This is anarchive of past discussions aboutWikipedia:Did you know.Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on thecurrent talk page.
Re the CLOP:Using Earwig I can see there might be minor parts of common sentences that are similar like "at the age of 28" or parts of quotes like "[I] would travel back to the United States" but nothing major. Are those the problem you are referring to, or if not, can you be more specific?
Re the hook: I believe there are many parts of this article that could pique people's interest:
A Japanese man in the 70s traveled to the USA to learn silversmithing from Native Americans. He was so loved by them that they adopted him and allowed him to attend a Sun Dance. Perhaps it's a problem of rewriting the existing hook?
A Lakota family adopting a Japanese man is quite rare and interesting in itself.
Celebrities like Eric Clapton and John Mayer collecting the silversmithing work of a Japanese man that learned his trade from Native Americans seems like it would appeal to a more general public, but also seems less edifying to me.
Goro starting the whole movement of Native-American inspired jewelry in Japan seems interesting.
I may have to agree with Gatoclass here. I don't really know what a Sun Dance is, although I do know who the Lakota are. To me, the interest here is the "first Japanese person to be allowed to see X" thing, what exactly is X is more secondary to the point. Like, if he was the first Japanese person to see X, it must have been some kind of big deal even if I don't know what X is. I imagine that readers may feel the same way, although of course other editors may disagree.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)16:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I withdraw my objection then, but I still have CLOP concerns. (It's things like "at the age of 28" and "would travel back to the United States".)--Launchballer16:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I reckon it's a 5x expansion from about 10 and a half days before nominating to now and MontanaMako is a newish nominator. I won't pull it, but I won't object if someone else does.--Launchballer16:44, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
It seems I didn't fully understand what 5x meant for DYK. I thought it meant that the article itself was 5x byall Wikipedia editors, not just me. If this mistake means this isn't okay to be on DYK, then so be it. Apologies for all the confusion this simple nomination caused.MontanaMako (talk)16:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
You were understanding it correctly. 5x expansion is by all editors, not necessarily the nominator. The question is if a 5x expansion was accomplished within seven days of the nomination, regardless of who expanded it.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)17:10, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I see. To be honest, I kind of assumed it would be 5x because I nominated it after the album released, thus there’d be a lot more info for the article. I could’ve been wrong though.MontanaMako (talk)17:52, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
... that land vertebrates and freshwater fish likelimias(example pictured) have been hypothesized to have colonized the Caribbean islands viaa controversial land bridge?
Apart from the clunkiness of the prose (ie, "have been hypothesized to have"), the phrase "a controversial land bridge" is just confusing. How can a piece of land be controversial? What the phrase is trying to say is that a certain land bridgehypothesis is controversial. A better hook might perhaps be something like:
ALT1: ... thata hypothetical land bridge may account for the presence of certain land vertebrates and freshwater fish likelimias(example pictured) in the Caribbean islands?
Your ALT1 is definitely an improvement and I agree with your concern. "may account" could be weakened to something like "has been suggested as an explanation for", but of course that is getting a bit long. —Kusma (talk)12:54, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I think the really interesting thing here is a land bridge enabling fish to migrate, so perhaps the hook should concentrate on that aspect.RoySmith(talk)15:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The fact is already implied in the suggested hook. But the article doesn't really expand on the method by which that may have occurred, so highlighting that particular angle further would only lead to reader disappointment. In any case, it would be a tough job combining that with the info about the bridge being hypothetical. It was a pretty tough job coming up with a hook that successfully linked the two bolded articles already, and I don't think I can do any better.Gatoclass (talk)15:32, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
The text in this hook is not matched with the text in the article in a two places - (1) the article says "membership within the Cowichan Tribes" was not possible before 1985 rather than "Indian status in Canada"; it's not obvious to me that those are the same thing. (2) the article says "her mother had married a Chinese man", not a "Chinese-Canadian" as per the hook above. These discrepancies should be resolved so the hook reflects the article and the cited sources exactly. Pinging@Ornithoptera,Vigilantcosmicpenguin, andAirshipJungleman29: — Amakuru (talk)15:06, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Good dayAmakuru, seems like the hook was altered after approval. I have adjusted the article to say "Chinese-Canadian". The reason why the 1985 date is important is thatadjustments to theIndian Act to remove the provisions that were applicable to Toporowski's case had occurred. The Cowichan Tribes barred Toporowski from membership because her mother had lost her Indian status through that act, and therefore she too would not be applicable for membership within the tribes. As a bit of a TLDR, her mother, and Toporowski before she was born, simultaneously lost both their status and their membership. If this is difficult to reconcile, we could use ALT0 or ALT2 as well.Ornithoptera (talk)18:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Hello@Ornithoptera:, I'll leave it up to you to decide whether this can be reconciled - if it's possible to summarise the above points in the article, so that the hook fact can be married up with what's written there, giving us a close match, then that will be fine. But if that isn't possible, a switch to another hook would be the way forward I think. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)15:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
A bit busy in terms of my work schedule at the moment, if it would be implemented it would probably be a footnote. Would it be possible to switch to ALT0?Ornithoptera (talk)08:46, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
... thatbædlings may have been a third gender in Anglo-Saxon society?
Does this count as a "definite fact" per the stipulations atWP:DYKCRIT? I'm not convinced that something that merely "may have" been true is legitimate for DYK, given that the hook gives readers no context on which to judge it's likelihood of being true. The article itself is not really terribly forthcoming on the weight of evidence for the different interpretations of this either...@Generalissima,Tenpop421, andAirshipJungleman29: — Amakuru (talk)16:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
that's fair, but i'm not sure i agree with that – if that's the standard, then pretty much anything can be a definite fact, since almost anythingmay be true? what's more accurate and definite is that smart, reputable people have suggested it is true.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)19:16, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
While not currently supported by the article, would either of these alternative wordings adddress the concerns?
... that scholars have suggested thatbædlings may have been a third gender in Anglo-Saxon society?
... that it has been suggested thatbædlings may have been a third gender in Anglo-Saxon society?
Hi@Narutolovehinata5,Theleekycauldron, andTenpop421: I would be happy with the first of those two suggestions if it could be made to match what's in the article - attributing the claim to "scholars" while also being clear that it's only one interpretation, gives it a sufficient air of legitimacy and IMHO elevates it to the point where the speculation itself is a definite fact. Currently the lead says"scholars have suggested that bædlings could represent a third gender", but this is not directly mentioned in this language with a citation in the body AFAICT, so that would need to be done before go-live. As an aside, my interpretation is the same as leeky's that I wouldn't count "X may be true" as a definite fact. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)15:05, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
No opinion on this particular case, but when scholars have said something may be the case, it is a definite fact that they have so opined, which is sufficient to meetWP:DYKCRIT.Gatoclass (talk)15:21, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
... that pilots reported debris at an altitude of 30,000 feet (9,100 m) after the1957 Ruskin Heights tornado?
The article doesn't as far as I can see mention that the debris at 30,000 was reported by pilots. The relevant text simply says"Debris from Hickman Mills was found in Iowa, 165 mi (266 km) away, and other debris was carried aloft 30,000 ft (9,100 m; 5.7 mi; 9.1 km)", without saying how the elevated debris was known about...@EF5,Wildfireupdateman,Departure–, andAirshipJungleman29: — Amakuru (talk)16:22, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
I was in the process of verifying ALT0 and never checked this one. I don't have access to the source, but I did find that the NWS source the figure of 30,000 is sourced to states:
On May 20, 1957 the atmospheric wind profile displayed a clockwise change in wind direction from the surface up through 30,000 feet in the atmosphere. This type of atmospheric wind profile often is associated with rotating or supercell type thunderstorms (Figure 6)
This refers to helicity in the atmosphere, not debris. I can't access most of the sources cited there. However, the Weather Bureau May 1957 Storm Data source states:
Debris carried to height of 30,000 feet and to many miles from damage path.
I'd remove the "pilots reported" part. Even though I'm not sure how else it would be verified, pilots aren't mentioned in any of the sources I can access.Departure– (talk)16:56, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
What I'm thinking is that he might have gone "there's no other way to see debris at 30k at that time, so it must be from pilots" and he would be right, but I'm afraid of that being OR. But again, WP:VNT is a thing, so by that standard the original hook would work.Wildfireupdateman :) (talk)00:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29,ProfGray, andVigilantcosmicpenguin: It seems to me that to get from the the paragraph ("For David Bergelson, hefker refers to expressionist poetry itself...") in the article to the hook requires a bit more insight and interpretation than is typical for DYK, but I'd like a second opinion on this one.
There was also a question raised on the nom page about whether most readers would understand the word "Talmudic". My guess is that most people, while perhaps not actually knowing what the Talmud is, would at least recognize that it's a historic book associated with Judiasm, but let's see what others thing about that as well.RoySmith(talk)15:30, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
This also contains some long direct quotes from PD sources. That's fine, but I think they need to be set out as quotes with explicit attribution.RoySmith(talk)15:34, 4 January 2025 (UTC)
It's good to hear people's thinking about this DYK. Let me clarify that the scholars Naomi Brenner and Harriet Murav are the ones who make the interpretation (or finding) that hefker conveys both senses of freedom and abandonment. FWIW, I think "Talmudic" is acceptable but, to err on the side of caution, I edited the article to give a brief descript of the word Talmud. Please let me know if there's more needed on my end.ProfGray (talk)16:45, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
There are two sources cited in the lead that looked to verify the statement "first American born in San Francisco" statement. While one is an old headline, it is from the NYT and there's a secondbut offline source present. ~Pbritti (talk)16:51, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not an issue of what the sources say. It's that the hook says something that the article doesn't say. PerWP:DYKHOOKThe wording of the article, hook, and source should all agree with each other with respect to who is providing the informationRoySmith(talk)17:01, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I was confused as to the issue. Would appropriate resolutions be rephrasing to something like "claim he was 'the first American' born in San Francisco" or dispensing with the quotation marks entirely? ~Pbritti (talk)17:05, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
The issue is that the hook says that Greeneclaimed he was the "first American born in San Francisco". That is not what the article says.RoySmith(talk)17:21, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
See the lead paragraph. Second sentence. It states what is in the hook. The selective quote about Greene's comments later in the article is not representative of all of Greene's statements on this subject as he repeated these claims in various words across many speeches.4meter4 (talk)
@RoySmith. would this hook be more suitable as it more closely matches the lead: ... that multiple sources state that playwrightClay M. Greene(pictured) was the first American born in San Francisco; a controversial claim spread by the writer?4meter4 (talk)18:06, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Why not just do the obvious thing and use the wording from the aricle:
... that playwrightClay M. Greene(pictured) claimed he was the "the first white child born in San Francisco"?
@RoySmith Ok. If that is what you think is necessary. In digging up that source again and double checking for accuracy, the exact quote is "the first American white child born in San Francisco". I modified the text accordingly in the article to exactly match the source. Best.4meter4 (talk)19:47, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. I'll make the corresponding change to the hook. BTW, I tried to read the source, but newspapers.com seems to be broken at the moment. Do you have a URL where I could get at it?RoySmith(talk)19:50, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah, I see the source of the confusion. I was expecting to see a direct quote of Greene saying, "I was the first American white child born in San Francisco", which is why I was insisting on reproducing the text exactly. But that's not the case. Regardless, I think what we've got now is fine, so let's go with that.RoySmith(talk)23:24, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
I've used "condemnation" in place of criticism in the article. Source supports it: "In the increasingly anti-Japanese atmosphere of the times, this freshly made-in-Japan appearance was a liability much heavier than the first generation of Lingnan painters had had to bear twenty years earlier. ... After the outbreak of full-scale war in 1937, such appeals to cultural conscience were useless and the Japanese background even more damaging to the Lingnan School. ... With Japanese armies transcending China's borders, a cosmopolitanism that included the national enemy was not in style." (Croizier), "Despite some explicitly anti-Japanese art by Gao Jianfu and his followers at the outbreak of the Sino-Japanese War in 1937, most works displayed unmistakable signs of Japanese stylistic influence, which aroused the ire of patriots as well as artistic conservatives." (Croizier and Liang) — Chris Woodrich (talk)
Then the solution would be to change "criticism" in the article body to "condemnation" because as the source suggests, it was not merely artistic criticism.Yue🌙20:19, 7 January 2025 (UTC)
@SL93,MumphingSquirrel,Chaiten1, andAirshipJungleman29: I question whether SKBL (cited in the nom) is aWP:RS, and this is the kind of "first" which can be problematic; it's really hard to know if any woman in Sweden had ever driven a bus before she did. There's also a fair amount ofWP:CLOP vs skbl.se/en/article/BertaPersson; not just the exact matches Earwig highlights, but continuing to the surrounding text. As an aside to Airship; you said in the nom that "I don't have time to check fully". If that was the case, then wouldn't it have been better to not approve it yourself?RoySmith(talk)18:08, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith Earwig now reports the article as violations being 0% across all sources. SKBL is a reliable source per this on the About SKBL page - "The project leaders are Lisbeth Larsson and Maria Sjöberg. The editorial board comprises Berith Backlund, Linus Karlsson, Ulrika Lagerlöf Nilsson, Cecilia Pettersson, Scharolta Siencnik, and Linnea Åshede. The dictionary entries were written by experts and researchers (listed under the entry for ʻArticle authors’) and translated into English by Alexia Grosjean. The database was developed by Språkbanken and is managed by Swe-Clarin. The database and the dictionary form part of KvinnSam – the National Resource Library for Gender Studies at the University of Gothenburg... As for the hook fact, Sweden's official Facebook pageagrees. I don't see a reason to doubt the Swedish government in this case.SL93 (talk)21:57, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
Oh, maybe it's supposed to be... that the comedy film Starbuck, and the Holstein bull after which it was named, both had cloned remakes?RoySmith(talk)18:22, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Sloppy work on my part. I have added the collection of the 1906 specimen, now characterized as aparatype, to the article. If you would be so kind, please adjust the hook to read "that specimens ofAquilegia daingolica were collected in 1906 and 1909, but it was first described as a new species in 2013?" Apologies, and outstanding catch! Best, ~Pbritti (talk)18:34, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
An interesting hook, but it says that " the harsh treatment of Allied prisoners of war in Japan is well known in the West but mostly forgotten in Japan itself?". The article, however, says that it is "ignored or glossed over", which do not appear to be synonyms of "forgotten".Black Kite (talk)21:08, 9 January 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: Your edit to the hookhere improved my admittedly clunky syntax but I think also introduced ambiguity. The reason I had worded it such a way was to indicate that the quote refers to the one individual song, whereas I think the updated wording loses that distinction and makes it sound like the quote refers to the album as a whole. Would it be an improvement to say,
ALT0a ...that when asked about a song onAlways Happy to Explode, its principal songwriter asked listeners to "love it for me, for I cannot"?
The 6.0 number isn't even found in the article, the figure given in the text is 5.5-6. It also contradicts other content in the article, which says "A later study focusing on debris fallout discovered that debris from an intense tornado was lofted as high as 12 km (7.5 mi) into the atmosphere". Why use the lower range, and why arbitrarily pick a single figure from that lower range?
Using "debris" unqualified could be misleading, given that the common meaning of debris is something like rubble or wreckage. Most people will not think of paper, and the idea of a piece of rubble being shot 353 km away is quite a bit more startling than a piece of paper drifting that far in the air.
Speaking of, the 353 km figure appears to be an extreme outlier, but this hook pairs it with the (I assume) more common 6km figure, making it instead appear like this is something that happens often.
I just wanted a quick and easily citable figure for the height. 6.5 is (I believe) the highest figure from the Super Outbreak paper (the easiest to verify), so any figure it should be (5.5, 6.5, 7.5 (which I didn't use as I believe that specific measurement was potentially unreliable and questionable)) is going to work fine in the blurb. You'd be surprised how often "debris" unqualified is used to refer to anything the tornado lifts (literally its definition) - it's also not explicitly just paper, as it's impossible to verify the contents of non-meteorological debris in the atmosphere. The outlier figure from Lenoir City could be feasibly qualified with a "record" or "on one occasion" in the hook.Departure– (talk)01:27, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that that's how "debris" is used in the actual literature, considering the article is titled "debris fallout". My point is that the layman's perception of what "debris" means is not going to be paper, and the hook comes off quite a bit differently when you read it without any qualification. If you're going to focus on the 353 figure, and it's certainly interesting enough that you could do so and ditch the 6.0 entirely, I would make it more clear that it's an outlier figure. ♠PMC♠(talk)01:32, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm having trouble with this too, for a different reason than @Premeditated Chaos. Our article saysDebris was frequently lofted as high as 5.5–6.5 km, which is apparently based on Knox et al which saysThese heights are consistent with the 5.5- to 6.5-km peak heights for debris lofting estimated by Forbes (2012) So we've taken a "consistent with ... estimated by" and turned that into a wikivoice "frequently". No bueno.RoySmith(talk)02:37, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Ah, yeah, in the article text. The hook is actually better in this sense as it hedges with "has been known to". ♠PMC♠(talk)02:44, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm alright with that. I had hoped to include the windbreaker as it qualifies as the "heavy debris" mentioned in the article, but the hook works fine either way.Departure– (talk)15:29, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Also, if you are going to include it, perhaps mentioning the fact that the debris was recovered in a different state will increase the hook's interesting quality.
What's interesting is how far the storm moved an object. Storms don't worry about political boundaries, so telling people it's a different state doesn't add anything.RoySmith(talk)15:54, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
So far, I think that RoySmith's hook is the best option. I agree with his thoughts about boundaries as well.SL93 (talk)19:02, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
Then that hook it is. State boundaries aren't too important to me, as I think that crossing at least one border (if not multiple) is expected at 353 km. Thanks for bringing that up, RoySmith.Departure– (talk)19:05, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 26. We have a total of 283 nominations, same as last time, of which 171 have been approved, a gap of 112 nominations that has increased by 19 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks!BlueMoonset (talk)04:47, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
It's amazing that we've been running two sets per day for the past five days and the deficit is still moving in the wrong direction. I wonder if we should be looking at 10 hooks per set after we get done beating down this backlog?RoySmith(talk)18:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
171 approved hooks per this list, 190 per the last one; 93 non-approved per the last list, 112 per this one. The number of approved hooks is shrinking. Am I missing something?--Launchballer20:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
Mind the gap. If you look at the Approved noms page, last night it was fully transcluded for the first time in weeks. Progress is being made on the deficit; thanks to recent promotions to prep, we're now down to 141 approved hooks, a drop of 30 in the past day and a half. But the number of unapproved hooks is increasing now that we're not in backlog mode and the GA backlog drive is in full swing.BlueMoonset (talk)16:30, 6 January 2025 (UTC)
I should add that increasing it to 10 hooks per set (I wrote day above) would work if the 2x QPQ requirement was also set at editors with more than 10 nominations instead of the current 20. I forgot to write that previously.TarnishedPathtalk12:09, 10 January 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer above gave figures which indicated that while approved hooks was shrinking unapproved hooks was increasing. Reducing the QPQ x 2 requirement from editors with > 20 nominations down to editors with > 10 nominations would address that.TarnishedPathtalk01:58, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
That two-QPQs requirement only comes into effect when backlog mode is on, which is only for brief periods when the unapproved hooks get extremely high. 112 unapproved is far from extremely high, and we want more-experienced reviewers to do those second QPQs, not people who only have five reviews under their belts. (Five freebies and five QPQs is the standard experience for someone on their 11th nomination.)BlueMoonset (talk)05:10, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree about the WP:BLP aspect. I've swapped in ALT1. If somebody wants to go to the trouble to schedule this for her birthday, I won't object, but I can't get too excited about it.RoySmith(talk)21:12, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it makes a difference, but Smith seems to have embraced the nickname - it's included in her official Twitter and Instagram handles, for example. Regards,BennyOnTheLoose (talk)22:04, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
Given the standards given onWP:SOHA, it's probably not a good idea to schedule this on January 15 just because of Wikipedia's mention. It seems like a rather flimsy special occasion. We've rejected arguably more deserving occasions in the past, so I can't see why this rather weak connection should be given a pass.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)00:11, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I still can't get over how certain end of citation rules are pointless - like this one. Just thinking out loud a bit.SL93 (talk)21:54, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
When I'm checking a hook, this is one of those rules I'm willing to play a little fast and lose with. As long as there's a citation pretty close, and it's obvious what source backs up the hook fact, I'm good, even if it's not strictly at the end of the sentence. So sue me.RoySmith(talk)22:03, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
First hooks are notoriously problematic. This one seems fine as earlier patents would have been rejected by law (and indeed onewas), but I'm opening this to the floor just in case.--Launchballer17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think this is OK. The source says "The patent grant was made possible by a decision last year by the U.S. Court of Customs and Patent Appeals", so at least there's a small window of time in which an earlier software patent might have issued. And apparently this was followed extensively in the industry press, so it's unlikely an earlier one just wasn't noticed. This is mentioned inMartin Goetz, and I also found a bunch of other citations.[1][2][3]RoySmith(talk)21:27, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
@Kingoflettuce,Darth Stabro, andHilst: Not sure how comfortable I am with this on BLP grounds; while Roach is dead, we don't know if Casey or Schwartz is. There was a suggestion at the nom page of receiving a standing ovation for admitting to his alcoholism and I think we should go with that.--Launchballer17:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
I think the drunk driving aspect would quality forWP:DYKTRIM. If you're alright with the slightly more conciseALT1a: ... that ArchbishopJohn Roach received a standing ovation for admitting his alcoholism?, I'll swap it in.--Launchballer21:38, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29:, after reading through the special considerations section of the Did You Know? guidelines, I would probably agree with you that a hook on this article should be more focused on a real-world topic than the current hook is. I apologize for that oversight on my end, just let me know what I should do moving forward with this submission and I await feedback from the nominator. Thanks, -JJonahJackalope (talk)13:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
While it probably constitutes a violation, it's an entertaining hook that does link to two topics pertaining to real-world physics, namelywarp drive andmaglocks - which serves our educational purpose. Perhaps we couldWP:IAR this one?Gatoclass (talk)18:04, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Warp drives are definitely fictional. Maglocks, while real, seem very prosaic, at least judging from the linked article; no idea why they were chosen ahead of space suits interestingness-wise.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)18:27, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I meant maglocks and the “look like American semi-trucks from the 1970s?” I just woke up. As for the space suits, I don’t see such a hook suggested.SL93 (talk)18:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
Yes, warp drives are fictional, but if you read the article, it includes an entire section on the physics related to the idea. Maglocks might be "prosaic" but I've never heard of them so they tweaked my curiosity. Not sure what your comment about spacesuits pertains to, but everybody knows what a spacesuit is.Gatoclass (talk)18:53, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
The previous list hasn’t yet been archived but it has only a few unreviewed noms remaining, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 3. We have a total of 270 nominations, of which 147 have been approved, a gap of 123 nominations that has increased by 11 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks!BlueMoonset (talk)03:06, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
TonyTheTiger The latest icon in the nomination is {{subst:DYK?}} so that puts it in the unapproved section. If someone approved the latest hooks and added {{subst:DYKtick}} then it would be approved again.TSventon (talk)13:33, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
This Kiwi redhead is getting treated like the perverbial a redheaded stepchild (Not making up the phrase you can google "like a redheaded stepchild"). I have heard of American bias. I can list any smoe American basketball player, but this poor redheaded Kiwi can't get no love.-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)15:17, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, there have been hooks in the past about American sports personalities that have also been questioned due to lack of appeal to non-American readers, so it isn't specifically an anti-American (or pro-American for that matter) bias.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)00:09, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
For the record, I don't do a lot of international editing, so I don't know if this is unusual here, but in my editing history, I have never written an article and noticed so many editors from a specific country were so interested that they would jump in with editorial corrections before. So many New Zealand editors (User:Alexeyevitch,User:Gadfium,User:Schwede66,User:Panamitsu, maybeUser:Lukraun) expressed an interest in the article as editors, that I think WP is showing a lack of ethnic sensitivity by expressing lacked enthusiasm for subjects of interest to smaller (in this case ethnic) interest groups. I would have expected a small but differently concentrated viewership for this article. I suspect clickthroughs would come from Kiwi readers who have a smaller set of opportunities to do so at DYK in general. If this ran and got less than 2k clickthroughs they probably would not be from the common locations, but with a concentration, like the editorship of this article. Is this racist?-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)14:04, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
Can someone step in with a teaching moment for me. I know this subject is of strong interest to people from New Zealand and New Zealand is a fairly small country (population 5 million). I also believe that New Zealand subjects are probably a bit rare at DYK especially those where the word New Zealand could so easily be included in the hook. I feel such strong expressions of apathy for a subject with a small ethnic interest groups seem to unfair and counter to WP interest in a year when2025:Wikimania highlights inclusivity. Is WP's 2025 theme of inclusivity something DYK considers with respect to subjects pertinent to small interest groups.-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)16:58, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
That is a nonsensical interpretation, the most related read of what Narutolovehinata5 said regarding inclusivity would be that DYK hooks strive for maximum possible inclusivity.CMD (talk)14:09, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: Doesyour edit mean that the nomination is closed? AFAICS, most of the 2+ months elapsed was while under the assumption that this was approved and ready to go:
Yes, I marked the nomination for closure perWP:DYKTIMEOUT and a lack of consensus regarding a hook.WP:DYKTIMEOUT generally refers to unpromoted nominations, though I think it might be better for it to refer to nominations that haven't run, since depending on how the wording is interpreted, promoting then pulling a hook could reset the timer under the current wording. Since the nomination is already over two months old, it was under editor discretion to time it out or not.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)08:39, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: It seems pretty cutthroat. I could understand if it had an explicit outstanding issue for months. Instead, it was formally approved, but the lack of a promotion for ~2 mos became a stealth unapprove. That's putting the onus on nominators to constantly pester why their approved nomination has not been promoted, for fear a last minute issue will similarly be raised and their nomination will also be killed via timeout. —Bagumba (talk)08:54, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
That's why DYKTIMEOUT isn't mandatory, it's editor discretion. There are cases when even if a nomination is already over two months old, it shouldnot be timed out if there's good reason (for example, if discussion or workshopping is still ongoing). For what it's worth, multiple editors had expressed reservations about the hook options, so I took that into account when marking the nomination for closure. Had other editors said that they were willing to salvage the nomination, the closure marking would not have happened.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)09:03, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I have replied to the nomination as the original reviewer; personally I think ALT8 is suitable and passes the DYK brief, but if there are still dissenting voices on this I'm happy to hear them out. Otherwise I suggest this be promoted using ALT8.Sims2aholic8 (talk)09:45, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I personally am okayish with ALT8, but I agree withHilst that it probably won't do all that well on DYK. Given that they objected to the options, it might be worth hearing their thoughts first (or from other editors) before proceeding with ALT8.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)09:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
I dislike ALT8 because it's not really a fact specific to Oscar Goodman. You could swap him out for any other player from the under-17 team (or even the coach), and it would still work. – 🌻Hilst (talk |contribs)11:29, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
For the record, I'm also very baffled with the claims that there is an anti-Australia New Zealand bias on DYK or with the nomination, or that rejecting the nomination would harm DYK's "diversity". The concerns regarding interest were independent of the subject beingAustralian New Zealander, and I imagine if similar concerns existed but the subject was instead, for example, British, such concerns would still remain.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)09:53, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Australia (population 28 million, the 54th largest nation) is not as underrepresented on DYK and this is not an Australian hook. New Zealand (population 5 million, 125th largest), which is less than 1/5th the size of Australia, and I presume it is underrepresented. That is the issue here.-TonyTheTiger(T /C /WP:FOUR /WP:CHICAGO /WP:WAWARD)13:35, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Again, the issue isn't an anti-New Zealand or anti-country bias. The question is if there is consensus for a nomination to run. If there are existing concerns or objections, then it can't run. The issues with this nomination have nothing to do with having an anti-New Zealand bias, or wanting to prevent diversity on DYK. On the contrary, a diverse selection of topics is one of the things DYK strives for. But just because we aim for diversity or promoting underrepresented topics on DYK doesn't mean rules and guidelines should be waived or ignored. If a nomination about an underrepresented topic is rejected, it isnot due to a bias against that topic, or a desire to prevent diversity, but rather an issue with the article, hook, or nomination.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)13:52, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
The hook doesn’t use the word “only” or “inspired”. The hook is “… that Gracie Abrams wrote Good Riddance about her breakup from her former collaborator and boyfriend, Blake Slatkin” and that is what the song is about.SL93 (talk)12:04, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I did not include the word "only" in the hook; I used Slatkin for the hook since it is much more interesting to know an album was written about her ex boyfriend and former collaborator (a notable person) than just friendships and family.Locust member (talk)12:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
As others have stated, the hooks don’t use the word “only”—and if we’re talking about the insinuation of “only” given that the hooks omit mention of other inspirations, I don’t feel compelled by that either. I believe the hooks are fine as they are in this regard.Phibeatrice (talk)15:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29 asks a good and needed question. ABG, I think your sourcing is pretty poor, but the search results you provide show that the term has currency in Japan, particularly in the car industry and related niche sites, so much so, so that it appears that many of your cited sources are in part, a response from the car industry to the trend. So with that said, I think it's clear the term has currency in Japan. There's also the related and associated legal case(s) and general phenomenon of elderly drivers and unintended acceleration (usually involving a Prius) that appears in many related articles, scholarly journals, and news articles. The problem AirshipJungleman29 poses then becomes a bit narrower in terms of Wikipedia. In other words, while the phenomenon and term can be said to exist and are in use, do the sources meet the criteria for inclusion (in other words NEOLOGISM)? The article by Yoshitaka Kimura that you cite, which appears to be an article in an auto industry news site known as "Mediavague" (which I think might be funded by the auto industry to promote their products), argues that the term has been in use since at least early 2019, which establishes that it was a problem for Toyota, and was very real and threatened their business. I think this meets the RS criteria, and it reads as a kind of industry hybrid betweenConsumer Reports andCar and Driver. Your second link also mentions the Prius Missile but is more of a used car site run by Nextage. I'm not convinced this is a great RS, but we have a lot of others to choose from based on your search results. From there, I see a link to an article by MOTA, which is a car industry trade group, again, likely trying to dispel the internet slang which could harm Toyota's brand. Moving on, I see an interesting blog post about the phenomenon with some detail over "Creative Trends", but I don't think this meets RS. On the other hand, I see an article about the Prius Missile by jidounten lab, which appears to be a respected, reliable auto and tech journalism site. I also see a BuzzFeed Japan article about the term in your results. I think the problem here is that the sources in the current Wikipedia article, while accurate, might need to have better sources added, which I can clearly see in your google search results.Viriditas (talk)00:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
My horrible attention span may have caused me to misunderstand some parts. I got lost on the last part, were you referring to links in the article or the previous message I sent here? I know it's an annoying question...ABG (Talk/Report any mistakes here)10:57, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I think what Viriditas is saying @AlphaBetaGamma is that you should add some of the other sources (that are reliable) from the google search you linked, into the article since they are missing.Lajmmoore (talk)18:24, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I wrongly assumed that there was something that I was missing when I checked for CLOP because two substantial editors participated in the DYK. I swear to not do that again, and to follow my gut instinct. I will see about fixing it.SL93 (talk)00:24, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I am admittedly a less experienced editor, but are most of these changes needed? Does stating that someone was "sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole" actually violate CLOP?Swinub★01:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Records show that he had at least three different stepfathers and three half-siblings by the time he was 15 years old. Meza began using drugs at age eight and was first arrested in 1973 on shoplifting and burglary charges; the following year, he was accused of arson
County and state marriage records show Meza had at least three different stepfathers and three half-siblings before he was 15 years old ... Meza began using drugs at the age of 8 and was first arrested in 1973 on shoplifting and burglary charges ... The following year, the report stated, Meza was accused of arson
That's classic close paraphrasing, which is defined as "superficial modification of material from another source". Once I saw that, I kept looking and found other examples. Yeah, most of the changes were needed.RoySmith(talk)01:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith: this is probably a British-ism, where "school" and "university" are separate: "at school" excludes "at university". We could add "was accepted to university and became a professor of classics" to clarify that distinction? Alternatively, there are two ALTs:
I was not aware of that British usage, thanks for that. I'm not opposed to any of those, but maybe the simplest fix would be to say "... six weeks at secondary school".RoySmith(talk)15:28, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
@TheDoctorWho andSammi Brie: the way this article mentions the incident (captioned the poster with "Joy to the Worlds", mirroring the title "Joy to the World") is not entirely clear, especially the word "mirroring". Would it not be better to simply state that the title was misspelled?~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)13:46, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
We switched to 9 hooks per set a while ago. That has certainly kept us closer to keeping up with nominations, but we're still falling behind and having to run in 12-hour mode once in a while to keep up. I suggest we try 10 hooks per set and see how that goes.RoySmith(talk)01:12, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure if one extra hook per set will help much if at all. I do think that more prep builders would help.SL93 (talk)01:29, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
I do not mind going to 10 hooks a set. If we start running out, we can always return to 9-a-set at a later date.Z1720 (talk)03:14, 13 January 2025 (UTC)
Nine is already more than enough IMO. Apart from the extra work required in verifying a 10-hook set, it becomes much harder not to repeat topics with longer sets, and longer sets just tend to look cluttered. 12-hour mode has long been a staple of DYK anyhow and one extra hook per set is not going to change that.Gatoclass (talk)12:32, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
I think we're getting to the point where DYK is at risk of getting so long that hooks won't get the attention they deserve. I'd rather not move to 10 unless the overall backlog situation gets worse. —Kusma (talk)12:42, 15 January 2025 (UTC)
@Kusma no worries. I didn't worry about it when I was promoting the hook because it was at the end of the paragraph anyway. Can't hurt to have it at the end of each sentence though.TarnishedPathtalk10:17, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
PingingPrince of Erebor The fifth reference onLast Song for You seems unreliable. Google Translate reveals that it is a WordPress blog. I'm planning on promoting prep 2 when it is ready, and I'm just doing some early checking.SL93 (talk)22:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
HeySL93, I believe you are referring toFilm Pilgrimage, which should be considered a reliable source because Gary Wong Kwun-ho (王冠豪) is an established film historian and writer with a long career researching on film location scouting and his books are widely cited in this field. (He is also a notable figure that warrants an article, and I have had him on my to-write list for a long time.) So I believe he qualifies as asubject matter expert according toWP:RSPWORDPRESS. (Film articles on zhwiki have also citedFilm Pilgrimage for the same rationale.) Also, the article is an exclusive interview with the director and lead actress, discussing the filming locations (which falls within Wong's expertise and does not contain exceptional claims). So I see no issue with citing Wong's piece in this case. —Prince of Erebor（The Book of Mazarbul）04:38, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Pinging4meter4 The Unruh, Delbert (2018). Forgotten Designers Costume Designers of American Broadway Revues and Musicals From 1900–1930 reference was published by Page Publishing. It is a self-publishing company. The source can work if Delbert Unruh received significant coverage over his work.SL93 (talk)22:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
@SL93 You have not actually looked at the article and what sources are physically cited in the article for the hook. Unruh isn't cited in the article for the source. Hischak is for the quote which is fromScarecrow Press. But Hischak oddly excluded Swanstrom from the lyrics credits. That's why I provided two different sources verifying Swanstrom as a co-lyricist of this work when I proposed the hook. One was Unruh, but the same content is also found in Bloom which is the source actually cited for the hook content in the article. Bloom is published bySchirmer Books. There isn't a verifiability issue here.4meter4 (talk)00:43, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
4meter4 I never said that the Unruh source was used for the hook. I brought it up just in case because no unreliable sources should be used in articles. If the self-published source doesn't help anything, I fail to see why you want it there. Checking preps is not just about checking hooks.SL93 (talk)00:47, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
SL93 Here is Delbert Unruh's obituaryhere. He was a full professor of theatre at the University of Kansas where he taught for forty years. He was aFullbright scholar and was honored by the United States Institute of Theatre Technology and by theKennedy Center for his work as a theatre scholar and educator. He's clearly a subject matter expert. Given the source is only used to support a single non-controversial sentence in the article I don't think this should be issue. TheInternet Broadway Database has the same content, but I think Unruh is a better source to cite given who he is over a database without an attributed author. Best.4meter4 (talk)00:58, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
4meter4 That is all that I needed, and you did not need to assume bad faith on my part. You should also know better. Well, it certainly isn't an issue now.SL93 (talk)00:59, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I misinterpreted your objection because I had mention Unruh as a supporting source of the hook in my nomination. I didn't realize initially that you were objecting to its inclusion in the article overall. I didn't mean to make you feel attacked or slighted in my comments. Best.4meter4 (talk)01:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I've had a look,SL93, and are happy to share my thoughts:
NZ Short Walks – that's obviously a blog and I couldn't figure out who the blogger is. Seems a well-informed person but without knowing more about who is doing the blogging, the default position has to be that this isn't a reliable source.
The End is Naenae – this is a blog by DrAnna McMartin,WikidataQ131787008 (I've made a Wikidata entry for her). She's a reasonably senior civil servant, and the area she's blogging about falls squarely within her professional expertise. I suggest thatWP:ACCORDINGTO is appropriate guidance and this content, if presented as McMartin's opinion, is acceptable to be used. And I've just spotted thatthe same story has been published byNorth and South; that's a rather well regarded magazine and gives the whole affair a lot of credence. The full story is behind a paywall and if anyone has access to it, that would obviously be preferable to use as a source.
NZ Short Walks is by Joanne Rolston. She is the author of The Kingdom (ISBN 9780473338923) but appreciate that is fiction. I believe she is working on a book on NZ history - but not yet published. I can't find much about her background/qualification etc. So accept that we have to default to not a reliable source.Petersmeter (talk)11:01, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
OlmagonAmateurHi$torianAirshipJungleman29 - How does anyone know that only two people are known to have seen the frog alive? The article even says this about the first discoverer - "He collected three individuals, which would later be studied and recognized as a new species by British biologist Arthur Loveridge in 1935." That would be two people already if those specimens were alive, and that is without mentioning the next discoverer of live specimens named Ronalda Keith.SL93 (talk)12:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
The source right after mentioning Arthur Loveridge makes it clear that they were preserved. The View Article link originally didn't show up on my screen. I just had to refresh. I'm sorry.SL93 (talk)13:59, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
I suppose it's always possible that someone saw this frog alive but never reported it or didn't realize it was this species, that's why I specified "known", but I suppose you seem to have solved the issue already without me anyways.Olmagon (talk)21:18, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Mccunicano A citation is needed after "Southbound exit."SL93 (talk) 12:21, 19 January 2025 (UTC)@SL93: That's what the Google Maps reference is for at the top of the junction list, but the information also exists within the page linked to the junctions that are to be closed, it's redundant to attach it for a junction that is not impacted by the closures. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️23:44, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
Mccunicano I wrongly assumed that everything in the notes was meant to be sourced to the 6th reference, and I didn't think Google Maps was the best option when another source is available. I came to that conclusion after searching recent discussions about if Google Maps was completely reliable, and I came acrossWP:GOOGLEMAPS a few minutes ago which revealed to me that it can be used to such a purpose as this. You can remove the citation.SL93 (talk)00:12, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 8. We have a total of 271 nominations, of which 156 have been approved, a gap of 115 nominations that has decreased by 8 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks!BlueMoonset (talk)21:31, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi there, some false positives due to quotations & things such as names of shows the case was featured on. I have paraphrased the rest, hope it works, thanks.jolielover♥talk02:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Done(edit conflict) Hi@SL93: I've taken a look at this and looks good to me. The only thing is, I thought the Career section seemed to be missing coverage from between 1987 and 2012, but then I noticed that was contained in the Filmography section. I've taken the liberty of folding those two into one as that seems to offer a better chronology. It's still a bit on the short side and could do with expansion on more of his career, but fine for a DYK IMHO. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)15:06, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
Two football hooks
Queue 6 has two football hooks from the same editor because of moves that happened to accommodate a special occasion hook. Only admins can edit Queue 6 at this point. Just seeing if an admin wants to switch one out for a non-sports hook, or decide that it isn't an issue. @DYK admins: .SL93 (talk)03:09, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Back to 24 hours?
@DYK admins: As of this moment, we've got five filled queues. If we can fill another two queues before midnight UTC (eight hours from now), we'll keep running 12 hour updates for another three days. Otherwise we're back to 24.RoySmith(talk)16:06, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: just to make sure everybody is aware, we're going to extend 12-hour mode (at least) another 3 days now that we have 7 full queues. We do have quite a backlog to dig out of. By my count, we've got 165 approved hooks, and there's another GAN review drive that just started so I expect another big influx of nominations. I expect it'll take us several more 3-day sprints to get back to normal and it'll be less disruptive to keep them going back-to-back vs flitting back and forth between modes.RoySmith(talk)22:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
So long as queue 3 is filled by midnight and the two date requests in queues 4 and 5 are suitably kicked back, I have no valid objections.--Launchballer22:38, 2 January 2025 (UTC)
As a reminder,WP:DYKSO saysThe reviewer must approve the special occasion request, but prep builders and admins are not bound by the reviewer's approval. The relevance to this discussion is that keeping the queues running smoothly is a higher priority than satisfying special date requests. I'm all for people putting in the extra effort shuffling hooks around to satisfy SOHA requests, but we can't let "perfect" get in the way of "good enough". It would have been a mistake to force a change to the update schedule because of SOHA.RoySmith(talk)14:32, 3 January 2025 (UTC)
Doing, although Glucoboy in prep 6 looks interesting and I might swap it and Tyler to avoid outsourcing. I'll make that decision after in nine articles' time.--Launchballer21:43, 5 January 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: We've got about 10 hours left in the current sprint. There's only 4 queues filled right now; unless we get 3 more filled today, we'll go back to 24 hour sets at 0000Z. By my count, we've currently got 156 approved hooks, and there's still that GA backlog drive going on, so I would expect another influx of nominations from that.RoySmith(talk)14:47, 8 January 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: we're down to 127 approved hooks, which is great progress, but still above the threshold for another sprint if we can get 4 queues filled in the next 8 hours.RoySmith(talk)15:51, 11 January 2025 (UTC)
OK, I've put us back to 24 hour mode. I think this was the first time we've tried the "3 day sprint" thing and from what I can see, it worked well. We ran for 12 days, knocked the backlog down from (I think) 165 to 128, and always knew where we were. No more panic when the queues ran down to empty. So, good job everybody. I haven't been keeping careful track, but I think Launchballer probably gets the prize for most sets promoted to queue during this.
My guess is we'll need to run some more sprints in the near future as the GA review drive throws more work our way. But for now, we get to stand down and get some more rest.RoySmith(talk)00:53, 12 January 2025 (UTC)
@SL93 We need more @DYK admins: to keep the queues filled, and then we could go back to 12 hour sets. If you're willing to help out in that department, I'd be happy to nominate you forWP:RfA. Or, if you prefer, I could just give youWP:TPE.RoySmith(talk)02:37, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith I thought that I needed to meet "The editor should have made at least 150 total edits to the Template and Module namespaces." for TPE. We also don't have that many prep builders so I wouldn't want to stop helping fill preps just so that I could promote them to queues.SL93 (talk)02:41, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I do have one question about moving a prep to queue. For example, I promoted two hooks that are in prep 2. Could I still promote those two hooks to a queue and leave a note on the DYK talk page for someone else to check over it? I wouldn't want to promote prep 7 or prep 1 because I filled those preps by myself, but I'm curious about if only a small amount of the hooks were promoted by me.SL93 (talk)17:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
I used to do both preps and queues, and often found myself in this kind of dilemma, so I decided to mostly work one side of the street. But, yeah, when I promote a set to a queue where I've had hands on one or two of the hooks, I'll post a request here for somebody else to look at those.RoySmith-Mobile (talk)18:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith I listedNoel Hilliam under the section Prep 2 to have someone look over the article because I promoted it to prep. I wonder if using the @DYK admins template would be acceptable in such a case.SL93 (talk)02:16, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
12-hour mode should be activated between midnight and 12:00 noon UTC tomorrow. If nobody has done it by then, I'll flip the switch after I wake up tomorrow. —Kusma (talk)17:25, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
The instructions sayFor a variety of technical reasons, you should only make a change shortly after midnight UTC. I've always assumed that means "sometime before noon", but I'be never been quite sure if there's not more to it than that.RoySmith(talk)17:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
I am not sure when the bot does its runs to updateUser:DYKUpdateBot/Errors, whether that depends on update frequency and how long it takes for the bot to notice a change in updates per day, but I don't really think anything will break if we change the time between updates in the late UTC morning. I wouldn't flip the switch at 11:55, but 8:30 should be pretty safe. —Kusma (talk)17:49, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Thelast queue I promoted was a few minutes after midnight. I must have caught it in mid-update and confused something because as soon as I saved it, I got the "Oh no, all queues are empty!" warning box (which tankfully turned into something more encouraging shortly after).RoySmith(talk)18:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
A friendly reminder that the lead hook ofQueue 3 is a special occasion hook that is supposed to run on 26 January. It will have to moved soon: if we don't continue twice a day on 22 January, then it will have to go intoQueue 6. If we do continue, then it would need to end up inPrep 2 if we don't again continue on 25 January, orPrep 3 if we continue twice a day on 25 January as well. The key, of course, is to get it out of Queue 3. Thanks.BlueMoonset (talk)21:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I tried to correct a grammatical error but this page doesn't seem to edit like others: "go to article's talk page" should be "go to the article's talk page".Al Begamut (talk)15:29, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
If you read the article, you learn that the journal folded due to financial shortcomings and published its last issue onJune 30 of that year ... abouttwo months before the Germans invaded. At a time when no one was expecting that to occur, at least not imminently. Hell, if you read the hook and know basic history, your first thought would not be "Well, I'd like to read the article and find out why" but "Whoever would have thought itwas?" Just because the war in Europe started on September 1 of that year does not meanevery event in Poland that year, especially those prior to that date (save, of course, theGleiwitz incident) must automatically havesomething to do with it.
Put it this way: it would be like a hook saying that the cancellation of an American TV show that happened to occur in spring 2001 was "unrelated to 9/11".
I could understand, perhaps, if the sources showed that it was a common perception that the journalhad been shut down due to the invasion. But they do not appear to. We do appear to have one source offhandedly saying this, but purely on its own. That's the sort of thing that really shouldn't have made it into the article because ofSYNTH-y ness like this.
I'm pretty sure there was a much higher volume of Yiddish literature curtailed in Poland after the Nazi invasion than there were American TV shows cancelled after 9/11 also, the invasion happened in the summer, so your comparison doesn't even make senseGeneralissima (talk) (it/she)06:57, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
While you are technically correct that the invasion happened in the summer, in the sense that it was prior to theSeptember equinox,Yidishe Bleter published its last issue a fulltwo months before then, when no one was anticipating an imminent German invasion.
And otherwise your attempt to claim my comparison "doesn't make sense" itself does not make sense, because it misses the point: there is no rational way anyone would believe that an event that occurred in a year known for a tragic, world-altering event that no one anticipated would have anything to do with that event if it occurred some time before that event. Better comparison, perhaps: "While many people believeNeil Peart died of COVID, that is not the case" (although frankly given that he died very early in a year mostly marked by the pandemic, that would be a more forgivable misconception.Daniel Case (talk)22:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't think that it is misleading. The hook is ".. that a U.S. government official ordered that "It Was on a Friday Morning" be removed from a hymnal within 24 hours?" which is a true statement. It does not say it was removed within 24 hours. Per "On July 9, the chief chaplain of the Veterans Administration, James Rogers, issued a memorandum ordering: "Hymn No. 286 shall be removed from all new Books of Worship within 24 hours."SL93 (talk)01:14, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Posting here to note that I've seen this conversation; I agree withSL93 andExtraordinary Writ thatordered "It Was on a Friday Morning" removed from the hymnal within 24 hours? (emphasis mine) makes the action the order, not the actual removal.Staraction (talk |contribs)02:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
What I can't promote
The nominations that I have participated in and that are not being promoted is getting longer. Here is a list of the oldest ones needing promotion.
Always happens when one person takes on most of the promoting load—I should know. Thanks for directly identifying them, I'll take care of them. Ping me if you need the same sort of help in the future.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)10:50, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Sticking to either prep building or queue promotion (but not both) avoids this kind of conflict. It's not a rule, just something that I've found which makes my life simpler.RoySmith(talk)14:16, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
I will stick to queue promotions for the most part now. Hopefully, we get more prep builders once we enter a crisis mode of empty preps.SL93 (talk)14:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
It does. "With distinctive bay windows that expand the floor space of the second storey, the Sam Kee Building was recognized by Guinness World Records as the narrowest commercial building in the world."SL93 (talk)19:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Forgot to add the CBC source used in the nomination to the sentence in the body, but it also attributes appropriately: "The structure at 8 West Pender Street is also the world's narrowest commercial building, according to the Guinness Book of World Records."Yue🌙22:15, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@TheLonelyPather andToadspike: The hook is contradicted elsewhere in the article; it says she published the book "in 1908, when she was sixteen years old" but the article claims she was born in 1893, which would make her 14 or 15.--Launchballer19:17, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
In my opinion, this is not an error, and the hook can run as-is. However, we can also add a footnote to the article clarifying the Chinese age counting system once TLP has confirmed that the dates and ages accurately reflect the sources.Toadspike[Talk]19:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer@Toadspike@SL93 I checked my sources and it turns out that only Liu 2016 mentions that the book was published when Liang was sixteen years old. The 1908 date is confirmed by another source. To avoid overcomplicating things for the reader, I removed the mention of the phrasesixteen years old. Now, may I suggest a new hook based onWP:CALC:
... thatLiang Sishun published a Chinese poetry anthology in 1908, when she was about fifteen years old?
"Eoscorpius was placed in the newly erected family Eoscorpionidae by American paleontologist Samuel Hubbard Scudder in 1884. While other experts of the time, such as Ben Peach, considered the genus to be hardly different from modern scorpions, Scudder believed that it was sufficiently distinct to warrant the creation of a new family."SL93 (talk)19:37, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@SL93, for some reason, this hook wasn't picked, even though Ornithoptera explicitly preferred it. Is it possible to change it? —Anonymous19:40, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
"British geologist Ben Peach expressed regret that the name Eoscorpius was given to a genus so similar to modern scorpions, speculating a much earlier origin for scorpions as a group." for ALT1. "Ben Peach, considered the genus to be hardly different from modern scorpions" for ALT0.SL93 (talk)19:51, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
Thanks, I got thrown by the word "extreme". I didn't see ALT1 in the nom as it wasn't properly labelled, and I think "criticism" is slightly stronger than the source and article.--Launchballer22:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer, is there another word you would prefer? The source indicates that Peach publicly indicated his displeasure (however mild) with the chosen name, which seems like enough to constitute criticism (even if it's not the most severe). I don't think readers will be shocked and upset to find out that Peach didn't go as far as to leave a scathing review of the scorpion's naming. —Anonymous00:42, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
It's in the St. Clair source, cited in both:"Among those who contributed to the debate in the local Athenian press was L. Kaphtantzoglou, who described the tower as Turkish, and compared it to the droppings of birds of prey.". This isLysandros Kaftanzoglou, who was a Greek academic.UndercoverClassicistT·C19:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
It does. "Was everything built on the Acropolis between ancient and modern Hellas to be regarded as a temporary intrusion? Among those who contributed to the debate in the local Athenian press was L. Kaphtantzoglou, who described the Tower as Turkish, and compared it to the droppings of birds of prey." I had to scroll down to page 494 because the search option didn't work.SL93 (talk)19:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I think I have written enough on Wikipedia, and written enough essays, to know that quotes are used for direct statements that are not paraphrased. That avoids a copyright issue.SL93 (talk)01:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer: Ah, I see -- I'd agree with removing the quote marks (and will do so in the article); it's quite likely that he actually wrote "owl-shit" or something similarly (un)printable. I don't think that creates anyWP:CLOP concern, as there's no real way to rephrase the quote more than trivially without losingWP:TSI.UndercoverClassicistT·C09:34, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
Actually, just to be less ambiguous, it'd be nice if an admin could rephrase it to '... that in1453, a "mystery eruption" cooled the Northern Hemisphere?' to make it clear the eruption wasn't necessarily in 1453.Generalissima (talk) (it/she)02:08, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
Looks good to me, though very possibly worth trimming "topics not typically associated with science fiction, such as" perWP:DYKTRIM. I thinkWP:DYKRR's "nor may you review an article if it's a recently listed good article that you either nominated or reviewed for GA" at least implies the need for another review; possibly worth spelling out.--Launchballer15:31, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
The article has been reviewed by QPQer and prepper and I am taking responsibility by signing my name, so I don't think I should be disqualified from queuing. I think the hook works better with the explanation. —Kusma (talk)15:50, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
Is there any way to tell how often a redirect is used?pageview analysis doesn't seem to do anything useful for those two; I assume the numbers it's reporting are how often the page is actually rendered for viewing, exclusive of being processed as a redirect.RoySmith(talk)15:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I think this includes the views of target through the redirect. Generally the /P redirects have not a lot of views[5] (under 20/month except for a short time three years ago) so slowly deprecating them might not hurt us too much. First step: Update theWikipedia:Did you know/Prep builder instructions to no longer recommend these redirects as part of the edit summary. (As most promotions are done using PSHAW which uses the full page title, they do not get used very much). —Kusma (talk)16:57, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I only today created the Template: alternative redirects for the preps and queues, so I'm not sure we have agreement to shift yet. There's some odd ones and I created a couple I probably shouldn't have. There are some I didn't replicate, for example,T:DYK/PE seems to be an ancient hangover from when there were just three preps.CMD (talk)17:06, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
The discussion at VPR looks like it's cruising to a snow close in support of phasing out T. The current discussion is just about not creating any new T entries, but the handwriting is on the wall that T will eventually go away completely so we should be moving in that direction.RoySmith(talk)17:11, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
That was my thought in creating the redirects. It also seemed in the DYK spirit, reflecting all our tools being prepped for a move out of template space.CMD (talk)17:17, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
A more complete list of hangers about that might be worth cleaning up somehow:
T:DYK/N,T:DYK/NN, andT:DYK/PE are relics of when DYK had just three preps. (I created TMs for the first two before thinking this through.)
T:DYK/N/C points to the same place as the more intuitiveT:DYK/C, also a relic of that original prep redirect system.
T:TDYK andT:TDYKA point toTemplate talk:Did you know andTemplate talk:Did you know/Approved respectively. Intuitively I'd expect the desired redirects to be not TM ones but something likeTT:TDYK, matching WP/WT.(Ignoring here how that is still unintuitive as these are nomination pages that do not function as talkpages, but we all know that situation so one intuitive step at a time.)
T:dyk/q andT:tdyk are for some reason lower case versions of otherwise identical T: redirects.
@Chipmunkdavis I tried to nominateT:DYK/N,T:DYK/NN, andT:DYK/PE for deletion, but Twinkle barfed on it with "Notifying redirect target of the discussion: Template talk:Did you know/Preparation area 3 is a cross-namespace redirect to Wikipedia talk:Did you know, aborted" :-)RoySmith(talk)21:10, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
I, for one, am in the habit of using T:DYK to find unreviewed nominations to review and to reach the nomination page for making new nominations. This won't show in incoming links because I don't follow a link; that's what I type in the URL bar of my browser. I guess this would mean I have to remember some other alphabet soup with even more letters to get there instead. —David Eppstein (talk)23:43, 24 January 2025 (UTC)
There is currently no proposal to outright delete these shortcuts, we just stop promoting them and do not add new ones. I expect we will keep them for at least a couple of extra years. —Kusma (talk)11:28, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
I don't dare to predict whether it will be before or after the next conversation about DYK being in the wrong namespace. —Kusma (talk)15:17, 25 January 2025 (UTC)
I have just activated 2/day, 12-hour set backlog mode. Hope a few people can pitch in and help promote hooks to prep and preps to queue so we can do this without burning out anyone. —Kusma (talk)07:20, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
There are only five queues filled after the midnight promotion was made, so it's time to go back to 1/day, 24-hour set backlog mode. Pinging @DYK admins: so that this can be done in the next few hours. Many thanks.BlueMoonset (talk)01:14, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm sorry, is the current rule that we only do 12-hour sets for three days at a time? I must have missed that change, but I'll trust BlueMoonset to be on top of it. Done :)theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)08:18, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
It doesn’t seem like a good idea with 135 approved nominations. It also looks like we will have to go back to two sets a day again soon.SL93 (talk)08:28, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
IIRC the three day cut off was put in place to ensure the rate was reduced before admins (and now template editors?) burnt out. Being able to trigger it a second time quickly is I believe part of the intended design, dependent on there being filled preps and queues that show that volunteers have not yet burnt out.CMD (talk)08:34, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I pushed for the 3-day rule exactly to prevent burnout. Previously, our only criteria for mode change was how many noms were stacked up in the approved pile. So we'd start doing 12-hour sets and quickly run the queues empty with nobody willing to put in the work to keep it going. Now at least we find out if we've got the work capacity to handle it without getting to the crisis stage of zero queues filled.
Informally, I think flitting back and forth between modes is a bad idea because it complicates the job of people trying to schedule special occasion hooks. I'd rather see us stay in 12-hour mode for a bunch of consecutive cycles, but not at the cost of running the queues down to zero.RoySmith(talk)17:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I've done one, though I notice that PSHAW hung when I clicked the button - pinging@Theleekycauldron:. The next one has one of mine in it; will do the other eight if no-one else does in the next three hours.--Launchballer19:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I do not think we should unprotect the bot controls like the Time Between Updates. The change to that page should happen after midnight UTC (otherwise the bot will update DYK immediately). I can do it in the morning if nobody has got to it by then. —Kusma (talk)22:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
I agree with Kusma; unprotecting the bot controls would be unwise. I expect to be around shortly after 0000 UTC; I'll take care of it.RoySmith(talk)22:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)
That seems inadvisable when template protection users seem ready to change the file at the wrong time. Leave it for the admins.BlueMoonset (talk)05:19, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
It's not just that. If an admin screws up editing that page, they can fix whatever mess the bot will make. Template editors can't. —Kusma (talk)08:13, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
PSHAW also hung when I tried to do a set yesterday... regarding flitting back and forth, I think that's far better than just ploughing on regardless. I would oppose removing the 3-day cut-off. Remember that burnout might not only lead to unfilled queues, it might lead to a reduction in the thoroughness of the admin checks and we want to give people a breather. It seems like the process for moving special occasion hooks around is not so onerous? Cheers — Amakuru (talk)08:15, 23 January 2025 (UTC)
TheArtur Bubnevych hook inPrep 6 is a special occasion hook for January 28 (the day of his consecration as bishop), and will need to be moved toQueue 4; swapping a hook from Queue 4 with it is probably the easiest way of accomplishing this. Thanks.BlueMoonset (talk)02:45, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
@TheAstorPastor: "Julius Caesar" has not been wikilinked as that would probably result in a lot of readers clicking on Julius Caesar rather than your article. Ideally they click on your article and then on Julius Caesar if they want more background. I think "is named after" is fine, "named after" would also be possible.TSventon (talk)14:30, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 12. We have a total of 288 nominations, of which 169 have been approved, a gap of 119 nominations that has increased by 4 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks!BlueMoonset (talk)19:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
It's my fault,SL93. I first nominated Ernesius alongside John, but thenchanged it to have Ernesius alone and John alongside Adam and Banias. Obviously I did not execute it as neatly as I thought.Surtsicna (talk)15:20, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
I understand that as saying the Green Bay packers had a total of nine home victories in twenty years. That is hooky, but incorrect: the article says they won nine straight home games against the Seahawks. The hook could equally mean "nine Football Conference victories", but I had no idea that the count would involve the Seahawks. Can this be clarified? PingGonzo fan2007,Launchballer,AirshipJungleman29. —Kusma (talk)15:31, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
Kusma, check out the nomination. I think my original hook was much clearer and still hooky. This was proposed and I accepted it to get it across the finish line. That said, still prefer the original hook. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @15:40, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
The original hook was tagged as not interesting and confusing per Launchballer. I hope that a new hook can be thought of here because I would hate for this nomination to be stalled for longer.SL93 (talk)15:43, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
I am fine with whatever. That said, I prefer the original and did not necessarily agree with the reviewer that it wasn't hooky, but trying to be more 'go with the flow' at DYK. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @16:05, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
I'll go with my version, just because it doesn't repeat "Packers". Happy to adjust if someone has better ideas. —Kusma (talk)16:57, 26 January 2025 (UTC)
@Kusma @Gonzo fan2007: One could also read that as Green Bay winning at home for the ninth consecutive time, but only the ninth time was against Seattle. Consider:
@DYK admins: We are now down to one filled queue. I would love to promote preps to queues, but I have built most of the sets because not many people care to promote hooks to prep. Just like apparently not many admins/template editors care to promote preps to queues. I don't think it's burnout with so many people who can just chip in with two queues or even just one.SL93 (talk)00:06, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
The nominator was indefinitely blocked and given a community ban (see the linked discussion in the nom page for details). The nomination however remains open. Is anyone willing to adopt the nomination as it was passed as a GA and the GA pass stood, or should it be closed?Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)01:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
The current hook in Queue 5 was a last minute one that didn't make it in time for Christmas. It is quite boring. Would it be possible to replace it with something close to this:
...that a profile of artistMark Hearld said his "wrens and squirrels, field mice and owls" help a child care about the planet better than telling them it's burning?Thriley (talk)06:12, 27 January 2025 (UTC)
I noticed that there's three Hennepin Avenue Bridge hooks set to run soon. They're all on different incarnations of bridges over the Mississippi River at Minneapolis, but perhaps someone more acquainted with DYK can say if this will be an issue going forward because I personally think one could arise. Courtesy links:
All active, two approved, one by me before I spotted the others or perhaps before they were added. None have been promoted to a prep yet. If we want to double down on the problematic aspect to overcome it, perhaps they can all be run on a single set (with year disambiguators present) as I know (or at least think) DYK has done in the past.Departure– (talk)15:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Hi, I created/expanded these over time and really didn't really anticipate that I would have had time to work on and nominate them all in such a short span - but also a long enough span apart that they wouldn't be a single nomination. I'd like them to be separate hooks as they're all independently interesting, but as you suggested I think having clearly different names in the boldlink would be good. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs17:11, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
I misread your initial proposal - having them all in the same set would be great, though I would not like to combine them into one hook. Though, if we do something like that, I could try to whip up an article for the last of the four bridges (though also the least significant) it a four hook combo would be fine... ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs19:50, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
This sort of thing is virtually never done, and I wouldn't be in favor of it here. A single multi-article hook would be fine; three hooks in one set about different incarnations of a bridge is against all of the guidelines about set balance, and there doesn't appear to be anything enormously special about these bridges that would warrant such special treatment. These three nominations should be run separately and with many days between each hook.BlueMoonset (talk)05:35, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, folks have done sets for a single topic (Christmas, Halloween, fear, Olympics, etc.) but not a single subject. I think there was a really negative reaction when all the main page sections had content about the Queen of England but cannot remember the exact details. I would prefer running these hooks really spaced out to trying to cram them into one set.Rjjiii (talk)05:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
There was also another case of a set being based around a relatively obscure religious feast a few years ago that also got a lot of pushback after it happened. The reaction was so bad that I think it actually led to the current guidelines regarding themed sets (i.e. they can only happen with prior consensus, unless they're for established occasions like Christmas).Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)06:51, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith I based it off of "There are two theories as to how the lily had received its name, one being that due to its native habitat being that of steep cliffs, the only way one could reliably transport them home was placing the bulbs in their kimono's sleeve pouches (袂, tamoto) while scaling the sea cliffs,[9][7][4][1][11] and the other was that the native habitat was close to a locale called Tamotogaura (袂ケ浦).[5][12]" Would fixing that first sentence in the lead solve the issue?SL93 (talk)00:17, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29,Ploni, andAmateurHi$torian: there's a fair bit ofWP:CLOP from opensiddur.org. I'm honestly unsure what to do here. The source says it's CC0 in one place, but I'm not sure if that also applies to the sections from which we paraphrased. And even if it does, I think our policy is that we need to attribute it in some way even if the CC0 source doesn't require that. Somebody who understands our copyright policy better than I do should look at this.RoySmith(talk)00:35, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
CC content absolutely needs to be attributed in some way, usually with{{Cc-notice}}; it didn't just appear from the ether, and indicates where the content came from.Primefac (talk)07:43, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Ploni Earwig shows portions of the article text being copied from both OpenSiddur and the Jewish Encyclopedia. It is irrelevant that OpenSiddur is not being used as a reference.SL93 (talk)10:39, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I just woke up. I see what you mean now. OpenSiddur wasn't used, and the copying is a false positive due to that website copying the Jewish Encyclopedia - a citation that is already tagged properly.SL93 (talk)10:45, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
PingingAmateurHi$torian The hook says, "... that the Chauburji might have been the Mughal emperor Babur's original burial place? The article says, "is considered to be the original burial place of the first Mughal emperor Babur." It doesn't match.SL93 (talk)00:39, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
"Ram Nath identifies it with theChaukhandi within the gardens namedBagh-i Zar Afshan, which is considered to be the original burial place of the first Mughal emperorBabur." A building called the "Chaukhandi" is considered to be the original burial place of Babur. Now, whetherChauburji is the Chaukhandi, is disputed, hence "might". -AmateurHi$torian (talk)04:03, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
The current link text is effectively the clearest and most unambiguous option we have, as per the guidance atMOS:MORELINKWORDS. A longer link also helps to draw the attention of readers and leaves no doubt as to the target article. — RAVENPVFF·talk·18:46, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
The current hook of "... that Darren Moore's Sheffield Wednesday were promoted even after they lost the first leg of their play-off semi-final 4–0?" seems like it wouldn't make much sense to non-fans. The hook "... that Darren Moore (pictured) led Sheffield Wednesday to promotion after they lost their play-off semi-final first leg by a four goal margin?" makes more sense, but I think that it should be made clear in the hook that Sheffield Wednesday is an association football club.SL93 (talk)00:47, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
I would agree with you. I tried to make it more understandable to non-fans rather ahead of being concise. I think the best solution for either hook would be to say "football manager Darren Moore..." ?EchetusXe09:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
I just brought one of them forward before realising that there are now four in four sets. I'll do some more rearranging later this evening.--Launchballer18:53, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: I rearranged the sets so that they run every two sets - they're inoffensive enough that this should be enough of a gap but this can be revisited if we go to 2-a-day. (As far as I'm aware, there's no rule preventing me from moving one of my own from a queue back to a prep.) Unless I'm missing something, the picketing hook mentions one lead anchor but the article and source mention two.--Launchballer01:33, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Apologies @Sammi Brie for missing distribute the hooks,and thanks Launchballer for doing the needful. I'll look more at the subject of the page before promoting to preps. Thanks for bringing it up!~/Bunnypranav:<ping>10:36, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
I apologise if this is the wrong place to ask this question but can someone change the hook for this article?AmateurHi$torian and I have decided to submitALT3 instead ofALT0, which is seen in the review.Icepinner (formerly Imbluey2).Please ping me so that I get notified of your response10:35, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
Icepinner I can't do that because a reviewer cannot approve their own hook. What I can do is reopen the nomination for someone else to review ALT3.SL93 (talk)12:22, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
I plan on doing that if Icepinner wants to. I just thought I should check first because it is such an old nomination.SL93 (talk)12:38, 31 January 2025 (UTC)
... thatTomoko Aran, despite her unsuccessful 1980s singing career, became acity-pop icon in the 2010s?
I have concerns about the use of "unsuccessful 1980s singing career" here... This appears to be a violation ofWP:DYKHOOK because the word "unsuccessful" (or indeed "success") doesn't appear anywhere in the article, and while the article talks about her career in the 1980s in general terms, there is no part of the text which can directly translate to us saying her having 1980s singing career was unsuccessful. On another note, I'd also question whether the article supports the assertion that she's a "city-pop icon", stated directly as a fact inWP:WIKIVOICE. The prose says "both the Manila Bulletin and Robert Moran of The Age considering her iconic in the genre", but that's not the same as saying she's an unambiguous and widely-recognised "icon". Would be better to just say that she was described thus I'd have thought. Pinging@Miraclepine,Cukie Gherkin, andSL93: — Amakuru (talk)11:54, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
Amakuru I added a sentence to the article about being referred to as a city pop icon with two references. I suggest this from the nomination - ... that singerTomoko Aran became acity pop icon decades after her initial music career?SL93 (talk)15:12, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
@SL93: the wording should becity-pop icon, notcity pop icon per the compound modifier guidelines atMOS:HYPHEN. When I first read this I thought it means a pop icon from the city, rather than an icon from the genre of city pop, so the distinction is important here. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)16:09, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
... that archaeologists found evidence atTaur Ikhbeineh in the Gaza Strip of interactions between Egyptians andCanaanites in the 4th millennium BC?
@Richard Nevell,Vice regent, andSL93: maybe a slightly minor point, but it's worth dotting our is and crossing our ts... I assume the hook refers to the sentence in the body which says"the earliest occupation layers at Taur Ikhbeineh included evidence of Egyptian and Canaanite cultures interacting". However, this doesn't directly mention the 4th millennium BC. I gather that this should be true because two paragraphs above we're told that the period of occupation was the 34th century BC, but perWP:DYKHOOK it really needs to bedirectly stated and the source used needs todirectly say this in all its aspects. Does the source for this fact directly mention the time period in which the Egyptians and Canaanites interacted there? If so, please update the sentence in the article to make this clear (Also, as an aside, the citation should be at the end of the sentence containing the hook as well as at the end of the paragraph, at least until the DYK is done-and-dusted, them is the rules!) Cheers — Amakuru (talk)14:51, 29 January 2025 (UTC)
... thatErnesius, a 12th-centuryarchbishop of Caesarea, was once prevented from crossing the Mediterranean by such a severe storm that he refused to make a second attempt?
Morning@Surtsicna,Arbitrarily0, andSL93: - just noting that the article doesn't mention the "Mediterranean" anywhere. It's also not clear where the ship was trying to sail to and where exactly it encountered a storm. It would be good to add that detail, but at the very least the hook needs to be explicitly in the article and explicitly cited. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)09:32, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
The reviewer proposed naming the Mediterranean and we agreed that "the Mediterranean" is essentiallyWP:CALC as the ship sailing from Syria to Europe has no other sea to cross. I am fine with not naming the Mediterranean. The article says that the ship was sailing to Europe. I thought it was clear that the storm was in the vicinity of Acre, but I suppose that can be made more explicit.Surtsicna (talk)09:47, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure anymore if CALC works for this. It doesn't mention geographic features. Either way, I don't think it would hurt to add the Mediterranean. I personally would if it was brought up.SL93 (talk)10:31, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Indeed. The article implies that the ship was sailing from Acre to some unspecified destination. It's not within the scope ofWP:CALC to say that a storm on such a journey was definitely in the Mediterranean. If the origin and the destination were explicitly named, for example Acre to Marseille, thenmaybe that would be OK... but as SL93 says, even then it doesn't hurt to be explicit. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)10:34, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
@Amakuru @SL93 They encountered a storm two days after they set off from Acre. Acre is on the Mediterranean cost and they could not have reached any other sea within two days. It literally could not be any other sea. If it is a problem to mention "the Mediterranean" because it is not explicitly named in the article, then surely it is a problem to mention "the Mediterranean" in the article because it is not named in the cited source. As far as I am concerned, the sea does not need to be named in the hook either.Surtsicna (talk)22:48, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
@Surtsicna: since you've said the sea doesn't need to be named, and it's running tomorrow, I've changed Mediterranean to simplycrossing the sea. Hope that is OK. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)15:32, 1 February 2025 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 21. We have a total of 300 nominations, of which 172 have been approved, a gap of 128 nominations that has increased by 9 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks!BlueMoonset (talk)16:37, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
OK, I've dropped that in. It's still not wonderful, but I think it's an improvement. I would be great if we could find something even better.RoySmith(talk)16:56, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith: There's another critic besides Blackmore laughing:In a review forThe Observer, George Melly wrote, "Seldom have I seen on television a more incredible hotch-potch of morally dubious attitudes, fake drama and the worst kind of tear-jerking schmalz. At the same time,I must own up to frequently bursting into astonished laughter." Should be easy to find by searching "laugh" on the page.ミラP@Miraclepine16:15, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I was just about to start addressing things during my work break, but I see that editors are moving fast. It’s good to see.SL93 (talk)19:25, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
Do you mean the quote"that Brooklyn's Roll-A-Palace was "the front-runner of the roller-disco craze"?"? Don't the quote marks already make it a quote instead of a fact? Or do you mean that the hook should include a cite of who called it "the fore-runner of the roller-disco craze"?JIP |Talk18:30, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
I thought that it would work due to still being quoted. I will keep that in mind if what RoySmith said is the consensus.SL93 (talk)19:27, 30 January 2025 (UTC)
You probably shouldn't be putting a seventh hook in the bottom set when it recommends leaving four empty, though admittedly there were bigger sins in that set before you got there, and I frequently make minor tweaks to articles I promote/queue (which, given that I'm already beat after reading this, hasn't been that many!) Otherwise, nice work.--Launchballer13:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
... that so many people attendSEEK, an annual Catholic young-adult conference, that theEucharistic liturgies are planned more than a year and a half in advance?
Looking at the source for this one, I'm not sure it makes the same claim that the hook does. The hook says that the reason for the planning beginning far in advance of the conference is because of the number of people attending. But the source for this reads as follows:
Planning one liturgy for 17,000 people is a major task. Planning five Masses and an adoration night is even more complex.
Hellwig begins planning for the SEEK liturgies over a year and half before the scheduled conference. This gives him time to coordinate with the local diocese, so as to invite them into the planning process and receive additional assistance from their seminarians and priests.
Amakuru I read it as they needed "time to coordinate with the local diocese, so as to invite them into the planning process and receive additional assistance from their seminarians and priests" because of the attendees. I guess I could be wrong.SL93 (talk)14:45, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Amakuru, I interpreted it likeSL93. The number of attendees are the ultimate reason so much preparation is needed (which includes coordination problems with the diocese). I can't imagine smaller Catholic conferences needing nearly as much lead time. But I thinkDarth Stabro is an expert in this area and perhaps would be willing weigh in.Arbitrarily0(talk)15:56, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi@SL93 andArbitrarily0: and thanks for the responses... And I do agree that's apossible interpretation of what's written. It's a big event, lots of attendees, five masses and an adoration night, it all plays into the need to start planning well in advance. That's a reasonable inference, but perhaps not the only one. The issue is thatWP:DYKHOOK is very strict in this regard -"The hook should include a fact that is unlikely to change prior to or during its run on the Main Page; citations in the article that are used to support the hook factmust verify the hook and bereliable". The size of the congregations and the number of masses are not directly given as reasons for the long lead time; only the need to coordinate with the diocese and invite priests is directly mentioned in connection with the year and a half period. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)16:07, 2 February 2025 (UTC)
Personally, I find this to be within the bounds of DYKHOOK. I don't see a plausible interpretation in which the long lead time isultimately caused by something other than the size of the conference. Yes, the coordination with the diocese is a proximate cause; but what explains the proximate cause is the remote cause, viz., the size of the conference. The context of the passage makes it clear that this is what's intended. That said, I don't wish this to be an obstacle; and I appreciate,Amakuru, your attention to detail. Here's a similar hook which might address the issue:
ALT1 ... that theEucharistic liturgies ofSeek, a Catholic young-adult conference which attracts thousands of attendees, are planned more than a year and a half in advance?
Hi@DimensionalFusion andLaunchballer:, indeed, I wanted to swap SEEK out at short notice so needed a hook to put in its place and the Qvadriga one seemed good. My edit summary did say"swap SEEK (conference) and Qvadriga between Q2 and P4" which I thought would be clear as to where it had gone, but I can be more explicit in future if required. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)21:58, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
@Jolielover: Ach, this is something I caught in my pass of the article but I guess I forgot to bring it up in the DYK review. This should definitely be attributed to Khaleda Rahman writing forNewsweek. --Grnrchst (talk)09:47, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
RegardingWP:DYKTIMEOUT, if a nomination remains pending a final review after becoming two months old, is it advisable tonot mark it for closure?
For example, if a nomination remains unreviewed and is now two months old, per editor discretion, is it still discouraged to mark it for closure, or is remaining unreviewed not a barrier towards DYKTIMEOUT applying?Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)12:02, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure what scenario is being described here. The heading talks about a "final review", but then you say "remains unreviewed". So are we talking about a submission that nobody ever reviewed at all, or something which got an initial review but then never managed to accumulate a tick mark?RoySmith(talk)12:40, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Both cases. Scenario A is a nomination never getting a review in those two months, while Scenario B is a nomination that did get a partial or full review, but a new review or second opinion was requested, but did not happen before two months.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)12:44, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
I think it's unfair to the nominator to close a nom just because nobody has gotten around to reviewing it (i.e. scenario A). That's our fault, not theirs. Sometimes things don't get reviewed because everybody who looks at it says, "Ugh, what I mess, I'm not going near that" and moves on to something else. I get that, but I think in such a situation somebody should at least write that in a review.
For scenario B, I think we need to consider each case on its merits. The intent of DYKTIMEOUT is to prevent arguments from going on forever. So, if there's been a big contentious review that ends up with the initial reviewer throwing up their hands and saying, "I give up, I'm going to kick this to somebody else to worry about" and nobody else is willing to pick it up, that seems reasonable to pull the plug on.RoySmith(talk)13:01, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
I suspected that's what you were talking about. That one was a classic example of why DYKTIMOUT exists. It had been argued about, promoted, kicked back in the queue, unpromoted, argued about some more, and still stalled. It was obvious it had become a time sink with no hope of making progress.RoySmith(talk)13:26, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
Two somewhat minor points here, I'm not even sure if they're worth raising but will do so anyway just so we can discuss.
As a senator, is it correct to call Payman a "member of the Parliament of Australia"? I'm not that familiar with Australian terminology, and we don't have a senate here in the UK, but I'm wondering if usually the term "MP" (or member of parliament) is for those in the lower house, and it could possibly cause confusion to label her thus? Certainly I expected that until I clicked through and read the article.
The hook and the aritcle/source don't quite match up, because the hook simply says the first member of parliament of any description, while the article and source both say the firstfemale member of the parliament. I suppose it might be self-evident that hijab wearers are always female and I doubt there's a record of a man wearing one in the parliament... but still, thought I'd raise it anyway. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)22:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Amakuru! The first question: That is the correct terminology, the Parliament encompasses both the House of Reps and the Senate. In regards to the second question, I see what you mean, it's an odd technicality. I'm fine with changing the hook to specifically say female member of parliament to match the source, but you're right that there's no instance where a man has worn one in the parliament either.GraziePrego (talk)01:17, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
I won't be any help for the first one as someone who also doesn't know Australian terminology. As for the second one, it appears self-evident to meSL93 (talk)22:23, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Oh, and a slightly more significant issue - I'm not sure the imageFile:Dai Le Fatima Payman Circles (cropped).jpg is really properly licensed and free from copyright. It looks like it originates here -[6] - as a profile picture on Payman's Facebook page in June 2022... and while it does appear at the[7] page used as the image source and it's possible they had a licence to use it, I don't think we can be certain that it's legitimately "Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported". More particularly, the author of the file is given as "Government of South Australia (Seniors Card)" and there doesn't seem any particular evidence that the pic in question was produced in South Australia or by that government, rather than them just reusing it. I would suggest this isn't watertight enough to use, unless someone has other evidence. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)22:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
I think that image would work, but I would say not for the main page. We could just switch the hook out for a later biography that is in prep.SL93 (talk)22:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)
Addressing the issues:
In common usage, from my experience, in Australia we refer to them all as being members of parliament. However it is probably most technically correct to refer to her as 'Senator Fatima Payman' or 'Senator for West Australia, Fatima Payman'. See the second paragraph ofAustralian House of Representatives.
Pbritti picked up during their review that what was stated in the sourcing and what was stated in the article were different and update the article to state that she was the first female. I guess it got overlooked by everyone in the discussion that the hook should have been updated also.
Ps, in regards to the question of whether to refer to her as a 'member of parliament' or a 'senator',the sources says "When Fatima Payman takes her seat in the Senate in July, she will make history as the first woman to wear a hijab in Australia’s parliament."
So given that, and that 'Australia's parliament' refers to both the lower and upper house, the hook should probably be:
Morning@TarnishedPath: I think rewording it the way you suggest is a good idea, so we can go ahead with that. As for the photograph, I think we can't use the current one - at best its origin is uncertain, and I think it's fairly unlikely it was actually the Government of South Australia that took that photograph and then Payton reused the same on her Facebook page. As forFile:Fatima Payman-2023.jpg, its origin is still not entirely clear - it appears on the Flickr page of a Lucy Segal, without indication of who that individual is. Most of her images seem to be of SenatorDeborah O'Neill, so in the absence of other evidence it would be a reasonable assumption that she's someone legitimately taking photos around parliament and then posting them under a CC or PD licence on Flickr. However, SL93 indicated above that the second image probably isn't a suitable one for the DYK image slot, presumably as she's looking down and you can't fully see her face. I'm therefore tempted to move the hook down and swap a different image into its place. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)09:33, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
@Amakuru, I was also thinking that the new image may not be suitable for DYK because of her looking down. I see no problem with removing it from the hook and moving it down.TarnishedPathtalk09:45, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
... that the Yiddish poetShmuel Hurvits quit his job as a teacher to become a street paver due to an ideological appreciation for manual labor?
Hi@Generalissima,Kusma, andSL93: I'm a bit concerned that not all of the components of this hook are compliant withWP:DYKHOOK, in particular the need for the whole hook to be directly covered by the article and cited as such.
Firstly, the statement that he is a poet doesn't seem to be cited - it's only mentioned without cites in the lead and the infobox, with the body not directly mentioning poetry. Secondly, the assertion "quit his job as a teacher to become a street paver" isn't directly obvious. This would suggest that when he left teaching he immediately became a street paver, while the article's text merely names paving as one of many jobs he took during the remainder of his life, not necessarily that he quit the teaching directly for that. And thirdly, the article says "paver" while the hook is more specific, saying "street paver". Appreciate this is a late spot, but hopefully the above can be resolved based on the sources, and I'll leave the hook in place for now with a view to it going live tomorrow, but if more time is needed I can push it back. CHeers — Amakuru (talk)10:16, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
This may need to be slightly improved in the article. The source says "He educated himself in both Jewish and general subjects, and began to work as a teacher. But an ideological attraction to manual labour led him to give up teaching and work at paving streets, and then to take up such occupations as carpentry, woodcarving, and printing, as well as bookkeeping and peddling. He began to publish articles and poems in the 1890s, first in Russian and Hebrew, then in Yiddish."(TWL) —Kusma (talk)10:43, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Amakuru It's on the main page now, but I think I fixed the street paver issue. I removed the mentions of him being a poet until it can be sourced.SL93 (talk)01:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)
The hook fact ("nobody knows anything") isn't easy to find in the article, where it is phrased as "there is no knowledge in any domain". Can this be made easier without losing accuracy or hookiness? PingPhlsph7,Arbitrarily0. —Kusma (talk)22:59, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Kusma It seems to me that "nobody knows anything" is an acceptable way to phrase it as a hook. However, I guess it can just be changed to exactly what the article says.SL93 (talk)01:55, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
"nobody knows anything" is a correct phrasing.
The hook could also be phrased:
'... that according to one school ofepistemology, nobody can know anything?' or
'... that one school ofepistemology denies that we can have any knowledge at all?'
I'm not actually sure whether I should demand a change (another option would be to mention the word "skepticism"); we do not have a rule that says "it must be easy to find the hook fact in the article". I did think it was worth bringing up. —Kusma (talk)09:10, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
For academic subjects, it can be difficult to find a hook with a formulation that is both catchy and present in the article in almost the same wording. One reason is that the criteria for good hooks are quite different from the criteria for good academic explanations. The suggested alternatives would also work but as far as hookiness is concerned, I think the current formulation is better.Phlsph7 (talk)09:36, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 27. We have a total of 336 nominations, of which 199 have been approved, a gap of 137 nominations that has increased by 9 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks!BlueMoonset (talk)21:12, 8 February 2025 (UTC)
Just a notice that we will need more prep builders soon. Between a part-time job and four college classes, I won't be able to build preps much. I have been the main prep builder for a few weeks now and I am fine with that, but things will be getting in the way. I also will be having surgery on my right shoulder within the next two weeks to stop it from dislocating so easily. I'm not sure how much the pain will prevent me from building preps.SL93 (talk)20:17, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: Including this one, we're at six queues. If we can get two more promoted by tomorrow evening, we can go to two-a-day. (By way of disclosure, I've got four in prep 4, so I'm extremely eager that two-a-day doesn't affect it!)--Launchballer23:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
"that Walter III Brisebarre renounced the lordship of Beirut to inherit a greater lordship from his father-in-law,(Hamilton 1992, p. 142.) only to permanently lose both upon the deaths of his wife, Helena of Milly, and their daughter, Beatrice?"(Hamilton 2000, p. 92.) The details are inWalter_III_Brisebarre.Surtsicna (talk)00:09, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
@Rjjiii:@Tenpop421:The hook and source both mention Ívar's discovery of feces, but the article only mentions "lived and defecated'. This could do with being made more explicit. Also, there's no way this is short enough forMOS:NOLEAD.--Launchballer23:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
I have had editors tell me that the lead did not matter for DYK purposes, while others have told me the opposite. Besides that, I have made the hook more explicit although I'm not sure it is needed.SL93 (talk)01:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer &SL93: I have added a lead, broken the previous text into separate sections for his life/work, separated the notes into their own section, and revised the bit mentioned above to read:
Later excavations at Gård Under Sandet (Farm Beneath the Sand) corroborated these observations.[11] Inside an abandoned Norse home, archaeologists found one of the colony's last feral domesticated goats preserved in permafrost.[11] The removal of furniture indicated that the residents had intentionally abandoned the farm, and the layer of feces on the floor showed that the goat had lived in the empty home until a wall collapsed onto it.[11]
Launchballer, I boldly swapped it out forRaging Bull (roller coaster) from a prep. The hook is directly cited after "Raging Bull was announced on October 21, 1998, set to become the tallest, fastest, and longest roller coaster at Six Flags Great America, and the first hypercoaster to feature a twister layout." However, someone else will need to take a look at this. The Mozart hook is now in prep 5.SL93 (talk)00:54, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
To me, the cited "the first hypercoaster to feature a twister layout" makes it work. It's very picky in my mind to want it exact.SL93 (talk)01:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I'll look for another source later today. I chose Xinhua because its English, and most of the sources covering the two were in Portuguese.BeanieFan11 (talk)18:10, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
FWIW, I asked around the functionary cabal to get some input on the protection question. The gist is thatWP:CT/IPA applies here, which gives admins a lot of latitude in response to disruptive editing, but there wasn't any enthusiasm for preemptive protection.WP:PREEMPTIVE talks more about this. I've put this on my watchlist, and presumably other editors will do so as well, so at least we'll have lots of eyes on it to catch any problems quickly. Reverting should be our tool of choice, with semi-protection being brought into play only if there's a demonstrated need.RoySmith(talk)14:39, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
BTW, changed "originally" to "formerly" in both hooks as the article states that it may originally have been a Buddhist or Jain temple.Gatoclass (talk)13:05, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
The article looks fine, but the hook fact that he is the only Russian officer to graduate from the US Army college is evidently sourced to a 2009 article, and history shows a hook fact based on an outdated source is liable to getting pulled. So the hook would either have to be modified or a new hook found - but the nominator said that if he can't have that hook fact, he wants to withdraw the nom, so I think to respect the nominator's wishes the hook would have to be pulled unless he wants to change his mind.Gatoclass (talk)12:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
The nominator said that they would withdraw the nomination if they couldn't find another source confirming that fact, rather than if they can't get that specific hook fact.@Romanov loyalist: Would you be open to a completely different angle running instead of the currently-promoted angle?Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)13:26, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
This hook doesn't have a great image, especially at the small size required of the main page. One possibility might be using a deep crop of just one portion. I tried that with the thing that looks like theFlying Spaghetti Monster. The result was certainly more visible, but totally missed the point of showing the drawings. I'm thinking we should shuffle hooks around and use a different one for the image. Looking at the other hooks in this set,File:Joneswinningshot.PNG fromJennifer Jones (curler) would be a good replacement.RoySmith(talk)15:56, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
This is subjective. IMO, the image quality is more than adequate, even at a smaller size, considering that the pictograms are faded as it is. --P 1 9 9✉16:03, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer: Disagree with switch. Sure, I am mot impartial to this, but on the other hand, there was really no compelling reason for it, just because 1 editor didn't like it. It's now a rather ineffective hook. --P 1 9 9✉15:21, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
@P199 I know you're disappointed in not getting the image slot, so let me explain a bit more what the issue was.WP:DYKIMG requires that the imagedisplay well in the small size of the{{main page image/DYK}} template. Images with lots of fine detail, limited contrast, few sharp edges, and a subdued color palette unfortunately do not work well. I did a little searching and foundhttps://albinger.me/2017/07/05/the-anishinaabe-pictograph-sites-of-missinaibi-lake/, which includesthis excellent photo. Perhaps you could write to the photographer and ask them to upload it to commons? I've found that often times, people are happy to do so. That would make a great main page image.RoySmith(talk)16:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I came across this DYK some weeks ago, started byLaunchballer and reviewed byLajmmoore and really didn't some of the hooks were particularly good or tasteful, and the remaining ALTs still give me an impression that this isn't something that's going to be a good advertisement for Wikipedia. So I'm bringing it here for review. If consensus is that the proposed ALT1 is okay, then let's go with that.Ritchie333(talk)(cont)10:49, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I've put up a variation ALT1a. Personally I don't think it's either a good or a bad advertisement for Wikipedia. It's the world's oldest profession or so they say.TarnishedPathtalk11:31, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
... that the Japanese manga seriesMink featured futuristic technology even though its creator was unfamiliar with computers?
I'm not certain the source supports "unfamiliar with computers" here... Looking at the source[8], although I don't speak Japanese, Google Translate seems to indicate that this comes from a quote by the creator herself in an interview, where she says something like "I'm not good with machines". I think that's the sort of thing a lot of people say, in a self-effacing way, to indicate that they're not tech wizards... but I wouldn't translate that to the absolute "unfamiliar with computers", or indeed the article's version of this - "having little knowledge on computers" - stated in Wikivoice as well rather than attributed as a quote from Tachikawa.@Lullabying,Gonzo fan2007, andSL93: CHeers — Amakuru (talk)19:00, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
I will wait for a response fromLullabying as an editor who has worked on many articles with Japanese language sources. I'm not entirely convinced that Google Translate is correct.SL93 (talk)22:37, 4 February 2025 (UTC)
Hello. The sentence does indeed say, "I'm not good with machinery" and I can see how that might mean something else entirely. It can be changed.lullabying (talk)07:43, 6 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi@Lullabying: - really sorry, yes, I totally missed this and forgot to come back to it. Obviously it ran several days ago now, which isn't ideal, but too late now. I'll try to be more on the ball about it in future! Cheers — Amakuru (talk)20:02, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
An extrasolar planet is another name for an exoplanet. Changing exoplanet to extrasolar planet in the hook would fix any problems.SL93 (talk)18:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I have nothing to add because I have no idea what “definite fact” was exactly referring to when it was added.SL93 (talk)19:10, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
The meaning of "definite" for DYK purposes has changed over time. Originally, one interpretation means one that was properly cited and not in question (i.e. it is not likely to be challenged). The current wording over atWP:DYKG now says that it means a fact that is unlikely to change or become inaccurate during or before its DYK run.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)00:06, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
I see. I don't see the hook becoming inaccurate for a production that happened over 100 years ago. The book reference is reliable and theauthor is reputable, but I'm not sure how attributing it would fix the concern.SL93 (talk)00:15, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
One could argue that both interpretations are correct: it being unlikely to change, and also it not being questioned. I see though that the "probably" claim is attributed to only one writer, and I can see why the claim could be challenged. "First" hooks are usually problematic due to the level of evidence required. One possible solution could be to attribute the claim. That way, the "definite" part of the hook would be that Lin claimed that it was "probably" the first, without judging the accuracy of the actual "first" claim.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)00:19, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
That makes sense. "... that according to Theatre Studies professor Siyuan Liu,Spring Willow Society probably staged the first full-length Shakespearean play in China?" Someone would need to add the above link or a different one that mentions his career, while also adding it to the article.SL93 (talk)00:25, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, I've been ill for the past few days and am just checking in. I'd remove the caps in Theatre Studies, but otherwise the suggested ALT looks good to me. — Chris Woodrich (talk)16:55, 10 February 2025 (UTC)
@SL93:@Epicgenius: There's a substantial amount of copying (beyond justWP:CLOP) from tudorcitygreens.org/history and s-media.nyc.gov/agencies/lpc/lp/1579.pdf. That needs to get fixed. I also note thatWolverine X-eye who did the DYK review has recently been banned for abuses of theWP:GAN review process, so I'd say this review is suspect as well and somebody should probably give it an extra look.RoySmith(talk)19:12, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith and @Kusma, my deepest apologies for overlooking the copyvios that were in the article. I have remediated these copyright violations, but there are some proper names (e.g. "Church of the Covenant") and common phrases (e.g. "Second and Third Avenues") that cannot be easily rephrased. –Epicgenius (talk)19:53, 9 February 2025 (UTC)
Not a problem. I was kind of surprised to see this sort of problem pop out from one of your nominations, and I'm relieved to hear your explanation for what happened. Looks better now.
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.
November 1 is too far away for such a long hold (it's only February), so I don't think there will be consensus towards it. If you are fine with the hook running as a regular hook, that is probably the most practical option. I see that November 1 is Karnataka's foundation day and thus a holiday in that state. However, it is also All Saints Day in many Christian countries around the world, so I don't know if a full set would work. Full sets about more niche holidays or events have been controversial in the past (even the Queen Elizabeth set for her funeral was not without controversy), and while the guidelines say that such a special set can be proposed via a WT:DYK discussion, I have doubts one will be approved either.
I think a more plausible option for you, if you really want to do an all-India article set, would be to propose one for India's Independence Day (August 15). We've had an all-Canada set for Canada Day in the past, so it's doable and more likely to gain consensus. Of course, that would require hooks about all of India and not just Karnataka, so it's okay if you don't want to go with that, and in any case, you'd probably still have to do the articles within the six-week limit. If you want Karnataka representation on November 1, my suggestion would just be to go with one or at most two hooks, since I really doubt that a full set would ever reach consensus. We don't even make full sets about specific US states or UK countries (among other theoretical examples), so I can't see an all-Karanataka set gaining consensus.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)10:03, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I do agree with the above (was typing basically the same content). As said on the DYK nom page, the restaurant, subject of the hook, is not much related to the holiday, it's not even mentioned in the page. You may be able to get along with a couple Karnataka hook in an all-India set, if that gets consensus.~/Bunnypranav:<ping>10:06, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you all for your input. In light of this, I'm fine with it being promoted right away. Perhaps I will plan something else for November 1. I'm not very well-versed in deeper DYK stuff like this and it helps to learn. Kind regards,Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (talk to me!/my edits)12:23, 11 February 2025 (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.
You would also need get a discussion going before that for multiple related hooks to run together. I would support, but as noted above others will differ.CMD (talk)09:09, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
Note that the changeover should not occur until after midnight, about three hours from now. I will be moving the special occasion hook, currently the lead hook ofPrep 5, toPrep 1 so it will run on February 19 as requested.BlueMoonset (talk)21:08, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
SL93: Thanks for adding the citation and rewording the hook :)@Launchballer: I've read through the entire article and wasn't able to find the close paraphrasing; If you could please provide a paragraph or section, I'll reword it. -AmateurHi$torian (talk)09:49, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer: both. "hardly credible" is part of a longer quote in the article, so the whole phrase there is within quote marks. It is not necessary nor normal to put one or two word quotes in quote marks, so the extracted shorter "hardly credible" in the hook is not. Similarly, "an enormous gamble" is a direct quote from Wanklyn but is so short that it is not in quote marks in the article. (Nor the hook.)Gog the Mild (talk)19:44, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't see it as an issue in this case. The information doesn't sound contentious and one could argue thatWP:ABOUTSELF applies here. If there are really concerns about the use of Medium here, the hook could be attributed rather than ditched entirely. As for Business Insider, it's a common misconception that yellow means "not allowed", when it actually means "case-by-case basis". For more controversial or contentious stuff, yellow sources like Insider (or Fox News) are probably not appropriate, but they can be used for more mundane or non-controversial information.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)23:17, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I nominated this, and so must ask for another review - though if the word 'porno' is encyclopedic, then perhaps the hook could be shortened to it.--Launchballer19:25, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Did anyone come up with an action plan for the Hennepin Avenue Bridge hooks? All three of them are still waiting for discussion to be done here before being promoted or in one case approved at all.Departure– (talk)18:32, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi all, this is a minor note but likely a result of the roundabout way we re-wrote the hook forStretcher railings, seethe history. We forgot to include an (exmaple pictured) in the re-write. I would suggest we include the parenthetical in the hook such as "have kinks (exmaple pictured) indicating" as this closely mirrors what was originally approved in one of the alternatives. I'm also not sure if, following the re-write, it would be best to take out the word "feet" from the caption—I don't think this is necessary but I would understand it given the discussion.
ThanksDylan620, no apology needed. You did copy exactly as we had discussed in the nomination.
I did also boldlymake the caption change as was discussed above, there seems to be consensus for it especially given the topic of discussion on the nominations page. However, I'm not sure of the etiquette (being my fourth ever DYKN and first with an image) with this so I'm making sure to note that change here. Feel free to revert of course. Thanks,Bobby Cohn (talk)21:51, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Need to set DYK updates to twice-per-day
@DYK admins: please resetUser:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates to 43200 right away—certainly before noon UTC—so we can start three days of two-a-day promotions. (This is because we had seven filled queues before midnight and—more to the point—have six filled queues now, effective after tonight's midnight promotion, which is the agreed-upon trigger for the change.) The special occasion hooks have already been moved to reflect the faster promotions, and hopefully this faster rate will help get us reduce the number of hooks on the Approved page are don't transclude. Thank you very much.BlueMoonset (talk)04:53, 12 February 2025 (UTC)
One of the annoying things about reviewing hooks (perhaps the most annoying) is all the boilerplate copy-paste that's necessary to generate the discussion threads we use. So, gathering up what minimal javascript skills I possess, I put together a little tool to help with that. There's a beta version atUser:RoySmith/dyk-pingifier.js. Once you've installed that in your common.js (or whatever), when you're looking at a DYK nomination template, it'll add a text box to the top with the wikitext for the appropriate L3 header. It'll also scatter some "ping" buttons around, one after each user signature. As you click each one, it'll add the appropriate{{ping}} to the text box. Once you've got what you want, you can click the "Copy" button and paste that into this page.
I already have some improvements in mind, but this seems useful enough forpeople to look at, so have at it. On my list is also adding a L2 header for the queue, being smarter about recognizing signatures, and auto-recognizing the "big three" (nom, promoter, author) who should always be pinged.
I took this for a test drive. A L2 header probably isn't necessary if you're starting a new section, but linking to the actual username rather than the display name would be useful.--Launchballer00:01, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
Just tried testing it again. Most usernames come up with ranks, such as "More than 10,000 edits" or "New page reviewer", while SL93 comes up with "User:SL93" (his signature links to "User:SL93#top") and some don't appear at all, such as TompaDompa (presumably because he doesn't have a userpage).--Launchballer17:34, 11 February 2025 (UTC)
I just uploaded a new version which (fingers crossed) fixes all the problems with usernames and funny signatures. I've also added a button to optionally include a L2 header.RoySmith(talk)04:51, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Two interesting glitches in the most recent set: the "Add L2 Header" doesn't seem to work (although I use 'add new section', so have no use for this anyway), and "狄の用務員" generates "%E7%8B%84%E3%81%AE%E7%94%A8%E5%8B%99%E5%93%A1".--Launchballer18:47, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Hmmm, interesting. The L2 header stuff was working for me, but now it's not, so obviously I broke something along the way :-) As for 狄の用務員, that sounds like I'm just not encoding/escaping something properly. Thanks for the reports; keep 'em coming.
BTW, L2's superpower (when it works) is that it adds the date the set is going to run to the header. It was pointed out onWP:ERRORS a while ago that when you have several L2 headers which all say the same thing (i.e. "Queue 7"), incoming links don't know which one to use and you often get to the wrong one. Adding the date fixes that.RoySmith(talk)19:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
It's not working forWalter III Brisebarre because that's not currently in any queue or prep. The L2 header is supposed to be a link to the queue it's a part of. It wouldn't be hard to extend that to also work for noms in preps, but that wasn't my original use case so I haven't bothered to make that work yet. For something likeWalter III Brisebarre that's not in either, I'm not sure what makes sense to do there, but I guess something better than what it's doing now, which is to just silently fail.RoySmith(talk)21:50, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Howdy! I was wondering if there was any reason that the image I added for the DYK ofFestival Internacional da Canção was not included. I do not want to be a diva, but I love the way it captures the performance of Milton Nascimento at the festival and was the one who uploaded it Commons.Why? I Ask (talk)00:22, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
It is the person named in the hook playing at the festival. Funny how the main page today does exactly what it says not to do. It could also be re-captioned to say "Nascimento [no link] performing at the Festival Internacional da Canção".Why? I Ask (talk)00:33, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm ready to say just keep it without an image no matter what because not every image can be used. I'm more concerned about the backlog.SL93 (talk)00:44, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
There seems to be a newspaper source as well in the hook, but I can't read it as it is paywalled. Anyone who has WikiLibrary access to Newspapers.com can give a look at it?~/Bunnypranav:<ping>16:15, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
You mean "Smoky Hill festival to feature Nitty Gritty Dirt Band". The Salina Journal. April 28, 1978. p. 1. Retrieved July 11, 2024? That says "They are the first performers of contemporary music to tour the Soviet Union under State Department auspices", which is a bit more restrictive than what the hook says; "the first American musical act" could have been a classical (or something else other than "contemporary") music group that toured before the NGDB. As a technical nit, seeWP:CLIP for the right way to cite newspapers.com.RoySmith(talk)16:36, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
No, that's not what they mean by a clip. What you want to do is click the "Clip" button in the toolbar (the one with the little scissors icon). Then you get to drag a selection rectangle over the area you want and save the clipping. You should end up with a URL that looks likehttps://www.newspapers.com/article/the-salina-journal-nitty-gritty-dirt-ban/165396238/, i.e. with "/article" instead of "/image". That URL should be visible to anybody even if they don't have a newspapers.com account. I don't know why they make this so complicated and unintuitive.RoySmith(talk)20:39, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
Gah! No, that doesn't quite work either. I'm sorry, I have no clue what's going on other than newspapers.com seems to keep mutating their system and breaking it in new and exciting ways. This used to work. It used to generate a /clip URL which was visible in an incognito window. These new-fangled /article URLs seem to just show you a scaled-down teaser image but then requires you to log in to see the full size one.Sammi Brie do you have any idea what's going on here?RoySmith(talk)21:27, 13 February 2025 (UTC)
They probably also mean "since the Cold War", since it's not inconceivable that lots of groups toured in the Soviet Union before then.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)01:44, 14 February 2025 (UTC)
Here is a source that does not say "first" for the Nitty Gritty Dirt Band (and has other musicians in the SU earlier, but perhaps just with a single concert), although they are the first band mentioned together with the words "toured the Soviet Union". According to "Atomic Tunes: The Cold War in American and British Popular Music"(via TWL), "American jazz musicians Dave Brubeck, Duke Ellington, Benny Goodman, and Louie Armstrong made well-publicized tours in Eastern Bloc countries from the 1950s on. The US State Department sent both classical and jazz musicians as “good will ambassadors” to shine a positive light on American culture. What about popular musicians? In July and August 1957, folk musician Peggy Seeger performed in Moscow, China, and Warsaw. Her half brother, Pete Seeger, played concerts in Czechoslovakia, Poland, and the Soviet Union in the spring of 1964. The Soviet Union also invited several country artists. Roy Clark (host of the variety show Hee Haw) and the Oak Ridge Boys (famous for their 1981 song “Elvira”) were the first country musicians to perform there, in January 1976. The Nitty Gritty Dirt Band, another country group, toured the Soviet Union in May 1977."
@Kusma my problem with that is it may not be interesting to a wide audience. I grew up in the US during that era, so I recognize that the band was American and that Americans touring the USSR was a rarity. To many other readers, not so much, perhaps. How about:
Done -Pulled. The next few hooks only had fair use images so I also switchedTop Gun: Maverick to the top and added in a viable image. —Ganesha811 (talk)15:44, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
I am traveling and will not be able to get to this in the next 12 hours but will handle it then. However if another admin has time before then I would appreciate it! —Ganesha811 (talk)16:15, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a couple of days ago, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through January 31. We have a total of 340 nominations, of which 187 have been approved, a gap of 153 nominations that has increased by 16 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks!BlueMoonset (talk)16:53, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Does it really mater what date a nom is filed under?
When I pull a hook and need to re-transclude it back intoWP:DYKN sometimes the section for the date it was originally filed under no longer exists, so I just stick it under the closest date to save a little work. I've always assumed that the breakup by dates is just for editing convenience and to give people a rough idea of how old something is, so being off by a day or two doesn't matter. Am I breaking anything by doing this?RoySmith(talk)16:27, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Breaking? Not that I can think of, though those people closing hooks due to timeout reasons might be doing it sooner than they ought. It takes a few seconds to copy an adjacent date and adjust it. I do the equivalent all the time when I'm moving no-longer-approve nominations back from Approved to Nominations.BlueMoonset (talk)16:59, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
@SL93:@Miraclepine:@Reconrabbit:This one's going to be tricky. The article sayslike a rubber band [...] being crushed which is quoted in the hook but without the elipsis. Which version is correct? The source is not in English so I can't read the original text (although I do appreciate the translations provided in the nom). Given that this is aWP:BLP talking about some of the most sensitive topics a BLP can touch (mental health issues), we need to be sure we get this one right.RoySmith(talk)17:08, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Or we could use the ALT0. Even if one could argue this is not interesting outside of VTubers, the fact that the word "VTubers" is extremely similar toYouTube can give a broader audience the irony-driven oomph between the digital nature of YouTubers and the analog nature of classic TV sets.ミラP@Miraclepine17:12, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree that ALT0 can be used for that reason, but I'm still curious if the ellipsis should be in the article or not.SL93 (talk)17:14, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
There's multiple ways the metaphor being quoted could be translated (though the meaning is pretty much the same, it's just the verbiage). May be better to exclude the quote and instead just refer to "she talked with a counselor and subsequently recovered".Reconrabbit17:31, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
On a related topic, the first edit comment in the article history is "start of split" which makes me think this was forked from another article. In which caseWP:COPYWITHIN requires proper attribution which I'm not seeing. This also affects the GA and FA reviews, so @Kimikel @Kyle Peake who did those reviews.RoySmith(talk)18:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I do not think EASTEREGG should be an issue here; the hook fact is phrased to be intriguing without being deceptive. It could be considered aWP:DYKDEFINITE issue, but I think that's okay too because the hook is obviously running before 2026.
There's some template you can use to generate a "This was copied from that, see that's history for attribution" message, but I can't remember what it's called. If anybody knows what it is, could you please add that to this article's talk page, and then I think we're good to go.RoySmith(talk)23:35, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
@Surtsicna:@Gerda Arendt:@Hilst:Two problems here. For one thing, the supplied "QPQ" comprises little other than 'prose needs work', although I'm minded to let it slide as it just so happened to do for the nom in any event (and frankly, that bit ain't where the backlog is). More serious, however, is the fact that the hook states "that connoisseurs look down on it" in wikivoice but the article has "The cacti nurseryman John Pilbeam notes that because of this it is "almost looked down upon by the connoisseurs"", and that's not going to fly.--Launchballer18:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Launchballer I have changed it to "... that Catholic sister Rosalind "Sister Roz" Gefre has given an estimated 7,000 massages at St. Paul Saints baseball games?" Feel free to change it if you disagree with that wording, or consensus says that it was a bad idea.SL93 (talk)03:16, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, that's why I was more ambiguous to start since she has done it quite a bit since then, only retiring in 2019 iirc. However I couldn't find any other numbers anywhere. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs19:50, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
The Convert template does not give just tons (which are short tons), which is why it says "short tons". If the template allows that option (it does allow for metric tons/tonnes, but not short tons/"tons"), I'd prefer the template. --Sky Harbor(talk)15:34, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
The way it was written was spam. Example - "The ease of TYC has the security of not having any awkward atmosphere. Watching the video, you will be surprised at how natural the interactions"SL93 (talk)19:22, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Okay, yes, that is spammy. But that's not in the article any longer. The baby was thrown out with the bathwater, but the baby's back now. The remaining text looks fine to me. – Muboshgu (talk)19:27, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
It might be the language gap, but reading that article is still really hard work ...Therefore there is a potential fear that a staff-customer relationship may involve a one-sided emotional investment where the customer's friendliness is due a feeling of closeness with the staff which reciprocates the same outward friendliness without any feeling of closeness. orAs a result, he decided on a frank customer service style that was reminiscent of his own friend's part-time job, rather than the brightness of a theme park.Black Kite (talk)00:05, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I think it's because of this on the creator's profile - "I mainly use machine translation for conversation, and since the machine is not very accurate, please forgive me if there are any rude expressions." So I would say a language gap is correct, and I'm not entirely certain if the machine translation is also being used in articles.SL93 (talk)00:06, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
I use machine translation for my preliminary translations, but I look it over myself before writing.I personally think Sara Fukamori's insights are useful and not spam, but as I stated inTalk:Tomodachiga Yatteru Cafe#Spam?, this section is not essential to the article, so if it is controversial, I think it is fine to remove it.If the rest of the section has "Massive amounts of puffery", please point it out to me specifically and I will consider addressing it. I am not a native speaker, so I cannot comment on the fluency of the English text. I sincerely apologize for this.狄の用務員 (talk)01:10, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
@Jonathan Deamer:The article says "Justus helped build stills for farmers so that they could earn extra money during a period of a depressed economy", while the hook says "Justus helped make stills so farmers could illegally make alcohol during the Prohibition", and I think this should be spelt out in the article.--Launchballer18:38, 15 February 2025 (UTC)
Thanks @Launchballer. I've adjusted the article to say "Justus helped build stills for farmers during the Prohibition, when alcohol was illegal, so that they could earn extra money during a period of a depressed economy".Jonathan Deamer (talk)17:11, 16 February 2025 (UTC)
Requesting advice on hook length
Hello folks, I'm currently reviewingTemplate:Did you know nominations/Bechbretha and I am wondering how to interpret this part of the guidance that I've put in bold and Italics: "The hook cannot exceed 200 prose characters. Counting starts from after the space following the three dots, and ends at the question mark.For articles with multiple boldlinks, text in boldlinks after the first do not count toward the limit."
Is it the boldening that doesn't count?
Is it additional boldened words that don't count?
If the latter, taking out the additional boldened words from ALT0a would leave a 137 character skeleton like this: ... that among the sources forearly Irish law arejudgments on bees, , , , and ; , , , and ; and ; , , , and ? - would that hook then be accepted? This is my first complex hook review, so patience is appreciated!Lajmmoore (talk)19:59, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
The markup needed to make things bold never counts. It is only text characters. The clear intent of the text you quote is that characters in the bold linked text after the first one do not count, as your skeletal example shows. —David Eppstein (talk)20:26, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
My (personal) take on this is that hooks like these with (if I counted right) 15 bolded links are so out of the mainstream that trying to apply the letter of the rule to them is just pointless. Do what makes sense and move on.RoySmith(talk)22:28, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
@Fortuna imperatrix mundi,Departure–, andSL93: The article does not contain the phrase "judicial murder". (It also doesn't contain anything I recognize as a synonym of "judicial murder", but the quotation marks in the hook mean the exact phrase should be in the article regardless.)jlwoodwa (talk)22:15, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
@DoctorWhoFan91,Crisco 1492, andSL93: As far as I can tell,Doctor Who series 13 § Production doesn't contain this exact statement. It says that the series was impacted by the pandemic, thatthey thought they would be unable to do the show under COVID conditions, that writing continued remotely throughout the pandemic, that COVID caused the lack of exotic locations, and that it presented some "curveballs", but it never states that theentire duration of the filming was under COVID conditions. I don't mean to come across as nitpicky, but since the word "entirely" seems to be important to this hook's interestingness, I think it should be directly supported by the article.jlwoodwa (talk)22:45, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
I would pedantically say that the part you have quoted is an acknowledgement that the show was under COVID conditions and they didn't think they'd manage, but it's not a particularly interesting hook in the first place so can we send it back for something better.Kingsif (talk)22:49, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Maybe rephrase the last one to "there was only one story told in ...", but they're not the most interesting, either. LikeDoctor Who series 13 itself, I suppose.Kingsif (talk)23:11, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
Well, there has only been one statement of it not being interesting so far. I think that the last hook is fine and interesting enough with it being a first for the show since 1986. I suppose the series is interesting itself based on the positive reception in the article.SL93 (talk)23:17, 17 February 2025 (UTC)
I also would say the same thing, but there are two other hooks, and I think the third hook would be interesting enough, even to non-fans.DWF91 (talk)07:13, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Given the previous saturation of COVID hooks and how there was an impression that a hook's interestingness relying on COVID was considered "cheap", it might be safer to just swap the hook with one of the other options.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)00:14, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
@Haha169,The Account 2,Launchballer, andSL93: The article stated without citation thatThe Taiwan Affairs Office announced its first sanction under the new law in November 2021, and the Ministry of Commerce announced its first Unreliable Entity List designation in February 2023. The lists in Chinese government sanctions §§ Sanctions announced by the Taiwan Affairs Office andSanctions announced by the Ministry of Commerce (Unreliable Entities List) do start at 5 November 2021 and 16 February 2023 respectively, but I don't think this falls under thesummarizes cited content elsewhere in the article exception toWP:DYKCITE – the fact thatno sanctions preceded these dates is an additional claim and requires its own citation. I was able to fix half of this myself, since the first Unreliable Entities List source does specify that the sanctions wereadded for the first time. But since I couldn't find an analogous statement in the Taiwan Affairs Office sources, I have tagged that part as[citation needed].jlwoodwa (talk)00:00, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
jlwoodwa I changed the sentence to "The Taiwan Affairs Office announced a sanction under the new law in November 2021" and referenced it to the only November 2021 sanction under the Sanctions announced by the Taiwan Affairs Office section. I changed the sentence because I have been unable to verify it as being the first, even though I'm almost positive that it was.SL93 (talk)00:46, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Quickfails not counting as QPQs
It was recently brought up to me in a DYK review (by@Narutolovehinata5:) that reviews which are quickfails don't count for the purposes of a QPQ. This seems reasonable and such a rule is implied by note e (It is disputed whether reviews that do a full review, only to arrive at a quickfail result, count for a QPQ) inthe current version ofWP:DYKG. However, note e is in a weird place (coming after a sentence on how someone should review a DYK) and the rule is nowhere explicitly stated (it certainly isn't inWP:QPQ). Does anyone know why note e is in this section? And would anyone object to me adding a clause about this rule toWP:QPQ? Best,Tenpop421 (talk)18:37, 18 February 2025 (UTC)
Actually, the guideline (from what Leeky told me) is that quickfails (i.e. just simply saying that an article is not eligible for whatever reason, without further elaborating) can't count as QPQs. However, there is disagreement if an review that results in a quickfail result, but still checks all criteria (i.e. paraphrasing, newness, length, QPQ, etc.) as opposed to immediately failing in a concise manner can count as a QPQ.
For example, a review that goes "Sorry, but Article is not eligible because it is not new." would not count as QPQ, but there's dispute if a review that goes "The article is long enough and sourced, has a QPQ, the hook is interesting, and it is cited inline. However, the article is not eligible because it is not new enough, as it was not created within the last seven days." can count as a QPQ or not. Leeky said it shouldn't, personally I think it should, I'm not sure what the rest of the community thinks.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)00:50, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
A complete review that mentions all the DYK criteria and concludes that it fails due to an irremediable fault (not nominated in time, for example, or not expanded and clearly not possible to get a 5x expansion) definitely counts as a QPQ. The quoted review above could be more complete: there's no mention of a copyvio/close paraphrase check or a check for a 5x expansion (given that it wasn't created recently enough to qualify as new).BlueMoonset (talk)01:40, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
So essentially, the issue with such reviews shouldn't really be that a quickfail result happened, but rather that the review was incomplete. That's already an issue even for simple passes or for "reviews" that don't check everything. Personally I was never a fan of the idea that reviews that result in an automatic fail should not be counted for QPQ since it would be unfair to the reviewer especially when they were reviewing in good faith.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)02:29, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Once you've determined that the nom fails, what's the point of spending any more time on it? There's more useful things one could be doing with their time, like doing another review. Our job is to keep the queues moving, not auditing people's time cards.RoySmith(talk)02:41, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
The logic is this. Say you're reviewing an article. You see that it was long, you were able to check the hook's interestingness and reliability, and you even checked the QPQ. You also checked for close paraphrasing. It is only after all is said and done when you noticed that the article was not newly created. In such a case, I don't think it's fair to disqualify such a review just because the nomination was an automatic fail with no chance of salvaging. It's the effort that should count, not the technicalities.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)03:55, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
That is a heavy U-turn from proir accepted practice with regards to quick fails, and I for one am not impressed with the logic that "Well if you tick the boxes even though its a blatant quick fail we will still count it. No matter what happens in with scenario, the nomination has been DELT with. The reversal of policy should not have happened. Since QPQ's were implemented years ago quick fails counted as a QPQ.--Kevmin§02:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I assume we're talking aboutVittae which was used to qualify forBechbretha?
My personal take on this is I'm more concerned about successful reviews that turn out to bepencil whiped. If somebody just smashes a checkmark onto a nomination without actually examining it in detail, the problem is not that they haven't done enough work but that they've done the project a disservice by potentially letting something through which might not actually qualify. That's not what happened here. This was a nomination which had a legitimate problem that @Tenpop421 correctly flagged as disqualifying. And now we're going to ding it because doing so didn't consume enough of its time? That's wiki-lawyering and we've got better things to be doing with our time.RoySmith(talk)02:16, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Agreed. Not doing a full review and passing the nom anyways shouldn't count, but correctly identifying a disqualifying problem - even if done quickly - should.Nikkimaria (talk)04:10, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
A simple thumb-rule. Anything that can be failed by running the DYKCheck script should not be counted toward a QPQ. Everything else, should count toward a QPQ.Ktin (talk)04:24, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I think that is highly unfair. For one thing, DYKcheck is not perfect, especially for edge cases like 5x expansions. There have been times when DYKcheck said an article was not eligible when in fact it was, usually due to move-related or expansion-related shenanigans. As RoySmith said above, it's more the process we should reward regardless of the outcome. If a nomination is passed, but the passing was just a rubberstamp that didn't actually properly check the article, not only shouldthat not count for QPQs, but that also arguably does more damage than a proper and full review of an article that ultimately quickfailed. A quickfailed article is simply rejected and never runs, so it has less of a fallout. A poorly-reviewed passing article that makes it all the way to the Main Page can lead to consequences.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)04:28, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
My point was specifically about fails. As with all thumb-rules, these are just that. I think overall, the question to ask is the effort expended significant. Unless one goes against what DYKCheck states (e.g. 5x expansion calculation as you note -- which would then result in a pass, negating this thumb-rule) I think this will work.Ktin (talk)04:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I know I have not been around for a bit, but, what does passing without a review even mean? Are editors doing that?! We have a much bigger problem then.Ktin (talk)04:36, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm most in favor of the idea that that quickfails shouldn't count in basically the way Ktin describes (newness and lack-of-QPQ fails shouldn't count because they're too simple). I'll more weakly support the idea that QPQsshould count per RoySmith (you process a nomination, you get a credit). The current impasse where quickfails don't count except if you do some meaningless box-ticking to get around it is, frankly, pretty silly.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)05:20, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
And, yeah. I'm more and more convinced that if you do a check-mark quickpass and then it turns out you missed something huge, we should be revoking that QPQ credit.theleekycauldron (talk • she/her)05:23, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
What is the downside of letting quickfails count without trying to find a specific carve-out where they don't? Someone gets an easy QPQ? A quickfail gets the nomination off the queue regardless. A much easier rule of thumb is that a review counts, rather than trying building some vaguely-defined system which needs reviews of reviews.CMD (talk)05:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
The default assumption should be that all (or at least all correct) reviews count. Most quickfails are correct applications of the criteria, meaning they should count. If we want to use "QPQs not counting" as a stick to encourage better reviews, our problem is with nominations that are incorrectly passed, not with nominations that are correctly quick-rejected. The rules should be amended to remove any unnecessary and counterproductive exceptions about quickfails. —Kusma (talk)14:32, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Okay, I'm gonna delete that footnote fromWP:DYKG since there doesn't seem to be a consensus about whether simple quickfails count as QPQs, which makes the question of whether full reviews which are quickfails count as QPQs kind of besides the point.Tenpop421 (talk)15:02, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
Oh, sorry, I've been away doing other stuff and just saw this. It seems reasonable (if not terribly exciting) so I've dropped it into the queue. If other folks want to keep looking for better variations, there's still a day before this hits the main page.RoySmith(talk)23:30, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't really see how that hook is interesting to a broad audience. Yes it's early, but the context of the diesel engine being early might be lost among viewers. It might be a better idea to just pull the hook for now and go back to the drawing board.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)10:47, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
I think it's fine, and in my view it's better than many of the hooks that go through. You say that it might be lost among viewers, but that also means that it might not. I did propose another hook, but no one has commented on it.SL93 (talk)14:10, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
Reading the article, I think something good could be done along the lines of "Hayes made vehicles ranging from logging trucks to teardrop busses". A photo to go along with this would be great; there's a few CC BY-NC-SA photos athttps://openverse.org/search?q=hayes+teardrop; perhaps the photographer could be contacted and asked to drop the NC part? Or maybe we could find (via{{photo requested}}) somebody local to the museum who could go take some commons-compatible ones?RoySmith(talk)14:54, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith I decided that I would be fine with pulling the hook for more brainstorming, especially if we want an image. I do think that a hook from prep should be added in its place though.SL93 (talk)14:59, 20 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm wondering if reportedly is being correctly used, such as with "The restaurant reportedly calls the dish chu-tang (추탕; 鰍湯), an archaic name for the dish." and "The business was reportedly severely impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic."SL93 (talk)01:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
SL93 is right; it's just my writing style. I use "reportedly" too much. I just removed a bunch of them. There's no significant reason to doubt the claims given, I just write skeptically about everything. The hook is just as reliable as most others.seefooddiet (talk)04:12, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
That's a single story about one North Korean person, where the given article cited says that they haven't been able to verify the story. There are multiple other stories about different North Korean people with stronger backing.seefooddiet (talk)04:18, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree. While I'm not sure if the interpreter counts as a politician (and they might), there are for sure two North Korean politicians and two South Korean politicians mentioned.SL93 (talk)06:03, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
This change is acceptable. Keeping the word "streetcars" is important, as the horses are not involved with the other vehicle types that are part of the attraction.Jackdude101talkcont14:21, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I did some further tweaking to make it read better. In "that the horses used to pull", you need to read it carefully to figure out if "used to pull" means "are utilized to pull" or "no longer pull", so I've clarified that.RoySmith(talk)16:04, 19 February 2025 (UTC)
I think "veered off course" is too strong a term to use for the effect of the hit-and-run, at least given what's contained in the article, which merely states that "The event had an impact on some voters"; that's not the same as saying the incident completely derailed his bid.
Also, on another point, the "Results" section has no prose at all, just a table, which IMHO mean it's not quite main-page ready. If this was presented at ITN it would probably be rejected on that basis, andWP:DYKCOMPLETE also mandates that the article be "reasonably complete", something which isn't the case if it's missing discussion and analysis on the results. (See1964 Illinois House of Representatives election for an example of how a results section is normally presented with prose). If nothing else, the results section would be another chance to mention whether the hit-and-run was the ultimate cause of Petty's defeat. Pinging@CaramelizedMargaritaLime,Daniel Case,Pbritti, andCielquiparle: Cheers — Amakuru (talk)20:19, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
I just realized I promoted the wrong hook and have struck the ALT0 in the nomination template, and properly formatted ALT1, so there is no confusion. The issue regarding the "Results" section still needs to be addressed though.Cielquiparle (talk)21:46, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived earlier today, so I've created a new list of 28 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 4. We have a total of 335 nominations, of which 185 have been approved, a gap of 150 nominations that has increased by 3 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks!BlueMoonset (talk)22:14, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Hennepin Ave bridge hooks
Howdy@SL93: and@Premeditated Chaos:, thanks for promoting my hooks regarding the two different Hennepin Ave bridges. I'd wonder if it would be best to move one of them out of a prep so that they have a bit more time in between each other to avoid confusion as they're two separate bridges. ~Darth StabroTalk•Contribs03:49, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
Yeah, this was already a topic in the DYK review. Since sources before, during, after, and long after talk about it being the first, I thinkthe rule for "exceptional sourcing" should be met.IceWelder [✉]19:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
I fixed part of it. I'm sure someone else can finish the rest within the next few days. If not, I might do it. I can't do much in real life anyway at the moment.SL93 (talk)19:41, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
I apologize for not realizing that Discogs isn't a reliable source. I am now curious if the 9th reference is reliable as well.SL93 (talk)11:55, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
The two unreliable references have been removed. Some parts where they appeared are also backed up with other references.JIP |Talk08:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
After removing the references to Discogs, I was able to find at least some references about the release of the album's editions. I still have a copy of Norres's book I loaned from the library, it might have some more information. If there is anything in the article that I or anyone else simply can't find any reference for, it might have to be removed.JIP |Talk20:28, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
It was in that particular studio, but realising the ambiguity of the sentence now, I think the reviewer might have thought the other.DWF91 (talk)06:49, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Oh, I never even saw the ambiguity and thought it meantall BBC studios 😅 Yeah if an alternative wording is not proposed for ALT0 I believe ALT1 should be used instead. Cheers!Johnson52417:36, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
@Prezbo,Lazman321, andSL93: The sentenceBergman continued to help lead the BARU as it grew into a national organization and changed its name, first to the Revolutionary Union and then (in 1975) to theRevolutionary Communist Party, USA (RCP). is uncited. I tried to find a citation for it myself, and it seemed promising that the neighboring citations were from the same book, but the version I was able to access (Heavy Radicals atGoogle Books) doesn't have any page numbers.jlwoodwa (talk)02:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
jlwoodwa I bought the Kindle version because the topic interested me. I had to use three pages to cite the information. I would add the relevant quotes from the book, but the nerve blocker from my right shoulder surgery is still affecting the fingers on my right hand. Let me know if you need it after the nerve blocker wears off.SL93 (talk)08:47, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for the confusion. Could we use "1919"? I think the date given in the source that uses 1919 is more detailed and likely more accurate. I'll update the article.seefooddiet (talk)04:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
I just wanted to put this here for the regulars as an example of a hook that would get extra scrutiny if it was a sports-related DYK (specifically AmerFoot), and likely would not be approved by many regulars because it is not "hooky" enough. This DYK basically says "did you know that people name their sons after themselves", an extremely common phenomena. Now from my perspective, its hooky because of the word play, which is fine! But what frustrates me is the double-standard that is often applied for topics that are more niche than "politics" or "history". We should really clarify that criteria to either allow these type of "wordplay" type hooks or ban them altogether. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @15:17, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Did you know is full of cringe and sexually inappropriate innudedo
DYK turns Wikipedia in to vandapedia. No respectable encyclopedia would have did you know on their front page. Who are the real vandals?217.52.247.73 (talk)16:19, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
If DYK gets people interested in topics they wouldn't be reading about otherwise, then it's doing its job.Wikipedia is not censored, and even then, DYK is still subject to civility and it isn't a battleground for unsavory images or content to be added to the main page.Departure– (talk)16:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
@SL93,Queen of Hearts, andJolielover: The hook is fine, at least as far as matching what's in the article, but the statementseizure of US$488,000 in prepackaged heroin and handguns is not what the source says: "48,800 bags of heroin with a street value of nearly a half million dollars".RoySmith(talk)17:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
I changed it to - "announced the seizure of about US$500,000 in prepackaged heroin and handguns and US$40,000 in cash near Newark, Delaware."SL93 (talk)19:52, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle,Launchballer,Georgeykiwi, andGrnrchst: There's a whole paragraph that's identical to one on thenewimagefm.ca/on-hits. I'm reasonably sure they copied from us, but somebody should give it another look to be sure.
thenewimagefm copied the Wikipedia lead. The lead was edited by multiple editors over a year, not written/copied in any single edit. Some parts wereimproved recently in response to GA feedback. If it's correct, the copyright date on thenewimagefm is for this year (2025), but parts of the lead were written in early 2024.Rjjiii (talk)18:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
... that over 5,000 genres onSpotify use the suffix-core?
The longer stringthe suffix -core? should be bolded to clarify the fact that, well, it's a suffix, and its specific use is the subject of this article.Departure– (talk)16:43, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not quite sure how to phrase it, but this differs because people can infer what an actor would be just from their name. Bolding the suffix will make it hyperspecificwhat we're referring to (no room for interpretation). I don't know how else to explain it and it ultimately isn't a world-ending issue but it's one I think could stand to be corrected.Departure– (talk)17:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
I think I can narrow down my concern a bit more by stating that the-ose suffix only receives four bolded characters, all at the very end. Spotify isn't the bolded article but receives much more linked area. This is definitely more of an aesthetic issue, I recognize.Departure– (talk)18:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
The easy solution to this is that we really dont need to have Spotify bolded in the hook at all. Its a well known music app/service, and is linked in the article itself.--Kevmin§18:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Is the concern the number? If so, would changing "formally proposed annexing the counties in Illinois that had voted to secede" to "formally proposed annexing the 33 counties in Illinois that had voted to secede" help? This could be expanded to "formally proposed annexing the 33 counties in Illinois that had voted to secede in order to separate from Cook County and Chicago" as well, although it reads a bit redundantly in the context of the rest of the article.CMD (talk)04:56, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Queue 7's "approved by a human" header isn't displaying correctly, probably because of the equals sign inLaunchballer's signature. Changing the template call to{{DYKbotdo|1=...}} makes it display correctly (at least in preview), but I don't understand the bot well enough to know whether this change would cause problems for it.jlwoodwa (talk)17:01, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
My personal take on that is that the job of your signature is to let people know you wrote something and nothing more. If you've made it so customized that it's breaking stuff, you need to fix your signature.RoySmith(talk)17:09, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
@Hawkeye7,Pbritti, andSL93: I'm guessing the hook is about the fact that the plant took multiple years to be demolished, however the image (a .gif labeled as an "animation") is two frames, one before and one after demolition, with a transition between them. It doesn't have any intermediate stage of the plant partially demolished. This really should be two images on the article, or alternatively, an actual timelapse or something other of the plant's demolition. The slow speed also makes it unclear that this is an animation at all. Is there a better or clearer animation or image that can be used instead?Departure– (talk)16:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
(sorry this was a late swap-out from tomorrow's queue, Queue 5, as I didn't get to finish checking it until tonight)
I'm a bit confused about whether this is a true story or not. References to Edward IV within the body of the target article are entirely within the "In Shakespeare" and "In literature" sections, which makes it seem like the story of Edward executing George in the butt of malmsey is potentially entirely fictional. (It's well-known that Shakespeare's plays don't necessarily adhere to historical accuracy). If there is a historical basis to the story, then that should be dealt with in a section outside of the literary/Shakespeare analysis, whereas if there isn't a historical basis, the hook would not be permitted perWP:DYKFICTION.@Fortuna imperatrix mundi,Darth Stabro, andRjjiii:. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)20:34, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
I've shifted the section heading away from Shakespeare, apologies if it was confusing? The text itself makes it clear that the execution is an historical event independent of Shakespearian licence; the problematic aspect is the method used to carry it out. The blurb is thus accurate on both counts. Cheers. And thanks toRjjiii for alerting me to this discussion.Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi15:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi@Fortuna imperatrix mundi: thanks for that, at least that makes it clear that this isn't just a Shakespearean story anyway! However, I'm not seeing the hook as written fully matching the article currently in two ways: (1)"Edward IV had his own brother executed" - the article says"Clarence was arrested on charges of spreading slander and usurping royal authority; the following year he was put on trial and attainted"; while it may perhaps be accepted that the king was behind this judicial process, it isn't directly the same as saying he "had him executed". And (2) the assertion that he was "probably" killed in a butt of malmsey seems a much stronger assertion that the article's"Legend has it that he was drowned in a butt of malmsey, but the veracity of the story has never been proven or disproven, and it is unknown whether, if it happened, it was deliberate or accidental". Cheers — Amakuru (talk)15:48, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Hi, apologies if it's a radical concept, but you know: kings had people executed. It was called royal justice. The usurpation of whichby Clarence is at least in part the basis of the article. So obviously that can't change. Unless you are suggesting that someone other than the king took it upon themselves to kill the king's brother.[citation needed] On a lighter note, though, feel free to change "probably" to "possibly", that's OK. Cheers,Fortuna,ImperatrixMundi16:14, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Well sure, I don't suppose that's a radical concept at all... to you and probably to me it's obvious that a mediaeval "trial" of the king's brother wouldn't be carried out without his permission under aseparation of powers constitution. But (and I hope you won't throw me into the malmsey yourself for me raising this) - does it fall under theWP:CALC orWP:SKYISBLUE school of facts that don't need citations? Not really. If we want the hook to state that Edward ordered his brother's execution then the article needs to say that too, and it needs to be backed up by a reliable source which also says that. If those three things can't be brought into line then it isn't valid... Cheers — Amakuru (talk)17:08, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
The Encyclopaedia Britannica says that George was privately executed and that the method is unknown but soon after the butt of malmsey story spread as a rumour. Based on reading all available sources, it's the most common telling and would be considered historical fact as far as the history that was written down says it is so, but Edward kept the execution a private affair so no means of punishment seems to have been recorded.Kingsif (talk)20:53, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Blah, I should have read the article more closely. The book cited says that the drowning "appears in most contemporary histories" The article has a lot of explanation cited to a 100-year old paper juxtaposed with a claim (cited to a 200-year old paper) that you can't fit a man in barrel. Regardless of the hook being adjusted, the article itself could be clarified,Rjjiii (talk)21:04, 22 February 2025 (UTC)
Having just read this hook in Q7 and compared it against what is written in the article, I wanted to bring up the same issue thatAmakuru has beaten me to with his point number 2. I suggest that the hook and the article should be more closely aligned. Otherwise, this will likely show up at Errors.Schwede6607:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
@SL93,Yue, andAmateurHi$torian: I don't think we need the units conversion in the hook.MOS:CONVERSIONS makes an exception for "topic areas (for example ... American football where yards are primary)". I think any sport where distances are universally reported in meters would fall under that exception.RoySmith(talk)02:17, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
@SL93,MSG17, andBaduFerreira: Even the article equivocates with "reportedly the first". Not to mention that the source says "with a product on WeChat" That's not the same as having "an account on WeChat". I have an account on Facebook, but I certainly don't have a "product" on facebook.RoySmith(talk)02:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith I would just replace "reportedly the first" with "the first" or "the only" per the source. To the nominator, just because a source reports something does not mean that "reportedly" should be used. I would then go on to say "with a product on WeChat". Although I still see why "account" was used and that is because it is an account that was set up for a product.SL93 (talk)07:32, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith I'm not sure why the article uses that source because the DYK nomination used a non-English reference. I just replaced the source in the article with a different English reference. It says, "Marguerite would eventually marry a fellow acrobat, perform under her new name Madame Saqui, and gain fame and the patronage of Emperor Napoleon himself, dancing the rope into her seventies." so I would remove "well into".SL93 (talk)07:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Never mind. I changed the "Saqui continued to perform well into her seventies." to the source that the nominator mentioned below.SL93 (talk)07:25, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
Have now stated her specific age for that performance in article, line above had already given context. Source cited does specify this - on page 190. "Elle a près soixante dix sept ans" tranls "She was nearly 77 years old". Very much well into her seventies.MumphingSquirrel (talk)07:20, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
@SL93,Darth Stabro, andDeparture–: This copies a lot of text (almost the entire article) from mnopedia.org. It's properly acknowledged as using a CC-BY-SA source, but I think the quantity of text that's copied goes beyond what's acceptable. It may not be a strict copyright problem, but is this really what we want our encyclopedia to be?RoySmith(talk)02:56, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
I don't see the issue. Everything is still cited. The copied text is both compatible in license and attributed in the article, and is reasonably well-written by Wikipedia standards.Departure– (talk)04:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
At least 1500 of the 3726 prose characters must be original to Wikipedia—that is, not copied from MNopedia; perWP:DYKLEN, content duplicated from public domain sources is not counted toward the DYK length requirements.BlueMoonset (talk)05:11, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
I would rather not because I did not mean it as a joke. April 1 hooks tend to twist wording and formatting to achieve an effect. I do not see a straightforward science fact fitting there.Surtsicna (talk)19:53, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Hmmm, OK, I have no objection if somebody removes it, but given that I seem to have screwed up the adding, I'll leave it to somebody who actually knows what they're doing to remove it.RoySmith(talk)19:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Interesting, now it's showing up. Do purges just take a while to have effect? In any case, I'll still leave it to somebody else to undo, to make sure that's done correctly.RoySmith(talk)19:57, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
On the capitalization, as you can see from the nom page I originally had it non-capitalized but moved it; I think I saw a few sources that had it capitalized and it seemed more like a formal name rather than a descriptor. I'm fine with it either way, can be moved back toGrain Belt Beer sign. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs16:25, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
It’s capitalized because "Grain Belt Beer Sign" is its historicalNRHP designation.[10] I’ve worked with these assets in the past and they are always capitalized on Wikipedia, IIRC. It's the same reasonFrank Lloyd Wright Home and Studio is capitalized. It's the formal title after receiving the historical landmark designation. It looks like the rules of historical properties are entirely different in the UK.Viriditas (talk)03:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
I think it's borderline interesting, but as an alternative, it might work to play the fact off the suppression of his work during the Cultural Revolution. For example,
ALT1: ... thatPan Shu, who incorporated Marxist principles into his psychological theories, had to write psychological theory in secret during theCultural Revolution?
It has been discussed in the nom. It's not "does their job", - they were all still students. It appearsin his obit as the first thing, described as of nationwide influence. Three people are mentioned in the lead, five in the prose of the obit. We can be fair to list the two not always mentioned also, especially since one of them also died recently. --Gerda Arendt (talk)15:44, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Both 4meter4 and CurryTime said that the names mentioned were well-known in Europe and elsewhere so I deferred to them regarding interest. I personally didn't find the hook all that interesting, but I was wondering if it was just an effect of my experiences and that people from other places would think otherwise (and it's happened before). I took a look at the article and nothing immediately came to mind when it came to alternative hooks, although maybe the other pinged editors can chime in.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)15:50, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree, but I went by the opinions of editors who said they were well-known. I'm fine with it being changed or pulled.SL93 (talk)16:15, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
In this case, the hook fact is prominently placed in the subject's obituary inThe Guardian. The argument presented here is spurious given the stature of the group of individuals within classical music/performing arts, and the fact that the hook fact was already prominently featured in an internationally known newspaper in relation to the subject. The hook is fine and should remain.4meter4 (talk)18:37, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Given we have an editor who objected to the hook (Launchballer), two who are unsure (myself and SL93), and two supports (Gerda and 4meter4), it seems that there doesn't seem to be much consensus to run the hook as it stands. It's probably a safer option to just pull the hook for further workshopping.@Launchballer: In your opinion, is there anything else in the article that stands out and can work better as a hook for you?Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)23:18, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
We have the Guardian as anobjective source for the information, and that it had impact for the culture of a country, - do you understand that? What else do you want? --Gerda Arendt (talk)10:27, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
The issue here isn't The Guardian mention or The Guardian being used as a source. The issue is if the hook meetsWP:DYKINT. Even if the hook fact was prominently featured in an obituary, the question is if general, non-specialist readers would find the information interesting enough to click on Geohr's article. The reliability or reputation of the source is irrelevant to this concern. As it stands, its interestingness to a broad audience is an open question and it might be for the best to just pull the hook reopen the nomination for further workshopping.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)10:50, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
You define interestingness by what the broad audiencewants to know, and I define interestingness as what would begood to know for the broad audience, and we will probably not get together. This fact is good news about collaboration, for the introduction of something new, regardless of what the something is, and I would like it spread. - I'd like a move of the hook away from an early-morning position on 1 March when Europe sleeps, to a later position, while we discuss if we should really limit the facts we give our audience. --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
The thing is that "interestingess is defined by what the broad audience wants to know" is what is supported byWP:DYKG, specifically the criterion that hooksshould be "likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest". That is, even if the reader is largely unfamiliar with the context, they will still find the fact interesting. Your view of interestingness is contrary to what the guidelines state, as well as going against what is established practice on DYK.
As for the goals, I don't necessarily see them as inherently incompatible. A nominator can propose a hook that they want people to know,and is also likely to be received well by said people. The thing is, because it is the readers' interests that are supreme, perWP:DYKINT, such a compromise would still need to be within the purview of DYKINT. Meaning, a hook that the nominator likesand is interestingeven to readers not in the know. Hooks that appeal only to the nominator but will alienate or turn away readership go against DYKINT and generally should be rejected for violating DYK guidelines.
I kicked the hook back. For what it's worth, we're scheduled to go back to 1-a-day on 1 March, so hooks in this setshould still get 24 hours.--Launchballer11:29, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I heard that before, while I tried to explain thatin this particular case, an average reader who knows nothing about music might perceive as interesting that their were people working together for something new. We have enough desasters, crime, you name it. - Thank you for the move, Launchballer, - I wasn't concerned about only 12 hours, but about about those 12 hours when most of those interested would sleep. --Gerda Arendt (talk)11:35, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. I think, though, that "as students" is redundant, when the previous sentence said that they studied. I have no access to the sources of the group's article. --Gerda Arendt (talk)17:22, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
The hook is fine. I am profoundly sad that anything having to do with classical music is labeled as not interesting, but we're OK runningscatology. Do we really have this low an opinion of our audience?RoySmith(talk)15:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure exactly what our audience is without feedback from readers. I didn't come back to this discussion for a while because I don't care if it runs. I'm not a good judge of classical music or sports hooks anyway.SL93 (talk)17:21, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
The issue has never been about classical music specifically, we've had multiple hooks regarding it that have been proposed and ran without objection. DYK doesn't really have an anti-classical music bias (one could argue that it's actually the opposite given how often they disproportionately run compared to other topics, like how DYK has a bias for radio and TV stations, but that's a topic for another day). The issue has been if the hooks proposed meetWP:DYKINT, and that is something that applies to all topics and not just classical music (sports hook also sometimes fall afoul of it). It's not impossible to write a classical music hook that meets the guidelines, and it's been done many times before.
To answerSL93's question, this isn't perfect feedback, but one possible data point is page views. Generally speaking, hooks that use Gerda's usual role hook format tend to doreally poorly views-wise (in fact, many times they're among the least if not the least-viewed hooks for a month). By contrast, classical music hooks written by other editors, or those that don't follow her usual "jobby" format, tend to do a lot better. Not usually spectacularly, but often at least closer to average. So at least in this case, the data suggests that classical music isn't the issue, it's how the hooks are worded and proposed. I haven't checked the stats for sports hooks and how our readers receive them, but I do remember that hooks about regular pop music surprisingly tend to underperform as well.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)23:19, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 thank you for your well-reasoned response, but I think you misunderstood what I meant by "Do we really have this low an opinion of our audience?" We should be making editorial decisions based on more than just what hooks we think will garner the most clicks. If clicks were our only metric, we know how to maximize that: lots of sex, scatology, and Taylor Swift. I'd prefer that we aim a little higher, and not worry so much about the click counts.RoySmith(talk)01:40, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I remember when we had a bunch of Taylor Swift hooks a while back (to the point there were complaints), they surprisingly didn't do all that well among readers. Indeed, pop music hooks have tended to underperform, which is a bit counterintuitive when you think about it. I agree that views aren't everything, it's just something to consider. We also already have guidelines on avoiding excessively sensational or gratuitous hooks, so in practice sex or scatology hooks wouldn't necessarily make the main page anyway. I do think that certain hook formats (for example, most role hooks) are fundamentally incompatible with DYK's goals, and there doesn't seem to be much if any appetite to get rid of DYKINT wholesale anyway (and if that did happen, it would definitely open a whole can of worms). As I said earlier, the issue is rarely if ever subjects, because no topic is inherently "uninteresting". Classical music isn't inherently uninteresting, and neither is American football (among other topics). A perfectly fine and also broadly interesting hook can be proposed regarding even the nichest of topics. Often, the question is if such hooks are even possible, and if they are, if the nominator is willing to propose or agree to them.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)01:47, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Back to the topic: "This article, promoted to GA on 19 Jan, is new enough, long enough, well-sourced, and copyvio free. The hook is cited, verified, and in the body of the article. That the hook is interesting has been established above. QPQ provided. Good to go."Tenpop421, 22 Feb. --Gerda Arendt (talk)07:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, looking at the hook again right now, while I don't really think that the hook is that interesting, it's at least marginally interesting especially with the "progressive force" quote. My main concern was more about if the names involved are well-known enough that a hook gain interest just by their mention, thinking that maybe they're more well-known in certain parts of the world than over here in Asia. The thought I had is that maybe the hook would be more appealing to American or European readers, and that said names are well-known enough there even among the general public. I don't know if that's the case, but if it is, the hook could probably stand as is.
I'm not completely a fan of the hook and would rather it just be pulled for further workshopping (mainly because of concerns raised rather than my own personal views), but I wouldn't object to it running as is either. It's at least apparently more interesting than previous hooks that are solely about opera performers doing such-and-such role, a format that consistently underperforms views-wise and as usually written almost always violates DYKINT.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)23:24, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
Cleaned up in the body. I think that per the source, the hook can be changed to say "the neighborhood with the most devastating damage from" instead of just "affected by".Departure– (talk)15:51, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer: I've checked it and fundamentally it's OK... there would be two points I'd raise on it, (1) is a magazine describing Moira as a "battleaxe" really a suitably interesting hook for this? I'd have thought most characters in soaps are battleaxes, it sort of comes with the territory and if she is one that's down to the writers, not a result of any astonishing real-world facts; and (2) is this really eligible for a fair-use screenshotted image from the show? I don't think such an image is in any way necessary to understand the character, and also a photograph of the actress in some other setting would serve the same purpose just as well, and could probably be obtained if anyone bothered to try, which means the fair-use image is replaceable and not valid IMHO. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)16:11, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for the ping :) Regarding the hook - I had suggested other hooks but other editors did not like them, so I am not sure. The reason that I proposed the battelaxe hook was because Moira was referred to that in many sources/pieces of reception, which is unusual for critics to use the exact same wording. Additionally, I have read/written/expanded many character articles and rarely any of them have been viewed/seen as battleaxes. As for the photo, it has a fair use rationale as a TV screenshot as a way to identify the character, just like most TV character articles, and there are no free images of the actress (and over the years, many editors have tried). However, honestly if this is going to be such an issue, I would rather withdraw this nomination. I did want this to be a DYK, but I also do not want it to be stretched out for so long and cause issues for the article or anyone on here.DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)03:44, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
@Launchballer: this is already being discussed above. The claim in Wikipedia's voice that Clarence was executed in a butt of malmsey is not backed up by eitherFall of George Plantagenet, Duke of Clarence orButt of malmsey, which both state that the assertion is a "legend" or "tradition" of unknown veracity. I have no idea why this wasn't picked up during the review of that hook, but it might almost be better to run the hook in a modified format here, stating that it's just a legend, just to set the record straight a bit. — Amakuru (talk)15:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)
If this hook can't run, I have to say this leaps out at me from the article:
ALT2: ... a butt of malmsey was required to make "Tyre that is excellent", as part of a mixture of "fat Bastard, two gallons of Cute [and] Parrel".
I feel like this should be attributed, as this is a subjective claim made by the Delaware US Attorney's office, who obviously have an interest in promoting it as such. Also, the source is more specific and says "largest seizure of prepackaged heroin" rather than just heroin in general. Courtesy ping to nomQueen of Hearts, reviewerjolielover, commenterSL93. ♠PMC♠(talk)04:03, 23 February 2025 (UTC)
... that the US CongressmanMike Collins called for BishopMariann Budde(pictured) to be "added to the deportation list" after she preached mercy to PresidentDonald Trump?
The previous list was archived about an hour ago, so I've created a new list of 31 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 12. We have a total of 323 nominations, of which 176 have been approved, a gap of 147 nominations that has decreased by 3 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks!BlueMoonset (talk)15:41, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Is there a proper criteria for themed sets? I've seen a few before atWikipedia:Did you know/Hall of Fame/Themed sets and was wondering if there's a set-in-stone criteria to have one - i.e. what topics are wide or otherwise important enough to qualify, when they should occur beyond a specific day, how long before one gets made should it be proposed, etc. Cheers!Departure– (talk)18:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
Probably not. While the biographies are a bit more 'fluid', there's already a lawyer hook in that set and that's probably a bit more positive than "man is mean to woman".--Launchballer07:55, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
This hasn't been clarified in the rules: in the case of multi-article hooks, which articles should have the hook fact directly mentioned?
The precedents I've seen, from recollection, are mixed. In some cases, all articles needed to have the hook fact explicitly mentioned or supported, but in other cases, it was sufficient for just one article to do so. The guidelines don't make it clear how to handle hook facts based on multiple articles, whether the hook is based on information spread across multiple articles, or in cases where multiple articles are nominated but only one directly states the hook fact. Should this be clarified inWP:DYKG?Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)10:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
The hook fact should probably be present in its entirety in one article in the spirit ofWP:SYNTH. (Possibly there are exceptions, but it seems a good general rule.) However, a hook fact might only makes sense written out in the context of one article, so requiring it in multiple articles may only result in adding fluff to articles or running similar topics multiple times, which we seem to generally try to avoid.CMD (talk)14:37, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
A 15 article hook presses heavily into possible exception territory, but it's an interesting example because I would expect the fact to be fully included (although distributed across various sentences) in the linkedEarly Irish law, which readers can still access even though it is not technically one of the bolded links.CMD (talk)03:53, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I think the fact in the hook should be allowed to be distributed across the various articles.Improper synthesis should of course not run, per Wikipedia policy, but usually the syntheses that go on in hooks are pretty trivial. A good example here is the bigNew Zealand new MPs hook which ran in 2024, where we wouldn't expect each article to name all the other new MPs.Tenpop421 (talk)17:20, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm inclined to think that each bolded article should at least contain part of the hook, because a bolded article that doesn't is unlikely to bea main or at least a major factor in the hook (perWP:DYKHOOKSTYLE). To be honest, I don't know of an example where one bolded article didn't contain any of the hook. I'd be interested if you, knew any,@Narutolovehinata5:.Tenpop421 (talk)17:24, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: please resetUser:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates to 43200 right away—certainly before noon UTC—so we can start three days of two-a-day promotions. (This is because we had seven filled queues before midnight and—more to the point—have six filled queues now, effective after tonight's midnight promotion, which is the agreed-upon trigger for the change.) There are no special occasion hooks I know of to worry about at the moment. Thank you very much!BlueMoonset (talk)02:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: please resetUser:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates to 86400 right away—certainly before noon UTC. Our three days at two-a-day are up. I'm pinging because I'm not sure whether the redirect from{{dykadmins}} actually works to ping folks on the DYK admins template list; I apologize if this is a reping, but we have under nine hours left to switch back to once a day. Thank you so much.BlueMoonset (talk)03:04, 1 March 2025 (UTC)
NJ News appears to have copied the FBI website. Content was copied from the FBI website because it is in the public domain as a US government source.BeanieFan11 (talk)00:37, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Plus that reference isn't even in the article. The article still has enough content with it to count as long enough for DYK.SL93 (talk)00:40, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Pyropylon98 The information in the Ski jumping world records section is already cited above, but it needs to be recited in the section because no sections should be unreferenced.SL93 (talk)17:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Pyropylon98 "The information in the Ski jumping world records section is already cited above, but it needs to be recited in the section because no sections should be unreferenced." which refers toIsabel Coursier#Ski jumping world records because it has no citations. The "above" refers to that information only being cited above that section. A new hook was suggested below.SL93 (talk)01:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Thank you. It's just a DYK rule, even though I don't agree with the requirement if it is cited elsewhere.SL93 (talk)01:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't see where the article supports the claim of "first North American to break the world record for women’s ski jumping"RoySmith(talk)17:30, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith I found it in the next reference, and I have now fixed it. I knew I saw it. The reference says, "From that day forward, Isabel was celebrated as being the first female world champion ski-jumper." That makes me think that saying she was the first world champion instead is better, even though it's obvious that includes North America.SL93 (talk)17:42, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
PS, reading that new source, it occurs to me that as frightening as ski jumping is, the idea of jumping hand-in-hand with somebody else seems even more frightening.RoySmith(talk)18:15, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
Now that I think about it, I wonder if:
... thatIsabel Coursier held the first world's record in women's solo ski jumping?
alright, i added the ref to the relevant lines in her bio
i guess i could’ve suggested more than one hook when i made the original nom, her being a teenager, being the only female solo jumper known at the time and being the only female jumper on the continent at the time. —Pyropylon98 (talk •contribs)02:52, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I guess I should have mentioned that here instead of fixing it myself. I don't see other prep to queue promoters doing that.SL93 (talk)17:51, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
@SL93 I was pleasantly surprised to see that you and others are doing prep-to-queue promotions. I obviously missed all the discussion about that. Can any promoter can promote entire sets to queue if they are uninvolved and have checked each and every hook and article (and are taking responsibility for all the follow-up checks and bulletproofing)?Cielquiparle (talk)16:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
@DYK admins: This is my nomination, so I need another set of eyes (no offense if you only have one eye) beyond the reviewer and promoter.SL93 (talk)17:29, 2 March 2025 (UTC)
I am sorry, I used ref Rundel but never gave gave it the correct url, title, etc. But now. There were sources for this (and other works) being the Japanese premieres even, but this source is more cautious. - Can you be more specific about the paraphrasing, because with these lists of titles, it's not easy to phrase it differently. --Gerda Arendt (talk)12:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I think the sentence "In 1964, Akiyama made his debut with the Tokyo Symphony Orchestra, and within a few months, he was named the orchestra's music director and permanent conductor." could be worded differently.--Launchballer12:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't understand the Which? tag. The tag is used for "a retired police officer and war veteran" and people can have more than one career in their lifetime.SL93 (talk)14:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I removed the sentence entirely. Google Translate does not verify any of it. Everything else checked out fine.SL93 (talk)21:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Launchballer I was under the impression that a subject with enough coverage could have their own article. I see no reason to move an almost 4,000-character article into the bombings article, and we have multiple editors in the DYK nomination who appear to agree with that. I would think differently if the article was much shorter. It's not like Wikipedia doesn't have enough space for another notable topic.SL93 (talk)21:01, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Added ABC news for the 30,000 claim. I can remove all references to Fox news if people think that is what should happen. Just let me know.Remember (talk)14:21, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Ok. All the references to Fox have been replaced with other sources that can substantiate the statements. The only exception is for the paragraph on the support for the program from Peter Hegseth since Fox is the only one that has those quotes. I thought it would be okay to include that one section as having Fox news as a source since they are basically just being used to support statements that Hegseth made in support of the GMOC, but let me know if people prefer I remove that. I had added this section because people had wanted quotes showing someone supporting the decision and so it is hard to find statements supporting the move. Anyway, let me know if you want me to remove this reference to Fox News too and I will try to find other statements supporting the decision.Remember (talk)14:00, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Also, to be clear, I assume the problem is in the quotes that are just in sentences and not those quotes that are from anonymous sources within the administration. Let me know if I am wrong.Remember (talk)14:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Alright fixed the section in question. Let me know if there are other areas that you think need attention or if that section needs further attention.Remember (talk)14:33, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Done. Everything should be done and should be ready to go. Let me know if there is anything else that you want done.Remember (talk)21:09, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
the dyk nom includes discussion of the fact that this is somewhere between a less accepted hypothesis and a fringe view, and article tries to make clear that burden of proof remains with folks looking to prove this exists.
My answer to this question is that we are not citing it for a medical claim, but as a primary source reflecting the opinions of the authors. The authors are respected mainstream scientists, writing in a letter to the editor saying that they, in effect, debate the existence of the brain microbiome. There's no reason to think that The Guardian is unreliable as to the existence or the content of the letter. I think it's also relevant that the letter was written to rebut a report that The Guardian had published earlier. We do not cite that earlier report, because that would indeed violate MEDRS, but the fact that it's that particular publication does not pollute the reliability for our purposes of a letter saying that there is a debate. --Tryptofish (talk)17:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Official PRC historians collectively describe Mao Zedong, Peng Pai and Wei Baqun as "the three great early peasant movement leaders" of the CCP. The choice of the third one may surprise foreign historians, more inclined to select among others the early Shen Dingyi or Fang Zhimin. Besides the fact that he shared a violent death with his two competitors (Wei was assassinated four years after Shen's assassination in 1928, and three years before Fang's execution in 1935), who was Wei Baqun (1894-1932)? Han Xiaorong provides the answer.
It could be stated something on the lines of "In the official historiography of the People's Republic of China/Chinese Communist Party...."Toadboy123 (talk)13:41, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
{{u|Amakuru} It looks like this can be resolved by changing it to the new hook. It also looks like the hook below can be fixed by changing it to ALT4. This set goes live later today.SL93 (talk)16:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
... that the protagonist's amputation of his right leg and conversion toBuddhism in theMing-dynasty fantasy novelJourney to the South is an allusion to popular one-legged spirits?
Two things here:
Saying he "amputated his right leg" is a bit misleading IMHO as it makes it sound like it was a deliberate act. In fact, according to the article, he cut off the leg by accident in the course of doing a pretend amputation. Probably worth adding an "accidental" or similar.
I'm not sure the stated link between the "conversion toBuddhism" and the "allusion to popular one-legged spirits" is found in the article. Those two aspects are in different sections and not linked as far as I can see, the spirits are only mentioned in connection with the leg loss. Pinging@Kingoflettuce,Patar knight, andSL93: Cheers — Amakuru (talk)13:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I did prefer my ALT4 since it allows both the amputation/conversion to Buddhism to be mentioned without it necessarily sounding as though they were part of the "allusion". (At the same time there's more that's alluding to the spirits than just the amputation.)KINGofLETTUCE 👑🥬02:34, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
ALT4 works as well, and while I still think it doesn't flow as well, it's probably more accurate on the relation of Buddhism to the spirits and the novel than would be possible to summarize in a DYK blurb. That relationship was the central premise of the Cedzich source, which argues that the conversion of the protagonist to Buddhism mirrors the normalization of the spirits' cult, including with Buddhist traditions, and the book is arguably an attempt to further legitimize the cult. --Patar knight -chat/contributions22:17, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
For what it is worth, the amputation of limbs in Buddhist literature has a long history and is a known literary trope in that genre. Because the Buddhist literature is so incredibly vast and large (it is said that there is no person on Earth who has managed to read all of it, and it is likely twice as large due to all the material that has been destroyed over time) I can only comment on one famous example of it, which is found inThe Jingde Record of the Transmission of the Lamp, "The Six Chinese Patriarchs", "Bodhidharma and Hui K’o".Viriditas (talk)00:32, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Interesting?
I read today "... thatHuwie Ishizaki was often asked to "write his real name", despite Huwie being his actual name? -If that is interesting - someone has an unusual name (and we get toknow nothing more about him besides that "him" is the correct pronoun which isn't obvious from the name) - I really don't know what interesting means. The second part of the hook adds nothing, at least to me. I won't go to ERRORS, it's not wrong, but of no interest to me. --Gerda Arendt (talk)06:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I am noting this one to say that technically it is not compliant withWP:DYKRULES -"The facts of the hook need to appear in the article", since, rightly, neither of the two articles linked mentions the other Philip Low at all and other than their names and alma mater, there is no connection between them. I'm guessing there aren't any external sources that have noted the connection either?
Personally I'd probably be inclined to allow this one on a bit of anWP:IAR basis as it's kind of fun. Bottom line is that it must comply withWP:V and that's OK as the fact itself can be deduced viaWP:CALC (or at least it can now that I've added sourced PhD dates to each of the two articles). So by default I won't take any action on this and allow it to run, but if anyone objects let me know. Pinging@Chetsford,Narutolovehinata5,Tenpop421, andSL93: who were involved with the hook. — Amakuru (talk)10:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi@Amakuru: note that this exact issue is being discussed above under the section header "This hasn't been clarified in the rules: in the case of multi-article hooks, which articles should have the hook fact directly mentioned?", so the rules aren't exactly fixed on this matter.Tenpop421 (talk)10:28, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing in particular, although it is an interesting question. If the fact wasn't "obvious" from what's in the articles (e.g. if some link between them was implied that isn't stated anywhere) then I would probably raise a bit more of an objection. — Amakuru (talk)21:42, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
The article mentions that it was a side project (with a source attributing this in quotes to one of the artists, I guess that's probably OK). However, I'm not seeing it mention that it was "never indended to be" an influential album. It seems like we later learn that it was influential, in the "Legacy" section, but this is not connected with the "side project", not is it mentioned whether the band intended it to be influential or not.
... that "Point the Finger", a comic-book story written in 1989, is categorized as "Trump fiction"?
My issue with this is that by saying "is categorized as", stated inWP:WIKIVOICE, we make this sound like a wide-used category and that this is an absolute fact. In fact, though, the article mentions that this is simply a label given my one author, the professor Stephen Hock (who isn't notable enough for an article). It might be better to simply say that it has been "described as" this, which is something we often do when mentioning an attributed quote in a DYK hook... Again, if we don't get a quick solution to this then I can swap it out to a later queue.@Viriditas,Launchballer,Tenpop421,Narutolovehinata5, andCielquiparle: — Amakuru (talk)15:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
No opinion on whether the hook should run or not, but for what it's worth the subject isn't a BLP and it appears that the subject did not consider the diarrhea thing offensive when he was still alive. Having said that, the article is relatively sparse on hooky material, though maybe a hook about the "special" kind of book could be an alternative? It's admittedly less eye-catchy than the diarrhea angle though (I don't think hooks that rely solely on Milligan's mention would work perWP:DYKINT).Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)11:05, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
That's not an attempt at humour; so far as I can tell, that's almost entirely what he was best known for (it takes up more than half the main source), and it is (in my opinion) by far the most interesting thing about him. I have no opinion of the "special" hook.--Launchballer11:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I think the hook is good. It points the reader towards a fun anecdote, and I don't think we could sum up the most notable thing that happened to Jack Smith in a less obscene way.Tenpop421 (talk)14:16, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
I agree. I promoted it because I did not see much difference between it and earlier hooks, but it does seem like it's almost insulting even to the dead to say that is the most interesting thing about him. That would be a key difference.SL93 (talk)16:01, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
It is a pretty hilarious story, but I would not summarise it as "remembered for a bout of explosive diarrhoea". The mishap involved not just diarrhea, but also leaving a train station wearing a women's cardigan and a hat instead of trousers and underwear, and was made famous by comedianSpike Milligan. If we make a hook that isn't just about shit, perhaps it has potential. —Kusma (talk)16:11, 27 February 2025 (UTC)
For example,
... that a real life story involvingJack Hobbs walking home while wearing a woman's cardigan and a hat in place of trousers and underwear was utilised in comedy shows by his friendSpike Milligan?
The hook is okay but I wonder if there's a better way to make the hook flow better. Maybe:
... that comedianSpike Milligan would often tell stories about his friendJack Hobbs walking home while wearing a woman's cardigan and a hat in place of trousers and underwear?
The original wording is 193 characters, this new one is only 173 characters. My only concern is that the phrasing might make more people click Milligan's article than Hobbs, but I guess other editors can chime in.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)01:51, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
The shorter version is slightly better. What is your opinion of the following:
... that a real life story in whichJack Hobbs walked home with a woman's cardigan and hat for bottomwear was deployed inhis friend's comedy shows?
... that a real life story in whichJack Hobbs walked home with a woman's cardigan and hat for bottomwear was told in comedy shows by his friendSpike Milligan?
... thatJack Hobbs once walked home with a woman's cardigan and hat for bottomwear?
I'm gonna be honest, I don't get why talk of diarrhea would be seen as uncouth for the front page when various sexual fetishes and pornstars are in DYK on the regular. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs04:02, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
I disagree that fetishes and pornstars are inherently taboo for DYK, in much the same way that we shouldn't be banning opera/sports/fossil/radio or TV station/etc. hooks from DYK wholesale. It's all about the hooks themselves, not the subject matter itself. Our guidelines already discourage against excessively gratuitous hooks, so individual cases can already be dealt with and hooks about such subjects can be written in such a way to meet the guidelines.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)04:39, 28 February 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: ALT0 is currently the hook put in this prep area, however, I personally prefer ALT1 as it's far more interesting. It isn't that big of a deal since both hooks are cited and work, but just thought I'd mention it and get your opinions.jolielover♥talk13:58, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Jolielover, ALT1 is not verified by the article, which says"in order to meet with celebrities, particularly One Direction", or the corresponding source, which says even less certainly"partly driven by a desire to rub shoulders with celebrities", not mentioning a particular focus on meeting that band. I'd suggest that the sentence in the article be rephrased.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)14:01, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
About Queue 1
HeyAirshipJungleman29, aboutthis edit: most of the de-linking seems good, but both Nintendo and the Grammys are proper nouns, whichMOS:OVERLINK does not directly advise leaving unlinked. I don't know if either name is well-enough-known to presume that readers of the Main Page around the world should know what they are.—TechnoSquirrel69(sigh)15:49, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
TechnoSquirrel69 informal DYK practice is to err on the side of less links—the bolded articles are the main focus of hooks and readers can click through if they don't understand something. In this case, I think both Nintendo and the Grammy Awards have international recognition (the former immensely so) and links are definitely not required.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)16:17, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived several hours ago, so I've created a new list of 30 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through February 23. We have a total of 282 nominations, of which 173 have been approved, a gap of 109 nominations that has decreased by 38 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks!BlueMoonset (talk)22:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
No thanks. I promoted two queues on the understanding that we're on one a day and I'll have time to review them. We only just exited a round of two a day and it's way too soon to do it again unless you want to burn out everyone on the project. — Amakuru (talk)13:14, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree with @Amakuru. The last couple of times we've gone to two-per-day mode, it's lasted for exactly one cycle. It's pretty obvious to me that we don't have the support to make it a going concern, so despite the prescriptive language inWP:DYKROTATE, I agree that we should hold off on the switch.RoySmith(talk)13:57, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I asked about it above, and no one responded so I take it that there is no interest and that is fine.SL93 (talk)13:59, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Indeed. I'm not saying never, we can revisit in a few days if necessary, but it was literally two days ago that we switched back to one-a-day. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)14:00, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I'll admit, I was more than a bit surprised when we queued six sets in a day. I put the date requests back and suggest going back no earlier than the 10th, to allow them to run for 24 hours.--Launchballer14:06, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I guess on the bright side, the issues that you pointed out for what is currently in prep 3 should be fixed before it moves to a queue again.SL93 (talk)14:22, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I disagree with the decision to ignore DYKROTATE. The current language (originally proposed byRoySmith) was indeed prescriptive for a reason: it was a short run, the intent was that it would only run for one three-day cycle, and the reversion to one a day was automatic. There was never an expectation that we would have multiple sequential three-day runs. The obvious way to keep from going to two a day is to avoid promoting the seventh queue.BlueMoonset (talk)14:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset When I wrote that, I was most concerned with finding a way to make going back to one-per-day better controlled. Previously, we were set up that making the change would require gaining consensus here and I had already done a couple ofWP:IAR mode changes when we ran the queues empty. That made me uncomfortable. IAR is intended to give people the ability to deal with unexpected situations. Once taking an IAR action becomes habit, that's a sign that something needs to change.
Now that we havetemplate editors able to fill queues, we've relieved the pressure somewhat on the admins, but I think we still need more people working on that. @BlueMoonset if you applied for TE, I would be happy to approve your request. You'd make an excellent addition to the group.RoySmith(talk)14:45, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
I guess I never understood why someone who likes to keep DYK running correctly wouldn't want to update queues or preps. It's not like it has to be done all or most of the time. I encourage BlueMoonset to start doing that as they have the knowledge to do so. I'm sure BlueMoonset has more knowledge than me who wasn't aware of attribution templates for public domain sources and about Fox News as a usually bad reference (although that doesn't surprise me at all) until recently.SL93 (talk)20:54, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
Not to defend Fox News, but to be fair Fox News outside of politics is a yellow source (and used to be a green source), which merely means its use on Wikipedia is a case-by-case thing rather than being outright discouraged. It's the same with other yellow sources like Insider. It's a bit of a misconception throughout Wikipedia that yellow means a source is not suitable, when in reality it's more of a caution. It can be used depending on the context, or it may not be appropriate also depending on the context. Maybe that has to be clarified somewhere in the rules, since while it already is the misconception remains widespread.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)22:39, 3 March 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith,SL93, I appreciate the vote of confidence. If this change to allow template editors had been made even five years ago, I probably would have signed up for it. At present, I don't have the extra energy and time to do the necessary promotion checks to the quality needed. Very occasionally I will move hooks around within or between prep sets, but that's pretty much it these days, aside from the usual wikignoming on the Nominations and Approved pages and the list of Older noms needing reviewing.BlueMoonset (talk)20:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I also disagree with the decision not to switch to two-a-day mode. I vaguely remember when creating the new DYKROTATE that it was very much intended for it to be able to run consecutively (that is, two back-to-back cycles) for cases where the backlog was high - and yeah, an entire week of approved hooks aren't even transcluding because there are so many of themDimensionalFusion (talk · she/her)09:28, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I am missing some context in this discussion. The point of the limited duration (3 days) and automatic end of the two-a-day rotation was to ensure that all admin pressure was front-loaded, and thus that there should not be burnout. What is risking the burnout in the current situation?CMD (talk)01:49, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Limiting simultaneous reviews
Maybe DYK should have a limit on how many nominations an editor can have at a time. It's a drastic move, but the backlog isn't getting much better.SL93 (talk)16:38, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
That's an excellent idea.WP:DYK saysThe DYK section showcases new or expanded articles. It's not much of a leap to turn that into showcasing new contributors. Having something on the main page is a big thrill the first time it happens and a great way to encourage and thank our newest editors. I mean no disrespect to our highly experienced and prolific contributors, but given a choice between running somebody's first submission vs running somebody's one hundredth, I'd rather go with the new guy.WP:FAC has that exact rule; a given author can only have one article under review at a time. It seems to work well there. We should give it a shot here.RoySmith(talk)16:56, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't mind authors having one article for a review at a time. I just don't see any other viable idea that doesn't involve burnout.SL93 (talk)17:39, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
There are several unintended consequences I can foresee. For one, what is to stop a GA nom from timing out after seven days if we already have a separate nom waiting for a review? You would have to change the seven-day rule because we can't control when someone is going to complete a GAN, and it may have been in the queue for months already.Viriditas (talk)23:48, 4 March 2025 (UTC)
Another idea is for experienced editors to be forced to build preps, but that will never happen.SL93 (talk)00:27, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of forced labor. We want people building preps (or whatever) because that's what they enjoy doing. If you force somebody to do something they don't want to do, quality will inevitably go down.RoySmith(talk)00:35, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I realize that which is why I said it will never happen. I only mentioned it to show the only other potential idea I can think of for perspective.SL93 (talk)00:41, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
It’s definitely not my thing, but if it helps to bring the backlog down I can try to help. Do you have time to mentor me on this SL93?Viriditas (talk)00:44, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I can, but we would probably need a specific day because I have online college classes and physical therapy appointments at the moment. I could also type up what I do when I build preps and email it to you - on top of mentoring.SL93 (talk)00:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I will look at it later tonight when I get home. I’m more concerned about 1) how to do it right, and 2) how to avoid mistakes. I’m not too concerned with the selection process as that sounds somewhat fun.Viriditas (talk)00:55, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
@Viriditas I want to second using PSHAW. I think that's the clear first step. The manual process is so much more complicated.
PSHAW will add a "Promote (PSHAW)" button to your "Tools" menu. Go toTemplate talk:Did you know/Approved and click "view" for any hook and then click "Promote (PSHAW)". Don't worry; this does do anything yet. A box will pop up. It lets you select a prep #. You can go toTemplate:Did you know/Queue, to see what's open, but if you're just testing, pick any number and click "Load prep/queue". This allows you to choose which hook, which image, and which slot. Nothing will be saved until you click submit, so you can kind of explore the interface first.Rjjiii (talk)02:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
In addition to all the good practical advice above, let me add a bit of more general advice. You will make mistakes. Don't sweat it. Everybody makes mistakes, it's part of the learning process.RoySmith(talk)02:17, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I did a little quick-and-dirty counting (HTML screen scraping plus grep/sed/sort hacking) to get an idea of how much difference this would make. Just looking at nominations marked "Created by", we've got in the pending review queue:
Strong disagree on this one. Not only would it be impractical, but it would just open a whole can of worms and potentially exacerbate our existing systemic biases. Plus, if we only let editors have one nomination at a time, we would be running out of nominations before long since we only have a limited number of editors around. Imagine just one hook per editor and one active nomination per editor. We might not be able to fill in all Preps and Queues since DYK may not have that many nominators. I'm honestly surprised, even stunned, and admittedly disappointed, that the idea even has support and is even called an "excellent idea", because this frankly has to be one of the worst proposals ever made regarding DYK. It's just going to punish editors, both new and veteran, and cause more issues than it solves. I get that the backlog is a recurring issue, but there are already more practical ways to solve the backlog and we don't need to resort to such drastic measures. The one-nomination-at-a-time limit works for FAC because the barrier to entry for that one is much much higher. DYK is supposed to be the "chill" section, we don't need more bureaucracy than what we already need.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)01:33, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm with Narutolovehinata5 (and not just because I also have four at Approved). New editors don't do QPQs, so this would almost certainly exacerbate the problem.--Launchballer09:47, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Can't we just encourage or incentivize reviewers to review articles despite not having open nominations?
This is one of the easiest and most productive ways to clear the backlog and I'm surprised there isn't more support for this. I am aware that I've brought this up multiple times before, but the backlog issue has been such a recurring thing and people have made different proposals (including the, frankly, ridiculous "one-nomination-at-a-time" proposal above), yet people haven't even considered doing more practical and feasible ones first. We don't want to overburden our nominators, of course, we don't want to make stuff like prep building or reviewing too much of a burden that it burns them out. But maybe we could provide incentives of some kind to editors who review nominations and build up QPQs despite not having open nominations of their own? That's what I do: I don't always nominate articles, but I still review noms anyway. Many other nominators only review if they have an open nomination, and that practice should probably be discouraged since it only builds up the backlog further. Is there any reason why we don't encourage this practice more or even why it isn't suggested more? People want to throw the baby out of the bathwater and think of proposals like the above, when one obvious solution is already there.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)01:39, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Personally, I think having a DYK backlog reviewing month where you can get points – similarly to GAs – would encourage more people to review DYKs. I used to not like reviewing hooks but now I actually quite enjoy it, so maybe these backlog drives could help 🤗DaniloDaysOfOurLives (talk)02:32, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
We already do thatduring backlog mode. I think it was proposed before to make the 2 QPQs after 20 noms thing permanent but it didn't gain consensus, so backlog mode was the compromise that was reached. At the rate things are going, maybe even three QPQs might be necessary for some editors since in practice, the two QPQ requirement's effectiveness wasn't 100%. Though that's a bit of an extreme, I still think encouraging a culture of reviewing despite not having open noms is more ideal and feasible.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)03:11, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
3 reviews per a single nomination is not EVER happening. Long standing contributors are again being actively punished for participation simply for existing. You talk about pushing away editors and yet you make this suggestion.--Kevmin§17:21, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
I've been trying to do three reviews per nom for the last year or two. The problem is that the nominator is not always available to fix things, so that slows the process down. I don't mind doing three per review when I can.Viriditas (talk)21:07, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
The backlog blitz idea was shot down very decisively at the time (back in 2020); we ultimately ended up with backlog mode to get the number of unapproved noms down. You can see the outlines of what my thinking was at the time atUser:BlueMoonset/sandbox4: a short "blitz" (much like theGuild of Copy Editors does for a week every other month) to bring down the backlog of unreviewed nominations. (There was also discussionon the talk page.) The reason that it was a short period was because it seemed inadvisable to get the number of available nominations so low that there wasn't an adequate selection for people wanting to do QPQs, and there was no sense of how popular a blitz might be. A key point was that any review submitted for the drive would be ineligible to also be used for a QPQ. Right now we're down to 113 unapproved nominations, the lowest it's been since late January. I don't understand the call for backlog mode at the moment: we typically don't turn it on until the Nominations page can't transclude all of the unapproved nominations, and that certainly isn't the case now.BlueMoonset (talk)19:53, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Switching tonight
To addressLaunchballer's initial request, we've been at 7 full queues for a couple of days now, so I plan to switch over to two-per-day after the 6 March 0000Z update. That's about 10 hours from now. Hopefully we can keep up enough momentum to run that way for at least a few cycles, to avoid the disruption of frequent switching.RoySmith(talk)13:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)
Launchballer, I think the lead hook ofQueue 3 needs to be moved toQueue 4 so it hits the main page first thing on March 9, the special date requested. Right now, it's scheduled to hit the main page at noon on March 8. Maybe swap the two lead hooks in those queues? Many thanks.BlueMoonset (talk)22:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not really sure why this is an interesting hook or remarkable fact... Are baseball players from Taiwanese universities supposed to sign for American MLB teams? Is 2008 to 2024 an unusually long period of time? Without context, this doesn't sound particularly surprising at all but maybe because I'm not so familiar with the sport.@Butterdiplomat,Launchballer,Narutolovehinata5, andSL93: — Amakuru (talk)22:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
To be at least it seemed like a marginally interesting hook idea, but if consensus thinks is uninteresting we can pull. For what it's worth, baseball is the most popular sport in Taiwan but I don't know if it's considered unusual for Taiwanese players to sign in the MLB or not (I think it's a lot less common than with the NPB).Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)22:53, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Well, that certainly makes this all moot. I don't see any reason to pull it from the MP, but obviously we're not going to run it again in a few days.RoySmith(talk)23:02, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
That hook has been moved around a couple times ever since my promotion. It appears that a mover forgot to also remove it from an old prep.SL93 (talk)23:04, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Sorry, that was my fault. I swapped this and#Rutherford Chang so that I could queue a set, swapped that set with another because I thought we were heading into two-a-day (see#Seven queues) and then forgot I made the first edit when I hit 'rollback'. I must be more careful. I've put Chang back in this set.--Launchballer23:17, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
Maybe we should try to figure out why not that many editors are loading preps to queues. I thought we had enough help.SL93 (talk)22:43, 8 March 2025 (UTC)
OnTemplate:Did you know nominations/The Wizard of Oz (1939 album), the article was created from a redirect on 15:32, 27 February 2025, the expansion begun on 15:37, 27 February 2025 and it was nominated on 23:59, 6 March 2025 which is over the seven day mark and perWP:DYKNEWarticle is considered new if,within the last seven days, the article has been created in mainspace from a redlink or redirect; expanded at least fivefold in terms of its prose portion. Does this count as new or not? and should I fail this or not? ThanksWarm Regards,Miminity (Talk?) (me contribs)13:42, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
It's under the one-two day extension that's allowed perWP:DYKNEW. Even if it was late by a couple of days, in practice it could still have been allowed depending on the circumstances. However, I've closed the nomination due to a lack of QPQ: a QPQ should be provided at the time of the nomination, and none was added.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)14:36, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
I also suggest - ... thatNatalia Maree Belting wrote a book based on over 6,000 documents, mostly of French records from their Illinois colony, that dates from 1708 to 1816? or ... that the language ofNatalia Maree Belting was said to be "spare, rhythmic, and resonant."SL93 (talk)14:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
I share the concerns raised in the nom about both the quality of the image and the copyright status. The file page claims it was published without a copyright notice, but I find that difficult to accept on its face. It was in a newspaper, so I would expect the copyright notice covering the whole paper to be on the masthead, not directly attached to any individual photo.RoySmith(talk)13:03, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Someone who plays American football. Normally I'd agree with "American football player" being vague, but given how it's a well-known fact that Americans call football "soccer", it's not actually that big of an issue. NFL player might have been a suitable alternative (though it wouldn't apply to players who've never played in the NFL).Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)14:37, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
No comment about the image, but I think the hook should be changed to something like ... that American football playerEmmett Barrett wore glasses while playing? I rarely see NFL players described as "American footballers", except occasionally in foreign press.BeanieFan11 (talk)17:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
@C messier @EF5 I have added repeat footnotes citing the Chandra X-Ray Observatory at the end of each sentence relevant to the hook. However, I think it would be better if we explicitly state the "glowing in X-rays" part in the actual Wikipedia article forNGC 1700. (It's clear in the original source but not in the article.) Could you please fix this ASAP?Cielquiparle (talk)22:34, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree. When I read over these, this was the one item that I pondered about. Ultimately I decided what we had was OK, but @Cielquiparle is correct that a more explicit statement would be better.RoySmith(talk)22:38, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
To Roy: I'm not the biggest fan of the born in India/played for Pakistan hook. Also, as he didn't play cricket internationally, it would be "in Pakistan", not "for". (Wow, that's so pedantic on my part...yikes...)
To Launchballer and others: The reason I mentioned the 12 1/2 hours in the hook was that it was (and still is) one of the longest individual innings by time in cricket history. Is there a way we can spice that up to make it look more interesting? If it's not possible, maybe I will accept Roy's idea with the word change.
In that case, if something resembling the alternative hook thatUser:Launchballer inspired works well enough, we can keep the year in the hook. I think Pakistan's domestic season has concluded, so I don't believe someone else will pass Israr's score in the country for a few months, but third-best looks better for a hook than fourth-best. --JustJamie820 (talk)03:53, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I would suggest replacing "in 1977" before "cricketer Rashid Israr" with "once" after it - this should be enough disclaimer, I think.--Launchballer10:07, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I think it's pretty unusual for someone to have multiple celebrities backing their album release, but I don't mind SL93's hook.jolielover♥talk03:13, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
My beef with the queued hook was that it isn't unusual for any amount of celebrities to back a career. SL93's hook is fine by me, although there probably shouldn't be two football hooks in the same set as a cricket hook and I may move it to a different set.--Launchballer12:20, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
@Jon698 andGrumpylawnchair:Two problems here; the refs Cheyenne 1890 and Caroline Obituary 1915 don't point anywhere, and the article says "was referred to as the political boss of the Vermont Democrats" and we've got that he was in wikivoice.--Launchballer22:13, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Launchballer I would just remove "referred to" from the article. The source doesn't say he was referred to as a political boss by anyone. It just flat out says that Smalley was "the active political boss."SL93 (talk)22:39, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
... that according toJudith T. Zeitlin, the "most obvious inspiration" forPu Songling'sshort story about a man's friendship with a rock wasMi Fu, "whose obsession with rocks had become proverbial"?
@Kingoflettuce,Munfarid1, andSL93: The current wording is rather wordy, and arguably as currently written may not be interesting to a broad non-specialist audience considering the abundance of names that are unfamiliar to general readers. Can the hook be tightened or perhaps an alternative be proposed?Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)00:47, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Not much of an improvement since it's reliant on knowing who Mi Fu is. I was actually wondering if a hook about the "whose obsession with rocks had become proverbial" quote would be better.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)14:12, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
... that the short storyThe Ethereal Rock, which "details the reciprocal love between a collector of rocks and a prized rock", is related to the Chinese concept of obsession known aspi?SL93 (talk)14:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Unless I've misunderstood, the goat in the version of the story mentioned is not actually Amalthea (even though in some other versions of the story Amalthea is the goat herself) but rather, Amalthea is a nymph who assigns a terrifying goat to raise Zeus. The text of the article says:
Zeus's motherRhea gave him as a newborn child toThemis, who handed him over to the nymph Amalthea, who had the infant nursed by a she-goat. Pseudo-Eratosthenes goes on to relate that this goat was the daughter ofHelios, and was so terrifying in appearance that theTitans, out of fear, askedGaia to hide her in a cave on Crete; Gaia complied, entrusting the goat to Amalthea.
Given this, having a link of the formgoat who raised him seems like aMOS:EGG issue, the article links to Amalthea but Amalthea is not the goat. Also I'm not sure if this is a rule, but it seems like the hook should be directly about the subject linked, not about something else mentioned in the article. Thus if in this account Amalthea is not the goat, that's more of a tangential fact.@Michael Aurel,Queen of Hearts, andSL93: — Amakuru (talk)10:29, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
@Amakuru: The version in which Amalthea is the goat is mentioned in the next paragraph of the "Nurse of Zeus" section:
An account which is largely the same as that given by Pseudo-Eratosthenes is found in a scholium on theIliad, though the scholiast describes Amalthea herself as the goat whose hide Zeus uses in his fight against the Titans (rather than the owner of the goat).
The only difference between the two accounts (other than Amalthea being the goat) is that the goddessThemis is specified as the source of the prophecy (so everything relevant to the hook is the same). That said, I had wondered if the hook could be slightly confusing, as – while everything in the hook is correct – the story is only told in full in the first version presented in the article (the one from Pseudo-Eratosthenes, where Amalthea is the nymph), as it of course wouldn't be necessary to retell the narrative again with minor differences. Let me know if you think the hook (or article) should be reworked. –Michael Aurel (talk)11:11, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Ah, that's interesting@Michael Aurel:, a potential concern I might have with that is that the hook fact isn't directly stated in the article or (if I understand you correctly) the source. The story of the Titans being afraid of the goat is told in Pseudo-Eratosthenes, while we're told that a scholium on the Iliad gives "largely the same" story with Amalthea actually being the goat, but a bit ofWP:SYNTH required to deduce that the Titans were afraid of the goat in that version of the story.WP:DYKHOOK states that "citations in the article that are used to support the hook fact must verify the hook", which I'm not sure is met here.
As for Narutolovehinata5's point about DYKFICTION, I'm probably neutral on that. I can see a case that this is effectively just a made-up story, but on the other hand mythology from antiquity does seem a somewhat separate class from modern fiction... Cheers — Amakuru (talk)11:28, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
@Amakuru: That's fair enough. It is directly stated in the primary source of course (which is cited), though the cited secondary source (Gantz) doesn't explicitly state that she was terrifying in appearance in the scholiast's version (that said, I'm not sure it would be particularly easy to come away with a different conclusion, as Zeus of course only uses the skin because the Titans are afraid of it). Perhaps it would help things if I made the article a little more explicit? For example, specifying that in the scholiast's version Amalthea is the "terrifying goat" whose hide Zeus uses in his fight might work? If not, I could expand on things a little more, retelling a bit of the story; I think I avoided this at the time because it felt repetitive (as the full story was just recounted in the previous paragraph), but if it'll avoid confusion I wouldn't have an issue with doing so. –Michael Aurel (talk)12:01, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi@Michael Aurel: sure, that sounds good. I think if it's clarified that this account has a terrifying goat and that goat is actually Amalthea then it's fine. Mainly because it's difficult for readers to read further and verify that claim otherwise (personally I didn't even spot the subsequent line that you mention above - my initial impression was that the hook was referring to Pseudo-Eratosthenes as that was the only mention of terrifying goats). As for it being a primary source, that's probably OK, that's not specifically against the rules I don't believe. If others watching this page have a different opinion on that and the DYKFICTION question, they can let us know here. Cheers — Amakuru (talk)12:05, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth I personally disagree with the idea that mythology hooks violate DYKFICTION, but I know other editors subscribe to that idea and feel strongly about it. I wonder if an RfC might be in order at some point because it is a bit of an open question and one that has caused confusion.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)12:19, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
Great, thanks – I've hopefully rephrased things satisfactorily. The point aboutmy initial impression was that the hook was referring to Pseudo-Eratosthenes as that was the only mention of terrifying goats was my initial concern with the hook. (Another solution would have been to swap the order in which the two versions are mentioned, though Gantz intimates that the scholiast was writing afterCallimachus, which would imply that the scholium is, at a minimum, from the century after theEumolpia was written, and the article is ordered roughly chronologically.) –Michael Aurel (talk)13:03, 10 March 2025 (UTC)
It might be worth instituting a time limit with DYKFICTION—to allow hooks from when "human imagination" was much less "unbounded", and creative works which pushed the envelope areper se interesting. Something like "creative works published before 1900(?) can be allowed leeway", if anyone wants to make a formal proposal.~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk)11:17, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Something along the lines of the second suggestion seems reasonable. I think most cutoff dates would inadvertently result in certain lesser-known mythological systems being excluded, while also allowing a number of works most would consider "fiction". An RfC seems a sensible idea to me. –Michael Aurel (talk)20:34, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
To make things clear, the "not interesting" response was meant for Zeete's proposal, not your proposal. Yours is better, but it feels marginally interesting at best. Is there a different angle that can be used there?Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)11:34, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I prefer the original version. If something happens for the first time, it is usually considered interesting.Phlsph7 (talk)13:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
First hooks tend to be problematic on DYK because they often require high sourcing standards since being first is considered an exceptional claim. It's not an issue in this case since the claim has been verified, it's just something to keep in mind. I have to disagree though that first hooks are inherently interesting: being first in something does not automatically mean it's interesting, it has to be a notable or at least intriguing first.
To answer SL93's question, the new hook isn't that interesting either. Honorary degrees are dime-a-dozen. If we have to go with a hook, the 33-years angle might be the best option, but otherwise, we may have to reject and fail this nomination because even that hook seems marginally interesting at best.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)13:59, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm not sure if it's really clear in the article that the site is illegal (problem perWP:DYKHOOKCITE); like, it probably is, but none of the cases in the legal issues section seem to have actually resulted in a decision that the site is, in fact, illegal. Maybe you could argue that the blocking in certain countries constitutes this, but I'm not sure. "illegal" as a adjective also seems a bit subjective; illegal where? Not a huge deal but thought I'd bring it up. Perhaps "questionably legal" would be better, but that is also not sourced explicitly either. ~Darth StabroTalk • Contribs22:20, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I was going to make the exact same point, Roy. Hosting copyrighted material (as WP no doubt does, despite our best efforts) does not make it an illegal website. I've Swapped this out to Prep 6 and we can continue the conversation atWT:DYK. — Amakuru (talk)23:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
The rules at DYK are pretty clear. The hook must reflect what's in the article and the article must reflect what's in the source(s). We can call it an "illegal website" if you like, but that must be in the article and explicitly cited. It hosting copyrighted material doesn't count; that may or may not be obvious to us, but it'sWP:SYNTH either way. — Amakuru (talk)23:38, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Ars frames "illegal" as an unresolved allegation: "Until this question is settled by courts or lawmakers, companies training AI on the Books3 dataset will likely continue to face lawsuits from rights holders, particularly from those who see AI models as an extension of harms caused by these allegedly illegal shadow libraries."[12] Anna's Archives calls their service a "shadow library" butdenies that is is illegal based on the premise that they are providing a link to copyright infringing material but not directly providing or hosting the infringing material. Vice frames the site as a search engine for pirated (illegal) books, rather than an illegal search engine.[13]Rjjiii (talk)00:05, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
But just linking to copyrighted material that was not added by the copyright holder, with the intent to do so, is against the law in the United States and other countries. The hook could just say that it is illegal in some countries.SL93 (talk)00:08, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Oh, it's almost certainly illegal. I'm noting that after looking at several sources, they are not yet saying it is illegal, and that "Anna" obviously will deny that it is illegal unless a court rules otherwise,Rjjiii (talk)00:27, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
The owner, in the second link, I provided above said - "Not too long ago, “shadow-libraries” were dying. Sci-Hub, the massive illegal archive of academic papers, had stopped taking in new works, due to lawsuits. “Z-Library”, the largest illegal library of books, saw its alleged creators arrested on criminal copyright charges. They incredibly managed to escape their arrest, but their library is no less under threat. When Z-Library faced shutdown, I had already backed up its entire library and was searching for a platform to house it.SL93 (talk)00:17, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I guess that works, although piracy is illegal as well. I remember the "You wouldn't steal a car" ads about film piracy.SL93 (talk)00:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
This is going to run in the next set, so asking for feedback on it since the queue is now cascaded-protected. Is this hook interesting to people who don't know who Antonoff or Qualley are? I'm not really sure. Pinging nominatorJolielover, reviewerTenpop421, and proposerViriditas. In the meantime, maybe the hook could be moved to another prep while discussion is ongoing?Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)01:50, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
My reading of the hook (and I understand you see it differently) is that it is constructed in a way that maintains interest without having to know the song or the people. I realize that not everyone is going to be on the same page with this, but as a fan of music and its long history, the first thing you learn is that most songs are love songs, often in a fictional or detached mythological context full of archetypes and tropes (country music songs are famous for this, for example). Knowing this, from my POV, it is interesting that a popular song is a love song about how two real people met, and I don’t have to know who they are to find it interesting.Viriditas (talk)03:35, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
For what it's worth, I did an informal survey over on Discord and the responses were pretty much along the lines of "not interesting, even if you know who they are". I do think the hook is somewhat interesting to me, but it seems others may disagree. Maybe we don't need to throw out the hook fact entirely, but maybe a more "accessible" wording can be found?Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)06:03, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Given that this will be going to Queue soon and the concerns about ALT2/ALT3 remain unresolved, I've pulled the hook and replaced it withPeople Watching (Conan Gray song).That hook itself has a bit of a minor issue: the hook says "some of the lyrics", but the article and source do not support the "some" wording and even suggest all the lyrics were based on eavesdropping, but this might just be a nitpick. (Edit: I've gone ahead and removed "some" from the hook, please feel free to revert if you think this should not have been done). Discussion can continue on the nomination page.Narutolovehinata5 (talk ·contributions)04:03, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
I thought that having the wikilink for it will work, and I see no way to describe it in a hook without it being bloated.SL93 (talk)13:02, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I agree with SL93. The only other way to say it would be that 'he scored at least 10 points, had at least 10 assists, and had at least 10 rebounds'; and will expand the hook far beyond the 200-character limit of DYK and would make it sound weirdTNM101 (chat)13:13, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
@SL93,Arconning, andVacant0: The hook says "first man to win a Summer and Winter Olympic gold medal in different events". Are there any events that appear in both the summer and winter games? I suspect not, in which case "in different events" is extraneous.RoySmith(talk)14:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
RoySmithWhat about "first man to win a Summer and Winter Olympic gold medal in two events". It seems like "different" was used as a poor way to say that they were not the same event.SL93 (talk)21:06, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Now I get what you're saying. I would just remove "in different events" or say "in two different events."SL93 (talk)21:09, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Just bringing this up here to see if others think that it is referenced sufficiently for such a first. I think that it likely is.SL93 (talk)12:09, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
That's fair. The source says "gran parte de su vida", which literally translates to "large part of his life". My Spanish is not good enough to say whether "most" is implied. Feel free to change the hook.GanzKnusper (talk)12:26, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I consider it to be directly cited because the facts about the wood and concrete are right after each other, and then there are two citations after it.SL93 (talk)16:46, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
The trimmed version is not correct. The use of concrete increases out the carbon footprint; it was the use of ultra-low carbon concrete that made the difference. Suggest the hook be trimmed to "... that theParis Olympic Village's use of wood and ultra low carbon concrete helped reduce its carbon footprint?"Hawkeye7(discuss)17:43, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
I'm somewhat sceptical that the image attached to this hook,File:Pfc Bragg.png is actually correctly licensed. The file page says that it was sourced from the Bragg family via the Associated Press, which checks out, but it then also claims that"This work is in the public domain in the United States because it is a work prepared by an officer or employee of the United States Government as part of that person’s official duties" with a stated author of "United States Army Center of Military History".
Where's the evidence that this phonograph was taken by a military officer or government employee? We ostensibly know little about it other than that it was supplied by the family. Perhaps they took it themselves, or it was taken by someone else and donated to the family later. Unless more evidence can be supplied of where exactly this photo came from, I'm not convinced we can run this on the main page. Pinging@DMVHistorian,Darth Stabro,Tenpop421, andAirshipJungleman29: — Amakuru (talk)14:58, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
Hi @Amakuru et al - The current digital format of the image was sourced from the family via AP wire and has been denoted as a military photograph in theSFGate piece and other articles. It iscurrently published on theAirborne & Special Operations Museum website, with the copyright footer stating that it is "hosted by the United States Army Center of Military History" Army Museum Enterprise (official U.S. Army site for the museum).
I do not have a copy of the Nobleboro Historical Society'sNobleboro Maine - A History (published 1988), but that may be the earliest known publication which included the photograph, and it would be interesting to learn if it is also denoted as a military photograph in that book, too. Thank you @Darth Stabro for taking the initiative on that!
If there are significant concerns about the licensing of the image, I would suggest someone either 1) utilize a capture/screen grab of the colorized and digitally remastered military portrait of Bragg which was just released onDVIDS and produced/published by the Army. (Linked here:https://www.dvidshub.net/video/954583/fort-bragg-honor-private-first-class-roland-l-bragg) or 2) somehow utilizethis image of the exhibit of Bragg (including his military portrait and uniform) which is now on display at the museum. The photographer of the image of the exhibit is listed as Pfc. Richard Morgan.DMVHistorian (talk)17:56, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
I just filled the last queue. No problems found, but earlier today I did upload a cropped version of the lead image which I think works better.RoySmith(talk)22:12, 9 March 2025 (UTC)
Thanks,RoySmith. As it happens, starting a day later than planned does not affect the special occasion hooks inPrep 7; they'll still run on March 16, assuming that we fall back to one a day starting with at midnight March 14.BlueMoonset (talk)04:41, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of all 17 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through March 4. We have a total of 263 nominations, of which 181 have been approved, a gap of 82 nominations that has decreased by 27 over the past 6 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks!BlueMoonset (talk)18:33, 12 March 2025 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29,Launchballer, andTarnishedPath: The quality of the sourcing seems well below what we need for aWP:BLP on a controversial subject. As far as I can tell,Evening Standard is a scandal sheet.WP:RSNP says about People Magazinethe magazine should not be used for contentious claims unless supplemented with a stronger source and about VICEThere is no consensus on the reliability of Vice Media publications. I don't see anything onhttps://www.complex.com/ which describes their editorial process, so I'm assuming they're not aWP:RS either. I strongly suggest this be pulled.RoySmith(talk)11:50, 13 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't see how A Little Bit Human or Skeptical Enquirer are unreliable. A Little Bit Human being an entertainment news website does not automatically make it unreliable, many entertainment-focused news sites are reliable. The discussion on SE coming down to "maybe" doesnot mean "unreliable", it means "no consensus"; those are two different things.ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk)01:06, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
If there has been a discussion about SE that has no consensus, that's evident enough that it isnot considered unreliable by consensus. As far as ALBH, I see nothing that indicates unreliability. It has multiple editors, indicating editorial oversight. I'm not really sure what objections you have to ALBH besides it saying that it focuses on entertainment-related news, which really means nothing consideringIGN is considered a reliable source. I can't really address any concerns about unreliability if you haven't provided any specific concerns.ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk)01:19, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
Usually, entertainment websites with an editing team are considered reliable. I'm not sure what the complaint is towards it.SL93 (talk)01:25, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
RoySmith When digging deeper, I did see that East Tennessean isn't a blog and it does have aneditorial team, but I don't think it should be used because it is a student newspaper. I do agree with you aboutSkeptical Enquirer becauseanyone can submit their articles. Despite the editorial team, that along with the references at the bottom not being complete concerns me. I tried to look up those references to use those instead, but I had no luck. I suggest pulling it.SL93 (talk)18:58, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
I thought older discussions of the applicability of student newspapers came to the conclusion that they were reliable on a case by case basis. In my own personal experience, they tend to be highly reliable as they are under greater scrutiny than you might think.Viriditas (talk)21:18, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
PerWP:RSSM:Reputable student media outlets, such as The Harvard Crimson, are considered generally reliable sources for news on their school and local community. They can sometimes be considered reliable on other topics, although professional sources are typically preferred when available. However, given their local audience and lack of independence from their student body, student media does not contribute to notability for topics related to home institutions.
So yes they can be reliable, on a case by case basis, however given my experience reading Australian ones I'd say that most are crap and we're better of using other sources.TarnishedPathtalk02:08, 15 March 2025 (UTC)
Stephen Gencarella is a subject matter expert on folklore. I don't see an issue with citingSkeptical Inquirer for Gencarella's input in eitherfn. a orfn. b. To meetWP:FRIND, the article needs some kind of scholarly or outside perspective like this.
The other two citations are the only citations for theOnline popularity section. Does no other source cover the online popularity of not-deer? If not, should this section just be cut asWP:UNDUE?
I think that the online popularity section is important to include because it provide context for why what was once a very niche story in a single town is suddenly now associated with Appalachia as a whole and why it's well-known outside of that town.ArtemisiaGentileschiFan (talk)20:56, 14 March 2025 (UTC)
... that the library of theInstitut Français d'Archéologie de Beyrouth contained over 24,000 volumes by 1970 and was renowned for its extensive collection of archaeological and historical works?
I was quite a fool for forgetting my password (here I am with a new account), but I've changed that sentence so that it makes a bit more gramatical sense ("to modern photographs by Kwek" to "to modern photographs taken by Kwek").Alpha Beta Delta Lambda (talk)19:10, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Regarding the claim in both the hook and the article thatthat the library of the Institut Français d'Archéologie de Beyrouth contained over 24,000 volumes by 1970: The source actually saysenviron 24 000 en 1970 which would usually be translated to "approximately 24,000" or "around 24,000", which is not the same thing as "over 24,000". What if they were rounding up? I'm quite sure the hook can't run as is and needs to be fixed ASAP. Please advise. @Elias Ziade @Richard Nevell @SL93Cielquiparle (talk)02:06, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
I don't feel that "Library has books" is an interesting hook, but in terms of accuracy Cielquiparle is correct. The source says "La bibliothèque comptait 16 000 ouvrages en 1962, 17 000 en 1964, 19 200 en 1967, et environ 24 000 en 1970", so it's just showing the increase of the library over time. "about 24,000" fixes the hook.CMD (talk)02:26, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
@SL93 thanks! that unhelpful comment of yours only tells so much about you. Your negativity doesn't contribute anything meaningful to the conversation.
What unhelpful comment? I’m honestly confused. I just said that the second part was slashed for being too wordy which it was in an earlier discussion, and I found that part to be the most interesting.SL93 (talk)10:44, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
"More than a quarter of France": The claim in the hook is... that by the First Treaty of London England was to gain more than a quarter of France? but the other source cited (Wagner 2006, p. 198) clearly says "about a quarter of the kingdom" which is not the same thing as "over a quarter of France". In fact, the article also doesn't say "more than a quarter of France"; it says "approximately a quarter of its territory" in the lead section and just "a quarter of France" in the body. The hook should be changed; the simplest solution might be to strike "more than" in the hook. Please advise. @Gog the Mild @Dahn @SL93Cielquiparle (talk)02:57, 18 March 2025 (UTC)
Resolved
TheDoctorWho(talk)17:30, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
Like. Welcome aboard! —Kusma (talk)08:42, 18 January 2025 (UTC)
). What determines which noms are transcluded to which list?Rjjiii (talk)06:08, 7 February 2025 (UTC)
Courtesy pingUndercoverClassicist,AirshipJungleman29,Dylan620.
"Demarest, David D.".The Biographical Dictionary of America. 1906.) Being the first added to the interest level. It needed to be qualified, the first at the seminary. It needed to have a reliable source.(seeRaven, John Howard (1912)."David D. Demarest".Biographical Record: Theological Seminary, New Brunswick, 1784–1911. New Brunswick, New Jersey: New Brunswick Theological Seminary. pp. 40–41.
Moved fromWP:ERRORS
Swapped this out to Prep 6 and we can continue the conversation atWT:DYK. — Amakuru (talk)23:30, 11 March 2025 (UTC)
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
.jpg){kind=link}
