSA license. GMGtalk 11:28, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I moved it out of prep 1 to prep 5 in a non-image slot. SL93 (talk) 00:29, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I have changed the hook to Gerda's wording above and I changed the tagged part in the article. SL93 (talk) 01:19, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Kreuzstab

In Prep 7 we have:

(I nominated it, but then unwatched the discussion.) I don't think that our average reader, having no idea what Kreuzstab may mean, and that we talk about a solo cantata for the bass voice, will associate that "by" doesn't mean the conductor, but the singer. If that doesn't matter, leave it as it is. I also said before that "the first recording" is an Easter egg, leading to a list of several recordings. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Ich will den Kreuzstab gerne tragen, BWV 56 discography
I'm puzzled that you are trying to intervene here; as pointed out by User:Fram, your recent problematic "Odessa Professor" DYK still has to be reworked for later: "Did you know ... that German violinist and professor Aleksey Semenenko was stranded in Ukraine for a month because Russia invaded Ukraine the day after his performance?"
The hymn/chorale for BWV 56 had the hook
"Did you know... that the 1653 hymn "Du, o schönes Weltgebäude", about renouncing the world, contains the stanza "Komm, O Tod, des Schlafes Bruder", which Bach used to conclude his cross-staff cantata?"
It did not mention that the cross-staff cantata was for solo bass with a chorus only at the end. Perhaps "easter egg" has some kind of German connotation, but the DYK in the queue concerns two well-educated American singers from Texas and Kansas, with no connotations. In the cantata article, "Kreuzstab cantata" is wikilinked to the article; but nowhere in the 1653 hymn. In books and magazines, the term "Kreuzstab cantata" is used, not "cross-staff cantata". The Template above shows time stamps; the ALT1 proposal could never run because there were at least 4 publicly available recordings by Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau (1950, 1965, 1967, 1983); since you stopped watchlisting the Template (despite being pinged by me), it's unhelpful to intervene in this way, applying double standards to the 1653 hymn and the discography. Any further discussion, if needed, should be directly with User:Narutolovehinata5 and me (or an administrator here). Mathsci (talk) 23:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
I am sorry that you misunderstood me completely, which is probably my fault. My concern is that a recording "by someone" normally means a recording "by a conductor", not a singer. I believe that readers might understand better that a singer is the focus if they knew that the cantata is for a solo singer. But never mind if you don't think that matters. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
If readers don't know what the Kreuzstab cantata is, they could always read the linked article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:30, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Well said. Thanks, Mathsci (talk) 11:34, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Well said. I'll remind you next time you tell me that a hook about an opera singer requires too much background knowledge ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:41, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't know. I'm tempted to quote from Rowan & Martin's Laugh-In. Mathsci (talk) 23:03, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

More queues are needed

We are down to one filled queue. @DYK admins: SL93 (talk) 00:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Load those preps up! We now have 4 filled queues. and 5 empty preps. Woohoo! — Maile (talk) 00:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you! SL93 (talk) 00:35, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
@Maile66: I see that there are now five filled queues, and all the preps are full. --evrik (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Queue 4

There really should be page numbers for the three book references at Warring Kennedy. Pinging nominator Z1720, reviewer Esculenta, and promoter theleekycauldron. SL93 (talk) 02:57, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I see there is nothing in the rules about it, but it appears to be one of those dreaded unwritten rules. I found a 2011 discussion about hooks being pulled due to there being no page numbers. It really should be written if it's a rule and I remember Yoninah as well as others mentioning it. SL93 (talk) 03:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Although not required and not specified in the DYK rules, I have added the page references. In my opinion, unwritten rules should be severely eliminated (or entirely erased) because it causes an elite group to become gatekeepers and puts up barriers to new users from becoming involved in the process. Z1720 (talk) 03:21, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree. I mentioned this because of the multiple times that editors got on my case about it. I thought that it was a written rule. SL93 (talk) 03:22, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I just found a 2020 discussion about this issue that I participated in and forgot about. From that discussion, it looks like the consensus for such a thing was divided with it more leaning toward page numbers not being needed. SL93 (talk) 03:31, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Please see Help:References and page numbers. I've been through Peer Review, GAC, FAC, FLC and DYK. To my knowledge, none of them specify the page numbers in their rules, possibly because it's basic Wikipedia standards. But if you don't have page numbers, you will likely be required to add them before the review is passed. You might want to put Template:Wikipedia referencing on your user pages. — Maile (talk) 03:37, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I've occasionally found that when I'm accessing a book online, there aren't page numbers. valereee (talk) 12:23, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thoughts on hooks and sourcing

Just looking for thoughts about the hooks and sourcing at Template:Did you know nominations/In the ploughed field. Spring because the nomination is over a month old. SL93 (talk) 20:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Request to update Template:DYK tools for QPQ check

Hello. Template:DYK tools needs to be updated with a tool that counts all of the nominations by a nominator, not only the nominations that passed. This is due to the new update for the QPQs at Wikipedia:Did_you_know#Eligibility_criteria. For example, User:SDZeroBot/DYK nomination counts.json could be used instead. The current QPQ check tool only counts the nominations that passed. Thanks! --MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 21:33, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

@MrLinkinPark333 This will be resolved by the version currently in Module:NewDYKnomination/sandbox. The template will print out if the nominator is exempt from QPQ or if they need to do extra. If neither of those are present then one QPQ is required. — Wug·a·po·des​ 22:00, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Even simpler! Would this include the special case when there's a backlog, users with over 20 nominations need 2 QPQs? Thanks :) MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 22:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Yep, that's the main reason for the change. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:23, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Promotion request

Just seeing if someone can promote Template:Did you know nominations/Ana Štěrba-Böhm. I reviewed it and it's one of the oldest approved nominations. SL93 (talk) 20:13, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

I shall look it over and promote. Bruxton (talk) 00:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

List of United States Military Academy First Captains

List of United States Military Academy First Captains.

@Szmenderowiecki: I have reverted your promotion - that's the final step in the process. I am not a reviewer on this nomination. I am one of the nominators and one of the creators of the article. You - or someone else - needs to give it a review tick. Then the bot will move it to the appropriate date on the Approved list. Another editor will eventually select it from there and promote it to prep. That's how our system works. But since we have had this misunderstanding, perhaps a more experienced editor should do the review. And I think perhaps you could use some guidance about the DYK process.@Theleekycauldron and BlueMoonset: I'm a little bit conserned that you might not understand our complete process here. — Maile (talk) 23:35, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, I don't know if you've ever seen Did you know/Reviewing guide, but more is involved in a proper review, than the dialogue on the above. — Maile (talk) 00:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Maile, Szmenderowiecki may have been confused by this edit, where you ticked the ALT1 hook with the edit summary tick alt1 per reviewer's OK. A DYK tick means that the nomination is approved, and should only ever be placed by a reviewer—the bot sees a tick and moves the nomination to the Approved page. I was confused myself until I went through the edits to the page one at a time.
The key thing is that there hasn't been a reviewer here: no one has commented on the article length, newness, neutrality, freedom from close paraphrasing/copyvio, etc. Szmenderowiecki certainly shouldn't be giving a tick without a formal and full DYK review, and a reviewer is never allowed to promote the article they have ticked. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:06, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I ticked it because he asked me to, which I misinterpreted to be he just wanted me to clarify Hawkeye's and my preferred hook. My error - I should not have done that. I took it out before the bot could act. But I agree, there has not yet been a real review done on the article. — Maile (talk) 02:14, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Whatever, let's move on. I was confused, everything is clarified by now, we are waiting for the reviewer. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 22. We currently have a total of 273 nominations, of which only 115 have been approved, a gap of 158, down 22 over the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other 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) 16:21, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Seven day limit: can we talk about WP:DYKSG#D9?

D9 says The "seven days old" limit should be strictly enforced only if there is a large backlog of hooks. In my experience, the limit is rarely strictly enforced although we always have a large backlog of hooks. Otherwise nominated article may still be approved if it were created or expanded after the oldest date listed in Template talk:Did you know#Older nominations. As the oldest unapproved nomination is usually a few months old, this limit is patently ridiculous. Should we

  • (a) define what a large backlog is and enforce more strictly?
  • (b) codify the current practice that nominations are accepted up to three days late when the nominator asks nicely, independent of the backlog
  • (c) replace the "oldest date listed" thing by something typically shorter, like "two weeks" or "four weeks" ?

Simply rejecting old nominations for missing the deadline could help against the backlogs. —Kusma (talk) 12:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

It might be worth noting that nominations that are beyond the deadline are occasionally approved on a case-by-case basis, particularly if the nominator is new to DYK and unfamiliar with the 7-day requirement, but that IAR exemptions by experienced nominators for nominations beyond two or three days usually need to be requested at WT:DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:11, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
Yes. Can we put that into the guidelines? If people are happy with the way things are currently run, we should update the DYKSG so they say what we actually do instead of referring to things we don't care about (length of backlog / age of oldest open nomination). How about replacing D9 by
Slight extensions of the one-week limit are usually granted, especially for nominators or article creators who are new to DYK. Exceptions for experienced nominators who miss the deadline by three days or more can only be granted by consensus at WT:DYK.
or something in this direction? —Kusma (talk) 14:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I think the system works fine as it is and we don't need to spell it out. --evrik (talk) 15:54, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
    I'm just worried that people could mistake the written guidelines for the actual rules. —Kusma (talk) 16:41, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
  • I've always thought it should be 10 days, and a potential to allow if it's a couple days over if the nomination is in good faith. Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
I think extending the hard deadline to 10 days is a reasonable idea given that we already have a baked-in "we tend to approve noms late by a day or two" practice. On the other hand, if the deadline is extended to 10 days, I'd be less enthusiastic about one/two-day exemptions being granted without discussion since 10 days is already pretty long and reasonable by itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:35, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
I think 7 days is plenty, with possible/likely extensions to 8 or 9 days (14 if a first-timer) fairly typical these days. Extending to 10 days would invariably include a similar flex, so it's adding three days of eligibility when we're already overwhelmed with nominations. I would be greatly in favor of deleting the "oldest date listed" sentence, since it was codified over a decade ago when the Older nominations section stretched back a couple of weeks rather than months; no one allows a two-month-old nomination these days, or would even consider anything beyond a couple of weeks. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:58, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
So would you be okay with my 14:32, 22 May 2022 (UTC) suggestion in green above? I think I'm trying to say more or less the same thing as you are, but there is probably a better way to say it. —Kusma (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

Given that the old wording hasn't been applied in practice in years, I've gone ahead and boldly replaced it with a rewording of Kusma's suggestion above (I changed some wordings to reflect actual practice). D9 now reads: Slight extensions of the seven-days limit are usually granted upon request. The seven-days requirement is sometimes waived for nominators or article creators who are new to DYK. Exceptions for experienced nominators who miss the deadline by three days or more can only be granted by consensus at WT:DYK. If there are any concerns or questions about this rewording, feel free to ask here or edit the page as necessary. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:22, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

@BlueMoonset: Since the rephrasing was reverted, what should be the ideal wording here? How can the wording be further worked on? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:40, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I have reverted the new wording, which I find to be unnecessarily detailed and fussy—I'm sorry that I didn't reply to Kusma sooner, as that might have headed this off. I wasn't fond of the new level of bureaucracy in the Exceptions for experienced nominators who miss the deadline by three days or more sentence—the reason to come to this page would be a disagreement as to whether an exception be granted. We've typically allowed IAR exceptions for first-time DYK submitters of up to an extra seven days, but more than a day or maybe two to anyone else without a good reason doesn't make sense to me. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:44, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't trying to make a rule, just trying to write down the rule we currently use (having written rules that don't actually apply is unfair to the sort of people who would like to follow the rules). I'm surprised that you think the old text referring to the backlog is a more accurate description. —Kusma (talk) 06:30, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
I'm surprised that you think I said that or thought that, since I didn't. I'll see if I can come up with something that works in the next few days. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
I've been toying with wording for some days now, and after getting too detailed, I ultimately simplified it down to the following: D9: The "seven days old" limit can be extended for a day or two upon request. If the nominator is new to DYK, a seven-day extension may be allowed. I'm sure, even with this in place, there will be requests for additional leniency per IAR or special circumstances, and those will probably end up on this page if there's a disagreement about whether to grant them. Thoughts? BlueMoonset (talk) 16:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
It may be a good idea to codify the "IAR exemptions beyond the specified extensions can be requested at WT:DYK" part at least. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:12, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
If it's codified, it is not IAR. —Kusma (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Works for me. Sorry about mis-characterising your motivations, getting reverted still annoys me after almost 18 years of Wikipedia... —Kusma (talk) 16:13, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Side discussion

  • No such discussion can be complete if I don't ritualistically repeat my longstanding position that the whole new-content pretense be junked in favor of running just plain interesting stuff, of whatever age. But actually interesting. EEng 04:08, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
    There are Twitter feeds that do that, but not many other places celebrate content creation. —Kusma (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
    When any editor adds something useful to any article, that's content creation, and when something worth highlighting is added to an article (new or old), that's worth celebrating. Somehow we've got stuck in this rut about new articles specifically, which (as I've pointed out a million times) means we keep sticking onto the main page our least developed, least worthy articles, as if our readers will somehow overlook that because they're "new". EEng 20:47, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
    I think that's why we also allow fresh GAs and 5x expansions. (I wouldn't be too opposed to allowing smaller expansions, possibly while increasing the minimum length). —Kusma (talk) 09:57, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
    But it doesn't explain while we still exclude millions of far-more-worthy articles containing more interesting facts that could be featured. For some reason everyone's hypnotized by this new-content mantra ("DYK features new content DYK features new content DYK features new content") when our readers don't give a shit about that. ("Hey, Myrtle, check out this new content?") They'd like to be directed to articles worth reading with something interesting in them, not inchoate stubs often offering strained trivia about celebrities' dogs. EEng 16:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Okay EEng, I'll bite! How do we define "interesting" in a way that can get consensus and be enforced? Or do we just go with the word itself as the criterion and work out whether something is interesting enough on a case-by-case basis? If the latter, wouldn't we need more than one set of eyes before any given hook could be approved? ezlev (user/tlk/ctrbs) 04:01, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I just happen to have a proposal here in my pocket. <rummages about> Wait, hold on. <checks coat> Ah yes, here it is, buried among these old Long Island Rail Road timetables: WT:Did_you_know/Archive_129#How_to_quickly_and_easily_decide_which_hooks_are_interesting,_and_cut_review_workload_in_half_at_the_same_time. EEng 05:26, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
P.S. At one point, in the discussion linked, I seem to have said, honestly, I'd kill 2/3 of moms, but I'll settle for 1/2. Just to be clear, I am not advocating the wholesale slaughter of moms; I believe noms is the word I intended.
I'd love to add a thumbs up/down vote on hooks similar to the vote done for ITN, and I agree that it needs to be done before the review is done. Unfortunately that'll never fly here. valereee (talk) 12:41, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Defeatist. EEng 16:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
What would the queue look like if it were only GAs and no new articles, and hook review was part of the GAN? Levivich 13:32, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
@Levivich: right now, there are 13 approved and 3 unapproved hooks that are nominated because of its good article status (and not because the article was created or 5x expanded). I also know many articles that are expanded/created for DYK also become GANs in the future. However, if DYK only highlighted good articles, I would suggest that the number of articles in each prep set is reduced so that DYK does not run out of hooks. Z1720 (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Imagine if all the effort now being expended on reviewing just-born stubs was instead redirected at getting articles to GA! We'd have 1/4 as many articles to run, but they'd be so much better, and articles would be permanently improved, not just rubber-stamped as not completely embarrassing. EEng 16:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Except if it's a true stub, it's not currently eligible anyway. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:45, 31 May 2022 (UTC)
Whatever. Just-barely-more-than-stubs. EEng 01:40, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
At present there are two quality requirements for a DYK article:
  1. Articles must have a minimum of 1,500 characters of prose (2a)
  2. Article must contain at least one citation to a reliable source for the hook (3b), and each paragraph and direct quote. (WP:CITE)
Believe it or not, that already puts DYK articles in the top 20% of all articles on Wikipedia. Gradings below GA are handled by the projects, but to meet Milhist's B class criteria, an article needs to:
  1. be suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations;
  2. reasonably cover the topic, without obvious omissions or inaccuracies;
  3. have a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content;
  4. be free from major grammatical errors; and
  5. contain appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams
Note that we already come close to this at DYK, since we demand articles be fully referenced (B1), which is the biggest quality hurdle out there. We could considered extending out quality requirement to bring articles into line with MilHist B. Note how close this is to GA; the differences being that instead of B2, GA requires broad coverage of the main aspects of the topic; instead of B3, it requires compliance with the MOS guidelines for lead sections and layout; and instead of B4 it demands that the article be "well written". Meeting MilHist B would put articles in the top 10%; meeting GA would put them in the top 5%. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Not sure where you get that Gradings below GA are handled by the projects -- various projects have their own criteria, the the WP-wide criteria are at WP:Content_assessment (not that they're much different from your list above). EEng 19:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I would be opposed to increasing DYK requirements to B-class equivalent (or really to anything). It would be unfair to many topics whose sourcing may not ever be able to reach those standards. In addition, increasing standards could be unfair to newer editors who may be less familiar with all of these guidelines and standards. DYK is quite overwhelming as it is, the last thing we need is to make it even more overwhelming and difficult. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
    I would not support that. The DYK hurdle is high enough. Imagine if we'd have to assess article whether they really meet B-class criteria. I predict it would be be a nightmare. No, thanks. Schwede66 11:16, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
    I think the B-class checklist is excellent, as it is usually clear what to do when an article fails one of the criteria. The criteria are not harder to assess than it is to fact check the hook. —Kusma (talk) 12:34, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

The DYK hurdle is high enough – High enough for what? The main things in the WP:Good_article_criteria not in the DYK requirements are that the article be

  • clear, concise, and understandable;
  • address the main aspects of the topic; and
  • stay focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail.

Thus the articles DYK puts on Wikipedia's main page allowed to be badly written, confusing, woefully incomplete, and/or bloated and discursive – and they often are. Unless you think that's OK, then you'll agree DYK should require articles to meet GA.

Or maybe you think DYK hasn't been presenting badly written, confusing, woefully incomplete, and/or bloated and discursive articles? In that case, DYK's articles already meet GA and it's no real change for DYK to require GA.

I'll be very interested to hear your answer on this. EEng 19:09, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

You are vastly underestimating how much effort the current DYK standards are. Many nominations from new editors fail because they don't meet the requirements. Either they were nominated too late, or their expansion wasn't five-fold. A new article with proper references and 1,500+ characters may seem easy especially to a veteran editor, but in reality it's not.
As for requiring GAs, I think doing that would worsen our existing systematic biases. Many subjects simply don't have the information or sourcing available to have their articles to reach GA (or even B) status. Setting a lower bar gives a chance to lesser-known or more obscure topics. If we only required GAs, many swaths of the world would become even more underrepresented than they currently, and I cannot in good conscience accept a scenario like that. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:31, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: not to belittle the GA project, but when I started reviewing at GA, I used DYK standards. There were complaints, because GA standards are not as nitpicky as DYK. They only have six criteria (WP:GACR), and very simply stated. Why would there be two projects with the same criteria? I don't think we should combine them into one. And quite frankly, I think the GA bunch would pitch a hissy fit if we tried it. It would bring back that old argument that DYK should be abolished, and the Main Page space given to GA. — Maile (talk) 23:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Queue 6 - Palestine, POV and ArbCom restrictions

This hook needs replacing in Queue 6 because the article has a NPOV tag and is not stable. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:40, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @DYK admins: . SL93 (talk) 19:30, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
That was added after approval, so now that is gonna have to sit and wait a bit. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 19:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
The promotor of that article has been pinged several times, see Talk:Khirbet el-'Ormeh, but has not responded. There are several deeply problematic issues with this article presently, see the talk-page, Huldra (talk) 20:42, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you want the promoter to do. Only an admin can remove the hook from the queue and the promoter isn't one. SL93 (talk) 23:13, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I am not that familiar with DYK-procedures. Anyway, as I said: the hook is (as of now) deeply flawed; there is discussions on the talk-page, but I doubt we will reach a consensus any time soon, Huldra (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

@DYK admins: @Huldra, SL93, Cwmhiraeth, and Sammi Brie: Temporary solution here. I swapped Khirbet el-'Ormeh from Queue 6 into prep 3, and moved "317a and 317b mummies –" from prep 3 into Queue 6. So Queue 6 is still a full set, and you all can decide about completely pulling the other one from Prep 3, if you think it's required to resolve the hook issues. — Maile (talk) 00:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

There certainly seem to be several, of a type I would not have caught and that will require some significant work to fix. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 01:50, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@Huldra, SL93, Cwmhiraeth, Sammi Brie, and BlueMoonset: FYI, articles on Palestine are under ArbCom restrictions: WP:PIA. What that means in real time, I think, is that POV is a possible factor. And I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm not knowledgeable enough about the area to notice POV slipped into an article about countries in that region. — Maile (talk) 02:40, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

That is definitely my problem. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 02:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Same here. SL93 (talk) 02:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't know enough either. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
  • In light of the above POV concerns - as well as Palestine, POV and ArbCom restrictions - I have pulled the Khirbet el-'Ormeh nomination altogether, reverted its template close, and put it back under Articles created/expanded on April 30. Move it, if I put it under the wrong date. The nomination needs more discussion. — Maile (talk) 13:52, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset and Wugapodes: I guess I did the revert incorrectly, but I don't know what I missed. I reverted the template back to the unapproved state 1, and relisted it back at April 30. Wugbot moved it back to Approved. 2 3. — Maile (talk) 19:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
You'll need to also remove the File:Symbol confirmed.svg which is what WugBot looks for to decide whether to move. I don't remember the specific criteria beyond that off the top of my head but I'll look and tell you more later this evening. — Wug·a·po·des​ 19:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pulling it. In view of the fact that this article is on top of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Israel Palestine Collaboration/Hot articles presently, I suspect we have quite a lot of work before it becomes DYK-worthy, Huldra (talk) 20:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The approval tick has been superseded (we shouldn't remove earlier icons), and the nomination moved from Approved to Nominations page. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. Now I see what I missed doing, which was adding the subst:DYK?no tick you put on. — Maile (talk) 22:10, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

prep 4

@Dunutubble and SL93:

  • ... that Israeli diplomat Yosef Avidar (pictured) met his future wife after a grenade accident?

The article only says "Avidar lost his right hand when he was learning how to use grenades, which popularized his nickname "Amputee."[4] He was sent to Vienna for treatment where he met the future Israeli children's book author Yemima Avidar-Tchernovitz,[4] who at the time was studying at the University of Vienna." This does not say this was his wife. Perhaps clarify this in the article. — Maile (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Maile66 I had nothing to do with that hook and I didn't know that the nomination was promoted until now. SL93 (talk) 12:43, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Yosef Avidar says you promoted it. — Maile (talk)
Crap. Sorry. I could have sworn you said Template:Did you know nominations/Avtar Singh Jouhl, but that nomination had been on my mind. Plus this is my first edit after waking up. SL93 (talk) 12:49, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Maile66 I fixed it per the reference. SL93 (talk) 12:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 Resolved Thanks. I've also had those "first edit after waking up ... oh, crap!" experiences. — Maile (talk) 13:02, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The article was too short (1428 prose characters) after recent edits, so I've pulled the nomination from prep until the article can be expanded to required length. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
BlueMoonset I see that it became too short after I removed this uncited sentence - "Avidar was born in 1906 as Yosef Rochel in Kremenets in the Russian Empire and in what is now modern-day Ukraine." It would be 1541 characters long with that cited and I left a note on the nominator's talk page about it. They have been editing since then so hopefully the nominator can fix it. SL93 (talk) 16:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
 Resolved --evrik (talk) 17:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I can move it back into prep if BlueMoonset approves. SL93 (talk) 18:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
SL93, I'm happy with the reviewer's approval of the new sourcing and the restored material sourced by it. I think I've done enough edits to the article that I shouldn't be giving the approval myself. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:59, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

What happened here?

I used the promoter tool by theleekycauldron to promote Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Sweden riots and it promoted the hook to the prep, but the page didn't update. The nomination page also showed "{{subst:DYKsubpage |monthyear=April 2022 |passed=yes |2=" before I even promoted the hook. I don't know how to fix it manually. SL93 (talk) 01:21, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

@SL93: there was no closing tag on the {{DYKsubpage}} template- I've fixed it up for you. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:44, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I guess I'm still confused on why that partial template was there before I even edited the page. SL93 (talk) 01:45, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
SL93, usually this means that the closing braces ("}}") that go at the bottom of the nomination page—they're initially placed on the bottom of the line immediately before the commented-out Please do not write below this line or remove this line. Place comments above this line. line—have been accidentally deleted by an editor at some point. Another cause can be someone using the {{DYK checklist}} template, but omitting its closing braces, so the nomination is short a pair of closing braces because of that. If you should ever see a DYKsubpage line floating above a nomination on the Nominations or Approved pages, take a look inside the nomination template for the missing closing braces; once you've added them back, the DYKsubpage line display should disappear. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I only vaguely remember Leek mentioning this tool. Or I imagined it. Anyway, now I don't know where that tool is located. — Maile (talk) 01:58, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
User:Theleekycauldron/DYK promoter. SL93 (talk) 02:03, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah, thank you. I have seen this before. Just never tried it. — Maile (talk) 02:14, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
Had no idea there was a promoter tool! I will have to give that a try! Thanks, Theleekycauldron! valereee (talk) 20:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

James F. Kelley

Nakodaji in Prep area 5

The hook Template:Did you know nominations/Nakodaji has an image attached. However, the image is not part of Prep area 5 queue. Could we please have this hook with image? Thanks and regards Pratyk321 (talk) 09:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey, @Pratyk321, we get many more nominations with images than we can use at DYK. Most suggested images will not receive the image slot. valereee (talk) 11:03, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
I didn't use the image because there were quite a few building image hooks on the approved nominations page and the temple isn't even mentioned in the hook. SL93 (talk) 12:38, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Susanna and the Elders in art (nom)

Seems that valereee and I are having a bit of a disagreement in this nom; I think that the sexual nature of the art puts it under WP:GRATUITOUS, and as such, a work shouldn't be featured in the article unless it's illustrating a specific bit of cited prose discussing that work. I don't want to misrepresent valereee's position, but my read is that she contends that galleries aren't a DYK issue, and they're useful to provide lots of examples from various eras. I'm happy to go with consensus on this one; anyone want to weigh in? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, my feeling is that the inclusion of multiple examples in the article (both over time and across the work of individual artists, which is discussed at length in the article) is useful for the reader. The reason I nominated this was to encourage art editors (which I'm not) to the article. I don't see a WP:GRATUITOUS issue at all (and am not really sure why the talk page even needs the WP:NOTCENSORED banner, though I'll let that slide) but my primary motivation is to get art editors' attention to an article I created in an area I have almost no expertise in. I also don't see the gallery question as an issue for DYK. I do think whichever hook needs the image. valereee (talk) 19:58, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
All of these are depictions of the "Susanna and the Elders" story, and the gallery allowing the reader to compare how it was depicted through the ages is an excellent encyclopaedic illustration of the topic. I can't see anything gratuitous about it. Nude (art) contains galleries of nudes; this one contains galleries of Susanna. —Kusma (talk) 20:06, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Shortcut
DYK Image guide doesn't cover how many images should be used. It's a moot point. A lot of the artists of that era couldn't seem to paint women unless the woman was nude. I vaguely remember that years ago, we had a lead hook of a painting of a penis - talk about gratuitous! — Maile (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: what I do see here, and I wish you luck in going this route, is to eventually put it in a list form and nominate it at FLC. — Maile (talk) 20:42, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
@Maile66, List of images of Susanna and the Elders? Interesting! There literally are dozens. I don't think I've created more than a couple of lists. Probably they were about food. :D valereee (talk) 20:51, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: Seriously, I think you should give it some thought. WP:FL doesn't seem to have a lot of entries under Art, so this would be different. They seem (at times) to be loaded with lists re musical artists and their output. But this might be a refreshing change. Never mind anyone else's opinion here. Follow your own muse.— Maile (talk) 21:20, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Yuk, no! An article with text and context is far better. Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Any reason why there shouldn't be both? The reason I ask is that I've not been able to find coverage for some images, other than that they're identified as portrayals. Especially modern portrayals. Again, knows very little about art ---> valereee (talk) 21:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
We have literally hundreds on Commons, once you include prints and sculpture - it's a pity, but typical, that the article doesn't mention any of these. The prints in particular rather undercut the timeline the article gives. Then there's stained glass, which I think I'll just imagine... Johnbod (talk) 21:55, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
No reason - It just depends on how you work it. You know how to create both styles. — Maile (talk) 21:35, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
As the article says, the depiction is, especially from the Renaissance onwards, normally sexualized, & I don't see how this can be avoided. I certainly don't agree that "a work shouldn't be featured in the article unless it's illustrating a specific bit of cited prose discussing that work". Nothing about that in MOS:VA, nor is it our usual practice at all. And, no, the galleries aren't really a DYK issue. I think the pictures could be rearranged (the earliest Tintoretto appears 3 times, as does the 1610 Artemisia G) and the gallery sizes upped from the too-small default. Some should probably be moved from galleries to next to the text. The level of illustration seems fairly typical for Category:Iconography, to which I have added it. Johnbod (talk) 20:59, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Comment: To be clear, I'm not talking about the image appearing DYK, I've approved that; I also don't think that it's an MOS issue, and I definitely think there should be illustrations in the article (galleries are fine, too)! My question is whether every image (in the article) should basically be treated like it's fair use- use as few as necessary, to illustrate discussions about that work, and only if its exclusion would be detrimental to the prose. Seems like consensus is leaning against that, in which case i'd be happy to tick the article as is. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:39, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
Why do you think we should impose fair-use rules on public-domain images? What would be accomplished by doing so? —David Eppstein (talk) 21:47, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
it's just the analogy I like to use for WP:GRATUITOUS – Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene, or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. Offensive material should be used only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available. Compare that to to WP:NFCC#8, which reads Non-free content is used only if its presence would significantly increase readers' understanding of the article topic, and its omission would be detrimental to that understanding. It seems to me that while this article clearly does need some, or a lot, of illustration to properly explain the topic, I don't think it would be significantly detrimental to play it closer to the vest. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
In an article that is literally about artworks, illustrating a bible story, I think being a prudish bluenose is an inappropriate attitude to take. And in any case it is not an attitude that is supported in any way by DYK rules, our purpose here. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
This editor has been criticized in the past for allowing through things that others found offensive. Let's give them a break if they maybe sometimes overcorrect. valereee (talk) 22:04, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Renomination

I recommend that a DYK nomination that is subsequently amended with an entirely different hook should be treated as a new nomination, effective the date of the amendment. Per WP:DYKCRIT, nominations must be made within seven days of an article creation, but allowing different hooks to be considered after the original nomination date allows the amended hook to be published long after it became ineligible, or even relevant for main page inclusion. I find this episode troubling.[7] soibangla (talk) 12:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Hooks are not nominated, articles are. Hooks being revised or even replaced is completely standard. I recommend reverting your edit, all that does is mess with an archived page. CMD (talk) 12:42, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what's going on here. --evrik (talk) 15:22, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The article literally ran yesterday, removing it from an archive of a page won't change that. Whether it should have run or not is a different, but now irrelevant, question. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:32, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  • WTF, indeed. --evrik (talk) 15:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
  • It would be nice if editors address the recommendation I've made to prevent a future DYK from reaching the main page that was ineligible on the date it was nominated, as noted in bold at WP:DYKCRIT, and should have been closed on the spot. The original hook was rejected as trivial and unworthy of main page inclusion, but editors chose to ignore this in bold policy to, a month later, significantly change the hook to a questionable statement about an individual that can be misconstrued by many readers (that they were her own words is irrelevant). If some are unfamiliar with the subject of the article in question, she was subjected to an intense smear campaign, including allegations she is a leftist disinformation agent who was appointed to run a government agency to spy on Americans. This should have never happened and should never happen again. soibangla (talk) 16:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
There must be a reason the policy is in bold. That was my second edit to this topic, as a follow up, to keep the topic on track. I am not bludgeoning or seeking to create a conflict, so please do not tell me the drop the stick. But seeing as you have now raised the temperature of this discussion, I will now drop it. soibangla (talk) 16:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Prep 7 11 June

Template:Did you know nominations/Aleksey Semenenko and this at ERRORS which caused it to be pulled from queue and swapped into P7. valereee (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I've changed "Kyiv" to "Ukraine" which probably reads a bit awkward but is less wrong. I hope this will be improved further before it returns to queue. —Kusma (talk) 19:53, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt has started a discussion below, suggest the rest of the discussion happen there. valereee (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Aleksey Semenenko

The hook for the violinist from Odessa teaching at a German university has been discussed in the nomination and on ERRORS. I'll keep this short. At present we have:

Probably my English is too limited, but "stranded" seems a bit too casual for being kept because of being an able-bodied citizen, and passive. He made camouflage nets in Lviv, played concerts for children and their parents, and an online concert as charity for colleagues. Look. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Also: do we need Ukraine twice? Precisely it was Lviv. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It might be too difficult to explain all those things in a hook, they could always be mentioned in the article. Unless you want to propose a hook specifically about the making of camouflage nets. Valereee also proposed the following hook in the ERRORS discussion, which is another possible option:
2 ... that after performing in Kyiv the day before Russia invaded, violinist Aleksey Semenenko was prevented from leaving Ukraine because he'd left his German passport at home?
As for the hook mentioned above, given that two mentions of "Ukraine" in quick succession seems too much, the second mention could be changed to "the country" (I'm not sure why it was changed to Ukraine in the first place, it was originally "the country" to begin with). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:12, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
You misunderstood me completely, sorry. I didn't mean to mention any of the details. I just dislike to picture him passive, "stranded".
I also dislike to picture him as forgetful, which is about all that hook 2 says about him. - What does "Russia invaded" mean, - isn't it people who invade? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:36, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
From 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine's lead: On 24 February 2022, Russia invaded Ukraine, in a steep escalation of the Russo-Ukrainian War that began in 2014. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:00, 2 June 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) "Russia invaded Ukraine" is how the invasion is described in sources. Yes, technically it's the people of a country (and sometimes their allies) who invade another country, but it's usually on the order of the government of said country. So saying X invaded Y is a useful shorthand (for example, "Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022.") As for the forgetfulness thing, I don't think Valereee or anyone else thought of him as forgetful because of it, and I doubt most readers would think so either. It was suggested because it's what's in the sources. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:01, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so the hook is back in prep. We have a number of possible options. The original hook (Gerda's ALT0) was unsuitable as there were issues with the preciseness of the word "held" and the circumstances of the "holding". Thus we have the following options (I've labeled them as ALT1, ALT2, ALT3, and ALT4). ALT1 is the status quo: the hook currently in prep, albeit with the second mention of "Ukraine" being replaced with "the country". ALT2 is Valereee's proposal. ALT3 is my rewording of Gerda's original hook; I have also added an alternate version of ALT3 that mentions his university. ALT4 is a hook originally proposed by SL93 on the nomination page. So now, what hook should we use? To reiterate: for reasons I have already mentioned earlier, the original hook in the nomination is not an option.

Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:23, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Pinging those involved in both the ERRORS discussion and the nomination: @Schwede66, Maile66, Levivich, Evrik, SL93, Fram, and Gerda Arendt: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:35, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Of those choices, I think ALT2 is most interesting. Levivich 16:33, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
... but are you sure it's true? It's not in the article (because I am not sure of the exact rules). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:45, 3 June 2022 (UTC)
Not right now, but it could always be added in the article. For what it's worth, the previous discussion suggests that, rather than leaving the German passport at home, he simply did not have it at the time and his wife had to submit it later. It might be better to ask Levivich about since since they were the ones who brought up the passport thing in the WP:ERRORS discussion, or perhaps Valereee as the proposer of the hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:43, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't believe any of these details are encyclopedic and essential for his biography. Semenenko is a living person, and I still wish we say something about what he does, not some circumstances beyond his control. I understand that even when the German passport was submitted he wasn't set free, but don't know enough about these things to write about them. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:02, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
@Levivich and Valereee: Since you two were involved in ALT2's proposal (both the information being brought up and the hook being proposed), could either or both of you add the necessary information to the article so that ALT2 can be suitable? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:44, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
.. unless you follow what I tried to explain above. Will this detail be encyclopedic in 10 years? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
It would, since it was an important part of his life. Much like how Liva Järnefelt performing in Wagerian roles as well as Carmen remains encyclopedic long after her death because those roles were part of her life, so was Semenenko being unable to leave Ukraine (even if it wasn't his fault). Yes he's still living, but that doesn't mean that important events need to be left out of his article. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
We are not together, I'm afraid. The fact that he was unable to leave for a month is in the article, because of course important for his life as he said in the interview. However, the detail of the German passport - which he may have left at home intentionally or unintentionally, we don't know - is not, imho. I'm still not happy with the idea of having "Russia" active in the only sentence readers may get to know about him (because the majority will not click), but him just as a passive victim of politics. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:52, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5, I've updated the article and I think it now supports ALT2, but it would be good for someone else to check that para, especially someone who speaks German. @Gerda Arendt, I do think it's worth including. The man seems to have had more coverage for this incident than he's had for the rest of his career put together, so yes, IMO this is a noteworthy incident. In fact I'm tempted to expland the para to include the fact his wife had tried to talk him out of the trip. Then she had to submit his German passport because Ukraine wanted him to stay and fight? I can only image how hard I'd've been biting my tongue. valereee (talk) 13:05, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
I think we are also not together. ALT2 makes it look - my view - as if it was just his forgetfulness, which I believe is not the right thing to say about a living person. But have it your way. I'll listen to his music again. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:10, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Given that the hook is now on the next prep to move to Queue, we probably need a final decision on whether to stick with the status quo hook or to change it to ALT2 (which seems be preferred by two other editors). As I reviewed the nomination I don't think I'm the best person to decide. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:31, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Not with the violinist, but with the conductor: Ukrainian peace music is "on" today! I use that hook with more enthusiasm than the passive "stranded" I better forget. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Nomination for June 11

Hi all. I am kindly asking you guys to give me some input regarding my self-nom of Gheorghe Pintilie, since the main hook (the more interesting, IMO) is tied to June 11; it's already June 5, and nobody seems to want to touch the nom. Any feedback would be appreciated. Dahn (talk) 10:34, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Dahn, your nomination has been approved by Sammi Brie. I have changed the title to highlight the date issue. Sammi, I have moved it into the Special occasion holding area. TSventon (talk) 06:46, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Than you both! Dahn (talk) 09:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Help with building preps

Can we get some help building preps? I built the last several of them and theleekycauldron is on a wikibreak. SL93 (talk) 21:39, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I'll do one first thing tomorrow. I want try out this promoter tool! :D valereee (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
It's so much better than doing it manually. SL93 (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Anyone who hasn't seen me trying to learn a new tech thingie, bring popcorn. valereee (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
This seems to have fell on mostly deaf ears. SL93 (talk) 04:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I filled 2 preps. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I have resisted doing any of the promoting in the past, because the last time I tried it, I came under withering fire from a couple of people. However, I saw an opportunity today, so I tried it again. I just filled Template:Did you know/Preparation area 1. Please feel free to review what i did and improve upon it. --evrik (talk) 16:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Nice job, evrik! a couple notes:
  • Pooja Sharma: the "haunted" part of the hook isn't in the prose of the article, but the citation title; my understanding is that the hook needs to be contained within the prose.
  • KBLE: Sammi Brie's been testing out removing the call signs from her hooks- Sammi, do you want to try that with this one or leave it alone?
  • Frayed at Both Ends: The hook part needs to be cited right at the end of the sentence, which it isn't here.
That's all I've got (although my dive was a little shallow)- really good work! :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:04, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
KBLE kind of needs the call sign because the hook is about it — this is one of a few that need to "burn off". Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:39, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I made adjustments. --evrik (talk) 02:08, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
"that Pooja Sharma (pictured) started a bakery in a reputedly haunted mansion that employs 150 women?" reads odd. Suggest "that Pooja Sharma (pictured) started a bakery that employs 150 women in a reputedly haunted mansion?"--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:30, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Sounds reasonable. --evrik (talk) 21:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
A huge thanks to those who helped build preps. SL93 (talk) 17:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Slight wording change in lead hook for Q6

Before it goes live, can we change the "that" in the lead hook (about the US infant formula shortage) to "who" so it sounds less impersonal? Daniel Case (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea to me. SL93 (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I linked to this at ERRORS and it has been taken care of. SL93 (talk) 23:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

A technical term is not jargon, or Q7

I replied to a thread "The use of technical terms and jargon in hooks", fell asleep over the wording, and woke up to it archived.

I'm still unhappy about the equation of technical term = jargon. Technical terms are the professional way to speak about a thing, and using unprofessional wording has a tendency to make a thing awkward. To stay with the example: the professional "created the role" was not used but "originated the role" for Theo Lebow, now in Q7. The phrase "originated a role" seems to be commonly used for play and musical. In opera, professional books use "created the role" [8], sometimes a few times on one page (including "of Carmen"). Our own File:Henri-Lucien Doucet - Carmen.jpg says so. A proper technical term is a good term to be used, it's not jargon. Please change. In this case, "in the world premiere" was even added, avoiding possible misunderstanding. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Even if the term "created" in this sense is listed on some dictionaries, it's not the most commonly-known definition of the word. As Chipmunkdavis said, the term "create" has a much more commonly-known meaning (i.e. to start or invent something). Insisting on using the term "create" in the sense of "first to portray" could cause confusion among readers who may be unfamiliar with this sense of the term. As for the mention of the world premiere, I don't think that helps much. Readers could assume that the role was invented for that particular world premiere, as opposed to simply Lebow being the first to ever play that role. It would be like saying "Lin-Manuel Miranda created the role of Alexander Hamilton in the premiere of the musical Hamilton". True according to that particular definition of "create". However, readers unfamiliar with that sense of "create" might (wrongly) assume that Miranda invented the character of Alexander Hamilton for the musical's premiere, which is not the case. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
This comment really betrays a one-dimensional understanding of the nature of the performing arts. The fact is that a role (in an opera, say) isn't brought into being by the composer and librettist only. They set out the words and the music, but at the point the role is still just on paper, in a state of suspension, waiting to be brought to life. It is only when the performer (called -- bear in mind -- an "artist") first gives breath to the role, and an audience first hears it, that the process of creation is complete:
Dorothy Sayers, in her excellent book, The Mind of the Maker, divides creative activity into three stages: the idea, the implementation, and the interaction. A book, then, or a computer, or a program comes into existence first as an ideal construct, built outside time and space, but complete in the mind of the author. It is realized in time and space, by pen, ink, and paper, or by wire, silicon, and ferrite. The creation is complete when someone reads the book, uses the computer, or runs the program, thereby interacting with the mind of the maker.
(That's a personal hero of mine, Fred Brooks, writing is his classic The Mythical Man-Month.) The first artist to take on a given role typically establishes a benchmark against which subsequent performances are measured. Their performance is in a real sense part of the creation, the invention, of the role. EEng 18:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
In sports, would you say the common term should be avoided and replaced by a word from let's say business, because some readers might misunderstand? - I think "in the premiere" is clearly different from "for the premiere". We can educate readers. (On top of that we don't have to say it all in a hook, - leave room for the article.)--Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
That's right. Music hooks can't say that a song was a "hit", because there's no actual striking involved, and can't that an athlete has "scored" because there are no scratches or incisions involved. EEng 03:39, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
In hooks in general, I would say that if a word - any word - were a technical term so obscure as to be inconveniently ambiguous, you would need to either link it to an explanatory article (or Wiktionary?) or not use it. If "create (the role)" and "originate (the role)" are found to be problematic for whatever reason, then what about "premiere" (the role)? It's not English at its most elegant, but the general reader would understand it to mean that the performer was the first to perform it on stage, but it carries no suggestion that the performer wrote the piece.
Note: the hook being referred to here is ... that tenor Theo Lebow originated the roles of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Pablo Picasso in the world premiere of the opera 27? As I write, it is in Q7. So an improved hook might be: ... that tenor Theo Lebow premiered the roles of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Pablo Picasso in the first performance of opera 27? Storye book (talk) 09:37, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree. "premiered in the first performance" is redundant. If "created" seems a problem - which I don't think it is - we could use the wording from the article "appeared in the world premiere". We should not use "originated" because that is not professional when talking about opera roles. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • How about simply "... that tenor Theo Lebow performed the roles of F. Scott Fitzgerald and Pablo Picasso in the world premiere of the opera 27?" It basically has the same idea as the original hook, except it replaces "create" with the intended meaning in a more obvious way (i.e. that Lebow performed these roles at the opera's world premiere). It also gives the main idea in a less ambiguous way. Admittedly it does lose some context: it doesn't say outright that Lebow was the first to ever play these roles. But given that "world premiere" is already given in the hook, it can probably be easily inferred. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    that's another good solution, thank you - just for next time: opera singers also don't "play", another unprofessional term --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:11, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Goddam it, this micromanaging of hooks as if they're article text is really beginning to piss me off. Hooks are allowed to be puzzling, intriguing, slightly outside the reader's understanding. Created the role is perfectly good wording for a general audience anyway, but even if it was somehow unknown to some segment of our readers, THAT'S OK. They'll click to learn more. EEng 14:04, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    That makes sense EEng#s Bruxton (talk) 14:16, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    I try to say that but you are much more expressive! --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    Well said. Can we put this in the rules, to expand/supplement When you write the hook, please make it "hooky", that is, short, punchy, catchy, and likely to draw the readers in to wanting to read the article – as long as they don't misstate the article content. MB 14:41, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    What's wrong with using "performed the role in the premiere"? Sure hooks are allowed to be slightly vague if it's to entice readers, but it shouldn't come at the expense of causing confusion. If "create" didn't have any other meaning and its only official definition was the one being described here, then that would be no problem. The problem is that "create" already has a well-known definition, and using it with a less well-known definition could cause confusion. Using "performed" in this sense resolves the ambiguity. We want our hooks to be as easily understandable as possible, not make them baffling. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    What wrong with it is that we're wasting editor time, dumbifying the hook, and denying the reader the chance to learn a new connotation of create, all because of a baseless concern.
    • it shouldn't come at the expense of causing confusion – what confusion? If this was an advertisement for a performance, and it induced people to pay for something that wasn't what they expected, that would be confusion. But this is a hook designed to induce people to click. OK, so they click and learn a new meaning to a word. Big deal.
    • not make them baffling – Seriously, it's OK for a hook to be baffling (in the sense of perplexing). Some people like stuff like that. And maybe some people don't, but it's up to the hooker to balance those possibilities.
    This talk of create having a well-known definition or an official definition is just gibberish. What's "official"? Words have multiple denotations and connotations, and we employ them in the beautiful, rich full range of those. This isn't Simple Wikipedia. As long as a hook is not false on its face to a reasonably intelligent and informed reader, it's OK.
    It's called a "hook" by analogy to a fishhook -- baited to get the fish to bite. Obviously the fish doesn't know what he's getting when he does that. Surprise! That's how it's supposed to work. Now please stop all this handwringing. EEng 17:25, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    Firstly: in this particular hook, we have space for "performed the roles in the world premiere" (we need "world" because "premiere" alone is more ambiguous than "create"). However, in a longer hook, it would be preferable to just say "created the roles", several characters shorter, and those who don't get in the hook what is meant will see in the article, as EEng said so well. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 14:48, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
  • It has already been stated that there are two meanings of "created" so there is no error with the original hook. SL93 (talk) 17:31, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
    Exactly. Jesus, what a waste of time this is. EEng 17:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Nutshell

This has grown to interesting (and long) by now. No to the current hook:

  • Theo Lebow]] originated the roles ... in the world premiereRed XN - the term is not common for opera, rather for musical and plays
  • Theo Lebow performed the roles ... in the world premiereGreen tickY - as suggested by Narutolovehinata5
  • Theo Lebow created the rolesGreen tickY ... - most concise
  • Theo Lebow appeared as ... in the world premiereGreen tickY - also concise
  • Theo Lebow premiered the roles ... in the world premiereRed XN - redundant information, and "premiered" alone is not common for opera singers, used for works and productions
  • Theo Lebow played the roles ... in the world premiereRed XN - the term ignores that they mostly sing
  • Theo Lebow sang the roles ... in the world premiereRed XN - the term ignores that they also play

We found an admin for this time, - it's now "performed", but this may be helpful for the next round. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:46, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Queue 1: List of United States Military Academy First Captains

I'm reopening the nomination page, so discussion can continue there.
 — Amakuru (talk) 10:04, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

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 assume, given that she doesn't have an article, Ms Pratt is not actually a notable individual. As such, it seems strange to be putting her in the picture slot and also to be focusing on her choices of university study. I mean it's obviously great that she achieved First Captain status, and then to achieve a Rhodes Scholarship, congratulations to her, but I do have a sense of "so what?" about it even so. If she were the first woman, then definitely would be significant to feature, but in fact she's the seventh so not sure that angle is necessarily compelling either. Pinging @Hawkeye7, Maile66, Narutolovehinata5, and SL93: who were involved with the nom.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:15, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

The problem is, if we go with a hook not mentioning her name, we'd have to drop the image, and Maile disagreed with the idea of dropping the image entirely. Otherwise, a possible back-up option could be a variant of ALT2 without mentioning Pratt, something along the lines of: "... that West Point's Corps of Cadets First Captains have included John J. Pershing and Douglas MacArthur?" Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I think the story of Casper H. Conrad Jr. might make an interesting hook? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:58, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Not a notable individual? Is this a gender issue? I've pinged Hawkeye7, hoping they can make you people understand. This woman has been "responsible for the overall performance of the 4,400-strong Corps of Cadets, and her duties include implementing a class agenda and acting as a liaison between the Corps and the administration" First Captain is not some low-level commission. John J. Pershing was First Captain. How many people are a Rhodes scholar, pursuing two degrees at once? Read the Comments in the list. I went to all these days/weeks of running down the data and sourcing for the Comments column, to help you all understand that these people were ALL remarkable and notable individuals. This is not high school, or some civilian fraternity/sorority club. She IS the CURRENT First Captain. How many of you here at DYK have ever been in charge of 4,400 individuals? — Maile (talk)
I'm sure she's a wonderful and accomplished person, but does she meet notability guidelines? Has she been covered in reliable sources, and has such coverage been lasting? For that matter, this has nothing to do with her sex or gender and the same question would have probably arose even if the named person was male (for the record, I actually thought her Rhodes scholarship was interesting, although coming from an academe background that could just be my personal bias). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:02, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, if she is significantly notable to meet GNG, (which I'm not necessarily convinced about at the moment) then why not start an article for her and run a DYK with the image hook from that one? As I said above, she has a very accomplished resume, but it does seem like we're presenting a somewhat banal fact about her purely for the purpose of using her image on the main page, rather than because it's the best hook available for this particular article. And don't get me wrong, Rhodes Scholarships are incredibly impressive; I studied at Oxford myself and I knew one or two of them at the time, clearly they're elite and accomplished individuals even amongst students at Oxford; but as the article states, there were 101 of them last year so it's not on the same level as winning a Nobel prize, and personally I'm not convinced it's that hooky a fact to present. If others disagree, then so be it.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
You really need Hawkeye7's input here. He's the primary author of the lead, and is on the other side of the world from where I am, so please give him time to see this and respond. — Maile (talk) 16:05, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
This is about this article, not some other, hypothetical article. Whether she is notable enough for GNG is irrelevant. It is customary for an article on a position to include an image of the incumbent. WP:NLIST: The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. We have a half dozen editors who believe that the hook is fine, and my experience with similar image hooks is that it will attract a reasonable number of page views. The other ALT is available (and uses no image) but the image hook is our preferred hook. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:13, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree that GNG isn't a factor- that's more of a sideshow. The issue is, as Amakuru points out, that achieving interestingness through raw impressiveness is hard, and even very impressive people still don't quite get to having that accomplishment be hooky. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) @Hawkeye7: As far as I can tell, the discussion of whether or not she is notable is relevant. In fact, it seems that Amakuru's objection isn't even the image, it's Pratt being mentioned in the hook at all, or indeed the actual hook fact itself (i.e. Pratt being a Rhodes Scholar). They seemed unconvinced that the hook was appropriate because they had doubts on if Pratt was notable enough to be the focus of the hook in the first place (image or no image). As the reviewer, I do think the hook was fine and appropriate (I have no opinion on the image and I would defer decisions on that to the promoter). I would just like to clarify that the discussion about the image did not seem to be Amakuru's intention, but rather, if the hook was appropriate to begin with. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:23, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
IIRC there was an agreement here that unlinked names were not appropriate for hooks. I think I proposed this be incorporated into C1, but this was never implemented. So the question then isn't actually whether someone is notable precisely, but whether they have an article (redlinks not being allowed). CMD (talk) 02:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I oppose it being a firm rule because some interesting hooks would not work as well without the red-linked person being mentioned. I guess it could be at most a guideline, where it's generally discouraged but not outright prohibited. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:14, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru, Narutolovehinata5, Maile66, and Hawkeye7: Holland Pratt was created recently by Billmckern – someone want to assess DYK eligibility for a double hook, maybe? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 23:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I would be fine with a double hook, but if we go with some variant of the original wording, it will need to be reworded to avoid a sea of blue. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:51, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
With that said, that would still depend on whether or not Pratt actually meets notability guidelines. Given some of the concerns raised above, an AFD discussion to test consensus may be worth considering. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:59, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
I would be fine with a double hook, but otherwise have a COI in regarding reviewing the nomination - evidenced by the List article history. I would also like to say something here. We at DYK tend to discuss anything and everything in long threads. Some who participated come to believe this or that thing was agreed upon. Inbetween yesterday and today, I went through all three of our rules dictates: Introduction and rules, Supplementary rules and Reviewing guide. I found nothing in any of those to back the above complaints. If you believe otherwise, please link where it is.— Maile (talk) 00:19, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict)I can propose a new double hook, but I need someone to pull the article from the queue first. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 00:02, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
@DYK admins: This is in Queue 1. — Maile (talk) 00:39, 10 June 2022 (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.

Atomitat and Mechanitis

Hello all, I am a bit flummoxed regarding the Template:Did you know nominations/Atomitat... It was in, then it was pulled out by an admin, then it was back in, now it is in some kind of nowhere land. It seems to me there is agreement to proceed on a hook but maybe it needs some kind of additional green tick? I also have another languishing hook, Template:Did you know nominations/Mechanitis. I know we say there are WP:DEADLINEs but that is just an essay and I do not think it applies to everything on the project. We do have deadlines - like our 7 days to nominate deadline. I have started to say "I withdraw" on hooks because they are in some kind of limbo for too long. Anyway, that it my hump day rant. Have a nice day everyone! Bruxton (talk) 18:02, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I think people are a bit scared of reviewing nominations that have a lot of text in them. I think the reviewer for the Mechanitis nomination has been busy, so I went ahead and reviewed it. If you're sure you'd like to withdraw that one, you can let me know and I'll undo my review. The image is stunning, though; would be a shame if we didn't run it. Urve (talk) 21:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes sometimes the ones I think are great for DYK get stuck. The look of that chrysalis was the whole reason I expanded that article. Regarding Atomitat, Amakuru can you help the process by reviewing the hook? Bruxton (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks all for trying to help with these two stuck noms. I appreciate it. Bruxton (talk) 03:34, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Empty prep set?

Per this old thread [9] it was requested that prep builders leave the last one empty and hold off building for a while if five are full, I think to give room for any swaps that need to be made etc. Currently Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3 is the last prep set and is completely full, so just wanted to check if the above is still the guidance, and to remind prep builders about it if so. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is a hard and fast guideline; it is just a common consensus which prep-builders usually follow. Occasionally, there is no harm in filling/half-filling the last prep. Especially when a lot of times, we have many empty queues. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 08:56, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not concerned about it with two sets running per day. SL93 (talk) 01:27, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
But it looks like I will be concerned with it soon considering we're at 67 approved hooks and we go back to one set a day at 60. SL93 (talk) 01:29, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
You should still be concerned about it regardless of how many sets per day are running. If a hook needs to be pulled from the main page and it's best to go back to prep, where do you put it when all preps are full? Schwede66 02:15, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I can be concerned about what I want to be concerned about. Please don't tell me what I should be concerned about. SL93 (talk) 02:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
By the way, I think that it should just be pulled and placed back on the nominations page. Why place a pulled hook in prep if it needs to be reapproved? SL93 (talk) 02:18, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
It's a case-by-case thing. Sometimes the issue is relatively minor (for example, the hook doesn't exactly match the source but with some re-wording it will). In surmountable cases, moving to prep would be feasible instead of pulling entirely. For cases where major action needs to be taken (such as the need for an entirely new hook, or issues with the article itself), that's a case when a pulling-and-return-to-nominations is preferred. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
I will have to disagree again. In my experience, those minor issues are fixed at ERRORS or the DYK talk page without being pulled. And if a simple rewording or something similar is needed, I see no reason to pull the hook instead of an admin fixing it. It would take more effort to pull the hook and place it back in prep. SL93 (talk) 01:59, 12 June 2022 (UTC)
you know, I feel like this debate would be a lot less controversial if pulling/moving a hook were as easy as clicking a button...
oh, shit, okay, I'm on it. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:21, 11 June 2022 (UTC)
I just think it's a bad idea to move an unpromoted hook to an area for approved and promoted hooks. SL93 (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Nominations that I can't promote

I'm posting these old nominations here for someone to promote when they get a chance if everything is fine with them. I'm the reviewer of these hooks. SL93 (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/In the ploughed field. Spring
Template:Did you know nominations/Baltimore Transmission
Template:Did you know nominations/Nothing Very Important and Other Stories SL93 (talk) 11:53, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
 Done all – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you. I appreciate it. SL93 (talk) 16:15, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

One queue filled, all but one prep filled

Pinging @DYK admins: . SL93 (talk) 02:10, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Anyone want a DYK credit

The other day, I took an orphan stub and did a 5x expansion. However, it is currently on Afd. It needs some copyediting and better sources, interested? Asahi Firearms, go for it. --evrik (talk) 03:58, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

evrik, the first task seems to be showing that Asahi Firearms meets WP:NORG so it survives Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Asahi Firearms. A knowledge of Japanese and/or firearms would be useful. TSventon (talk) 13:01, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 27. We currently have a total of 211 nominations, of which only 70 have been approved, a gap of 141, down 17 over the past eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than three months old

More than one month old

Other 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) 16:40, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

This is out of control

This thread quickly reached the "more heat than light" phase. Nominators should remember to watchlist or manually check their nominations every so often. Reviewers should consider the courtesy of a ping or talk page message if they need feedback from a nominator. Everyone is a volunteer and it's pretty much impossible to force anyone to do anything around here. While it can be frustrating when that happens, we should consider what we can do to make it easier to collaborate. — Wug·a·po·des​ 23:06, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

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 was having an email conversation with someone about an article I wrote some time ago when I recalled the DYK had not appeared. I found that the reviewer had asked a question, but without a ping, I was unaware of it. At that point, nothing happened, it just sat there.

That piqued my interest, so I started scrolling through the noms page. 156 of the 202 noms are older than a week, 38 of those are from May or earlier. I had to scroll well over 3/4s of the too-long page to find a single nom from the last 30 days. In many cases, it appears these are simply dangling. The reviewer or nom posts a question and the other party never replies. Reviewers are free to leave at any point, at which point the process just stops.

One minor improvement might be to send pings to the nom if no ping was posted by the last editor in the nom? Or perhaps a nightly process, even manual, to ping involved users where it appears the thread has been dropped?

I'm not sure what the solution is, but clearly, something has to be done to keep these things rolling. BM has posted a list of unreviewed noms to this page, which seems the wrong place but I can't find a better one, but that is only a small part of the issue.

Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:14, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Another approach would be for the nominator to pay attention to what's happening with the nomination they created. EEng 15:47, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Yeah, like watchlisting their nomination page, Maury Markowitz. Schwede66 16:44, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
And so the victim-blaming begins, as it invariably does in these threads. I have been editing WP for over 20 years. I have written thousands of articles, which receive thousands of edits by thousands of editors. My watchlist is completely useless as a mechanism for tracking change.
But of course this is avoiding the actual problems I outlined above. If the reviewer ghosts, which I see all through the nom list, then the watchlist reveals nothing. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Category:DYK nominators who see themselves as "victims". Overdramatic, much? EEng 20:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I think there is nothing wrong with reviewer mentioning issues without pinging; as per the DYK instructions, if there is any issue with the nomination, the reviewer ideally has to send a talk page message to the nominator via {{DYKproblem}}. Also, there is no harm in sending pings to nominator after a day or two, if they don't respond. I don't mind anyone sending pings to me even in a discussion which I have in my watchlist, but few editors don't like being pinged multiple times. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 17:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I certainly don't propose multiple pings. But when we have this many stalled noms, we need to do something. I don't think it's unreasonable to simply post "your nom will be closed in one week" in these cases and then just close them if there's no change. But now nothing is happening, they're just mouldering away. Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:50, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
When you're dealing with an all-volunteer force - any one of whom may, or may not, do all the check-off steps - we tend to learn that if we don't pay attention to our own nominations, then stuff happens. — Maile (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
So then the issue is that this is so common that 3/4 of the noms are stale. What is your proposal for getting the entire Wikipedia editor community to suddenly pay attention when this problems is obviously so widespread? Maury Markowitz (talk) 17:35, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I like the idea of auto-pinging the nominator somehow when their nomination gets a comment. By bot, maybe? I don't see any cure for the reviewer ghosting, though. --GRuban (talk) 18:00, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't. The mythology is that DYK is for eager new editors SUPER-EXCITED that their fledgling contributions will be featured on the main page, oh boy oh boy oh boy oh boy! Naturally such editors will keep an eye on what's happening. To the extent we have jaded old hands who suddenly remember, months later, that one of their jillions of new articles didn't appear on DYK yet, well, if they can't remember to stay with the nom then that's on them. Sooner or later everything gets attended to, and we don't need any more automated robots and pings adding to the general cacophony when there's nothing really urgent at stake. EEng 19:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@Maury Markowitz: other editors go through the list and ping reviewers/nominators who haven't responded. If the reviewer abandons a review, editors will mark the nom with the red icon to ask for a new reviewer. I encourage editors to join in this task and go through the nominations to ping editors who haven't responded or place the red icon. BM does these tasks frequently so they might be a good person to reach out to if you have questions. Z1720 (talk) 18:03, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I have been making courtesy pings in some cases to prod nominators to respond, including in nominations I am not part of otherwise. Unfortunately, not all of them have. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • To put this in perspective, I just did a print-to-PDF of the nom page. It is 115 pages long. June 1st is on page 87. Perhaps the correct solution is to simply close everything older than one month. They aren't new at that point anyway. We can always relax the re-open policy for those examples. Maury Markowitz (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    "New" is a relative term. And if nominations aren't followed up on, then they don't get posted and our backlog reduces. I also have a massive watchlist, but I have notes off-wiki that tell me which articles I've nominated for DYK so that I can follow up with them. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:59, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    I don't see the issue. In a quick sample of the oldest noms, most have been commented on in the last two weeks. Like a lot of stuff at WP, they're slogging their way to a conclusion, slowly but (in most cases) surely. EEng 21:09, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I can understand nominations stalling due to a lack of pings. However, there have been cases where nominators and/or reviewers have been unresponsive despite pings. In such cases, I'm not really sure what the solution is other than either asking for a reviewer or closing the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Then do that! There are noms that haven't had a single update in weeks. This isn't about pings, this is about dead noms. Yet everyone is talking about pings and find, like this... Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
You fucking do it. This whole thread seems to be based on your frustration at your failure to keep an eye on a nom you created. EEng 19:46, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

As for the comment above about needing to watch nominations, you don't really need to watch a nomination page to follow it, especially if you don't check your watchlist always. If you know you have an open DYK nomination, you can look for it on WP:DYKN (usually by doing a CTRL+F of your username) and check it on a regular basis (at least once a day). As long as you keep regular watch on your nomination, you don't really need a ping or watchlisting to follow any updates and comments. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:53, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

The onus is on the nominator to ensure success of the nomination. Flibirigit (talk) 17:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Wow, WP:CIR covers this nicely. The Rambling Man (Keep wearing the mask...) 17:38, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: You an I have done some work in DYK and I appreciate you. I understand the feeling you have...when I have a pending nomination I am refreshing the screen and checking back - many times. Usually I only have two or three pending in DYK so it is not so cumbersome. Occasionally it is a months-long process. All of that checking back takes time from editing, but I am not sure of a solution. Stick around in DYK because I appreciate you, and hopefully we will all help each other. Bruxton (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2022 (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.

Prep 4: Juneteenth flag (nom)

  • ... that the colors and symbols on the Juneteenth flag, designed by Ben Haith, are representative of freedom and the end of slavery?

I did just promote this to prep, because it's not the end of the world if it runs this way and I don't want it to miss its spec. occ. date of June 19 – but I do want to see if a better hook is possible here. Like, isn't it a little obvious that the flag of a holiday celebrating the Emancipation Proclamation would symbolize freedom and the end of slavery? So hopefully, we can hammer out a better ALT before this goes live. Pinging @Bruxton, Evrik, and Alanscottwalker:

  • ALT2: ... that the star on the Juneteenth flag, designed by Boston Ben, symbolizes Texas?
    I like this one because 1. Texas was a slave state, so you wouldn't immediately expect a Juneteenth flag to honour it, and 2. it was designed by someone whose actual nickname is "Boston Ben", and Bostonians aren't famous for liking Texans – they did fight a war
  • ALT3: ... that the red on the Juneteenth flag, designed by Ben Haith, symbolizes the blood shed by African-American slaves for their country?
    this one isn't great because, iirc, the red on most flags symbolizes blood (with the exception of Spain, blood of the human variety)

I can come up with more, but I gotta keep promoting before I go to sleep. Cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:27, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem with the original hook. It is useful to mention that Juneteenth is related to the end of slavery in the US, as this isn't necessarily known outside the US. Far more interesting to read about the end of slavery than about Texas. —Kusma (talk) 09:36, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps more importantly, this is going to need moving to a different set in the highly likely case that we'll move to 1 set per day tomorrow morning. —Kusma (talk) 09:39, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
As observed above, no it's not obvious. Elsewhere in the world, "Juneteenth" looks like a spelling mistake, so simple clue is good to have. Bazza (talk) 09:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I for one had no idea what Juneteenth is. Schwede66 09:55, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I mean, I suppose it's relatively obscure (even inside the US), but it does feel awkward to take a hook that's ostensibly not directly about Juneteenth and make it a Juneteenth primer... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I will defer to the wisdom of others. --evrik (talk) 14:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I thought we might prominently display this as the one and only Juneteenth related item. It is a double also but it is buried. Just became a Federal Holiday in the US too. I agree with Kusma about the hook. And as Schwede said, not everyone is well read about Juneteenth Bruxton (talk) 19:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Speaking as a non-American who only first heard about Juneteenth within the last few years or so (and was even confused about what the term meant), it might be a good idea to use a hook that's more "explanatory". It would benefit non-American readers since not everyone who uses Wikipedia is American. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:47, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Evrik, Narutolovehinata5, Theleekycauldron, Schwede66, Kusma, Alanscottwalker, and Bazza 7: Understood. I am wondering why we did not use the free image that I created. I thought that the article would be better positioned and featured with the image. It would at least give the attention to the holiday. I notice that the clicks on this article have been going up daily. Bruxton (talk) 22:29, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Umm... are we sure that's free? I don't think explicitly featuring copyrighted design elements counts as your own work. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:34, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: @GRuban: I think 100%. I created it after discussion on the nomination. We had one month 23 days to prepare for it, now it is three days away. Bruxton (talk) 22:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, I was pinged. While I guess I should run up the "I am not a lawyer" disclaimer, I'm just a guy who's uploaded a few (thousand) images to Wikimedia Commons over a few years and had most upheld, but I'd argue that this image would be all right. While there isn't a mathematical formula that can be applied as to how similar two works can be before one violates the copyright of the other, I'd think this one is pretty clearly not a violation. Obviously the elements are not copyrighted separately, no one can copyright the phrase "June 19, 1865", no one can copyright either a five pointed white star or a 13 pointed hollow white star, the blue-white-red flag has no shortage of uses (List of flags with blue, red, and white stripes include Chile, Yugoslavia, Slavonia...). That leaves the grey/white arc, which isn't very similar to the blue/red arc, and not even strictly the same angle; surely no one can copyright all flags featuring arcs of all angles and colors. These separate bits are not arranged similarly to the Juneteenth flag, they're just evenly spaced on the grey box. There is also no attempt being made here to pretend this is the Juneteenth flag, or to use it in place of the Juneteenth flag, or otherwise step on any of the thunder of the flag, it is merely used for commentary and analysis. In short, Bruxton says he created this and is releasing it under CC-BY-SA, and I'll believe him. --GRuban (talk) 00:20, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@GRuban: Thanks for coming over to help. I am hoping that we can promote the image with the two hooks for June 19. @Theleekycauldron: Bruxton (talk) 00:27, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@GRuban: Pardon my ignorance, but how is the original flag copyrighted in the first place? To me at least it would have looked like something that would be public domain per being mostly simple shapes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: We had to spend a lot of time on that in the nomination. It is copyrighted Bruxton (talk) 00:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
(ec) Ehh. That's something that can be argued about. While one simple shape can't be copyrighted, a complex artwork clearly can be; and yet when you come down to it, most artwork nowadays is composed of pixels, which are individually simple colored squares, even a hundred years ago black and white newspaper photographs are just dots, many Impressionist paintings are basically dots... How many simple shapes do you need to combine in a specific pattern before it becomes original enough to be eligible for copyright? Clearly somewhere more than one, but less than 100,000, right? This case, the flag itself, has maybe half a dozen elements all in a specific arrangement, that's clearly in the "debatable" range. I'd tend to think it is enough to be "copyrightable", but I can see a reasonable person disagreeing. Thankfully I don't have to make the call on that, since Bruxton isn't claiming the original flag as other than "fair use", he's just claiming this analytical image. --GRuban (talk) 01:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm sorry, GRuban, I'm afraid I don't agree. This is simply a deconstructed version of the Juneteenth flag, which is copyrighted; and even if it were sufficiently transformative, that would make it fair use, not free. While I agree that the symbols themselves cannot be copyrighted, the U.S. copyright office says that this collection of symbols does qualify for copyright when together. I don't think simply de-layering an image is enough to call it original work. Would an image showing a collection of all the various parts of Mario's costume, pixel for pixel, really be my original work? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: You are wrong - and that is why I called in an expert. I am disappointed in your efforts here. Your pixel for pixel comment is over the top. The images are generic. Generic fonts, generic colors on a swath, generic white star, etc. Bruxton (talk) 04:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Except it's clearly not a delayered image. The stars are different dimensions (you can especially see this in the 12 pointed one, which is noticeably thinner), the colors are different reds and blues, the grey and white flag and red white and blue flag can not be found anywhere in the Juneteenth flag. This not a pixel for pixel collection. --GRuban (talk) 10:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
In fact, costumes, like Mario's costume, are a special case, since they're often also functional clothes, there is a strong legal argument pictures of them are allowed, especially on people. Because of this, we have a whole category of Mario costumes, hundreds of them; they've been thoroughly discussed. However this isn't about a costume, so it's not a relevant point, and hopefully won't derail the argument. For Principle of charity, I'm taking your example as a non-costume artwork. --GRuban (talk) 11:07, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Image is free

Juneteenth flag symbols

I would like to lobby one more time for the image and the top slot on June 19th for Juneteenth flag. Right now the top spot is held by a list of songs and an image of someone who is not African American. In the US June 19 is a federal holiday and African-American Independence day. Thank you for your consideration. Bruxton (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  • I agree that there's no way that any of the component images in the deconstructed version meet the threshold of originality. This seems like a good thing to recognize with the top slot. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 04:57, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    The individual elements aren't copyrightable (with the possible exception of the rectangle-with-arch), but the selection of those particular elements (presented together in a single image) is arguably copyright, even if the flag's specific arrangement is not present. My personal guess is that your presentation wouldn't be infringing, but it's an interesting borderline case on which no one here is qualified to opine dispositively. (Four separate images -- star, starburst, triple stripes, thing-with-arch-in-it -- presented individually in the course of a discussion of them as elements of the overall work, would probably be OK.) EEng 05:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Honestly, the image with the disembodied individual symbols is pretty awkward. Why not just run the hook in the second slot, without the image? EEng 05:15, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Because this is the article about the day, it should logically get the top slot, and the top slot comes with an image. The other articles simply aren't about June 19th, right? There is no more fitting article for this day. Look, we have the better arguments (even theleekycauldron's own argument about "delayering" or "pixel for pixel", which is a fine argument, and this image clearly is not either pixel for pixel or delayered), we have more people agreeing with them, if we held a full RfC I'm pretty sure we would be judged to get consensus. The problem is that we only have two days, which isn't enough for a full RfC. --GRuban (talk) 10:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • This whole discussion is a massive Americanism- it is a US-centric holidsy, and we shouldn't be demanding that US-centric holidays get priority over everything else... Joseph2302 (talk) 11:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • To be fair (and as a non-American who often gets peeved at US-centricism), we're actually not. What we are doing is prioritising a hook which is relevant to the date that it is running, over ones that aren't. We do this all the time. Black Kite (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • As someone who has never seen that flag before, and has done quite a lot of work with non-free images, I wouldn't consider for a second that it exceeds WP:TOO. Have a look at some of the examples at this page and tell me they aren't even more complex than this one. I don't get why it's not free. Black Kite (talk) 11:32, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    The flag, itself? The flag is copyrighted because the copyright office gave it a copyright, so TOO is inapplicable, the copyright is conclusive of originality. But as I state below, Bruxton's creation is not barred by copyright. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The image created by Bruxton is free. The elements are not copyrighted separately, only when they are put together in the specific way of the flag are they subject to copyright, so Bruxton's exemplar of separated elements is free (otherwise, no one could create another anything with: stars; red, white and blue; curved lines, etc.) -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • As long as no one's worried about a last-minute deletion challenge, I'm not worried either. However, the specific image (at the head of this subsection) is a bit off. They flag elements aren't all "symbols" -- certainly the date June 19, 1865 isn't a "symbol"; they're better described as "elements" (maybe someone has a better term). And the words "Juneteenth flag symbols" shouldn't appear in the image itself -- instead, the image should just have the flag elements, and the hook should say (flag elements pictured). That would allow the actual elements to appear larger within the 100px constraint. EEng 16:16, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
seems to fit the definition of symbols Bruxton (talk) 16:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
our own definition of symbols seems to fit this collection as well. Bruxton (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
And CNN Bruxton (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
There are a lot of things I could say about your line of reasoning, but for now suffice it to say that the string June 19, 1865 is not a "symbol", so for that reason alone a different choice of word is needed. Element is certainly correct, though someone one have an even better idea. EEng 20:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
A date can be symbolic, but it matters not. If it pleases you to say elements I am ok with it. Bruxton (talk) 20:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Hook would refer to this image via the phrase (flag elements pictured)
  • Cropping per request, to see which looks better. --GRuban (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    @GRuban: Thank you for your work on this flag nomination. I am so happy that you can lend your time to the helping with the issue. Bruxton (talk) 21:11, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
    That uses the real estate more efficiently, and looks way better. Editied your caption a bit for clarity. EEng 20:12, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Wait a second I just realized -- what's the three-stripe rectangle doing in the image? That's not in the Juneteenth flag. And why are the colors on the rectange-with-arch wrong? What in the world is this? It makes no sense that I can see. EEng 20:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
The colors - symbolic - blue sky, white star, red blood, the horizontal arch is symbolic as well. The background color is irrelevant. Bruxton (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
They are design elements: At bottom left is the color pallette (red, white, and blue, symbolic for various things). At bottom right is the shape element (iirc, symbolic of a new horizon). Alanscottwalker (talk) 20:58, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Why not have the four elements appear as they actually are on the the actual flag -- white star; white staburst; phrase June 19, 1865 (in white characters); rectangle-divided-by-arch (black above arch, red below arch) -- all against a neutral, gray background? That shows every actual element in its proper color. The presence of the triicolor makes no sense. It looks like an upside-down flag of the Netherlands: . EEng 02:19, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Others get it - the colors are symbolic, people will click and read what they mean. @DYK admins: can anyone promote after reading the above thread? If we keep picking we will end in a no consensus nothing burger. Bruxton (talk) 02:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Why would you needlessly present stuff in a confusing way instead of just showing the four elements actually present (i.e. omitting the tricolor flag-like thing), in their actual colors (i.e. presenting the rectangle-with-arch in its correct colors instead of in gray and white)? There's still time for you to do that, so why not just do it? EEng 03:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I am not sensing any confusion from the majority of editors in this thread. I did hope that the changes made would be enough, this has been nominated since May 28. I would like to thank everyone in this thread for assisting, lending opinions or trying to advance the nomination to the top spot on June 19th. I nominated this May 28th thinking that was enough time to prepare to promote this article and image. There have been two of these very long threads and I apologize for the extra work editors had to do for this nomination. I am moving on to 1909-S VDB Lincoln Cent now. It is far more interesting to me at the moment, and only an admin can make something happen at this point. Bruxton (talk) 04:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, no, you could prepare a revised image that contains only graphic elements actually present in the flag, in their correct colors. While some might think the present image is adequate, it's hard to see how anyone could disagree that a revised image, along the lines I've described, would better. EEng 05:00, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
"We operate by wp:consensus. I do not see consensus for your changes to the image. This is just a dyk and even though the hook is buried... it will still run. FYI, the article had 4,100 5,712 views yesterday. I find that exciting! Bruxton (talk) 05:14, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, we operate by consensus and there isn't a consensus that the above image is suitable for DYK. If this runs it should be in the second slot, with no image, per above comments.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@EEng: "it's hard to see how anyone could disagree" - You seem to have missed Theleekycauldron's objection to the earlier images, specifically that it's a delayering of the copyrighted flag. If Bruxton did what you said, her objection would be closer to being true. With just Leeky's objection we could be said to still have a rough consensus to run, but right now, apparently specifically because of your objection, Amakuru is refusing to run the image in the top slot. Please withdraw your objection, and I hope that Amakuru will accept the first slot and image. The perfect is the enemy of the good; due to your objection that the image isn't perfect, it will not run at all. Juneteenth is tomorrow, we don't have time for this. Please. --GRuban (talk) 11:50, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
With all respect to leeky, there's a lot of uninformed amateur lawyering going on around here; "delayering" isn't a thing in copyright. EEng 18:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I won't be around much but, yes, as Grubin suggests, the encyclopedic purpose is to suggest the design elements as separate elements, so color which goes separate from shape. This is perfectly in keeping with the plain logic of design elements (which should not be difficult to understand) and the encyclopedic article information: the colors mean seperate things from the shapes, and are thus discussed, each in turn in the article. Alanscottwalker (talk) 11:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I don't have any opinion either way on whether or not the image should run (I'm not a copyright expert), but does it really matter if the article is in the image slot or not? It's still going to run on Juneteenth and it will still run on DYK, so people who want to read the article and learn more about the flag (and see the actual flag even) would click the link regardless. Sometimes, non-image hooks do better than image hooks if they're really good, so not being in the image slot is not a huge loss methinks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:59, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
    Indeed, and in general it's up to those who prep the sets as to which things go in the image slots. Large numbers of our hooks have images submitted with them that would enhance the hook, but only a few of them run with an image. Personally I might be able to get on board with the image if the colours were separated into three circles rather than arranged to look like a made-up tricolour flag as EEng has raised. But I don't feel like the image is crucial, especially when the elements of the flag aren't alluded to in the hook...  — Amakuru (talk) 13:07, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
To be honest, had the image been the actual flag I think it would have been an easy support. But given that the flag is copyrighted, we can't use it and that's a shame. Showing the elements instead feels like a case of going around the bush. It's just not the same is it? If you can't show the actual flag, then what's the point of the disassociated elements? It would simply make readers think "why not just show the flag?" In such a case it might actually be smarter to simply not have the image at all rather than confuse them with the elements. At least they'll be tempted more to click the article to actually see the flag. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
This is another missed opportunity. Leeky did a hit and run on it with an objection based on limited knowledge of image copyright. You can tell Leeky was sour on this when they promoted a white pop singer and buried this double hook and image. Then EEng showed up and was clearly the only editor making demands, all of which had to me met. EEng's demands must be met it seems. similar thing happened in the Atomitat nomination. Also...EEng is the only one in this thread who said run in the second slot with no image so it is a one editor consensus. Anyway I am not African American and this is not my holiday but I thought this would be an opportunity for us to serve our readers. I will giggle when I see the hook order tomorrow: it mirrors the second class position Africans Americans have held in societies all over the globe - Happy Jubilee Day everyone. Bruxton (talk) 14:13, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think bringing up Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Atomitat is a very good argument for you. I'm not making any "demands" which "had to be met", but I've been around the block a few times so (a) I tend to know what I'm talking about, and (b) people know that. I too think it would be a shame if the first slot isn't a Juneteenth-related hook, but this particular topic isn't a good fit for that since the very thing itself -- the flag -- cannot be shown on the main page for copyright reasons, so we've been reduced to twisting ourselves into pretzels trying to squeeze in all these not-really-the-actual-design-elements-but-sort-of into a single postage-stamp-sized image instead, and it's not surprising that the results aren't very satisfactory. EEng 18:49, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I do wonder if, as a possible compromise to still have some African American representation on the set, we could change the picture in the set so that instead of Kyla being the pictured person, it's Brian McKnight. @Amakuru: Would that be a feasible option? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't mind that, I'll be happy to do the swap if there's agreement for it... Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:23, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@Pseud 14: Would you be okay with Brian McKnight being the pictured person in the hook instead of Kyla? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I can get behind this :) Dee Dawkins-Haigler is also sitting in WP:DYKNA with a fantastic image, but either way, i think it's a great idea! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately Haigler cannot run on the 19th because she's currently an election candidate and thus her running would come under the "no hooks about candidates 30 days or less before an election" rule. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:55, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
dag nab it- then McKnight it is. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 16:58, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with it, or a swap for any African-American related hook for Juneteenth. I still have an R2K: The Concert hook, which (hopefully) can be picked as an interesting lead hook on a future date --Pseud 14 (talk) 17:01, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Circles per request

@Amakuru, EEng, Bruxton, and Theleekycauldron: How about this version with colored circles, per request, instead of stripes? --GRuban (talk) 18:47, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Not too late to save this

The nova on the Juneteenth flag
The nova on the Juneteenth flag

I'll have some things to say later about some of the comments above, but first I want to suggest an approach to the image issue which I hope everyone can get behind in time for June 19:

... ALT4 ... that on the Juneteenth flag, designed by Ben Haith to celebrate freedom and the end of slavery in the United States, the nova (pictured) represents a new beginning for all?

This clearly presents no copyright issue, and actually says what one particular design element symbolizes, instead of presenting a jumble of unexplained elements. Can we go with this in the first slot, and one or more of the other articles discussed above in some of the lower slots? EEng 18:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd support this over the McKnight swap – what say you, @Bruxton, GRuban, Narutolovehinata5, Alanscottwalker, and Amakuru? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:24, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
It is classy. Bruxton (talk) 18:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
And here you thought I was such a mean and terrible person. EEng 19:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
I won't object. I also made the circles version Amakuru asked for. --GRuban (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Since there seems to be a rough if weakish consensus for this option, I've  Done the change in Queue 1. Thanks for GRuban for the alternative circles suggestion above, but at this point I think maybe we just stick with this, it's quite nice and hooky and 100% clear of copyright concerns? Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 18:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks, Amakuru! It looks like we now have three non-u.s. bios in a row in that set, and since we're running a shortage, I'd like one of them back – could you please put Foxconn union back in the preps? Maybe replace it with Joseph Ranger in prep 5, a black sailor in the American revolutionary war :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
OK, fussy you are 😀 I have to eat dinner now but will do as you request a bit later on...  — Amakuru (talk) 18:57, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron:  Done  — Amakuru (talk) 19:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
ah, you're the best – i appreciate it :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:28, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
Please include the parentheses in italics, per Rule F4: replace (''pictured'') with ''(pictured)''.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  19:51, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 Done good spot, thanks. I had just copied what was written in the suggestion above.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:15, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
My fault, as usual. EEng 21:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Sausage and DYK

How the sausage gets made
John Godfrey Saxe said, "Laws, like sausages, cease to inspire respect in proportion as we know how they are made." I guess that could have been written about some of our processes as well.
Look up how the sausage gets made in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
Bruxton (talk) 21:48, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

At 60 approved nominations - back to one set a day

We are now at 60 approved nominations. @DYK admins: SL93 (talk) 18:33, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I see that it says below 60, but I promoted one a few seconds ago so make that 59. SL93 (talk) 18:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
We need to wait until after midnight UTC. —Kusma (talk) 18:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I realize that. I'm just letting people know. SL93 (talk) 18:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
The 19:00 DYKHousekeepingBot report showed 58, so we switch after midnight. Since someone could have been approving one or more nominations about the same time the promotion happened (we've had that happen before), we wait for the bot to run for the official number. I'll be swapping the Juneteenth special occasion hook into Prep 1 from its current spot in Prep 3. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I should be around at the right time, if someone wants to link to or post instructions. (I've done it once, but I don't remember how). ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 20:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@ONUnicorn: you'll want to change User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
UTC midnight is lunchtime for me so I could attend to it, too. Schwede66 22:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
 Done Schwede66 01:04, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Schwede66.~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 02:53, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Bug?

{{Did you know nominations/Surgery in ancient Rome}} may need attention. It is marked as promoted but is still appearing on Template talk:Did you know. It's the only one marked as promoted on that page. Suggests to me that something went awry. I also fixed a missing div. –Novem Linguae (talk) 13:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

The move from Template:Did you know nominations/Surgery in Ancient Rome to Template:Did you know nominations/Surgery in ancient Rome complicated things. DanCherek (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I fixed a few things. DanCherek (talk) 13:15, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Just a reminder that when an article moves, the DYK template should not be moved, but adjusted internally only. Pinging RoySmith so they'll know not to move the template next time. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks for the ping, and my apologies for causing people extra work. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Diversity issue - needs these two promotions

There are only two approved non-US non-bios with no image at Template:Did you know nominations/Squatting in Myanmar and Template:Did you know nominations/Book of Common Prayer (1845 illuminated version). I reviewed both of them. One of them can be promoted to prep 6 and the other one to prep 1 to fill both of those sets. SL93 (talk) 18:15, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  • Both look full to me. --evrik (talk) 23:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
How so? They are both missing one hook. SL93 (talk) 23:43, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I promoted Squatting in Myanmar. Book of Common Prayer has a citation needed tag that needs to be resolved before I can promote it. Z1720 (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Thank you for looking into it. SL93 (talk) 00:36, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
Both of those preps are now full. I just promoted the hook for 2020 World Seniors Championship. SL93 (talk) 01:08, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Prep 4: Schwarz lantern

@David Eppstein, Gerda Arendt, and Theleekycauldron: just querying the text of the hook for this one... perhaps this is just me, but it seems slightly misleading to describe something as a "mathematical definition of surface area" when it's actually incorrect and doesn't really correspond to any sort of reality at all. I would counter that that isn't really a mathematical definition at all, it's just an error that someone made at one point and that's really the story here, as nobody would otherwise take that definition seriously. If I wrote some silly statement like "the surface area of a cylinder is equal to the square of its height", would that qualify as the same thing, a mathematical definition that is incorrect? So the focus of the hook should probably be on how an eminent mathematician such as Joseph Alfred Serret made this error and that the Schwarz lantern proved it wrong, rather than just saying that there was a legitimate definition that was wrong...  — Amakuru (talk) 13:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

or something. Basically the Schwarz lantern shows that while the 1D definition of length as total variation is equivalent to polygons, in 2D the definition as total variation isn't the same as a definition by polyhedra. (What we also see by comparing with the staircase paradox is that area, like 1D length, is not continuous under uniform convergence, only lower semicontinuous. The good news is that the lower semicontinuous envelope gives something usable, for example there is Lebesgue's definition of area). —Kusma (talk) 13:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

That's the sort of thing I guess. "Intuitive" might be clearer than "natural", although in either case we'd also have to source that it was indeed natural or intuitive. Just because Serret did it doesn't make it legitimate 😀 Another idea would be to allude to the error directly:
  • You're all determined to make this pedantic and unhooky, aren't you? The fact that the definitions shown to be wrong were wrong does not make them non-mathematical. Incorrect mathematics does not suddenly become astrology or journalism or anything else; it is still mathematics, just incorrect. The "assumptions" wording is incorrect; in mathematics, assumptions usually refers to axioms, not (as here) the definitions and conclusions one draws from those axioms. And the "one mathematician's" wording is also incorrect; the error was widely spread, and was discovered through its use in lectures by other mathematicians. It also trivializes the issue: why should we care that some individual person once said something wrong? Maybe to take your point to a logical extreme, we shouldn't even call him a mathematician because he said something wrong once? It all misses the point, that a widely used and intuitive definition was found wrong. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
    Exactly. The objections in the OP make no sense. ALT0 is correct and interesting. The other two are off point. EEng 01:42, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

We shouldn't publish this hook about a publisher publishing a publication

In Queue 4:

  • ... that after a publisher declined the manga series Let's Go Karaoke!, it sold out multiple times as a self-published manga, and was ultimately picked up for publication as a book by a different publisher?

When I read that, all I see is "publisher manga self-published manga publication publisher".

I recommend discarding everything after "self-published manga". That wouldn't eliminate redundancy, but would sure help, and I think it makes for a better hook too.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  21:30, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

... that after a publisher declined the manga series Let's Go Karaoke!, it sold out multiple times after being self-published? SL93 (talk) 21:40, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
Thumbs up icon Bruxton (talk) 03:07, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Prep 2: Initials R.B.M.E.

I requested a special occasion for Initials R.B.M.E. on June 26, the anniversary of the choreographer's death. The hook is currently in Prep 2, for June 27. Is it possible to move it to Prep 1? Pinging promoter theleekycauldron. Corachow (talk) 20:52, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Corachow It looks like this has been taken care of. SL93 (talk) 21:47, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

The template data edit notice for nominations still says "5 credits" instead of "5 nominations"?

A while back we decided to change the rules regarding QPQs from requiring them from five credits to five nominations. However, the edit notice for all DYK nominations still says "QPQ – all nominators who have five or more DYK credits must review another article." (emphasis mine) Can this be updated to reflect the current rules? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:41, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

You mean Wikipedia:Did you know/review criteria? I've amended it as you suggested but I note that it's not edit-protected. Schwede66 10:30, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Les Hijabeuses (nom)

Sorry, Alyo, looks like I turned this one a little acrimonious. I think someone else should step in at this point. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:24, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

No worries! I think your objection has merit, so I'm happy to wait for a third (fourth?) opinion? Alyo (chat·edits) 22:37, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
There's no acrimony on my part. I just relisted the nomination for review. Alyo, one thing I failed to mention, can you find an image? Just my two cents. --evrik (talk) 23:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
evrik I could upload their logo nonfree? I don't see what else would be possible though? Alyo (chat·edits) 02:00, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
Content featured on the main page must be freely licensed. Schwede66 04:55, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
@Schwede66: I just presumed @Evrik: meant in the article, not as the photo for DYK--I agree that there's otherwise no way I'll be able to find a freely licensed photo. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:44, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Two more things, @Theleekycauldron: if this was acrimonious it's because you abandoned WP:AGF and decided to label the intent of my actions; and do us all a favor, don't elevate this off the nomination page to the general discussion unless there is a real issue. This does not qualify as a real issue. --evrik (talk) 23:51, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, hmm. Part of what I wrote was an assumption of bad faith, I'll grant you – which is why I quickly deleted that part, only to be restored by edit conflict in your response. For that, I apologize again. I put this at WT:DYK because I wanted to avoid that discussion continuing fruitlessly – from WP:DR: If discussion stalemates, editors may seek outside input to help resolve the dispute. Discussions can be advertised to noticeboards and WikiProjects to receive participation from interested uninvolved editors. this seemed like the first stop in cooling temperatures. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Diversity of approved hooks needed

As I was building preps today, I went through the whole list of approved hooks and could not complete two prep sets. This is because most of the approved hooks fall into four categories: hooks about people/events/things in America, hooks about people/events/things in the UK, biographies, and music. Also, many hooks have an image, which I try to reserve because I know how coveted the picture slot is. Preppers try to create sets that are diverse in topic and location, and avoid putting bio hooks together; without a diversity of hooks, it becomes very difficult to accomplish these goals.

For the next few days, can editors prioritize approving non-image hooks that don't fall into the four categories listed above? I also encourage nominators to find articles that don't fit those categories so reviewers have many options to review. Hopefully, this can be solved in a few days. Thanks everyone! Z1720 (talk) 01:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Z1720 is right – we're pretty much out of non-U.S. non-bios. The prep set promoters should be making sure every set has as many U.S. and bio hooks as possible, to minimize use of hooks we're short on. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I noticed this also. Building preps has become more difficult. SL93 (talk) 21:13, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, I saw this and sought out Template:Did you know nominations/Les Hijabeuses and reviewed it. We need to work with Women in Red to get more diverse nominations. --evrik (talk) 21:43, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
Just an FYI, I just pulled Les Hijabeuses, but it would be great if we had a mechanism to promote more diversity. --evrik (talk) 23:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
I reviewed Template:Did you know nominations/Let's Go Karaoke! and Template:Did you know nominations/De Vloek. SL93 (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Inez Demonet image at prep 5

The image was not approved as it failed "Clear at 100px" criteria, but the nomination is promoted with the image. Pinging nominator Victuallers, reviewer Buidhe, and promoter Theleekycauldron. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 14:08, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: That's my bad – in my defense, I couldn't tell exactly what the image was at full scale, much less 100px. Just assumed it'd be clearer to someone else, although I didn't see that the image wasn't approved. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 18:34, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Should the image be pulled then? SL93 (talk) 16:54, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Queues

The last filled queue hits the main page later today. @DYK admins: SL93 (talk) 12:37, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

  • I've approved a nomination with a request for a 23 June date. Could someone move it to Prep area 6 asap. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:36, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

List of United States Military Academy First Captains

List of United States Military Academy First Captains has closed on the AFD for the Holland Pratt issue, and is now ready for a complete DYK review if anyone would do that. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 23:21, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Sophie Freud DYK

I think the hook should be changed from "his theory of Psychoanalysis" to just "Psychoanalysis". I think she was reffering to Psychoanalysis in general and not Psychoanalytic theory. Thriley (talk) 23:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not so sure. The article psychoanalysis says, "The discipline was established in the early 1890s by Austrian neurologist Sigmund Freud, who developed the practice from his theoretical model of personality organization and development, psychoanalytic theory." The reference repeatedly mentions her grandfather's theories. We need something more concrete than just thinking something. SL93 (talk) 00:08, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Note: This is now on the main page. SL93 (talk) 00:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I now see this from the source - "Sigmund Freud’s last surviving grandchild, she fled the Nazis in Vienna, became a professor in America and argued that psychoanalysis was a “narcissistic indulgence." Psychoanalysis started as a theory though. It looks correct to me. SL93 (talk) 00:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I guess it is fine. Just a bit different from what the source says. Thriley (talk) 02:54, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, but "criticized his theory of psychoanalysis" shows a complete misunderstanding of the subject. While Sigmund Freud did indeed have psychoanalytic theories, that's beside the point because he was the founder of the entire field of psychoanalysis. She was criticizing psychoanalysis as a whole, not her grandfather's particular theories of it. EEng 17:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
    I agree. I think it should be changed now if possible. It is going to be up for over three more hours. Better it is accurate now than never. Do you agree? Thriley (talk) 20:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: Could this hook be changed? I really think it is important, even if it is up for three more hours. Thriley (talk) 20:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I can't change it because I'm not an admin. This really should have been posted on errors instead of here. SL93 (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I just copied this discussion to DYK errors. Thriley (talk) 21:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Typo

@Theleekycauldron Just wanted to bring to your attention that there is a small typo in the "Red-boxing" hook in prep 6 - "20221" should be "2022" according to the article. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Also, I think the closing quote should be double-quotes instead, since the opening quotes are double. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 21:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Aha, thanks! fixed :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:21, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Orange maintenance tags?

Hi all

Following a discussion at Talk:Eri Yukimura, I'd like to clarify this project's view on articles with orange maintenance tags in them, for example {{Expand section}} or {{Missing information}} etc. In other areas of the main page, such templates are prohibited in linked articles, but I've noticed that DYK doesn't explicitly rule them out, it only stipulates that Verifiability, Living Person Biographies, Copyright and NPOV policies must be satisfied. I had always thought that articles linked from the main page in general should not have any orange-level maintenance tags, other than in POTD, which is granted an exemption from the usual standards. See, for example, WP:ITNCRIT#Updated content, which stipulates no orange tags in an ITN article, and also WP:OTDRULES, which prohibits even yellow-level tags from OTD. If this is a de facto standard for DYK, maybe we should note that down, and if it isn't then I stand educated! In my experience I can't remember many examples of articles going through with tags on them, though. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 14:50, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Amakuru, doesn't WP:DYKSG#D7 (and perhaps WP:DYKSG#D6) cover these situations? My understanding was that {{Expand section}} and its ilk needed to be dealt with before a DYK nomination could be approved or promoted. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:46, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: oh yes, that will do it then. I was specifically searching for the word "orange" but probably most of those are instead spelled out explicitly.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:12, 13 June 2022 (UTC)
I always thought the presence of any maintenance tags would prevent eligibility for the bold link. The admin instructions for promoting prep to queue say to "Check article for tags that would prevent eligibility." That said, for links that aren't the main bold link, I don't check. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)
I could see a more minor tag, like "expand section" being okay, if it was generally complete, but could be better. We don't require DYK to be GA-level. Adam Cuerden (talk)Has about 7.9% of all FPs 02:02, 19 June 2022 (UTC)
I had one or two {{Expand Ukrainian|section=yes}}es on List of journalists killed during the Russo-Ukrainian War when it ran, and no one took issue with it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she/they) 02:13, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

5X

Hi all, I wanted to ask if I can promote this hook. I see there is a question about the 5x expansion. Maybe an exception? Bruxton (talk) 03:28, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it should be fine. The editor is new and is a student. SL93 (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks! Bruxton (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Change number of hooks for 2 sets/1 set a day changeover?

In May 2019, per this discussion, it was decided that DYK would have two sets a day when the number of approved hooks was over 120, then return to one set a day when the number of approved hooks was 60. It has been two years since this was decided, so I want to BOLDly start a general discussion on this topic to determine if these numbers are working, or if the community would like a change. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on the following questions:

  1. What is working or not working with the 120/60 quotas and changeovers?
  2. Should the quota remain at 60/120, or should it be changed? If changed, what quotas do you propose and why?

Since this is a general discussion, I would discourage support/oppose declarations; if there is a general consensus for a change, a new discussion will (hopefully) be started. Thanks everyone! Z1720 (talk) 13:19, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I think it's fine already, but only if there are diverse approved hooks. SL93 (talk) 13:31, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Does D6 apply in this case?

Template:Did you know nominations/Arming teachers
D6: "The article is likely to be rejected for unresolved edit-warring or the presence of dispute tags."

All of the active issues related to the DYK and content of arming teachers appear to have been addressed.

This leaves the issue of D6 raised some weeks ago which has not been commented on. Although dispute tags were added in the past, they were later removed and have not been re-posted. At no time that I can see was such a dispute actually explained, it appears to be a drive-by tagging.

Is there any reason to hold a review on this any longer? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I've added an {{expand lead}} template on to the article, as the lead doesn't seem to summarise the points from the body in enough detail or in a NPOV fashion. In particular, while the views of proponents is discussed, the paragraphs detailing opposition to the concept are not summarised there. This should be resolved before go-live. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 13:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I've readded the NPOV tag, and explained why. Basically, an article which e.g. states in Wikipedia's voice "Jurisdictions which heavily restrict firearms on school grounds offer mass murderers some assurance they can avoid armed resistance or specifically identify and initially disable designated armed personnel." sourced to one proponent of the proposal but presented as if it is undisputed fact, has no business appearing on the main page. Fram (talk) 13:57, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
@Fram: That makes sense and your point is a valid one. Schools are often referred to as "soft targets" because they are "gun free zones". Even Homeland Security calls them a soft target DHS S&T Seeks Solutions for Mitigating Threats to Soft Targets. So that is a much more neutral way of presenting the idea without becoming political perhaps. Bruxton (talk) 14:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Too many US hooks

I count 32 bio hooks, of which 19 (59%) are US. I also count 29 non-bios, of which 26 (90%) are US. If we have to build sets with no more than 50% US hooks, drawing from a hook pool that is 74% US, I think sets should ideally be alternating between non-U.S. bios and U.S. non-bios. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 05:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Or alternating between U.S. bios and non-U.S. non-bios. TSventon (talk) 09:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps we should find other ways to solve this (run two sets of US only hooks on the fourth of July?) if nobody writes enough non-US hooks. —Kusma (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
@TSventon: we have three (barely) of the latter at last count. Not enough for even one set alternating between the two. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:41, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
I just reviewed a non-us bio hook. cheers Bruxton (talk) 23:18, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Here is a Norwegian nomination:

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 12. We currently have a total of 198 nominations, of which only 70 have been approved, a gap of 128, down 13 over the past nine days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than three months old

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other 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) 02:59, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Prep 5: Stig Millehaugen

  • ... that Stig Millehaugen, who was convicted for armed robberies, a 1992 escape and murder of a prison guard, a 2000 escape, and a 2009 murder, was given another prison furlough in 2022 and escaped again?

@Pikavoom, BeanieFan11, and Theleekycauldron: just checking this one, as it looks like it might fall foul of the rules at WP:DYKHOOK, saying that "Articles and hooks that focus unduly on negative aspects of living individuals should be avoided". I'm not sure what qualifies as unduly here, given that the guy is mainly notable for being convicted of various crimes... but the article and hook do focus almost entirely on that, so not sure it's really eligible for DYK...? I've left it in Prep 5 for now, since it may be that I'm barking up the wrong tree!  — Amakuru (talk) 09:26, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Must sleep for own sanity, but I'll jot down pretty quickly that I don't think this coverage is undue. Some people are indeed notable just for being criminals. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:32, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
It still seems too close for comfort, methinks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
Are some of you people out of your goddam minds? He's been convicted of two murders, but you want the hook to focus on how he was kind to his elderly mum? (Actually, for all I know maybe he murdered her too -- haven't checked.) Our article on Nathan Leopold presents this point nicely:
In 1959, Leopold sought to block production of the film version of Compulsion on the grounds that Levin's book had invaded his privacy, defamed him, profited from his life story, and "intermingled fact and fiction to such an extent that they were indistinguishable." Eventually the Illinois Supreme Court ruled against him, holding that Leopold, as the confessed perpetrator of the "crime of the century", could not reasonably argue that any book had injured his reputation.
EEng 21:38, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't actually seem undue to me, although I think the hook is burying the lead. They guy has made multiple escapes, including failure to return from an earlier furlough, and they just give him a furlough and expect him to show back up? That's pretty funny. The fact he was imprisoned for armed robbery or even murder is kind of irrelevant. Why do we give a furlough to anyone who has escaped?
ALT1: ... that Stig Millehaugen, who had escaped or attempted escape from prison multiple times, was given a prison furlough in 2022 and failed to return?
valereee (talk) 12:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I do not have a problem with ALT1. Millehaugen isn't known for anything other than crime, he's been in and out of prison, mostly in, since he was young. Millehaugen's recent escape was the subject of significant media attention. I do want to note that in his previous escape, in 1992, he murdered one prison guard and kidnapped another who then led him out. What caught my attention here is that under Norway's system, he was still given prison furloughs after all this. It might be worthwhile mentioning in the hook that he murdered a guard during the 1992 escape. Pikavoom Talk 09:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I have tweaked the hook according to Valereee's suggestion. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Queue 2 error

For the Margaret Peoples Shirer hook, it looks like it should be "mission" instead of "missions" per "The couple also opened the first Assemblies of God mission station in Ghana in the late 1930s and used it as a base for mission trips in Nigeria." Pinging the nominator Jaireeodell to see if they can take a look again at the offline reference. SL93 (talk) 22:35, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Now taken care of. SL93 (talk) 13:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Attribution issues in prep 3?

It looks like the quotes in the hooks for Patsy Torres and Richmond station (California) need to be properly attributed. I was originally just going to move around those two hooks due to them both being U.S. hooks right beside each other, but I will wait until this discussion is resolved. SL93 (talk) 22:44, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I took care of Patsy Torres, but I really need suggestions for Richmond station which is now in prep 7 per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Pinging nominator Pi.1415926535. SL93 (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
 Done Attribution for the quote added. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. I updated the hook to reflect it. SL93 (talk) 08:37, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Mike Chen

This nomination is currently at an impasse as the reviewer and nominator cannot come into an agreement as to whether or not the subject meets notability guidelines. Can an uninvolved editor chime in here and break the ice? Thank you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

An AfD discussion has been opened, which puts the nomination on hold until the AfD concludes, at which point we will presumably know whether notability is met or not. BlueMoonset (talk) 05:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Selig, wem Christus auf dem Weg begegnet

Re: Template:Did you know nominations/Selig, wem Christus auf dem Weg begegnet

Sorry, I had a busy weekend so didn't look at the nomination, - didn't recognise the hook when I now saw it in prep 3. We now have a rather weak "cloistered monastery" while Trappist - always silent - seems much stronger to me, and it sounds like he was just a friar but he was the head of it. Why loose that? Why not mention the year, otherwise it could have happened centuries ago? The nom began as about the hymn, with it's background. If it gets turned into something more about the author, let's perhaps split in two. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

  • It looks okay to me. I see no need to change it. --evrik (talk) 23:22, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
It looks like the promoted hook balances both the author and the hymn. It is also a double nomination for both. I'm fine with adding the year, but I'm against cramming as much as possible into a hook. SL93 (talk) 23:30, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
I wanted to query this hook too. "Cloistered monastery" is linked to cloister, a covered walk, while Enclosed religious orders would be more informative. I am unsure whether the monastery should be described as cloistered or just the monks. I too would prefer Trappist to cloistered or enclosed. TSventon (talk) 20:24, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
thank you, and Trappist would even be shorter, SL93, while "cloistered" is just misleading. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
It would help if you proposed a new hook. SL93 (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
I assume that would be the original, SL93... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:28, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
would be an improvement. TSventon (talk) 21:33, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
At this point, I'm fine with any hook. SL93 (talk) 21:37, 21 June 2022 (UTC)
@DYK admins: Maybe just change it to the original hook? SL93 (talk) 03:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt and SL93: Have a look to make sure I got this correct, but I just now inserted the original hook. Both hooks were in the nomination template, and the reviewer said they had no preference, but approved both. See this. The reviewer had no preference, and it looks like SL93 just promoted ALT1. The promoter wasn't changing anything, but was just picking one of the two that seemed to be approved. — Maile (talk) 19:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Maile66 That's correct. I picked the one that I preferred, but that was until Gerda raised a concern with the alt hook. SL93 (talk) 19:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Sorry, I had a busy weekend, so didn't even realize that there was an ALT in the nom, and thought it was one of the post-nom changes. I think the original hook hints sufficiently at that the author didn't remain in the position, so I'm happy with having that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Prep 5 POV

For the Lorenzo Passerini hook in prep 5, why does the hook state the opinions of reviewers as facts? That shouldn't ever be done per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. Pinging nominator Gerda Arendt, reviewer Maury Markowitz, and promoter Z1720 SL93 (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I guess the hook could be updated to say that reviewers said those things, but I honestly think those hooks are boring when the reviewers aren't notable. Although I think I will be outvoted if that is the decision per prior hooks. SL93 (talk) 00:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I've modified the hook to specify that a reviewer said that description. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I further edited it to reviewers because the hook combines opinions from two of them. SL93 (talk) 00:54, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I changed it back to a reviewer. I now see that two reviewers referred to sensitivity, but one of them referred to each thing. SL93 (talk) 00:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@SL93, Narutolovehinata5, and Gerda Arendt:. The words are not even in quotes, and is attributed to an anonymous "a reviewer". Quite frankly, those same words could be used for any accomplished conductor. Please refer to MOS:PUFFERY, which we're supposed to avoid. Isn't there anything more that can be said about his career? — Maile (talk) 01:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
the anonymous attribution is usually okay (although I usually prefer "one reviewer" over "a reviewer"), but I do agree that this one feels rather rote. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the reviewer is actually named in the reference and the source (his name is Wolf-Dieter Peter), just not in the article itself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I've seen a few other promoted hooks with opinions of non-notable reviewers. A current nomination is at Template:Did you know nominations/Pipaluk Freuchen. I think that we need a new hook and it has nothing to do with puffery, but completely due to being boring. SL93 (talk) 01:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) As for a new hook, I can see two options here. One could be about him conducting many times at the Sydney Opera House (perhaps something like "... that Lorenzo Passerini has conducted Gounod's Faust and Verdi's Aida at the Sydney Opera House?" I usually don't like these "conductor conducted X" hooks, but perhaps the mention of the Sydney Opera House can attract interest? Another possibility could be something about the "he led the orchestra wide awake" quote? I guess something like "... that a reviewer described Lorenzo Passerini's conducting of a 2022 performance of Giordano's Fedora as leading the orchestra "wide awake"?". The article doesn't really have much to go on so it may be for the best to pull and fail the nomination if nothing suitable can be worked out. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I LOVE the "wide awake" hook!! That would be a nifty quirky slot hook. — Maile (talk) 01:25, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't understand the hook. He led the orchestra while he wasn't sleeping? SL93 (talk) 01:28, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Unfortunately I do not understand the context either as I don't speak German (the article also gives its German equivalent "hellwach", which GT translates as "awake"). My guess is that in this case it's referring to Passerini (perhaps it means "awake" as in "aware"?) Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:31, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I must be missing the appeal of the hook. If it does mean aware, would it mean that he led the orchestra while he was aware of what was going on? SL93 (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Cambridge Dictionary: german-english/hellwach Apparently, one of the translations of "hellwach" (maybe) is wide awake, or maybe quick on the uptake. Not good at figuring this out. I'm guessing the American version would be "never missed a beat" but you would hope a conductor wouldn't miss anything. — Maile (talk) 01:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure Gerda at her first opportunity will translate "hellwach". Quite frankly, the translations are beginning to sound like one of those corporate job check-off reviews where the boss checks the box "met expectations" so you don't get too big of a salary raise. — Maile (talk) 02:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm kind of confused by what you mean Maile. Are you saying the review is a good starting point for a hook, or no? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
No, I was referring to our efforts to figure out the meaning of "hellwach", and so far it seems to mean the conductor did his job as expected. — Maile (talk) 02:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Given that Gerda is the German speaker here I'd assume good faith that her translation is accurate. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:57, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I assume good faith also, but I just don't understand the translation. SL93 (talk) 03:04, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
awake, finally. "hellwach" has no English equivalent, I'm afraid, "wide awake"? - anyway, it means that he is super alert, ears wide open, - which is nothing to say in a hook. I tried to say a bit about his music-making, but that's always hard. We could just leave it with Australia and Fedora (a blissfully short name, and we already had it in a another hook as the piece that made Caruso famous). Any help with the idea to say why he is wanted all over the world welcome. I just took what I heard myself. FAZ is a leading German paper, even if the particular critic Jan Brachmann is not (yet) known. The other wrote that he offered temperament for the Russian music of the first act, sensitivity for the Paris "perfume" of the second act, and dramatic approach for the ending in failure and death (in Switzerland), which is too long for a hook, and just the adjectives don't work well (the "different countries" were in the approved hook, but removed), - I can see that. Back to a better translation of "hellwach", perhaps? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Minimal hook: ... that Lorenzo Passerini, who has conducted several operas in Sydney, revived Giordano's Fedora at the Oper Frankfurt?- giving at least the idea that this Italian is busy worldwide. Will search for another detail. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I found another review, very detailed, quoted (and more in the review). Critics seem to agree about his qualities but there language looses in translation:
... that Lorenzo Passerini, who has conducted several operas in Sydney, revived Giordano's Fedora at the Oper Frankfurt "in a fresh, sparkling and supremely elegant dramatic conducting"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm fine with the minimal hook, but I would be fine with a more detailed hook if the quote was attributed to someone. SL93 (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm also fine with the minimal hook. The reviewer is a no-name, and what she wrote was in German, so I even hesitate to use quotation marks. Just to show his qualities ;) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure if I can change the hook to that one since I approved it here. SL93 (talk) 21:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I will change the hook to that. It's a very minor change and more of a rewording. SL93 (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Prep 5: Princeton–Deepwater District

  • ... that part of West Virginia's Princeton–Deepwater District railway was so steep that coal trains needed to be broken up into segments to ascend it?

@Antony-22, Kingoflettuce, Trainsandotherthings, and Theleekycauldron: just a quick query about this, because the hook text doesn't seem to be stated in exactly the same way in the article, in particular:

  1. The article doesn't explicitly say the trains in question were coal trains
    • That'd be a textual error in the article – the Railway Age source does back up that they were coal trains. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
      OK I've added "coal" before trains to match that then.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
  2. The article's "short trains were brought up to Clark's Gap and combined into longer trains for the rest of the trip" doesn't seem to quite match the hook's assertion that the trains were "broken up into segments". If they were left the coal-field as short trains, then up to that point they had never been combined at all, so no "breaking up" took place. Since it's due to run tomorrow, I've moved it down to a different prep area for a later rather than reopening, since I hope this can be dealt with quite swiftly, but if you prefer to reopen to consider the matter more deeply then let me know. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:12, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I assumed the breaking-up was breaking up the amount of coal in each train, filling it to 6000 when the trains had higher capacity otherwise. Happy to change the hook wording to more closely match the source, though? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:16, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
      I wouldn't have thought "broken up into segments" would refer to splitting up a big pile of coal, "segment" seems to imply a short section of a longer train... ?  — Amakuru (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
      I think the hook is fine. If not for the steep hill, one long train would have been used from the coal-field. Instead, two short trains (segments) were used and then combined at the top. No need to be so literal, the meaning is the same. The "breakup" was done in making two short trains when normally there would be one. MB 13:22, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
      When trains are going up a hill, one of the determining factors is weight. The locomotives assigned to a train can only pull so much weight up a hill. The Virginian Railroad limited the total weight, and by extension length, of trains going up the hill based on the pulling power of the locomotives assigned. The Railway Age source talks about trains being brought up the hill limited to a weight of 6,000 tons, with an electric locomotive pulling from the front and a second pushing from behind, limited by the grade to a top speed of 14 miles per hour and taking 58 minutes to climb the grade. This is until reaching Clark's Gap, beyond which point longer and heavier trains of up to 9,000 tons are permitted. The difficulty with this article is an example of why I dislike writing articles just about rail lines themselves, but rather include them in the articles on their original builders. With all that said I don't see much of an issue with the hook. What I said before about the difficulty with these articles, the problem is there are quite few sources, particularly reliable ones, about most rail lines. It may be possible to write an alternate hook using the Railway Age source, which is easily the best in the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 17:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
      FTR (as I'm sure you know), similar considerations apply to downgrades as well. EEng 21:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
      Yes, but in that case it's a matter of braking power, particularly dynamic brakes. The Railway Age article here talks about how switching to electric trains allowed some benefits from regenerative braking, though it wasn't very pronounced because the coal trains were going up the grade loaded and going down the grade empty. If I were nominating this article, I might have chosen something related to that for a hook. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
      The article is clear that the energy savings from regeneration was significant. You seem to think that regenerated power can only be consumed locally, but in fact it's available to trains elsewhere on the line. EEng 03:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
      This is all very interesting stuff, it must have been quite the engineering challenge for them back then. But going back to the core issue here, we can't say the train was "broken up" in the hook if the article doesn't say that. Short trains going up the hill and then joining up is not the same as being broken up. If it's conceptually one train from the off, and the source backs that up, then the article can say so. Otherwise we need to amend the hook. It's my job to "be literal" since I'm checking and approving the hook set, and this is an encyclopedia not a casual magazine. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 23:25, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
      Then going with a different hook would be the answer at this point. I don't understand why we didn't pick a hook along the lines of "The line was so steep that in 1926 it was electrified?" Actually, the article itself dedicates but a single sentence to electrification despite the Railway Age source covering it in significant detail, which seems like a massive oversight to me. We return again to my criticism of articles on individual rail lines. All of this would be better in an article similar to Electrification of the New York, New Haven, and Hartford Railroad but that's beyond our control right now. If this were in my usual area of study (southern New England) I'd almost certainly be able to find more sources. As it stands I'm not very familiar with this region and don't have any sources on it I can offer. Someone more familiar with the history of both the Virginian Railway and the line in question here would know what search terms to use to find sources. Even so, I see something quite hooky in the Railway Age source: "The Virginian handles trains of larger tonnage on heavier grades than found on any other road..." I'm trying my best to help out here, but ultimately this isn't my nomination and I haven't contributed to the article at all. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 03:34, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
      Re The line was so steep that in 1926 it was electrified? – Where do you get that the steep grade was the reason for the electrification? And even if that was somehow the reason in this particular case, your proposed hook makes is sound like electrification it, in general, some kind of desperation measure. EEng 04:11, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
      If you read the article, it talks about how steam locomotives had difficulty with the slopes, specifically because it wore out brakes rather quickly. Dynamic brakes allowed this wear and tear to be eliminated. But regardless, what are we going to do about this hook now? If we are at an impasse do we just fail it? Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
      I certainly did read the source, and this is becoming something of a textbook lesson in reading sources carefully. What the source says is that eliminating brake wear on downgrades was a significant benefit, and in fact more significant than the power savings -- but both are described as reasons that AC was selected, not reasons that electrification was embarked upon in the first place. (In fact, I don't see anything in the source directly explaining the motivation for the electrification project as a whole.) EEng 03:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I think a simple rewording should work. How about the following? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:27, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Irish Bee Conservation Project

Earlier today I reviewed the June 24 DYK nom for Irish Bee Conservation Project, which had been entered manually without the usual template. What do I need to do to move it to the approved list? —Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:26, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

 Done. It's now at Template:Did you know nominations/Irish Bee Conservation Project. (Bot will move it to the approved page.)  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  22:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks to Mandarax for the quick response! Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Queue 5

@Jon698 and PCN02WPS: The first part of this hook is untrue and the second part merely imprecise. The cost per day of the transport strike was predicted to be $100,000,000 if it continued, and the police part should refer to patrolmen rather than police. I suggest rephrasing the hook to ALT1:

  • @Cwmhiraeth: Thank you for noticing that major mistake. I have trouble reading older NY newspaper articles sometimes. (Edit: Seems like it was a brainfart by me when writing the hook as it is correct in the article itself.) Jon698 (talk) 13:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Apropos discussions elsewhere on this page, this is a great example of a biased statement that shouldn't be presented in the hook without attribution. Nether hook fairly reflects what the article says, and while we're at it, neither does the article fairly reflect what the source says. Needs to be pulled. EEng 14:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    @EEng: Yeah I agree with you. How about this hook? "... that John Lindsay said a strike by the Transport Workers Union of America during his mayoralty cost $500,000,000?" Jon698 (talk) 15:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    You can't really say "claimed" per MOS:CLAIM. It would have to be simply "said", or some variant like "According to John Lindsay..." Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    WP:WTW isn't a list of forbidden words. It's clear from the source that it's fairly termed a claim. EEng 15:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    @Amakuru: Done. Jon698 (talk) 15:51, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Honestly, I'd suggest you go with something snappier such as
(A rare example of valid use of a primary source, BTW.) EEng 15:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I have replaced the hook with one based on EEng's suggestion. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 09:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I wish I'd looked at the post closer. I suppose I'd be pushing my luck if I now advocated yet a different hook:
ALT3 ... that posters for John Lindsay's 1965 New York City mayoral campaign promised voters that Lindsay would work for a 15-cent subway fare?
EEng 17:09, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Frank H. Wadsworth

I have no idea why multiple editors have ignored the Spanish sources at Template:Did you know nominations/Frank H. Wadsworth, when the article previously had copyvios and non-supported text from the English sources. The nomination should be closed if no one will check those sources or find another editor to do it. SL93 (talk) 15:58, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

  • I did check them, and its noted in the discussion. --evrik (talk) 18:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
Ok, but you failed to notice the errors with the English sources multiple times when it came to nominating, trying to fix the issue, and again at errors. You also told Fram at errors that the close paraphrasing was added later, but it was always there. SL93 (talk) 19:20, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
You do realize that you're the nominator and can't be a reviewer also? SL93 (talk) 19:48, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I haven't reviewed it, but have been trying to troubleshoot the nomination. The author kept adding and editing the article after I nominated it, which IMHO is where most of the issues arose. I don't think you'll find that I added a checkmark anywhere on the nomination. --evrik (talk) 21:05, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
While that isn't what I mean, I will readd the approval. I won't be the promoter though. SL93 (talk) 23:29, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Error blocking Queue 1 from the main page

User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors leaves this message:

Errors blocking the bot from updating DYK:

  • Unmatched left ("{{") and right ("}}") curly braces in Queue 1

The queue is a mass of curly brackets, and I can't detect which one is off. — Maile (talk) 22:15, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

This was taken care of. — Maile (talk) 23:10, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Bug-free? Are you joking??? (Q5)

Free bugs! There's plenty to go around!

The following hook, set to go live in 6 hours, is the computer-science equivalent of saying there's a new drug whose purpose is to make people live forever:

... that pytest is a Python framework for writing software tests that help make sure programs are bug-free?

There's no such thing as bug-free program, and even if there was, there's no way to "make sure" you've created one. Not to mention that there's nothing in the article (thankfully) that suggests such absurd ideas anyway. This seems to be just someone's WP:OR idea of what software testing is for. Paging David Eppstein. EEng 17:33, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Utterly nonsensical. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Andy's referring to the hook, not to me (in case anyone's not sure). EEng 17:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I didn't approve that hook; I merely disapproved some earlier hook candidates. I think you should have pinged User:Maury Markowitz. Anyway, I agree that bug-free is almost oxymoronic. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I know you didn't approve it. (If you had, I would have been in touch with your chancellor so he could check if you'd had stroke.) It's just we needed (and still need) an admin to pull it from Q5, and I didn't realize that Maury Markowitz is one. EEng 19:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Ok, swapped in Q5 for another hook pulled from Prep5, unpromoted, and added back to T:TDYK. Nomination is now back at Template:Did you know nominations/Pytest. This is my first time editing the queues so I'd welcome someone more experienced checking that I haven't screwed anything up. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: Almost! you missed a Sally Burch credit from Victuallers... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 19:41, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Actually, there is such a thing, and is indeed possible to prove correctness. Software testing cannot do that though (certainly not in Python ); it would be more correct to say that pytest can help locating bugs. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:58, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
    No there isn't and no it isn't, not in real life anyway. A great read on the topic is DeMillo, Lipton, Perlis, "Social Processes and Proofs of Theorems and Programs" [10] (1977, and more true now than ever). EEng 03:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Queue 4: Mike Sullivan (Wyoming politician) (nom)

Another "first" hook (... that Mike Sullivan was the first governor in Wyoming's statehood history to have his veto overridden by the state legislature?) but checking the article's sources, the references seem solid enough (that said, it's always the same newspaper that says so; I haven't looked at outside sources). However, what is likely to come up is the target article's ambiguator. The nominator, Jon698, moved the article from Mike Sullivan (governor) to Mike Sullivan (American politician) earlier this month. The relevant disambiguation page at Michael Sullivan (disambiguation) lists no fewer than six American politicians, including another one from Wyoming (Michael J. Sullivan (Wyoming politician)). "American politician" thus seems unsuitable. Should we sort this out before this hits the main page or do we not care? I note that we should not have redirects from the main page and that is what I predict will happen if/when this will be moved to a different title when many more eyes look at this? Schwede66 21:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Attributing what sources say

I have seen multiple recently promoted hooks that have unattributed bias statements. We really shouldn't have such things as a hook because it makes it sound like it's a common fact, when it really is just the opinion of one source. I have corrected multiple hooks that I saw in preps. SL93 (talk) 15:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

You've gone somewhat overboard. This edit [11], for example, "corrected" nothing at all. EEng 21:50, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Apparently, you think I went completely overboard since you changed everything that I did in that prep. SL93 (talk) 21:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm really not sure I understand – WP:WEASEL doesn't apply if in-text attribution is provided in the body of the article: The examples above are not automatically weasel words. They may also be used in the lead section of an article or in a topic sentence of a paragraph, and the article body or the rest of the paragraph can supply attribution.. If readers want to know who called our subjects these things, or who said these statements, they can click through, right? Why clutter this up with new links and text? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 21:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
My issue is that nothing in DYK refers to a hook as a lead sentence or a topic sentence of a paragraph. For a recent case, I do know that Template:Did you know nominations/LaVere Redfield was pulled by Amakuru for such a thing. SL93 (talk) 22:00, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
For the purposes of citation, it seems functionally similar – like a lead sentence, a citation isn't required on the Main Page, and like a lead sentence, it has to echo content from the body of the article (because that's where the citation is). I don't see how attribution is different. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I highly disagree due to prior precedent. Here also. SL93 (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't see myself as being unfair when we have discussions going back around a year or so ago about the issue. SL93 (talk) 22:17, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, I certainly wouldn't call you unfair, SL93 :) I have a different interpretation of what the rules are – and certainly what they should be – but that's okay. I will point out that this discussion about Washington Heights, Manhattan, Amakuru states That's an improvement, although perhaps the hookiness is then compromised? If those sources are attributed properly in the article, it would probably be OK for the hook to not name sources inline – they also state Indeed, and I'm not questioning what you said at all. No doubt those are the correct attributions. Just pointing out that as far as I know, the hook doesn't absolutely have to attribute something, as long as the article does. They expressed similar views at the next discussion over WEASEL in your second search link, about Saw Omma. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Pinging Amakuru. SL93 (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm sorry, SL93, but I don't really understand what you mean by "unattributed bias statements". Can you give a few permlinks to examples? EEng 22:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I mean comments formed based on opinions. One example is the Book of Common Prayer (1845 illuminated version) hook in prep 2 - "pointed to the direction that books in general were to follow in the Victorian Age". It could be true, but it's from only one source and it also comes from a review. A better example is "probably the most famous lesbian in Ukraine" in prep 5. SL93 (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Not only Amakuru has brought the issue up on the DYK talk page. My hope for posting this here was to have more activity to reach a conclusion. Another concern that is how many readers will know that the quotations refer to one singular source. Not everyone clicks on the article link. SL93 (talk) 22:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
My stance is pretty much as in the examples leeky quotes above. If the body of an article attributes some idea or statement, then it's OK IMHO for the hook to avoid directly attributing, much as the lead is allowed to. I pulled the LaVere hook because the body of the article also failed to identify the source, saying merely "it is thought that..." so I inserted a {{by whom}} tag for clarification as to who exactly thought something. And that's really the crux of a lot my WEASEL objections here. Even the article has the weasel statements in it. That said, a hook should rarely say "it is believed that..." anyway, because a properly attributed statement won't directly translate into such a general belief. "Historian John Smith has said that the Romans liked to eat popcorn" isn't the same thing as "it is believed that the Romans liked to eat popcorn" so the unattributed hook would be more like "... that the Romans have been described as eating popcorn?". Hope this makes some sense!  — Amakuru (talk) 23:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I see now. I reverted myself, but now prep 5 has two "dubbed". I won't change it in one of the hooks due to EEng specifically pointing out that the change was going overboard. SL93 (talk) 23:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
And...EEng reverted me while saying that I was mucking about. Wow. SL93 (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
According to EEng, I was "mucking about" by undoing his touchups...but his touchups were to my changes that had a complaint from him. It is not mucking about to bring something back to the original agreed upon version. I am honestly tired of editors who think that the civility rules don't apply to them. SL93 (talk) 02:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Look, you accepted other editors' opinion that your changes were ill-advised. That's good. But then you seemed to want to insist that no one should make any changes, and that's not good. EEng 04:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I didn't mean it that way. SL93 (talk) 11:40, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
We have had repeated complaints here about editors "correcting" hooks that were approved by the nominator and reviewer, in prep, without bothering to notify the nominator or reviewer. In many cases, the wording of hooks involves careful subtleties that such "corrections" blow right past, with the lack of notification preventing the editors who might be expected to be most familiar with the subject from even finding out about it until far too late and they get a talk page notification that an incorrect hook ran and that there's nothing to be done repairing the problem. Editors should not be tweaking hooks in prep, period, because there are too few checks and too big a chance of introducing errors. If you think there is a serious problem with a hook, such as a misattribution, pull it and notify the other editors involved so that it can be properly discussed. If you are merely second-guessing what you think are minor vocabulary issues (like whether to use "dub" or "call"), don't do it. Because for some subjects, the wording choice might be less minor than you realize and you could be introducing mistakes. For a recent example of how this can and should be done, see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 186#Prep 4: Schwarz lantern. I disagreed with the proposed changes, because they introduced errors, but am very happy that they were proposed in a way that provided me an opportunity to dispute them. If some editor had on their own initiative made one of those proposed changes in prep without telling anyone, it would have been much worse. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
David Eppstein To be fair, I just saw that the word "dubbed" wasn't in the original hook. That was added by the promoter. SL93 (talk) 11:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: I agree with the spirit of what you have said here. Hooks are often fussed with on the way to the prep set - and sometimes a non-approved hook is promoted from the choices. I also see the "dub" or "call" as a less meaningful correction. Perhaps a talk page message regarding that change because pulling the hook for a discussion on that issue, seems extreme for such a small change. Bruxton (talk) 14:17, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps I have a different perspective because most of my nominations involve hooks in mathematics. Certain changes in wording that seem small to those not familiar with the terminology can make a big difference in meaning, changing a hook from accurate to erroneous. The people who edit prep sets cannot be expected to be familiar with those subtleties. Having a process that encourages them to think that small hook changes are ok, and don't need anyone else to check them, is a recipe for disaster, when they do not realize that a hook change isn't as small as they think. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
@David Eppstein: I see your point. I have a mind for history, which is interpretive. I imagine any change I made to your hooks could be incorrect. I just hope we can do triage on hooks and leave them in preps rather than pull them. When they get pulled they have a tendency to fester and flounder. My Redfield hook someone mentioned above is an example now, someone promoted an unapproved hook, and then the hook was called out as weasel and now the nomination has been returned to sender where it is likely to languish. People tend to move on, and then other promoters see a wall of text and they skip promoting. Bruxton (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I hear you. Although about "called" from "dubbed", dubbed wasn't in the approved hook. Though EEng did change the hook back to saying "called" with their further hook tweaks. I am certainly far from the only editor who has edited approved hooks. The new "dubbed" hook was introduced by theleekycauldron. SL93 (talk) 00:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Diana Tishchenko

Template:Did you know nominations/Diana Tishchenko: Sorry, I had a busy weekend and notice only now that the hook in prep only tells us that she was a rising star, but not that she participated in the tour in Germany subtitled "The Voice of Ukraine", playing an iconic Ukrainian piece. That piece has been played a lot recently, but being played by a Rising Star adds substance to it. I had no intention to promote the European Concert Hall Organisation alone. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Pinging reviewer Jochem van Hees who suggested that a shorter hook be used and Narutolovehinata5 who came up with the new hook. SL93 (talk) 00:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Not a fan of the original hook. If the intended context was that Melody is Ukrainian, it wasn't obvious at all in the hook, nor was said Ukrainian connection even mentioned. And as Jochem said, a shorter hook is more desirable. Theoretically, a hook about Melody is still possible, but as Jochem suggested, the hook should be either about Rising Star or Melody only, not both. In any case, I'd be opposed to a hook that went "... that the Ukrainian violinist Diana Tishchenko played Chausson's Poème and Skoryk's Melody at the Kulturpalast in Dresden in April?" because it's basically saying "violinist played violin song", which is what they're expected to do since it's their job right? It would be like a hook saying "... that actor Tom Cruise played Pete "Maverick" Mitchell in Top Gun?". An actor is expected to act in a movie, so a hook that is simply about them acting in a movie is not really a good option. A hook about a person doing their regular job usually doesn't work out as a good hook without additional context. Same with a violinist playing a violin song. A hook about Melody specifically is still possible, but it would need to be a different direction other than simply "Tishchenko played Melody at an event that most non-classical music fans are unfamiliar with". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:38, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
The more I think about it, the more that unfortunately I don't think a Melody hook would work out without additional context in the hook or article. Frankly, most readers are not going to know who Skoryk or Melody are, and without that context, a hook about Tischenko playing that song by that composer would not make sense to the average reader. Now, if she performed that song as part of a Ukraine benefit concert, or if there was some additional context behind her performing those songs, context that non-classical music fans would quickly get, then perhaps a hook about Melody could work. But that would require more expansion to the article, because right now the article doesn't even mention that Skoryk or Melody are Ukrainian, and no additional information about her performance is presented other than "she played this piece in this place". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:08, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree absolutely that a melody hook would not work without context, and gave the context by the Rising Star. Skoryk's Melody was on DYK, and became famous (... that Melody, originally composed by Myroslav Skoryk for a 1982 Soviet film, was used in Volodymyr Zelenskyy's broadcast to the U.S. Congress in March 2022?). Nothing particular "classical" music, just what interests people these days, not only last years Rising Star. Drop the French piece, pipe the Kulturpalast to Dresden, but please let her make music. (I'm still sad the we ran Semenenko without any music.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 23:21, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
In other words: that she brought the music from Ukraine to us now is what prompted the creation of the article. That she is also a Rising Star was nice to find out also, but she shares it with many others. Storye book, what do you think? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
We could shorten a hook substantially by piping European Concert Hall Organisation to ECHO, to win room for music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The underlying principle here is that the hook was promoted without discussion with, or approval of, the nominator/creator. In most cases the creator/nominator will know more about the subject than we do, because at the very least, they have familiarised themselves with the research. In this case, it is clear to denizens of the DYK review system that Gerda Arendt is familiar with all things German-operatic, and that Narutolovehinata5 (who is otherwise a hard-working and useful reviewer) has made it clear that they are no expert on that subject. That principle is not about who is right or wrong about the hook. It is about the fact that a hook should not be approved or promoted without the promoter/creator getting at the very least a chance to comment on the template, before the final tick is given. OK, not all reviewers are familiar with the usual zeitgeit of those Gerda Arendt nominations which include hook-controversy. But our regular promoters are familiar with that. So I am asking those regular promoters to please check that where there has been controversy over the hook, that the nominator/creator has been given a chance to comment on all hooks which remain for promotion. This one was green-ticked the same day as the last hook was posted, and promoted one day after that, which gave no-one any real chance of discussion - especially bearing in mind the time difference between the US and Europe. In my opinion, this nom should be thrown out of prep, to give others the chance to discuss the hook. Storye book (talk) 09:11, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
(This is not opera.) The key question is: may we say two things, or do we have to stick to one? If only one, please find a way for 2022 music-making as a voice of Ukraine that should not be silenced. We can do that right here, - there are a few days left. - Background: I bring articles to Recent deaths, and then the DYK is quoted. To say about this marvelous violinist (see video) only that people thought she would rise just seems too short and too uncharacteristic to me. That's said about many. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
How is this?
... that the Ukrainian violinist Diana Tishchenko, a Rising Star of the ECHO in 2020/21, played Skoryk's Melody on a tour of the Kyiv Symphony Orchestra to Germany in April?
And if that's too long, cut the Rising Star glitter. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) In this case, yes ideally we should just stick to one fact. Having two hook facts at the same time makes the hook unfocused and complicated. If you really want Melody to be featured in the hook, we could brainstorm ideas for that, but as I mentioned earlier, the article will first need to be expanded to give more context about her Melody performance. As for the proposal above... not a fan. If you want to stick to Melody, drop the Rising Star aspect. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
The fact is in the article. The Rising Star - I think - is not a fact but like an adjective, a description, - sorry about my lack of English. Repeating: I'm still sad and a bit ashamed that all we had nothing to say about her colleague's music-making (of the same pieces), only about him being stranded. Please don't add to that sadness. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
That wasn't what I meant by "expanding to give context". The article does indeed state she performed in Germany in April of this year. However, it does not give any context as to why she performed in Germany. Was it for a benefit concert? Was she invited to perform there? What were the circumstances behind her performance? The way I see it, simply saying that a violinist performing a song from their country isn't enough, there has to be additional context. Given that she's a Ukrainian violinist performing a Ukrainian song, I'm sure that angle has some promise and I think focusing on that angle could be a good starting point if there was more information. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:43, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I have pulled Template:Did you know nominations/Diana Tishchenko for further discussion there. Honestly, the hook really shouldn't fit all of the most relevant things in the hook. SL93 (talk) 11:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Queue 1: María Chiquinquirá

  • ... that María Chiquinquirá is regarded as a hero in Ecuador because in 1794 she went to court to argue that she was not a slave – and won?

Two things here.

Firstly, the article says she is a "national hero", and the hook implies the same, but the linked sources don't seem to say that exactly. Using Google Translate, it looks like [12] says "The members of the group in this process also work to rescue their ancestral roots as well as their Afro heroes: Alonso de Illescas, María Chiquinquirá , Juan Gracia, among others", which covers that she is a hero in a particular group, but not nationwide. While the other source, [13], says "recovering the historical memory of Ecuadorian women, giving as an example the participation of María Chiquinquirá ... Women who tirelessly fought for the inclusion of women and who understood that the revolution was beyond the liberation of a territory" - again, not exactly the same as saying she's a national hero. If she's really regarded as a national hero then we should source that appropriately.

Secondly, the assertion that she "won" the case doesn't seem to be backed up by the article. In fact, the most recent verdict was that she was not to be freed, and she only lived in freedom after that on a technicality, because the supreme court "took the case but did not resolve the dispute" and then either "the case was never heard" or perhaps there was an "out of court settlement". No definitive indication that she won her case though. I can reopen the nom if necessary, but maybe this one can be turned around quickly... Pinging @SL93, BuySomeApples, and Victuallers:  — Amakuru (talk) 12:47, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

She wasnt a national hero? Well that was the case because there was no nation when she did this (see the article). To be a national hero then you would need to be identified as such at the core of a nation by a member of the national assembly who identify who and who is not a national hero - oh yes, thats the source. So I'm convinced she was, I'm going with the consensus and what the national rep says .... and secondly can I draw your attention to "Her case persuaded the court temporarily, but the dispute continued." .... which does have a ref. You can win a case, lose a case, and win again ..... There IS a certificate which showed that she was a free woman in the 1790s? Please try and respect those who reviewed this article correctly. Pinging @SL93, BuySomeApples, and Amakuru: Please feel free to wade into this and corrrect any errors you find including in the review (and the meta review). Victuallers (talk) 14:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@Victuallers: there's no need to reply to me with this sort of tone. My job as promoting administrator is to look over all the hooks and raise any concerns I have with them, which is what I've done here. So far we know that she was a hero among a group of African Ecuadorians, and that she was labelled an important part of women's history in the country by the national assembly. I don't equate that exactly to being a nationwide hero. The latter terminology implies (to me at least) a sort of adulation beyond just being mentioned prominently in history books. As for the court case, I remain sceptical that "persuading the court temporarily" is the same as "winning". But anyway, that's why I raised it here, because maybe other members of the community will agree with you that I'm barking up the wrong tree.  — Amakuru (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I dialled back the tone considerably from the first draft, sorry if some of it remains. However as you are aware I consider that we should only hold up approved nominations where there is an error. I don't see that even if you are right then either of your discoveries would be a notable "error". I have concerns about lots of stuff, and I try to quietly fix the stuff I can clearly improve. This is not a perfect process. I would much rather be improving the encyclopedia. I must admit I find that you cannot see that "she was labelled an important part of women's history in the country by the national assembly" might lead a few people to think she was a national hero or even as you misquote "a nationwide hero" difficult to parse. Victuallers (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Your sources are:
  • [14], which says (in machine translation)
    I INTERNATIONAL MEETING WOMEN IN PUBLIC ... On November 18, 2013, the I International Women in Public Meeting was held, an initiative promoted by Assemblywoman María José Carrión and the organization included the National Assembly, Citizen Participation Council, Social Coordinating Ministry, MIES, Court Constitutional, Council of the Judiciary, National Electoral Council and Andean Parliament. The opening of the event was in charge of Dr. Tania Arias, member of the Council of the Judiciary, who expressed her congratulations to María José Carrión for promoting these initiatives that allow us to analyze the role and participation of women in the history of the country and her life politics. ... The presentation was aimed at recovering the historical memory of Ecuadorian women, giving as an example the participation of María Chiquinquirá, Muela Espejo, Rosa Campuzano ...
This in a blog post by legislator María José Carrión crowing about a conference she apparently organized. There's nothing about the legislature doing anything, and even if it had, legislative bodies make all kinds of proclamations about things which don't actually reflect the national consciousness. What we need is a sober, non-self-promotional source giving this claimed hero status as a generally accepted fact.
  • [15] is a tourism puff piece which tells us:
    “Africa Mía”, a tourism plan with Esmeralda roots ... The Nigeria neighborhood , on Trinidad Island, is stereotyped as a violent land where the law of the strongest prevails. Here 90% of its inhabitants are originally from the province of Esmeraldas. This stigma is what “Africa Mía” seeks to change, a tourism project made up of Afro- Ecuadorian women who reside in this community. ... In this space in the south of Guayaquil, Sonnia España has been working for more than 20 years in the Progressive Women's Association , a community movement that was born from the need to end gender violence , domestic violence and discrimination.
For WP to state in its own voice that Chiquinquirá is a "national hero", this is so far from the kind of source we need it's not even funny.
Victuallers, this is the second thread on this very page right now in which you complain that you're so busy "improving the encyclopedia" that you don't have the time or interest to deal with other editors' quite valid concerns about hooks you've nominated. You've been in the wrong both times, in both cases arguing, basically, that since your hook made it through DYK's very porous first-stage review process, everyone else has a lot of goddam nerve raising questions at later stages. The process we have requires multiple stages of review review so that DYK doesn't embarrass Wikipedia as a whole even more than it does as it is, and if you don't have time to deal with that process then stop nominating. EEng 16:30, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I think you will find that I said "I would rather be". As you can see above I have addressed the concerns...in a timely manner and I think if you read more closely, basically, I have argued about the process in general. No one pretends that a new article is perfect or even that an error might not be found. However we do need to say if someone is barking up the wrong tree or that its just mere opinion. Which I think is what you have voiced above... and I suspect you are not 100% right, but that would be quibbling. I don't see DYK as an embaressment, but fear that it is or that we can somehow prevent one of our 1000s of readers from finding even one mistake is a fools errand. Just because someone complains about the process doesnt mean that you need to ask them to leave. Listening is another option. Victuallers (talk) 17:44, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't sure if I wanted to chime in here since Victuallers seems to be getting very upset, but I was assuming good faith on the non-English source for a long-time contributor about the hero bit. I will stop doing that from now on however. Now that I see a translation, I don't see such a thing in relation to the subject being called a hero. That would be original research. SL93 (talk) 17:56, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks for your view SL93. I am not too busy as accused. I think that if someone is called an "Afro-hero", which is obviously racist although maybe not maliciously so, but its not a phrase I would use, but even so I would say "regarded" as a hero. It seems odd to sort your heroes into piles based on race. Still, I will bend to your view and if no one can think of a better solution (e.g. just editting the article like it was a wiki?) then I will withdraw the nomination. I don't want to waste your time when I cannot see some error what you heroes plainly can. Victuallers (talk) 18:15, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
It's not racist. It's just an oddity coming through a machine translation. We don't know how it's perceived in the original language, in the original cultural context. EEng 20:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
So, if I understand correctly, the nominator based the article on a machine translation. I don't agree with that at all. I thought that such a thing was discouraged. SL93 (talk) 20:13, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Victuallers I have an idea. Maybe add information in the article about the group naming her a hero, but leaving out the "Afro" part. Maybe then tweak the hook to make it clearer - "... that María Chiquinquirá was named a "hero" in Ecuador because in 1794 she went to court to argue that she was not a slave? That would make it clearer with "hero" being used as a quote and the second potentially objectional bit is now gone. Of course, the word "national" would need to be removed from the article. SL93 (talk) 18:24, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but to be blunt even "hero" rendered in quotes, without further qualification, is going too far given the sources, which are still just (a) a legislator's blog and (b) a travel promotion. No group named her a hero AFAICS. But as so often is the case in such situations, there are better hooks anyway. I'd suggest:

ALT1 ... that María Chiquinquirá was allowed to remain free until a court heard her case, but since it never did she died a free woman?

I've intentionally left out why her freedom would even be an issue, in order to make the hook hookier. (The fact is that the article is something of a confusing mess, so I wasn't sure how I'd add that anyway.) EEng 20:03, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

I like that hook, but it looks like Victuallers withdrew the nomination so I'm not sure who will make the needed fixes to the article. SL93 (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't think Vic's statement is an unambiguous withdrawal – it seems conditional. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:29, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
If the issues are surmountable it would probably worth seeing out: it would be a shame for the nomination to fail. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Amakuru Should the hook be pulled since it's in the next queue that will be on the main page? SL93 (talk) 00:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    If it's still this "hero" junk it needs to be pulled, of course. EEng 01:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Not helpful. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

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.

  • Did I ping you? I asked because another option would be moving it to the end of the preps for more discussion. SL93 (talk) 01:41, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    No, actually, you did not ping me. I'm concerned, though, that you feel the need for me to refresh you memory on this point. Are you having memory lapses? EEng 02:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    You really think you're funny, don't you? I never found you to be funny. SL93 (talk) 02:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    You mean your question was rhetorical? Gracious! I never would have imagined. Anyway, that hook really needs to be pulled from Q1, which goes live in about 19 hours. EEng 02:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    Are you trying to be an annoying cricket? Or are you just a natural at it? SL93 (talk) 02:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    You either have it or your don't. You have to be born with it. EEng 03:11, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    I will stop replying here. I shouldn't argue with an insect. SL93 (talk) 03:07, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
    Darn. Just when it seemed we were getting somewhere. EEng 03:11, 2 July 2022 (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.

Arbor tree break

Pinging the DYK admins to pull this hook from queue and replace it with another non-U.S. bio from prep. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Request for review of hook for July 1 main page

I recently created and nominated House Bill 5414. While doing so, I learned that its effective date is July 1, which I realized might be a good day for the hook to run. Would someone be interested in reviewing it so that can happen? Daniel Case (talk) 05:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I note it is now more timely. Daniel Case (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

PJ and Thomas

At Template:Did you know nominations/PJ and Thomas, theleekycauldron said that the queer-related sources used for the article are in the "reliable-ish area". It does appear that she is referring to all such sources that have been used, but my June 23 ping and my user talk page comment has gone unanswered. I stated that I wanted to try replacing all of the problematic sources with new ones. I'm also posting this here due the comments "reliable-ish", "shaky", and "seems quite clickbaity" in relation to the references. I said, "It doesn't seem like the best idea to hold the nomination up without a wider discussion about the sources." on the nomination page, but that hasn't been acknowledged. Pinging creator Bi-on-ic and nominator Daniel Case. SL93 (talk) 11:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The complaint is too vague to be actionable. "These are more, shall we say, tvtropes.com than they are The A.V. Club" doesn't illuminate anything. For what was named: Gaily Grind's titling policies have no bearing on their reliability, PopSugar is reliable for entertainment, and Men's Vows is just being used to cite their own self-descriptions. Source reliability is assessed by what sources are being used for, or a general pattern of behavior, not a generic indictment of what they choose to cover or how they write. Taysha Murtaugh is a normal reporter and Country Living is a normal, general purpose lifestyle magazine, so the hook is fine. I don't know what this source is, though, so it can probably be removed. DYK assesses broad policy compliance. It is not peer review. Urve (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I will give theleekycauldron a chance to respond here, but I am very close to promoting the hook. SL93 (talk) 22:09, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Just an update- theleekycauldron has informed me that she will take care of this later. Thankfully, the comment also mentioned them taking care of empty preps which really is a relief to hear. SL93 (talk) 23:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
  • The sources are not 'problematic' and as I mentioned before they're not all 'queer-related'. Yes, some of them are e.g. Out magazine with the highest circulation amongst LGBTQ publications in the US but not all the sources are lgbt outlets. Even if that was the case, it still wouldn't be a problem. They're gay and they're being covered by gay-related media outlets.
There's no issue here. The hook is backed up by multiple reliable, independent sources. And again, sources that are not just 'entertainment/queer related'. Bionic (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
That's what I figure. SL93 (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I fully expect this to go ahead soon, so I'll just say what I have to say and then I'll get out of everyone's way. The hook is fine. Now that it's been resourced to Country Living, that's a reliable source for sure.
I not sure I understand why we have a paragraph about them appearing in corporate advertisements when all of the sources provided are either primary to the subject or primary to the company – if secondary sources haven't covered the appearances, I don't see why it merits inclusion, much less inclusion to the point of a list of brands. There's another sentence about their real estate work that is sourced to their YouTube channel and realtor.com. Several sentences about the details of their personal lives and proposals to each other, sourced to statements they gave to mensvows.com. A sentence sourced to "Maria Shriver's Sunday Paper" when Out supports the same. A sentence covering the basic synopsis of their show, and that fourth Gaily Grind source seems completely extraneous? The final sentence in the "Backgrounds" section about them quitting their jobs is sourced to a company blog and their YouTube channel.
Taken together, while I have yet to state that all queer publications are reliable, or that this article relies entirely on queer publications, I think that that this relies too heavily on subpar sourcing; in addition to everything I've stated above, the article also uses another company blog/self-styled magazine (this time, The Nopo) and edge media network, for which I couldn't find much evidence of external reputation. With that said, anyone is free to go ahead and promote this without providing a response here. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
I've removed that and quite a bit of other puffery that was in the article. Given that some of what I removed had been removed by TLC a couple of days ago and added back by the creator, promoters may want to keep an eye on article stability before promoting. valereee (talk) 14:12, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I'm afraid this is turning into WP:BLUD.
I don't see the point of splitting hairs here. Cherry-picking statements about some policies to prevent an editor from improving the article and adding sourced content is not constructive.
This is not a featured article nomination, it's DYK nomination. Those LGBT magazines may not be big news organizations such as the New York Times but they're reliable & sufficient for citation. Bionic (talk) 12:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Prep 4

McLaren MCL35

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.

These two sources say that the McLaren MCL35 was painted - Race Fans and GPTODAY. Pinging nominator 5225C. SL93 (talk) 22:53, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Those two sources are far, far less reliable than McLaren itself. 5225C (talk • contributions) 02:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
There is this also - Crash. I'm pretty sure that Formula One is reliable, and it reposted from McLaren. Maybe quote the relevant part of the book? SL93 (talk) 02:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
The McLaren Racing Yearbook is a McLaren publication. McLaren have been quite clear elsewhere it's vinyl. It's fairly common to refer to a vinyl livery as a paintjob by convention (McLaren even mention in that link that it's still called "the paintshop" even though that department now does vinyl), and I imagine that that is the where the confusion has arisen. Unfortunately I'm presently at university and I only have the 2021 yearbook on hand, not the 2020 yearbook, so I can't get the exact quote for you. There are alternative hooks available if required. 5225C (talk • contributions) 06:21, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
5225C That source says, "Our car is mostly wrapped but has specific areas unsuitable for wrapping. Those are painted with high-performance coatings from our partner AkzoNobel – the titanium Halo being a good example of a part that does better with paint." SL93 (talk) 12:42, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Pinging reviewer Bruxton and great error checker Amakuru for their thoughts. SL93 (talk) 12:59, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I am really not sure how the paint schemes on all race cars work. I will use Indy cars for an example: for many years in Indy car the drivers all used the same chassis - like Lola Cars and Dallara. Of course each team used their own paint schemes. It is rather difficult from the contradictory sources provided to determine if that is the case here. I am not sure how to proceed here. Bruxton (talk) 13:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@5225C and SL93: FYI - the wording of that hook for this nom in the que was not the approved one. Bruxton (talk) 13:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Ok, but both wordings appear to be incorrect. SL93 (talk) 13:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@5225C and SL93: Understood. And Thanks for your diligence SL93. Can we can come up with a new hook here 5225C? Bruxton (talk) 14:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
The hook is not at incorrect. As I see it, McLaren is kind of an authority on the technical specifications of their car. Anyway, since there is confusion, I am happy for any of the alternative hooks I gave in the nomination to be used. If those are also unacceptable, I can come up with more. 5225C (talk • contributions) 15:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@5225C and SL93: Yes, as I suspected "Are F1 cars painted or wrapped?" they say, "It varies from team to team." So they sell a wrapped car and each team does their own thing like with Indy cars. This is from the same McLaren Q and A, "The surface finish gets all sorts of dings and nicks, which don’t look particularly nice up close and will, of course, cost the team that last thousandth of a second on track. When the cars were being repainted every few races, scraping off the old paint naturally led to the bodywork becoming thinner over time. This doesn’t happen when you can peel the cars instead!" Bruxton (talk) 16:26, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Also while we are discussing the hook, I changed the hook in Prep 4 to the correct approved version. ALT4 ... that the McLaren MCL35 was the first McLaren race car which was not painted? Bruxton (talk) 16:30, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Sorry Bruxton but they sell a wrapped car and each team does their own thing like with Indy cars is not quite correct. Formula One is not a spec series. Every team builds its own car. McLaren built their own car, the MCL35. It was wrapped in vinyl, not painted, but not all teams do that, which is what they are explaining in the bit you quote. McLaren has been quite clear that the MCL35 and its successors have been vinyl wrapped rather than painted. Unfortunately there was a lot of confusion when this switch first happened (since it was a fairly new practice amongst all teams) and this is reflected in the secondary sourcs you and SL93 are quoting (and which McLaren has somewhat explained).

I don't think it's a very good use of our time to try and sort out this hook since I don't have the print source on me so I can't quote it. I would prefer to just move on to one of the alternative hooks and save us all some time. 5225C (talk • contributions) 17:49, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It isn't just a hook issue, but also an error in the article issue. So changing the hook doesn't solve everything. I already quoted the source from McLaren, that you gave, which says that it is only mostly wrapped and part of it is painted. So far, the only such source that might say otherwise is a print source. SL93 (talk) 19:52, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that I might pull the nomination until this is resolved. You said that we should listen to a McLaren source and I quoted your given source which says the opposite. I will quote it for the second time - "Our car is mostly wrapped but has specific areas unsuitable for wrapping. Those are painted with high-performance coatings from our partner AkzoNobel – the titanium Halo being a good example of a part that does better with paint." It comes right before your paintshop quote. SL93 (talk) 20:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
This McLaren source talks about paint throughout it... SL93 (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@5225C and SL93: Thanks for clearing that up. I do not know enough about the series. I have to trust 5225C: they put 353 references into this article about a racing chassis! We should probably move on, but for my own edification, is this the only painted part? The halo? Because if it is we are just picking at the hook. It is a safety device forced on the drivers. File:Räikkönen Ferrari SF71H Testing Barcelona (cropped).jpg Bruxton (talk) 21:45, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
Bruxton It isn't just the halo per this - "As official paint and coatings partner of the McLaren Racing team, the company’s Sikkens brand has helped McLaren to stand out on the grid since 2008. With a new look and design for the 2020 season, all painted parts of the latest race car" and "This season, the car also uses heat-shielding provided by the company’s Protective Coatings business. Intertherm 50 – from the International product range – has been applied to critical components surrounding the engine and exhaust to help them withstand temperatures of up to 540˚C. A single coat of the product is just 25 microns thick – around a third of the width of a human hair." We can move on, but only if the discrepancy between sources are explained in the article per standard Wikipedia practice. I'm not going to trust one McLaren book source over all of the other sources from McLaren and their partner. SL93 (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: Those areas are unseen. The actual body is wrapped. Probably cannot put vinyl in an engine compartment or around an exhaust. Also I was not fond of the other hooks so I think we need more. Bruxton (talk) 22:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
While I do understand that, I do take issue with the same source which 5225C mentioned saying "mostly wrapped". There are also the secondary sources to consider. I will let this be, but I don't believe this is nitpicking with the snarky editors that show up on the Errors page. I don't want to deal with this anymore, but if someone mentions that "mostly wrapped" bit, the article truly might be pulled. SL93 (talk) 22:06, 25 June 2022 (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.

Yi Jeonggyu

For the Yi Jeonggyu hook, the article says "one of the pioneers". Pinging nominator Jirangmoon. SL93 (talk) 22:56, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The issue is now moot. I pulled the hook for copyright violations. I marked the April nomination for closure, but of course I can be overruled by consensus. SL93 (talk) 22:58, 25 June 2022 (UTC)
It is now reopened for fixes. SL93 (talk) 15:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

"First" hooks

We've had – sighs – quite a few valid ERRORS issues, in which a hook with a lone source claims that something is the "first" or "only", only to find out that sourcing that would otherwise be irrelevant to the article disproves the claim. I'm thinking the minimum solution is to recommend a check of outside sourcing for any such exceptional claim, but we can also make it mandatory. What are others' thoughts? Pinging Fram. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:26, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

One possible solution could be to either disallow or discourage pure "first" hooks. I know Yoninah was largely against them, especially in the case of "first woman" hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I hate making up rules. But generally, statements that "X was the first Y to do Z" should not be sourced to articles about X, as many journalists (and even scholars) like the sensationalist "first" as much as we do, and do not necessarily fact check it properly if they find the claim somewhere. Much better to find a general history of Z that claims that X was the first. It is also quite typical that, say, some house is the oldest in a city with a certain property, but then someone unscrupulous writes that is the oldest house in the county or the oldest house in England. And then citogenesis sets in...
Outlawing "first" hooks would probably put a band-aid on the issue, but then we wouldn't discover all the false "first" statements in articles. —Kusma (talk) 10:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Oh, heck. No motivation for taking Martha Washington through GAC to DYK: ... that Martha Washington was the first First Lady and first wife of the first President of the United States during his first term. — Maile (talk) 11:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
"First" issues seems like a wider Wikipedia article issue to me, because sources like to claim people are the "first" but sometimes their fact checking isn't very good. I would say we need to be careful about running "first" hooks, particularly if the "first" attribute is only verified by one source, because lots of sources claiming records seem to do poor fact checking in my experience. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:29, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
This is why I'm usually hesitant to approve hooks that say that someone or something was the first (the Klein case was a lapse of judgement on my part and I apologize for it). Oftentimes "first to do X" are strong and exceptional claims and so we'd ideally want very strong sourcing supporting such claims (and ideally multiple sources too). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I don't think we should be completely outlawing "first" hooks; if it is an interesting fact in the article, verified by multiple sources, there should not be any issue. However, we shouldn't be relying on just one source. In general, "... that X was the first to do Z", should be used only is Z is (1) a notable accomplishment (2) and is well documented, verifiable through multiple sources. Also, "... that X was the first Y to do Z": here, Y should only be added if it is too notable, well documented, and is actually first. It is easy to make "that X was the first chairman of Z" → "that X was the first [race] [ethnicity] [sex] chairman of Z", but is of-course not a good practice. – Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I never suggested that "first" hooks be completely outlawed, just that the sourcing for them has to be strong, especially for particularly strong statements. A while back there was a nomination about a person who was said to be the first lesbian with a daily column in the US, and I had to recuse myself because I felt that a subject expert was needed to verify if such an exceptional claim was indeed true. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:10, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I think statements like this need to not just be verified by comparing with a few sources, but more thoroughly fact checked. Typically, sources about Z are better than sources about X at establishing that "X was the first to do Z" because sources about Z can provide context, while sources about X tend to be tempted to make their subject more interesting by omitting a few qualifiers, say "X was the first left-handed person to do Z while wearing a waistcoat". —Kusma (talk) 12:33, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I would just make it a new rule, especially for any new reviewers who would think that it's good enough that the cited source says it. SL93 (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Let's look through some more examples to discuss what is and isn't acceptable sourcing. In order not to embarrass anyone, here are my own "first" hooks:
  • ... that the first New Testament in English was printed by Peter Schöffer the Younger in Worms?
    Sourced in the article to the Oxford DNB entry about Tyndale, which states "the small printer Peter Schoeffer undertook an English New Testament, the first ever made". Some qualifiers are missing to exclude Wycliffe's Bible (the Tyndale bible was the first printed one, or the first translated from Hebrew and Greek). Questionable but hopefully not too misleading. Still, would be better if someone (for example me) had caught this and clarified the first-ness.
  • ... that Ulf Merbold, the first West German in space, grew up in East Germany?
    There's a ton of sources for "first West German in space" and there are lists of all people who've been to space so this one is easy to check.
  • ... that all inmates of Nohra concentration camp, the first Nazi concentration camp, were communists?
    The sourcing for this fact in the article may look fishy, as one of the sources is a newspaper article, the other is specifically about Nohra. However, it is in a book about all early concentration camps, and the introduction of the book (which includes about a hundred camps) explicitly states that Nohra was the first.
Even though I try to be careful with "first", I did not thoroughly fact check the Tyndale Bible, and neither did anyone else involved with that hook. For all three, there would have been OK hooks without mentioning a "first". —Kusma (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • First, biggest, oldest, tallest, only -- these should all be red flags. Sources making such statements needs to be in a position to know. That means, for example, that a local newspaper saying that Smallville's X is the first X to be Y in the United States should probably not be taken as reliable without careful consideration. EEng 17:54, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
    Yes, "how can we be sure the author knows that?" is a good and perhaps the central question to ask. Two more examples that were caught before they hit the Main Page: first drag show in Beirut, first girl band to play their own instruments and be signed with a major label. In the first case, the hook was verified to a journalist's personal experience (and Fram then found a book with older stories and the hook was pulled). Also, the source may have meant "the first drag show that featured performer X". In the second case, the claim might be true depending on the definitions of "girl band" and "major label", but we can't tell what definitions of these words are meant originally, and there are definitions that make the claim false. —Kusma (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
There is always a first. No reason to discourage stating what is verifiable. First in space...First to the moon...first to launch a nuclear attack etc. Sometimes we miss something, and we repent and try to do better. Bruxton (talk) 21:20, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
"Trying to do better" is exactly what we're aiming at here, and that starts with recognizing that certain kinds of sources, in certain kinds of contexts, feel free to make boosterish claims that something is first, biggest, oldest etc., without really having any way of knowing that. You were taken in by such a source with regard to Template:Did you know nominations/Atomitat but don't seem to have repented.
An assertion is verifiable if it is cited to a source reliable for the purposes of that assertion, and what I suspect you're still not getting is that a given source isn't 100% reliable or 100% unreliable -- its reliability depends on context. So when a small-town newspaper says that a local contractor built "the first home in the U.S. to meet civil defense specifications as a nuclear shelter", with nothing to indicate how in the world they could possibly know that, we need to either omit that "fact" or (maybe) convert it into "The builder of Atomitat claimed that it was the first ...". EEng 21:45, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

prep 7

Now in prep 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Jesus Christus, Menschensohn, but it has a deletion discussion begun today. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 15:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for letting us know, Gerda Arendt. We'll have to pull the hook and reopen the nomination while the AfD discussion is ongoing. I'll take care of it. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: Sorry that it was nominated. I will see what I can find in the way of sources to bring to the AfD. Bruxton (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I expected that in the beginning, but not after several users checked it out. I added a "Liedporträt" which would offer more detail. This is song was written in 2005, - the was just not the reaction yet a 1599 song got ;) - What do you think about the crop of the author's pic in his article? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
It could be cropped to a headshot. But it is good. Bruxton (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Erik Johansson (artist)

There is some disagreement on whether or not this nomination should be granted an IAR exemption to the 5x expansion deadline. On one hand, the article took 53 days to be expanded and nominated. On the other hand, the nominator is a new student editor who apart from a single edit yesterday to remove the images appears to have ceased editing. Given the circumstances, should the nomination be granted an IAR exemption, or should such a request be declined? Pinging all those who have commented on the nomination page: @Victuallers, Theleekycauldron, Maury Markowitz, BlueMoonset, and Bruxton: Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:45, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Its an orphan, bending the rules to encourage a newbie is always a good idea - but there is no engaged newbie. So get rid of it Victuallers (talk) 07:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I don't agree. Just run it, perhaps it might even tempt the newbie back if they happen to see the fruits of their labour on the main page. And the downside is purely procedural, there's no encyclopaedic reason not to run this. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
There is some irony when we express concern that it took 53 days to build out this article yet it mouldered away in the noms list for almost a month before being reviewed. No harm will come from running it, and there is every chance the "newbie" is no longer involved precisely because we failed them in this process. Maury Markowitz (talk) 11:51, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
That probably wasn't a newbie. Most students are here for the requirements, which often include extra credit for making a DYK nom. After they've emailed proof to the prof and gotten the extra ten points, they're done. Semester ends, got the grade, move on to next semester's classes. I'm sure every once in a while someone gets the bug, and it's good to be educating people in how wikipedia works, but most of these students aren't actually what we commonly think of as new editors. valereee (talk) 13:10, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
At least this process made this a better article. It was rather promotional initially and many of our editors cleaned it up. It looks like this one is a no. Have a great weekend everyone! Bruxton (talk) 16:57, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
edit, who am I kidding, it is still rather promotional. Bruxton (talk) 16:58, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) It is typical of student editors who post a DYK nomination, whether involved in WikiEdu or not (this one wasn't), to do so at the end of the semester when even a review within the week would take place after they've completed the course and moved on. In this case, the tutor/instructor was also new to DYK, so I doubt getting in touch with them will help much, and the nominator herself hasn't responded to pings. This nomination was 46 days late, and that's so far beyond anything we've allowed before that I'm surprised it's being considered for IAR. I'm completely against running it in those circumstances. I also don't see why a student editor should get so much extra consideration as opposed to a regular novice editor; we'd never allow a 46-day-late nomination in that case. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)
I'd consider it with someone I thought was good-faith simply not realizing and was actually a new editor, just to encourage them. But we probably won't see Jane6592 again. :) valereee (talk) 17:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Given the lack of consensus to IAR exempt I guess it's safe to simply close the nom? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Prep area 6: Flag of Prince Edward Island

Since this was not chosen as the picture hook of Prep area 6 (running on July 1 – Canada Day) and we're only doing one set a day, I'd like this to be moved to Prep area 7 and used as the picture hook. —Bloom6132 (talk) 10:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Bloom6132 I can do that, but prep 7 is shown as being filled despite having been moved to a queue. Maybe a step was missed. Pinging Amakuru. SL93 (talk) 10:36, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: That's all right, I got it – you can move the hook now theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
For the record, anyone can cycle the preps without needing to touch the queues if this step is missed; simply update Template:Did you know/Queue/NextPrep, and make sure not to write 8. Also, make sure to rake the prep. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:44, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@SL93 and Theleekycauldron: we don't normally give people picture hooks on request do we? And I've been told off for this in the past! But if you guys give me the go-ahead then I'll do it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
(And sorry, I've just realised you weren't actually requesting me to do the move anyway, just tidy up after myself occasionally 😄)  — Amakuru (talk) 10:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
My understanding here is that in general, the regulars should try to give deference to the promoting prepper's judgement, and we ask that nominators do the same. In this case, SL93 did promote both hooks, so it's basically his ball if he wants to honour the request – I'm not entirely sure I would make the same choice, but it's close enough that I'm fine letting him do his thing. funnily enough, Amakuru, I think I do remember lightly telling you off for this back in January...theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't sure how it goes for specifically special occasion requests, but I personally don't want to use a flag as an image. SL93 (talk) 10:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Well, Bloom is specifically asking you to ignore the special occasion for the lead slot's sake – I'd have to imagine that's a weight against making the swap, and if you're not inclined to give it the lead hook anyway... theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 10:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Yep, sounds like we should just leave it as is, given the above, with regrets to Bloom!  — Amakuru (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I will say that the hook does lean more than lightly on the image – maybe there's something a bit more standalone in terms of hooks? I thought it was catchy ... that the flag of Prince Edward Island must always be lit when flown? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 11:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The same could be said about the flag of Western Australia. In other words, not a unique feature. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

We've had the flag of New Brunswick run as the lead hook for Canada Day 2017 and the flag of Nova Scotia run as the lead hook last year. I'm already not asking to bump File:Ultraschallschwingungen in Apparatur von Franziska Seidl.jpg off (which is blurrier than the flag of PEI), so I think my request is fairly reasonable. If my request cannot be accommodated for the next available prep running July 2, then I'd like the hook to be un-promoted and reconsidered as the lead image for a later date. —Bloom6132 (talk) 11:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I can remove the other image if that is the consensus, but I don't feel like using a flag when we have much more interesting images in the approved list. SL93 (talk) 11:39, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
But that is just my thought and Wikipedia is much bigger than one editor. SL93 (talk) 11:41, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
That's why I'm not asking for File:Ultraschallschwingungen in Apparatur von Franziska Seidl.jpg to be bumped off from the lead hook on July 1. I'm simply asking for the flag of PEI to be used as the lead hook on any other date of your choosing. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I realize that, but I only mentioned it due to the blurry image comment. I will leave the use of the flag image to others because I honestly don't ever see myself using that image. SL93 (talk) 12:05, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
If we've already used flags as lead hooks around this time, that might actually be a point against running this as an image hook because it would probably be more fair to give a chance to other topics instead. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I don’t see any other Canada-related hooks that are being deprived of air-time as the lead hook. And bios (specifically US ones) are featured ad nauseam as lead hooks. They hardly need to be “give[n] a chance”. —Bloom6132 (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
To be fair, it's not like DYK doesn't agree that the US bias is an issue. Ideally we wouldn't want it to happen at all, it's really just a consequence of most DYK submission being US-related to begin with. There's a reason why we try to not have consecutive US-related lead hooks as much as possible. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Bloom6132, not every image gets an image slot. We have too many images for that. If you believe a particular hook really needs the image slot, state that in a comment to the promoter. valereee (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I'm the promoter. I feel that the blurry image looks clear enough at a small size. Even if it wasn't that way to me, and even if I placed a non-bio there, I wouldn't choose a boring flag for the image slot. Others are free to override me though. SL93 (talk) 20:26, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: Having had DYK hooks promoted since 2012, I'm very much aware of that. In fact, most of my DYKs nominated with an image have not been featured in the image slot. AFAIK, the last time we ran a DYK with a flag in the image slot was the flag of Nova Scotia exactly a year ago. So the argument made above that this is "too soon" or too frequent an occurrence just doesn't wash. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Actually we've had at least two image hooks that featured a flag (or at least elements of a flag) on DYK this year: the Juneteenth flag and Arnaud Balard. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:21, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The hook was pulled from prep by the nominator so that a different promoter could use the image hook. Fine, but honestly, it's never on the promoter for not choosing a certain image when not every image can be used. SL93 (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
We've had plenty of flag hooks in the past; I don't see why we should be featuring a major percentage of them, and would in principle be against allowing this hook to be a lead image after the nominator has pulled it from prep themselves, which they should not do. SL93, by all means, stick to your guns. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:08, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree, that was improper. Nominators do not own their hooks, and have no veto power over when and where it runs. I also don't see any sort of consensus for that kind of pull and replace, not for a lack of participants. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:15, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I have reverted the removal. Bloom6132, you're welcome to discuss things here, but you cannot unpromote your own nomination from prep. If you prefer to withdraw the nomination entirely, that is certainly within your purview, but please make the request here and someone will do it for you. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
There is nothing in WP:DYK or WP:DYKSG that stipulate that a nominator cannot pull their own hook. I could see your point if I modified my own hook in the prep area, but pulling my hook from the prep is completely within my purview. You're simply making up a rule that does not exist. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:27, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Strictly speaking, yes. However, while it's not a hard rule, there is prevailing consensus at WT:DYK that nominators are strongly discouraged from editing their own hooks in prep without consensus. At the very least, pulling your own hook from prep seems to be in spirit similar to editing your own hook in prep and that would fall under that same guideline. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
we're (at least, I'm) not arguing that nominators are always unable to pull their hook; we're arguing that by overriding the existing consensus in the thread, you're asserting a special right by way of being a nominator that is also not listed in WP:DYK or WP:DYKSG. These things are resolved by consensus, and I see the word of SL93, BlueMoonset, valereee, Amakuru, and myself all pointing towards leaving the hook in its non-lead slot in prep 6. DYK's image slot would be severely backlogged if every nominator could force their hooks to be promoted there. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Bloom removed it again. I'm pretty that is edit warring. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the pulling. Bloom, if you want the hook to be pulled and moved to another set, please discuss here first rather than pulling it yourself. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Naruto, and just adding to the above comments that is is self-evident WP:COMMONSENSE that a nominator can't revert the actions of a prep builder on their own hook, any more than they can promote or approve their own hook, particularly when the sole motivation is to try and get a better slot. The hook should either remain where it's been placed, or withdrawn entirely with no reopening, those are the options here. We'd all like image hooks every time, but ultimately those decisions rest with the prep builders.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Bloom6132, for the second time (this was the first) moved their hook from the fourth slot to the second slot of Prep 6 with the edit summary placement in queue should reflect that it is a special occasion hook. It is improper for them to be giving themselves better placement—the special occasion is granted for the day, and position within the set has never been guaranteed. I have moved it back to its original position in the set, as arranged by preparer SL93. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:07, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Bloom, this is disruptive. Please stop. valereee (talk) 16:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Until someone can clearly point out which rule(s) I am contravening, there is nothing "improper" here. DYK does not operate on BlueMoonset's diktat the last time I checked. The hook's content and the fact that it is running on the special occasion remain unchanged, so nothing is being disrupted here (contrary to what is being argued). If you're now wanting to litigate something as pedantic as hook placement, … —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Seriously it's exhausting how many rules people need to keep them from being disruptive. valereee (talk) 19:05, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
The rule is you don't touch your own noms after they have been approved. —Kusma (talk) 19:30, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
@Kusma: please point out in what way my nom has been "touched" since it has been approved. The wording of the hook is identical to what it was when nominated, and it is being run on the special occasion date requested. Do you need diffs for that? —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Seriously it's exhausting how many "rules" you keep inventing out of thin air to have my nom run on the exact date and the exact position in the queue that you want it to. It's really getting to the point of obsessive now. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
@Bloom6132, the reason we have an unwritten rule against noms messing with their hooks in prep is because it is disruptive but we didn't think we had to write it down. You are being disruptive here. And frankly I feel like you're begging your server to spit in your soup. valereee (talk) 21:06, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Nobody is "making rules out of thin air" here, it's long-standing precedent that people can't tinker with the placement of their own Hooks in the preps. And frankly it's completely obvious why that must be the case. We all want our hooks in the top (or maybe bottom) slots, and if it were a free-for-all then the preps would just be a den of edit warring. We don't need to write every single scenario that might ever occur as a hard-coded rule, that's not how Wikipedia works. It's sufficient here that the consensus is firmly against any move of this hook. You're a very valued and experienced contributor, Bloom, and you don't need to escalate this dispute any further. Please WP:DROPTHESTICK. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 21:40, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: There is no such unwritten rule or long-standing precedent against such. The only precedent that exists (from this ANI) is that a nom cannot edit their hook in the prep from the one that was approved. And even Maile66 stated that: "as for this alleged rule, it either should be in writing, or it should not be applicable. We can't just assert it's a rule when we want to revert someone." The content of my hook is identical to what was approved. You're being obsessive here. That's fine – extra nourishment and I wasn't even intending to tip. —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Everyone here knew you were looking for a reason not to tip. We've seen a lot of that, and we've gotten so we recognize it. valereee (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
If there wasn't such a thought about editors not editing their own hooks, that sanction wouldn't have been handed to The C of E in the first place. The idea already existed, it was simply made explicit for The C of E rather than being an unwritten convention. If anything, I'm surprised it hasn't been codified yet in DYK's rules. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Given that there's long-standing consensus that editors are discouraged from editing their own hooks in Prep, should that be codified in WP:DYKSG? Wasn't that page supposed to document guidelines that have consensus? I guess this means it could be mentioned there? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

  • I got pinged. If there's a rule about moving your own hook, it should be in writing. Saying "unwritten rule" is just something a person makes up as an excuse for their actions. Especially here, where we try to add and adapt rules in writing all the time. SL93 looking at the entirety of this, if anyone has been editing warring, this is certainly a case where it took two or more to dance that tango. As for the flag of Prince Edward Island, the hook is meaningless without the image. I think we should find a lead spot for it somewhere down the line. — Maile (talk) 22:57, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
  • I was about to agree with that part when the nominator initially pulled the hook for later use, but I was told to stick to my guns and the discussion became longer and longer. SL93 (talk) 23:01, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Technically there's no rule that editors aren't allowed to move their hooks or even pull them themselves. In practice, given that there's long-standing consensus that noms are discouraged (I wouldn't say prohibited because some IAR good-faith exceptions could happen) from editing their own hooks in preps, allowing noms to move or pull their hooks kinda goes against the spirit of the idea. Sure, it's not technically prohibited, but doesn't it violate the spirit of the guideline anyway? It's basically a loophole, and ideally one that should be closed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:04, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree this hook needs the image. The solution is to comment that when you nominate, not to move your own hook after it's been promoted. valereee (talk) 23:16, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
They made a very specific request on the nomination, " Please save for July 1, Canada Day (1867) and 149th anniversary of PEI joining Confederation (1873) (exactly 6 weeks from now)." I think that would be Prep6→Queue 6. Surely, we can accommodate Canada Day. — Maile (talk) 23:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
Regardless of the merits of the idea of the hook being in the image slot or not, it being an image hook after all this could be interpreted as rewarding such behavior. And frankly, that's something I cannot get behind. For what it's worth, I do agree that the image would have helped the hook, but the hook has already been promoted. The promoters made their decision. It sucks that it doesn't have the image, but that's the way DYK works. I would have been more supportive of it being an image hook had it not been for the "I'll just pull the hook myself since it's not in the image slot" shenanigans, but after that, I don't think we should be rewarding such actions. Basically, had the nominator just asked nicely here for an image slot instead of pulling the hook themselves (and thus technically editing their own hook in prep), I would have been sold on the idea. But after what has transpired, I'd be disinclined to approve their request. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: "had the nominator just asked nicely here for an image slot" – in case you haven't noticed, I started this discussion off with the words: "Since this was not chosen as the picture hook of Prep area 6 (running on July 1 – Canada Day) and we're only doing one set a day, I'd like this to be moved to Prep area 7 and used as the picture hook." Don't see how much more nicely I can ask. Of course, apologies in advance for not adding the word "please" or "thank you" in there. —Bloom6132 (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
If there was consensus not to run it as an image hook, there's not really much you could have done there. It's not like the hook wouldn't run at all, so not being in the image slot, while admittedly disappointing (and I am speaking from experience here), is not the end of the world. And to be honest, your pulling of the hook after that consensus emerged probably hurt your cause more than helped, because had you not done that I imagine more people would have been sympathetic to the hook being moved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:53, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
(edit conflict) You did ask nicely it's true, but the prep builder stated that they were not minded to make the change, as the flag was not the most interesting choice for an image slot. Others supported that, particularly as we don't usually grant image slots on request. That should have been the end of the matter, but instead we've had a bizarre sequence of unauthorised edits to the sets and an WP:IDHT argument with numerous experienced DYK honchos, which is frankly very unbecoming of yourself. I suggest we archive this thread because the Flag of PEI hook isn't going to be moved now, unless you pull it from DYK entirely.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:59, 27 June 2022 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: I don't believe a declaration by the promoter that "I personally don't want to use a flag as an image" constitutes anything remotely resembling consensus. Establishing a cordon sanitaire around flag images flies in the face of the letter and spirit of DYKSG J2 instructing a promoter to "choose a varied selection". —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
It's probably time to drop the stick. Multiple people have objected to the hook being in the image slot, especially after the prep shenanigans. It's true that only one promoter explicitly disagreed with it being in the image slot, but others who commented others did not oppose them and did not appear to be convinced that the hook should be in the image slot. In any case, there did not appear to be consensus in favor of the hook being an image hook, and judging by what has transpired, it would be hard to overturn said consensus now. To reiterate what Amakuru said: it's time to drop the stick and move on. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru: I could easily withdraw this nom and resurrect this when this article passes GAN in order to get an image slot. But I'm not going to because it would give the appearance of gaming the system. What's truly unbecoming is that I've proposed several viable alternatives here, but they've been instantly shot down by absolutists who seem hellbent on dictating when this hook should run (I did ask for any date other than July 1 so that this could run in the image slot) and in what position in the queue it should appear in. And since I made the special occasion request at the outset, surely I'm allowed to withdraw that request? Or is that another unwritten rule? —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Frankly, pulling your own hook just because you disagreed with its placement or lack of an image, in the hopes it being promoted to another set with the image, already was kind of gaming the system. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Thanks so much for assuming good faith … —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
@Valereee: "The solution is to comment that when you nominate, not to move your own hook after it's been promoted." – you do realize that I never moved my hook into the image slot of any prep area (July 1 or any other date). You're proposing a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
What is wrong with the hook not being in the image slot? Would the world end if the hook didn't run with the image? Does it even matter in the long run? In the end, the hook will still run and it will still run on Canada Day. If there isn't consensus for the hook to be in the image slot, then shouldn't simply running on DYK at all be satisfying enough? As said multiple times by multiple editors above, we all want to have our hooks be in the image slot but we have to accept that such requests can't always be granted. Personally, I have nominated hooks in the past with images that I asked if they could be image hooks, but the requests weren't granted. Was it disappointing? Admittedly, yes. Was it the end of the world? No, because at the end of the day, the hooks still ultimately ran, and that's really what matters DYK-wise. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I do see statements from DYK veterans such as "the hook is meaningless without the image" and "this hook needs the image". For someone who used the word "consensus" ten times in this discussion, you seem to be listening to only one side. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Only one of those ultimately sided with the idea of it being moved to an image slot. The other comment was taken out of context, given the subsequent phrase "The solution is to comment that when you nominate, not to move your own hook after it's been promoted." (emphasis mine). To me at least the idea sounds like "I agree that the hook should have had the image, but that's water under the bridge now". For what it's worth, I actually agree that the hook would have been better with the image, but like I said, the promoter has spoken and as much as I think the hook works better without the image, it's not like it not having the image would hurt. And after all this pulling shenanigans, I'd actually be disinclined to support it being an image hook now, because we really shouldn't be rewarding editors for breaking one of DYK's long-standing practices (i.e. not editing your own hook in prep). Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:47, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
I was not quoting out of context. Valeree's second sentence is non sequitur (as I pointed out above), since I never moved the hook to an image slot. And which part of my hook was edited by me in the prep? The wording has been exactly the same throughout. —Bloom6132 (talk) 00:58, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
You edited your hook (by pulling it) after it had already been promoted. Technically you didn't reword your hook, but you still edited the prep in question, a practice that is discouraged at DYK. Multiple editors already told you not to do that but you repeated the action multiple times. Simply put: you should not have edited the prep where your hook was, and you shouldn't have pulled your own hook from prep. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:15, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@Maile66: with you stating that "the hook is meaningless without the image" and Valeree stating "this hook needs the image", I'd like to withdraw the special occasion request I made when nominating the hook. I'm pretty sure this is completely within the rules. —Bloom6132 (talk) 02:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Bloom6132 OK. Whatever works for you, is fine with me. — Maile (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
@Maile66: to effect this, could I please trouble you to pull it from the prep? I'm certain I'd get reverted (again) if I were to do it myself. —Bloom6132 (talk) 03:04, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
 Done sorry it worked out this way for you. — Maile (talk) 03:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Comment - I have repromoted this hook into prep 3, as it remained ready to go and there seems no reason for it to longer in preps. There was solid consensus above that there was no special reason to give this one special treatment for an image slot on demand, which isn't generally granted. I expect Bloom6132 will be disappointed by this, but I don't see any procedural reason not to proceed with the hook as is.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • You are clearly WP:INVOLVED in this discussion (not in a neutral capacity) and should not be the one making the call here. Last time I checked, WP:INVOLVED is a policy that cannot be overridden by any WT:DYK. —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:09, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Update - Bloom6132 once again attempted to revert my action to promote their hook here, citing WP:INVOLVED (which doesn't apply as this isn't an admin action, and anyway at this point most of the DYK community have contributed here and mostly to back up SL93's decision not to make a picture hook of this, so what's going on, are we waiting for a sympathetic editor who hasn't posted here yet? That would be absurd.) I've reverted them again, as once again it's out of process to tinker with your own hook. Happy to hear opinions on all this again, but I think it's all been said above. It's getting close to the point at which the continued disruption to the queues may need to be escalated, this is becoming a timesink.  — Amakuru (talk)
@Amakuru: Your promotion was reverted once again. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • (edit conflict) Not every image can be posted at DYK, and we seem to post tonnes of flag images anyway. Bloom6132 is clearly just wikilawyering here to try and get their own way, which is not appropriate, and is causing an obvious time sink. Either they let the DYK process run the same as every other hook, or they should be topic banned from DYK, if all they want to do is be a time sink and argue. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    And I'm pretty sure they've violated WP:3RR and WP:AGF with their wikilawyering, so probably about time they get administrative action for this farce. Joseph2302 (talk) 13:24, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:3RR was not violated. Neither was WP:AGF. But I'm not surprised you're resorting to falsehoods given your stated intent to have me topic banned from DYK. For shame. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • WP:INVOLVED is not limited to admin action: "editors should not act as administrators in disputes in which they have been involved. This is because involved administrators may be, or appear to be, incapable of making objective decisions in disputes to which they have been a party or about which they have strong feelings". —Bloom6132 (talk) 13:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Bloom, I really suggest you drop the stick and move on while you still can. If you continue to do your reversions and actions, I can't see this ending well for you. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
"editors should not act as administrators...". The wording is right there in what you posted. Promoting a hook to prep is not acting as an administrator, as any editor can do so.  — Amakuru (talk) 13:28, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether you're acting as an administrator or not. You're a party to this dispute and you should not be making decisions related to it. Funny that Narutolovehinata5 understands this, given that they self-reverted their initial promotion of the nom. —Bloom6132 (talk) 21:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Bonnie Tan, Goldwin Monteverde

I've removed the credits for Bonnie Tan in Prep 1, as it was originally nominated but apparently deemed ineligible. But, looking at the nom page, the hook (now with just Goldwin Monteverde bold) appears to have been promoted without a final approval tick. Nominator: Howard the Duck, reviewers: TonyTheTiger and Maury Markowitz, also commenting: BlueMoonset and SL93, promoter: Theleekycauldron.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  20:02, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

This has been noted. Thanks. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:03, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
that's my bad – I can revert the promotion, but it seems like the issues were addressed already. If SL93 and TonyTheTiger verify that ALT1 is in the article and spin.ph is good to use, we can just keep it there. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
It was previously discussed that the Tan article can be boldfaced too if it's expanded to ~3.2k characters. I mean, that can be done if both articles will be boldfaced. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
@Howard the Duck: If you'd like to go that route, I can pull it to give more time for an expansion and re-review. However, that really should have happened before. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 20:56, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Can this be removed I'd like to see if I can expand this to see both articles boldfaced. Howard the Duck (talk) 21:30, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
done. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:10, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

More prep builders are needed in general

More prep builders are needed in general, and not just for short periods of time. theleekycauldron and I have filled most of what are currently in the preps. What typically happens is that someone asks for more prep builders when the current ones, or current one, gets tired out. That is when we have more people help out for a few days at most and then the process quickly repeats itself. Editors are so willing to complete the other DYK things such as creating, expanding, nominating, and reviewing although almost no one seems to want to help out on the penultimate step of getting hooks to the main page. It's frustrating. SL93 (talk) 00:33, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure you are right. I have enough difficulty with the templates for nominating, so I don't think I could do it, but there are plenty of people outside DYK regulars who love that sort of thing (& don't like doing articles). Here is probably the wrong place to recruit. I know there have been suggestions before, but some sort of offer of training/monitoring/supervision for new people who aren't used to DYK & its little ways would probably help get new blood. Johnbod (talk) 00:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
You phrasing suggests vampires plotting to expand the "family". EEng 02:02, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't feel inclined to help with preps for a while, if ever again. SL93 (talk) 01:47, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: I just saw this now. Take a break but please come back because DYK needs your expertise. I had a go at prep sets a few times, and I realize there is a learning curve - written and unwritten rules, and past practices and other minutia. When a valuable editor steps back we see the ripple effect on the project. For example, recently one of our most prolific NPP editors caught a block they announced a retirement from NPP, and a large backlog of unreviewed articles began piling up. Thanks for all you do in this area, I will certainly miss your experience while you are on break. One person really does make a difference. Bruxton (talk) 14:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: I am sorry that you feel this way. I agree that more prep builders are needed, and I wish I had more time to help lately. I have noticed that sometimes when I have time to prep build, most of the preps are full because prep builders (and usually a small group of them) have been doing a great job promoting hooks; it has been many months since I have been concerned that DYK does not have enough filled preps. I suggest that, if any prep builder feels burned out, they pull back for a while and give space for new/other prep builders to step up and learn the process. If the preps are mostly empty, editors will post a notice on WT:DYK. I hope that you continue to enjoy editing Wikipedia, no matter how you are contributing. Z1720 (talk) 03:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Queue 5

I have changed this hook as the original one's grammar seemed a bit off. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

to

DYK's June (and May!) wrapped, 2022

C. J. Cregg: ... he wants to know if we want to say something funny.
Carol Fitzpatrick: "That's twice in four years, some of you guys must really be mad at me?"
C. J.: Something funnier than that, but... yeah.
From The West Wing's "Evidence of Things Not Seen" (2003)

Hi everyone, and welcome to yet another installment of the DYK wrapped! I hope we've all come to accept by now that this is just gonna be an on-off thing for the foreseeable future. For now, we shall start as we have always done, with a selection of our best-performing hooks![a] Did you know...

Good stuff, quite good stuff. So, what's happened? Quite a lot! No huge, flashy RfCs, but we have been attempting to start our very first rendition of the "unreviewed backlog mode" proposal as the backlog of unreviewed hooks spiked. I have consistently delayed my promise to implement an approved bot that will check for post-promotion modifications to hooks, but we have introduced PSHAW, the Prep Set's Half-Assed Workbench, an automatic DYK promotion tool! It makes life much easier for those who work in the preps. The table column that gives us the approved hook count broke... twice, actually! We've had a couple discussions on who gets to decide what goes in the image slot, a discussion on how and if the Juneteenth flag should get an image slot (spoiler alert: it did), and more discussions about hook accuracy – the last being courtesy of WP:ERRORS. And though we've welcomed new nominators and welcomed back old faces, we've also had to say goodbye to our longtime prepper, SL93, as he takes a well-earned indefinite break from the craziness that is DYK's promotion process. Speaking of the prep set promotion process, has the SOHA been moved yet?

yes, actually.

Oh, lovely! Big thanks to Wugapodes! As a special nod to Schwede66, I want to (four months late) mention his work on the Weston House hook. As he left on my talk page:

Weston House was part of a triple nom. Stunning architecture, highest heritage rating, and it got bowled soon after the Christchurch earthquakes. Once I had written the article, I contacted the owner; really just to draw her attention to it as it was clear from her blog that she had a deep affinity for the building. She loved it! Got a real thrill out of seeing her old house on Wikipedia. Told me that her husband, with whom she had a shared love for the building, had since died. She dug out some neat photos and I coached her how to upload them to Commons. That's where we got the eventual lead hook photo from, with that photo classes better than the one it replaced while the hook sat in the queue. And to top it all off, by pure coincidence we had this on the MP on her wedding day, which she was very pleased with.

We do make a difference on the personal level sometimes :) Lastly, our lovely quality quirkies, which are much easier to find now that the WP:DYKSTATS page has been largely overhauled by yours truly! Actually, to tangent about that for just a second – if you go there, and to the "Monthly DYK pageview leaders" tab, you can see all kinds of cool month-over-month stats to show how DYK hooks perform! It's easy to find your own hooks, and copy and paste the template code to make your own table. And now, back to the quality quirkies! Did you know...

That is all I've got – hopefully, finishing the modification checker comes soon? I've got no guarantees. Excited for what comes next, both at the preps and all over DYK – happy July, everyone!

Notes

  1. ^ The seven highest hooks from May 2022 outperformed all hooks from June 2022, despite similar averages, so I've just printed the top three from May followed by the top three from June.
Comment: Thanks for the update. I have one of my own favorite quotes from W2: "If You Were In An Accident I Wouldn't Stop For Red Lights." - Donna Moss
Bruxton (talk) 15:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 08:35, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Prep 7: J. Michael Miller (nom)

Unlike July 1 (where there were two special occasion hooks competing for one image slot), this was the only special occasion hook requested for July 9. @Theleekycauldron: (promoter) may I ask why exactly was this passed over for the image slot? The quality of the image chosen instead wasn't even superior (500×375px vs. 841×925px for the special occasion one). —Bloom6132 (talk) 01:49, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Your question implies that if it’s a special occasion hook, it will get the image slot. There is no such rule or convention. Schwede66 20:19, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Not every image can be posted at DYK, and we shouldn't be giving any special preferebces out, including to date request hooks. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, there is no written rule or convention that states that a special occasion hook will get the image slot, but that has been the unwritten practice for some time (I've had 25 such hooks since 2012). It happened as recently as May this year with Ron Miles (also a birthday special occasion DYK), even though I believed File:Ron Miles 2009.JPG would not to be placed in the image slot because it was blurry. For this nom, I would completely understand if the chosen image that ran instead was a higher-quality image or something unusual like an animated graphic. But it defies comprehension how File:Columbiasundial.jpg is worse quality-wise compared to File:Archbishop Miller.jpg – any neutral observer could see that. Then again, … —Bloom6132 (talk) 22:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
There is not now, nor has there ever been, nor will there ever be, any such written or unwritten rule, convention, or practice.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  23:50, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I don't think there's actually been such a rule or practice where special occasion hooks must be image slots. For example, I requested both Eir Aoi and Megumi Nakajima as special occasion hooks (both had images in their nomination), but ultimately they were not selected for the image slot. I've seen it happen with special occasion nominations by other editors as well. It does happen sometimes that special occasion hooks are on the image slot, but it's not a hard-and-fast rule and the decision ultimately lies with the promoter. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:06, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
Hey, Bloom6132 – I'm sorry this discussion keeps happening. I respect and admire both you and your work, and I don't want to get into a dispute with you, so I'll leave a brief statement here – and then the ball's in your court.
My understanding of the process is that the promoter has discretion over the image slot and placement of hooks, unless there is a consensus elsewhere (usually WT:DYK or WP:ERRORS) to change it. For this particular instance, I've all but made up my mind on which image i want in the lead, and I find it unlikely that I will be persuaded to freely change my mind. So: I won't be watching this discussion unfold too closely, but if there is a consensus to in any way override my decision, ping me – I'd be happy to make the changes myself. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
I absolutely support theleekycauldron's decision. The image selected is much more interesting than an underexposed picture of some guy like we've seen litterally a million times. Incidentally, the fact that it's that guy's birthday may make it a "special occasion" to him and his loved ones, but not to anyone else in the world.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  02:16, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
  • It ridiculous we're even discussing this. There's no such rule or practice. Special occasion hooks run on particular dates. That's it. Whether it gets the image slot has nothing to do with it. EEng 01:56, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Count of verified hooks at zero

The count of verified hooks went down to zero here and is now at one. Shubinator, do you know what is happening? TSventon (talk) 10:20, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy ping to @Wugapodes:. Flibirigit (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
It seems clear that, for whatever reason, DYKHousekeepingBot isn't able to gather data from the Approved page, and is only including the Nominations page in its totals. Verified hooks are only counted when on the Nominations page, and vanish from the count when moved by WugBot to Approved, which just happened. Shubinator typically checks in overnight (and not every night), so I don't expect to see the counts fixed today. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Fixed with Special:Diff/1096078595 :) Shubinator (talk) 05:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)
Thanks. EEng 17:16, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Someone's hook is on the main page... at the cost of DYK consensus

I would like to have a warm feeling that "my" hook is on the main page.... but sadly its spoilt. My nomination was rightly discussed and finessed and a consensus was reached. Then someone removed it out of the prep queues with some arrogance that they felt that is could be phrased better. What is the point of gaining a consensus? My comment, when consulted, on the new hook was "Thanks for the thought @SL93: but I don't feel involved in this meta discussion/approval process. When you/those guys start redoing, a redone, changed and historically approved hook then I'm surprised anyone is interested in the changes. I don't check them because I, like the original people involved, have moved on to improving the encyclopedia. I try and avoid looking at whats happening (it isn't inspiring to nominators IMO). Hooks should be pulled out of the queue because they are wrong and not because someone thinks they could phrase it better and no one is bothered enough to revert their fiddling. Is the phrasing better? No one checks and by that point, few care." I just feel a bit uninspired/sad that we have allowed ourselves to get to this point. When we close a discussion at DYK then it should have some significance... otherwise we insult everyone who took the trouble to get involved at the correct time and agreed that it was good to go (nb: not perfect). This isnt an attack on the fiddlers but a request that we establish a consensus here that DYK should show some respect those who create a consensus. Victuallers (talk) 08:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

  • The hook was pulled because the wording was confusing, and several editors had mentioned this. It talked about the niece and Carrao herself, with repeated use of "her own", leaving it unclear whether the "ugly hair" label belonged to the niece or Carrao. You were welcome to comment on the revised proposals, but you chose not to. The new wording looks a lot clearer and hooky to my eyes, so I'm not entirely sure what you don't like about it. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • No one broke any rules, or ignored any consensus. Amakuru spotted something legitimately misleading about the hook (if I were reviewing it, I would have made the exact same call), pulled it, and let editors improve it by consensus until everyone was on board. You could have totally participated in the discussion to fix up the hook and make it more understandable for everyone, but you didn't.
    There's a reason that a prep set builder and a queue promoter come after the reviewer: the more people give the hook a look-over, from more diverse backgrounds, the more DYK's language represents something appropriately understandable a broad audience. Not every pairing of two people is omniscient, and they won't always be able to grasp something subjective like how hooks might read to someone who thinks differently. This is a wiki, and anyone can weigh in. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
    • I moved this hook set into the queue and I also found the original hook confusing. It was only when I consulted the source that I understood it. I frequently make minor changes to hooks when I promote them to the queue but bring more serious problems to this page (as below). Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:01, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • Victuallers, congratulations on your successful nomination and the page being featured on the main page. --evrik (talk) 15:19, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
  • There are many cooks contributing to the DYK broth keeping bad apples from getting through, and an editor with his fingers in so many pies that he doesn't have time to keep watch on his nom will soon find that he can't have his cake and eat it too and shouldn't cry over spilled milk. I've tried to explain that here [16] EEng 03:45, 30 June 2022 (UTC) It should be taken with a grain of salt, of course.
  • I feel like this has been discussed multiple times with the suggestion/conclusion that anyone making changes at any point any time after review should ping the nom in either the edit summary (for "minor" changes) or the talk/ERRORS post (for other than "minor"). Why isn't this protocol? Why are we still making changes in prep, queue, and at ERRORS without at minimum pinging the nom? valereee (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
Anyone with extra time and energy on their hands, I'd love to see a list of diffs where we've discussed this and concluded that, yeah, noms should be pinged. Because unless I am making it all up in my head, I feel like there are multiple such discussions. valereee (talk) 21:38, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
@valereee: the hook wasn't modified in prep; Amakuru pulled it, suggesting changes because the hook was misleading. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:02, 30 June 2022 (UTC)
True, but I feel like an entire RFC could even be made about Valereee's main point. SL93 (talk) 00:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, "anyone with extra time and energy on their hands" is practically a direct ping to me (i created Wikipedia talk:Did you know/RfCs), so I'll get into making that list. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 00:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
hahahahaha valereee (talk) 12:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Wikipedia:DROPTHESTICK --evrik (talk) 12:35, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Who is that in reference to? SL93 (talk) 12:37, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
@SL93, sorry, that's in reference to "anyone with extra time and energy on their hands" is practically a direct ping to me. Claudia and I have a very friendly relationship and have laughed together multiple times about how she takes on every job! At top speed! Even when it means she's up until 4am! :D I'm sure she knows exactly what I meant, but my apologies that to anyone else it looked like I was making some sort of snarky comment. It was purely just me appreciating her joke about herself. valereee (talk) 12:45, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh, I mean Evrik's drop the stick comment. SL93 (talk) 12:50, 1 July 2022 (UTC)
Oh! Lol...we're just a frickin' comedy of errors, here. :D valereee (talk) 12:57, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list has been archived, so I've created a new list of 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 17. The last time DYKHousekeepingBot gave accurate figures, we had a total of 223 nominations, of which only 87 were approved, a gap of 136 nominations, up 8 over the previous eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other 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) 17:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Prep-Queue-Main Page hook issues

New hooks suggested at Main Page errors

WP:DYK#The DYK process says WP:ERRORS is: "to report concerns about DYK items currently on the main page – If necessary an admin may edit or replace a hook on main page".

Today (I think not the first time), a hook in tomorow's set was debated from 08:39, 21 June 2022 (UTC), with substitute hooks offered, until a new hook was agreed upon at 22:25, 21 June 2022 (UTC). Concerns have come up that WP:ERRORS is sometimes used to suggest/workshop new hooks. The page is watch-listed by interested admins, but we don't tell others they need to watch it. Thoughts? — Maile (talk) 23:55, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

My issues with making non-minor changes to hooks at the errors page are when the nominators become angry at the change and when the nominator isn't even pinged. I rarely see error posters ping or post on the talk page of those who were involved with the nomination. SL93 (talk) 00:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
It occurs to me, that the DYK nom template serves as a record of the review and pertinent details of the selected hook. As such, DYKUpdateBot posts the original approved hook on the article talk page as soon as the set is promoted to the main page. The changed hook, I think, is not posted on any talk page. WP:ERRORS gets cleared off once a rotation happens, erasing any record of what happened, because nobody is going to automatically think of scrolling through the main page history to find out what happened. — Maile (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2022‎ (UTC)
The final version of the hook, as amended at WP:ERRORS, is what is archived. (If a hook is pulled from the main page, it is not archived.) So there should always be a record of the final version of the hook as it looked when its run came to an end. BlueMoonset (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
the archived version of the hook is what makes it to the stats page, as well. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 02:54, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
Great, but it's too late by then to solve the actual issues. SL93 (talk) 23:58, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, only the first few posts of that discussion were about changes to the hook because it was badly written. After that, it turned out that the hook in the Queue was actually rejected at the DYK nom, and was factually wrong to boot. A new hook was proposed (the one that was accepted at the DYK nom) and put in the Queue, but that one was factually wrong as well (as was clear from the ERRORS discussion before that change was made). Finally, at 22.25, unlike what Maile claims, no "new hook was agreed upon", but the hook was pulled and the DYK nom reopened, as we were just hours away from once again putting incorrect info on the main page. But sure, let's focus on who should have been pinged as the main issue to take away from this (and of course, in a discussion about who should have been pinged, let's definitely not contact the people who were actually in that misrepresented discussion). Perhaps we should instead discuss the many DYK regulars and admins who have let factual errors go through to the queues or even the main page recently, or who fail to see the error in a hook even when it is spelled out repeatedly at wp:errors. Perhaps starting with Maile themselves, who tries to scare people away for "interfering" with DYK when they point out and correct serious issues. DYK is failing, and this is what you care about? Fram (talk) 07:51, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Fram Maybe I should have been clearer, but I wasn't referring to pinging in relation to hooks that are factually wrong. This is a recent example, but the pinging is secondary to the hook being changed without an error. In this case, the change is minor although I am against brainstorming a new hook when it's not needed. I really don't feel like searching the errors archive for things that would show what I mean in a better way. It's bigger than the one hook that you're focused on. SL93 (talk) 10:40, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
(ec)The discussion which this section is about, was started by me, at first to get a hook changed without yet realising that it was just plain wrong (and already rejected to boot), but because it was badly written. Apparently it is problematic to not ping a bunch of editors when at WP:ERRORS, but I see no one here having an issue with the actual errors (in this case, or in the many cases in the weeks before this). An attempt to deal with the many errors and issues of DYK by adding yet more bureaucracy is bizarre, and an attempt to do so without even bothering to do the thing which is supposedly such an issue when done to a DYK hook (i.e. not contacting the people involved) reeks of, well, there are a number of possibilities but they would all be construed as personal attacks and used to bury the actual issues, so I'll just leave it to your imagination. Fram (talk) 10:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
The discussion also states "Concerns have come up that WP:ERRORS is sometimes used to suggest/workshop new hooks." which it has been brought up before this incident. I'm not sure what I can do other than to say that I should have been clearer with what I meant. I'm the only one here who mentioned pinging and I clearly already said that I'm not referring to when there are actual errors. I have no idea why you're focused on something that I wasn't referring to. SL93 (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Fram:, I'll always process an error or pull a hook if you or anyone else points out an obvious error with it. I also do my best to weed out issues with the hooks in my own sets, when I put my name against them when promoting from prep to queue, although as with anyone else I'll occasionally miss something which you later spot. You're entitled to your opinion on the state of DYK, but it's not really going to help anyone and we're all WP:VOLUNTEERs at the end of the day. So start an RFC to abolish DYK altogether if you like, or come up with a new process with better error-checking built in, but please don't personalise the issues here. Even if your complaints are true, it's not going to help anyone and you might end up with a topic ban or worse down the line - which would be a shame because your error-finding is useful and on-point.
As for the original question asked, I think that ERRORS is not the place for brainstorming new hooks, and that if a promoted hook is unsalvageable, the solution is simply to remove it and reopen (or indeed remove it and consign it to the trash, if the hook was live and has already had most of its run on the main page). Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:59, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I am amazed at Fram's suggestion that no one here cares about DYK errors, especially when I recently posted on their talk page about DYK issues. I have no idea why I apologized for my behavior at ERRRORS on Fram's talk page anymore. SL93 (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Amakuru cares, that I do know. Maile cares more about the image of DYK than about errors in my experience, and many others here either don't care or don't have the competence to deal with it adequately. Just look at the discussion this section is about, and how despite pointing out the basic error twice, it still got included in the "improved" hook that was used to replace the earlier, rejected hook. To see then that Maile starts a section, not about how to prevent or reduce this kind of thing happening, but about some non-issue which no one should care about as long as errors get to the queues and the main page with alarming frequency, just reinforces my general image of DYK and many of its main contibutors. Fram (talk) 11:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Your thoughts about DYK errors are valid, but I remember you saying that the entire DYK project has to get their heads out of their asses which is much different than "many". I highly doubt that I could say such a thing and have no repercussions even when stating it about one person. SL93 (talk) 11:20, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
If your reason for stating it is sound, it should not get repercussions. And this very section is a perfect example of why I said it. DYK regulars (not all of them, but enough of them to dominate the project it seems) more concerned about bureaucracy and having everything in the right place and no one's privileges getting hurt by getting their hook changed (on a bloody wiki, in case you all forgot), than about getting better in avoiding putting errors on the Main Page again, and again, and again. Fram (talk) 12:16, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I highly disagree. The rules in relation to assuming good faith and no personal attacks always apply. I am not more concerned about pinging than errors. SL93 (talk) 12:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Just looking at the hook that got Maile so concerned about the wrong things, I see that it was accepted by User:Sammi Brie (more than 500 DYKs, so a DYK veteran), promoted by User:Theleekycauldron (DYK mainstay, nearly an admin because of his DYK work), moved from Prep to Queue by (IIRC) User:Cwmhiraeth (admin, one of the main DYK contributors); at the errors page, after the error had been explained twice, Theleekycauldron again proposed another hook with the same error, and User:Schwede66, anoter one of the main DYK admins, posted the wrong hook to the queue. None of the other DYK admins who had commented (Amakuru, User:Valereee) noticed this, so I again needed to point this out, after which Amakuru removed the hook (thanks!), nearly 13 hours after this was pointed out and less than 2 hours before it would have hit the main page. At which point you came along, and your main concern was ... "I appreciate you mentioning that point about new hooks. Errors being used for that frustrates me." So please tell me, SL93, why I should conclude that it is not true that you are more concerned about errors (which you showed no concern about there, nor here when the same discussion was brought up) than about hook improvements or pinging? Cause it sure looks that way. And please tell me as well why I should not be rather fed up with the DYK project when so many of their main admins and contributors have so little care for all of this? Fram (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
You are assuming things. I never once said that I am more concerned about hook changes than actual errors. I only mentioned it in that case because the error was resolved at that point. I never said that you shouldn't be fed up with the DYK project. You are calling me a liar at this point. SL93 (talk) 12:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I just point out what you did do, and what you didn't do. That you twice thought it necessary to raise your concern about minor hook changes and pinging contributors for such a thing, and not once that perhaps the more pressing issue was that errors got so far so often, and that it was so bloody hard to get it removed. "The error was removed at that point", yes, and the initials demands to change the hook were also resolved at that time because the hook was no longer in the queues (and not the same any longer anyway). And the only thing you (and Maile) brought home from this was "oh no, people suggest better hooks at Errors without pinging everyone, deary me". If this is not your priority and you are more concerned about the errors, then you are very good at hiding this. Fram (talk) 13:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
You did more than that. You can honestly believe what you want because I know that I can't get through to an asshole like yourself. SL93 (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I see that you reverted my removal of the section on your talk page because of your response. It seems that rule is more important to you than being an asshole. SL93 (talk) 13:00, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Don't fucking dare place a personal attack template on my talk page when you do that constantly. The template clearly says, "Comment on content, not on other contributors or people." SL93 (talk) 13:11, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
This (what Amakuru said) is probably the right approach. Do easy fixes quickly at WP:ERRORS and reopen the nom in other cases. Reopening the nom may also be better than wordsmithing/finding new hooks on this page; that kind of things should be done before promotion if at all possible. —Kusma (talk) 11:50, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Main Page guidelines

  • DYK has lots of rules and lots of due process, involving many editors. WP:ERRORS has little of either; it just seems to be an ephemeral free-for-all. So, WP:ERRORS should have a high bar so that only significant errors are addressed in its shoot-from-the-hip, wild-west way. Inconsequential copy-edits such as the example given by SL93 should be given short shrift. The trouble is that, because WP:ERRORS doesn't have any formal processes or rules, there's no way to make changes to them, as we can here. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:47, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Just get rid of DYK ERRORS altogether and codify what is already happening. Primergrey (talk) 23:59, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Notifying nominators of changes in prep or queue

  • I know I'm getting slightly off-topic here but since I was pointed to this discussion and it's mentioned, I'm going to ask it. What is the general practice about alerting nominators when a hook is changed after approval? After I discovered that one of my hooks had been changed after approval in a way that made it factually inaccurate I basically decided to stop participating in DYK (with one exception for someone who I found inspiring and who I wanted to bring attention to). Would that experience still be common today? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 14:58, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
    The general practice still seems to be to treat nominators with contempt and freely amend their hooks without any by-your-leave. I too don't participate much in DYK now for this reason. But I helped out a new editor recently by nominating her article, following a WiR event. I reviewed a nomination as a QPQ and approved a hook. But the hook was changed without any consultation by a set builder and contrary to policy WP:CENSOR. I noticed this when it appeared and advised the nominator of the culprit. They agreed that "It's an unfortunate consequence of DYK that your hook will likely be tampered with." So it goes ... Andrew🐉(talk) 15:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
    As Fram notes above, this is a Wiki and nobody actually WP:OWNs the text in the hooks, it's subject to modification and amendment, especially when the changes are to correct errors. Sometimes editors may choose to notify noms and reviewers of these changes, but it isn't obligatory and at the end of the day it's up to interested parties to put the entries on their watchlists if they want to keep track of them.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
    I fully understand that, but more than the entries would need to be watchlisted. That includes the DYK talk page, Errors, the prep area, and the queue. Such a thing isn't mentioned anywhere. SL93 (talk) 16:02, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I still think pinging the nominator should be common courtesy if not required, although the onus remains with the nominator when it comes to seeing the nomination and/or hook through. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:06, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Amakuru so changes when hooks get moved to prep queues are noted now on nomination pages? Because nomination pages are what we would expect someone to be watching. As my anecdote shares, the error was introduced with the change and it was not noted on the nomination page (which I had been watching). So if that's current procedure I would agree it's sufficient notification. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
It is often (but not always) the case that if a significant change is going to be done to a hook (or the hook is replaced entirely) the nominator is informed. It doesn't happen always, but it's usually considered good practice. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 16:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Yes, that's pretty much my point. For major changes I would generally notify, (and in fact, per the OP question here I generally would remove the hook for further discussion where major changes were necessary, rather than just boldly changing the wording myself). But there's no absolute obligation for this, and nobody should get too upset if that notification doesn't happen for some reason. Sometimes we're busy and the change needs to be made quickly without leaving time for a notification.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:23, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Let's be clear. I am upset enough 2 years after I discovered that an error had been introduced into a DYK I worked on (which was several months after it went on the mainpage) to bring it up, not because a courtesy wasn't extended to me. Accordingly, "We're busy so sometimes notification doesn't happen even if it's part of the system" seems completely reasonable to me. "We are busy so the system prioritizes speed over collaboration and/or accuracy" does not. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:42, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Barkeep49, best practices is to ping at minimum the nom to any discussion of a hook, whether at WT:DYK or at ERRORS, and even for a change you don't feel needs discussion, to ping the nom in the edit summary. valereee (talk) 16:35, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
I've had one of my nominations changed in prep, turning a man into a woman. (Fixed 20 minutes after it hit the Main Page). @Theleekycauldron had suggested a bot that would mention any such changes on the nom talk page (so nominators would only need to watch one page, not sixteen) but she was discouraged from implementing that so it did not happen. Personally, I think we should have a lot more edits to hooks before they get approved (this being a wiki and all), and a lot less afterwards (be careful with editing things that have gone through a supposedly strict fact checking process) but in the context of what we have, some notification like the one implicit in leeky's idea would be an improvement. —Kusma (talk) 16:43, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
  • My personal practice, is that unless it's a minor change like punctuation or spelling, the nominator should at least be pinged. I've noticed the below issues:
  • A hook is approved on the nomination template, but the promoter edits the hook when putting it in Prep
  • Hooks are changed while in prep, without discussion
  • Hooks are changed in queue
Since I normally just work the queues, if I've made changes it would be there, either while promoting it from prep to queue, or if a genuine error is noticed. Generally speaking, I don't remember changing many hooks and otherwise only minor changes if I did. But what I have noticed increasingly are wordsmithing changes either in the promotion of an approved hook to prep, or what I'm assuming the editor believes is a tidying up of a prep entry. Maybe we should have a discussion about this. How much is too much — Maile (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
@Maile66, any change at any point after a completed review should require a ping to the nom. I don't care if it's just "tidying up". I've seen "tidying up" that changed content to make it incorrect. We've had this discussion multiple times. valereee (talk) 16:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)
Ah, yes. And there it is the first item at the top of the Queue page:
"When modifying a hook in a Prep or Queue (other than minor formatting fixes) please notify the nominator by including a link of the form [[User:JoeEditor]] in your edit summary. (Ping templates like {{U|JoeEditor}} don't work in edit summaries.)"
  • Ugh, right, I'm sorry I dropped the ball on this. A technical error I couldn't resolve caused me to shove the project aside for other, easier programming projects. I'm going to take another swing at it, hopefully this week. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 17:13, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Stats trivia and images

Yesterday's lead hook List of United States Military Academy First Captains, while not a record breaker, resulted in 6,402 views. What is interesting, is that the man in the picture, John Tien, garnered a whopping 11,990 views. The day before, his article only got 53 views. — Maile (talk) 12:32, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. The photo of Tien is crystal clear, but I find the other photo more interesting. Bruxton (talk) 15:15, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think that's surprising. It's not uncommon for very niche topics to get a massive increase in views especially if they're in the lead slot. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 22:41, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Prep area 4

Perhaps one reason that there are few editors who work on prep sets... I promoted 4 hooks to Prep area four and three were removed. I am not sure that help is actually wanted in this area. Carry on. Bruxton (talk) 04:14, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton: They weren't removed, they were moved – it was getting a little difficult to put in new hooks, and to adjust for u.s./non-u.s. balance (as well as bio/non-bio), so I did some rearrangement. Is that not okay by you? theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 04:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
  • @Bruxton: You have to have a thick skin and know you're taking one for the team. --evrik (talk) 16:43, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Hehehe. Bruxton (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
@Bruxton, moving stuff around among prep/queue sets is pretty common, it doesn't mean your promotions work has been undone or is unappreciated. It usually just means another editor thought a hook or hooks would be useful in a different prep or queue. valereee (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Where is everybody?

Granted, I've been pre-occupied for a few days, but this is the first time ever, that there were no queues loaded - and nobody was complaining. I'm working on a theory that space aliens finally landed, and after careful analysis, decided the DYK regulars were the ones they wanted to take home. — Maile (talk) 03:15, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

@Maile66: I've been kind of out of it all day, and SL93 is out of it indefinitely... I was going to send up a flag sometime tonight. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:26, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm not sure about other DYK regulars, but I personally don't pay nearly as much attention to preps or queues when I'm not building preps. I will try to now because I didn't think it would get this bad with queues. SL93 (talk) 03:27, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Well, I just loaded two queues, so we're OK at the moment. My head has also been elsewhere the last few days. July 4th events, both in the neighborhood, and the television old movies . Total absorption to the disregard of anything not related this weekend. — Maile (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I keep getting distracted by off-wiki things, but was planning to post something before my bedtime. Glad you beat me to it. The Preps were basically full, so the queue promotions mean that prep loading can start up again. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm on the preps at the moment, should be done by day's end. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:56, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I've been extra busy for a few days too. I usually respond if someone sends out the "need queues" ping, but otherwise it's intermittent whether I look in here or not, depending on real life commitments and other wiki work. I've just loaded one queue.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:57, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I was enjoying the holiday IRL. --evrik (talk) 16:36, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
I am here toiling Bruxton (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
Bruxton It looked to me like you said "trolling" as I was scrolling down. I was thinking that couldn't be correct. SL93 (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
@SL93: haha...I have been getting bogged down in the back alley processes of the project. I am happiest when I am working on articles, but doing NPP requires me to get involved in deletion. That is where the time-suck is. Bruxton (talk) 20:20, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Pytest

This nomination has been stuck for a while owing to hook wording issues. Right now the main concern is that all of the proposals suggested so far are very technical and may not be easily understood by general audiences. If possible, a more broadly-appealing and understandable hook would be appreciated here. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:50, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Go for Alt 6 and be done with it. --evrik (talk) 16:49, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
  • I agree with evrik above. ALT6 is the most understandable for me, personally. And I know nothing about technical things like this. The world is full of tech geeks who will probably understand every word of the article. But for the rest of us, ALT6 is probably the best choice. — Maile (talk) 19:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
    ALT6 is unsourced and wrong. It does not detect errors in programs. It *sometimes* detects errors in the *behavior* of programs. And sometimes doesn't. This is not criticism of pytest, only a reflection of what software testing is and what it isn't. You did notice that we went through exactly this issue already, once, where reviewers didn't pay attention to the incorrect and unsourced "make sure programs are bug-free?"? —David Eppstein (talk) 20:17, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
    The hooks doesn't say its 100% accurate. It describes how it tests, and the process. Also, I believe the sources are there. Someone who knows th subject better can copyedit the sentences and the referencing. --evrik (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
    This is insane. ALT6 is simply incorrect. EEng 02:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Thus demonstrating the wisdom of my ALT8:

ALT8 ... that pytest uses tests structured in an arrange, act and assert sequence known as AAA?

That, at least, is indisputable. EEng 02:42, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

What is wrong with ALT3? It seems quite interesting to me, and I have no background in the topic area. Certainly a lot more interesting than the incredibly uninformative and cryptic ALT8 proposed above IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 08:03, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Users noted on the nomination page that ALT3 and variants sounded promotional. I did think the 9 million downloads thing has promise, but it's not mentioned in the article anymore. Had it still been there, I would have suggested a simpler hook like "that Pytest, a Python testing framework, had over 9 million weekly downloads in [year]?", but I guess that's moot now. As an aside, the article currently has a citation needed tag. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 09:21, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Well if the relevant content has been removed from the article that's another issue - but how can a hook about open-source software be promotional? Gatoclass (talk) 09:35, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't think he means "promotional" as in "intended to turn a profit for the subject", I think he just means "non-neutral in an unduly positive light". That is still something we have to watch for, even with open-source software. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:43, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
If nobody is making any money from it, it's not promotional in any meaningful sense IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 09:52, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
It doesn't really matter if it's non-profit or not. If you saw someone saying: "Get Dr. Fronkensteen's wongo juice! It will cure everything, even cancer! And it's FREE!", it would still be non-neutral and unduly positive. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:47, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Actually Naruto, I had second thoughts about that comment a short time after posting it (and after reading the original hook for this nomination). So while I still think a hook about a free product cannot be promotional in the way that term is usually understood, it can nonetheless constitute undue advocacy as per your rather colourful example :) Gatoclass (talk) 02:46, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

How about:

  • ALT9: ... that due to its popularity, Pytest has been described as a key ecosystem project for the Python programming language? Gatoclass (talk) 10:07, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Or if the mention of its popularity bothers you:

  • ALT10: ... that the software testing framework Pytest has been described as a key ecosystem project for the Python programming language? Gatoclass (talk) 10:25, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
ALT10 is still somewhat on the niche side, but I greatly prefer it to ALT8 since it's at least easily understandable. The article still can't pass DYK though without the CN tag being resolved. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 13:17, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

WugBot should remove unapproved nominations from the approved page

I think WugBot should move a nomination from the approved page back to WP:DYKN when the last icon on the nom page is no longer an approval tick. At that point, the nom isn't approved anymore, so it doesn't belong on the approved page, and moving it will help to prevent accidental premature promotions of hooks which aren't ready yet.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  22:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I like this idea a lot, actually – it also helps clear clutter for preppers. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 22:23, 28 June 2022 (UTC)
Pinging Wugapodes so they're aware of this discussion. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:28, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Good, because Wugapodes is looking for more things to do. EEng 16:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
If I remember the code correctly, WugBot should already have this capability as a configuration setting. I'd just need to switch a parameter. I'm pretty busy until Monday, but assuming there's no issues I should be able to have this implemented in the next few days. — Wug·a·po·des​ 17:37, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
Wug·a·po·des​, have you had a chance to look into this? (I see about three noms that should be moved; I didn't do it manually, so the bot can be tested.)  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  02:18, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
@Mandarax Yeah, the feature I remembered was actually in a development version, not the one currently running, and it still needs more bug fixes and testing before I let it loose. Since I'm drafting the ArbCom case decision I probably won't be able to finish the WugBot development until late July. — Wug·a·po·des​ 20:52, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the update.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  00:52, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
That's not a bad idea and would help. But it makes me wonder whether we should perhaps have clearer indications for the present state of a nomination than whatever is the last symbol added: something like a |status=unreviewed or |status=approved perhaps? Currently when we pull a nom we need to remember to add it to the unapproved list and to add a symbol so it isn't automatically moved to the approved list again. More sophisticated status fields could indicate whether there is approval for articles and/or hooks and/or images and/or special date requests. In an ideal world, every hook should undergo copyediting and then fact checking after the article has been approved, but all of these things would need to be clearly shown on the page for easy processing. —Kusma (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
I like the tick system more than a single status parameter – it allows to keep track, at a glance, of how the discussion has progressed over time. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 09:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
For many older noms with lengthy discussion, it isn't easy to understand what the problem is in the current system either (where the main "status" indicator is where the page is currently transcluded). My idea above obviously isn't a finished proposal, and made worse by the fact that I am mixing it with my other unready idea of separating article approval, hookiness approval and fact checking more clearly. —Kusma (talk) 09:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
How about a new tick that signals the nom is moving off the approved page? Of course, anyone who is promoting should realize when a nomination has been sent for reconsideration. --evrik (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Queue 5 (tomorrow) - Pabna Mental Hospital

Pabna Mental Hospital - I'm not convinced this is of a quality to bold it on the main page. It has a number of unsourced statements, and some other problems.

  • The very first line - "It was the only specialised mental hospital of the region during establishment." - what?
  • "The 60-bed hospital has been extended to 90 beds over nine years. The hospital was transformed into a 500-bed psychiatric hospital in 1996, with the addition of an additional 300 beds, many years after the addition of 50 beds." (gets calculator out)
  • "Since the hospital's establishment, it has treated 79,444 patients. Of these, 84% of the patients have been able to leave the hospital" Which leaves 12,700 who didn't. Given that the hospital has 500 beds, I presume they all died (although one could argue they left as well).
  • "According to the director and patients of the hospital, there are not enough doctors at the hospital. They criticised that despite brokers encouraging patients to use a different mental hospital, no action has been taken by the hospital authority against the brokers. The director and a ward master of the hospital verified their claim and the director stated that they cannot take action against the brokers." - who are "brokers"? what does this all mean? The source isn't even any help because it doesn't define "brokers" either.
  • The entire next section (about Chakraborty's Satsang organisation - whatever that might be, the article doesn't help us out there) is confusing as well.
  • Pinging @Mehediabedin, Theleekycauldron, and SL93: Black Kite (talk) 14:56, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite: Then I want to remove my nomination if its possible. Mehedi Abedin 20:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Pinging @Mehediabedin, Theleekycauldron, SL93, and Black Kite: A quickie swap. You all can straighten out if Pabna Mental Hospital should be removed altogether. For the time being, I moved Pabna Mental Hospital to the bottom hook in Prep 1. I moved Jim Pappin from Prep 1, to the slot in Queue 5. Please double check my work to make sure I moved all the necessary credits. — Maile (talk) 21:39, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Queue 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Beautiful Mystery

The label "pink film" is made in the lead of the article, along with an explanation of the term as meaning a "softcore pornographic film", but I can't see that fact (or similar wording) anywhere in the body of the article, which means it is uncited. Please could a cite be added confirming this? Pinging @Morgan695, Nardog, and Theleekycauldron:. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:44, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

@Amakuru: Claim is now cited in article body. Morgan695 (talk) 17:18, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
@Morgan695: many thanks.  — Amakuru (talk) 09:10, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of all 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 1. We have a total of 239 nominations, of which only 110 were approved, a gap of 129 nominations, down 7 over the previous eight days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other 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) 17:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Reopening failed DYK nomination?

I took a break from Wikipedia shortly after nominating Columbia University tunnels for DYK. For all intents and purposes, it passed, but the nomination was paused due to a good article reassessment on the page. The DYK nomination was closed in April, and the good article reassessment concluded in May. I have since returned to Wikipedia. Would it be possible to reopen my DYK nomination for the page? Normsupon (talk) 05:00, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Hey there, Normsupon! Since the nomination was predicated on promotion to good article status, the article would become eligible again if it once against passed a GA review. theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 07:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
@Normsupon: Hey I reviewed that one! I loved the hook about Amelia Earhart. Also @Theleekycauldron: can you go check out the Richard Lorenz (artist) hooks. Seems we found one. Cheers Bruxton (talk) 15:09, 7 July 2022 (UTC)
Try for the GA again. I think our DYK readers will love this article. Bruxton (talk) 01:05, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Prep 2 - sentence structure

Pooja Sharma (entrepreneur)

@Victuallers, Sammi Brie, and Mujinga:

  • ... that Pooja Sharma (pictured) started a bakery in a reputedly haunted mansion that employs 150 women?
The mansion is not the employer. Suggest perhaps:

ALT2 - ... that Pooja Sharma (pictured) employs 150 women in a bakery she started in a reputedly haunted mansion? — Maile (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Do it Victuallers (talk) 13:23, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done — Maile (talk) 13:30, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, as soon as I got pinged and saw the hook again, I'm like "yup". Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Citations needed for excerpts?

Article: Climate change in Italy. DYK nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Italy

This article uses Template:Excerpt to pull text from other articles. Some of this excerpted text is uncited, such as the last two sentences in the "Transportation" section's second paragraph. Do these excerpted sections also need citations in order for this to appear in DYK? Should DYK articles use the excerpt template? This is the first time I've encountered this template so I want to double-check. Z1720 (talk) 01:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

  • @Z1720: Well, there are gonna be two different caveats. First, it does all need to be cited. Second, by prose, this counts as "text copied from other articles" – so not only does it not count towards the 1500B minimum, it actually can't take up more than 1/6th of the article (the rest of the text needs to be a 5x expansion on it). theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 01:51, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
    I've checked for 5× and think it should be a pass. Based on current rev as of this writing DYKcheck reports 23417 characters (3768 words) of readable prose; this excludes excerpts. The content excerpted from other articles is actually mostly tabular info, it contains only around 3476 characters of prose. The article has thus been expanded >6.7× over preexisting content. HTH, 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you

I want to thank the editors of DYK for helping me become a better editor. I appreciate the hard work that you all do to create the section. You are all kind and helpful. I also think some of you need to stop for a minute and appreciate your contributions. People who read the front page, have no idea how many minds are making DYK happen. I congratulate all of you. Myself, I am in need of a break. Bruxton (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

@Bruxton: Rest well! thank you for everything you do for DYK :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/they) 03:44, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

A DYK award for you?

The DYK award goes to?
You make it happen every day and I thank you! Bruxton (talk) 03:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Prep 3: WAQI

@Sammi Brie and BennyOnTheLoose: I'm trying another attempt to make sense of the fistfighting legislators here. What do you think of this suggestion?

  • ALT2: ... that two state representatives fought in the parking lot of Miami's Radio Mambí after the one's father insulted the other's father on the air?

This ends up being slightly repetitive, but I think the parallel of "the one's ... the other's" is useful in clarifying the intended meaning. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 21:37, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd be fine with this. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 21:46, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
I'm also happy with that. Thanks. BennyOnTheLoose (talk) 22:00, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Let's liven it up a bit:
ALT3: ... that after one state legislator's father insulted another state legislator's father on Miami's Radio Mambí, someone got a bloody nose in the station parking lot?
EEng 22:18, 11 July 2022 (UTC)
Someone = a bystander who walked into a lamppost?
ALT4 ... that one Florida politician bloodied another's nose in the Radio Mambí parking lot after the station broadcast an insult between their fathers?
—David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I like my hooks to have a little mystery. But yours is better (even if "an insult between their fathers" is a somewhat odd construction). EEng 04:20, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Prep 3 - sentence structure

@Johnbod and Muboshgu:

Jacopo da Trezzo

Was it the workshop of Don Carlos, and did he keep his slaves there? Suggest:

Alt2 - that two slaves belonging to Don Carlos were trained by the Italian medallist Jacopo da Trezzo in his workshop in 1550s Madrid? — Maile (talk) 12:09, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The ping didn't work for some reason. Ok with this, apart from the false title which I have changed. Why didn't you add at the nom, which I would have seen? Johnbod (talk)
Thanks. Not sure what you mean by adding it at the nom, since that template was closed when it was promoted. — Maile (talk) 15:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Hook order

Is there any way the hook for To Be Loved (Adele song) could be moved up substantially and be featured as one of the first few in its set? I think it is a really good, short and catchy hook, and the article could really use the exposure. Not sure if a set criteria is used. Pinging SL93--NØ 03:14, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Putting together a prep set is a bit of an art form. There are lots of competing demands and many challenges to achieve a good balance, within and between sets. The last spot, which your hook in Prep3 has been given, is actually a special one, reserved for "quirky" hooks. So in short, the answer has to be no. But that shouldn't be a problem because hooks in the "quirky" spot often do quite well. Schwede66 03:26, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
I would never build prep sets if other editors had control of where hooks are placed. It would be very annoying. SL93 (talk) 03:33, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
Got it! Obviously I pinged you to move it if you wanted to and didn't choose to do it myself, so hopefully the "annoying" isn't directed at me...--NØ 03:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
It isn't. Just if it was standard practice. SL93 (talk) 03:56, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
MaranoFan, you cannot touch your hook once it's in prep. Just so you know. Schwede66 04:02, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Admins needed to promote preps to queues

We're at the point where we're going to be down to a single filled queue in 20 minutes, while the preps are all filled but the last one, and we're going to be forced into two sets a day because preps can't be filled at a time where we don't have spare queues to promote. Pinging @DYK admins: in the hopes that we can get a few more queues filled, and postpone the shift to two sets per day for a little while longer. Thanks to all of you who promote a prep. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:44, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I've just promoted two sets. — Maile (talk) 01:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
Thank you, Maile. Much appreciated. If other admins are around overnight (UTC), another couple would be welcome. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I can probably do one. Slightly worried if I'll have time to check everything as I@m super busy, but should be OK if it's just one.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2022 (UTC)
I have been busy in real life. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

Would allowing nominations to be marked for closure if a nominator hasn't responded within a certain amount of time be a feasible idea?

For example, if a nominator has not responded to comments within a certain amount of time (maybe a week or two), should we have some kind of guideline (ala the QPQ rule) where the nomination can be marked for closure? Maybe such a practice could even only be done when backlog mode is active. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 07:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Considering how nominations can otherwise linger for weeks because a review was only partially completed, because the nominator did respond but reviewers dropped the ball, not a good idea. Why should the nominator be expected to be more prompt than the responders on our end? — Maile (talk) 10:18, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Because it's their nomination. If they can't be bothered responding, why should we bother continuing to list it? Gatoclass (talk) 11:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I'd rather have us close all nominations if not approved after four or six weeks. If nobody can be bothered, probably it's not an interesting hook. —Kusma (talk) 10:48, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Well there are times that a reviewer doesn't come along simply because there's no interest in reviewing it initially. Sometimes it's because the hook is not interesting, other times it's because the subject material is difficult. In such cases it may not be fair to blame the nominator. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
The question is whether nominators have a right to have their article reviewed and then promoted, or whether this is up to people's discretion. In the old days before DYK had queues and subpages, if your hook wasn't posted within a certain time, it timed out and was rejected. Sometimes I wonder if we should reject more nominations and not have the expectation that all noms of policy compliant articles should be successful. —Kusma (talk) 12:38, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
I disagree that nominations without comment for several weeks should be closed as stale. If the nomination is closed at DYK, editors will have to expand the article 5x or bring it to GA status before its renomination, which can be difficult to do. Also, sometimes nominations are not reviewed because editors feel like they are not knowledgeable enough in that topic to properly review the article. If we close old nominations as stale, then DYK will be more likely to have articles on popular topics, perpetuating the systematic biases that exist on Wikipedia. DYK was a huge incentive for me to edit on Wikipedia when I first started out, and I do not want this process to become harder for new editors to participate in because reviewers don't want to read their articles. However, I would support nominations being closed as "abandoned" if the nominator has not responded in two weeks, with a reminder ping sent after the one-week mark. Z1720 (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Since pings sometimes go astray, I'd like to suggest that the reminder be a post on the nominator's talk page. We have a template on the edit screen for notifying nominators of review issues that's easy to copy and paste; if one is already posted on the nominator's talk page, then adding a comment to that will be seen. BlueMoonset (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)
Definitely, I agree that we should mitigate systemic bias as much as possible. It's one of the reasons why I am so opposed to requiring GA for DYK since not every topic can ever be a GA, and much of the world is underrepresented in GAs anyway. I was thinking more of cases where a review has already started but a nominator hasn't been responsive despite multiple attempts at contact. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:44, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
Longer articles, including those at GA status, can take a while to get reviewed just because they are long. Articles with foreign language references and many offline references can work the same way. I disagree with closing old nominations, especially when there hasn't been a reviewer yet. SL93 (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I wasn't suggesting putting a time limit on reviews, but rather nominator responses. For example, if a nomination has been reviewed or comments have been made, and the nominator hasn't responded within a week or two. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:10, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I was responding to Kusma's comment. SL93 (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2022 (UTC)
I would expect this time limit to mostly affect hooks that are so boring or so problematic that nobody wants to review them, and to perhaps give us a way to reject such nominations without a lengthy argument. —Kusma (talk) 09:38, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
We won't know if such a thing is the case if no one makes any comments at the nomination page. There have been plenty of cases where better hooks were easily suggested. SL93 (talk) 09:49, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Another possibility against boring hooks would be to discard accepted noms when the prep builders have not used them after six weeks, effectively using a pocket veto on a nom. —Kusma (talk) 09:56, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Let's say a really prolific editor floods the process with hooks on one subject matter. Let's say music. Let's say opera. And all the hooks are good, but the sheer volume of them means the prep promoters have to promote one or more of them to a set if there is a time limit on the promotions. How would that fit into this? — Maile (talk) 11:13, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
If there is a time limit, the prep setters can choose not to promote some hooks and let them time out. Just like it was before DYK had subpages. —Kusma (talk) 11:26, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Which opens the door to "special request" dates. Promoters try really hard to accommodate such requests. So if you want to make sure your hook makes it, come up with a special date request to nudge out any competition from other nominations vying for promotion. Leaving the responsibility up to promoter. Not hard to game the system there, and not hard to come up with a special date for the nominator who really wants their hook used. I don't think we should put this on the shoulders of the promoters, as anybody can promote a hook, as surely as a promoted hook can be moved or replaced by another promoter who needs a given slot. — Maile (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I think there should be some sort of quality filter for special date requests (and I regard these as fulfilled out of kindness by promoters, not as something anyone has a right to). Yet another idea to work on the underlying conflict is to make it explicit that "interesting to a broad audience" is not part of the core rules that we apply, just a nice optional extra. —Kusma (talk) 12:51, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I agree to quality filters for special date requests. i.e., a request for a specific article-hook date about a hit Broadway musical, should relate to the production, not a special date in playwright's personal life. — Maile (talk) 13:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) Reverting to the timing-out question, above, I believe that we should consider the circumstances of our contributors. Most of us who are familiar names on DYK are for whatever reason free and available for much of the time. Ping us and we are there. But many article creators and nominators are not in that position. For example, many creators live academic lives, with terms/semesters, with long summer vacations perhaps. In the UK where I am, students and lecturers/teachers can be away working or on secondment for more than 6 weeks in summer. Then there's covid and other illnesses and personal situations. We should not penalise people whom we don't know, for not being as available as we are. If you must put a time limit on nominator absence, I suggest that it should definitely be more than 6 weeks. Maybe it would also be helpful to include a notice within the nominating process system, telling nominators (nicely) that they will need to be available throughout the nom process. At the moment, many new nominators may not realise that going on holiday may wreck their nom. Hope that helps. Storye book (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps that could be clarified in the FAQ at WP:DYKNOM, but I would argue that it is already implicit in the content there that the nominator should respond to queries in a timely fashion, and that queries may come at an unspecified time that could be weeks in the future. —Kusma (talk) 14:01, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
I think it also depends on how responsive the nominator is. For example, if it's an editor who hasn't edited at all in a while and has not responded to contact requests, it may be worth waiting a little while longer before closing the nomination. On the other hand, if it's an editor who is still actively editing Wikipedia and has not responded at all to any attempts at contact despite activity elsewhere, that may be a case where a sooner close is a better option. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 14:20, 14 July 2022 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with both of you, Kusma and Narutolovehinata5. My main concern was with the shortness of the above suggestion of around two weeks grace for silent nominators. I just wanted that time to be lengthened for absentees, and for the inconsiderate nominators to be told clearly from the get-go that they needed to respond to alerts from DYK. I think that most people are well-intentioned, and that a lot of people just don't think about their responsibilities, unless it's made clear to them initially. Storye book (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Relocation of stray comment "Devisive"

This comment was posted by an IP to T:TDYK and I am moving it to the proper venue.

Stop selcting articles, with the sole intent of the topic, to increase decisiveness in this country. As in the #2 and #3 examples at this moment.

And you expect patriots of America to support you? 2600:8807:5042:781E:FD80:7E58:5101:B7C1 (talk) 02:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

For context, these were the second and third hooks on the Main Page at that time:

Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:51, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

  • Separate from me removing the comment to this talk page, I'd like to respond to the IP by noting:
  • Hook facts, the facts included in a DYK set, must be cited in the articles they come from. The first article's hook fact is cited to Vanity Fair [17], and the latter is cited to a Spanish sports publication.
  • Like articles, hook facts are subject to our neutral point of view policy. Both of these hooks are neutral, in addition to being directly cited. They were reviewed by other editors experienced in DYK according to our DYK rules.
  • In what way does an article on a Ukrainian football (soccer) referee try to stoke divisiveness in the United States? Would you have said the same of a Spanish or German or South African referee? (You might wish to know that we have a policy that no more than half of a DYK hook set can be about United States topics.)
Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:57, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
We're increasing decisiveness in this country. :D Those poor patriots. valereee (talk) 13:59, 16 July 2022 (UTC)
It's even funnier because Wikipedia isn't US-centric. SL93 (talk) 14:11, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Exceptions

Are there ever exceptions to the seven-day cutoff requirement? William H. Davis (educator) was recently promoted to GA on 7 July; however, I was not able to submit a DYK nomination in the time since. I know it is unlikely, but I wanted to see if it was possible for me to still nominate this article. Thanks again! -- West Virginian (talk) 00:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

We tend to be a bit forgiving of delays that are a couple of days late, so I don't see how three days is going to hurt. I do suggest you do it as soon as possible because the longer you delay a possible nomination the less likely IAR will be granted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

How would the seven-day timeframe apply here?

So, I would like to self-nominate Mandla Lamba that has just been 5× expanded (actually, completely rewritten), but:

  • it is currently under AfD — the rewrite was a personal WP:HEYMANN of sorts, as the article content had been completely disjoint from reliable sources uncovered in the discussion
  • unstable: there has been edit warring / vandalism coming from accounts that created and AfD-defended the article — I would hardly be surprised if there was UPE/COI involved

Can the seven-day timeframe for nomination be waived in view of the circumstances?

I am also aware that the article falls under WP:BLPCRIME and would welcome assistance from experienced editors to scrutinize for issues in that respect.

Lastly, what is the preferred way for me to create the nomination page? I used draftspace last time round, is that okay or would it be better to do it some other way.

Thanks, — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 15:32, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd suggest you nominate right away. It's seven days even if the time is spent at AfD, and those deletion nominations can go on for weeks. If the AfD fails, the already-created nomination proceeds; if AfD succeeds, then the nomination closes because the article is no longer there. Since you do not have a username, you cannot edit in Template space, so if draftspace worked last time, it makes sense for you to continue with that methodology. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Done: nom page at Draft:Did you know nominations/Mandla Lamba for now (requires move) and listing at WP:DYKNOM#Mandla Lamba. Thanks! — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Now at Template:Did you know nominations/Mandla Lamba.  MANdARAX  XAЯAbИAM  14:12, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Time to switch to two-sets-per-day

DYK now has 120 approved nominations. It is time to switch to two-sets-per-day. Flibirigit (talk) 13:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the update. Pinging @DYK admins: . SL93 (talk) 13:14, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
We still need to wait 11 hours until we make the switch. —Kusma (talk) 13:16, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I understand that, but the notification now is better than last minute. I didn't state the 11 hours information since I figured that the DYK admins would already know from earlier. SL93 (talk) 13:34, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
Please note that in Prep 6: Norman Osborn (Sam Raimi film series) was requested for July 22. After the changeover, it would be appreciated if this could be moved to the corresponding prep. I don't think there are any other hooks that are requested dates. Z1720 (talk) 15:25, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
I note that there are currently only two approved queues, which is only 24 hours' worth at two-sets-per-day, so more queues need to be approved fairly urgently. TSventon (talk) 16:19, 17 July 2022 (UTC)
 Done UTC midnight is lunchtime for me; easy to do this change. I'll now move Norman Osborn (unless somebody else has already done so). Schwede66 00:46, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of all 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 10. We have a total of 239 nominations, of which only 138 were approved, a gap of 129 nominations, down 16 over the previous nine days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

More than three months old

More than two months old

More than one month old

Other 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) 05:41, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_186&oldid=1145399952"