![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 the current talk page. |
Archive 190 | Archive 191 | Archive 192 | Archive 193 | Archive 194 | Archive 195 | → | Archive 200 |
Can we remove the comma after " Charles Prince of Wales" in the second hook? Cheers, Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 17:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
If people want the comma, it would have to be "that in 1984, Charles, the Prince of Wales, described [...]". Otherwise, the comma is superfluous. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 11:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Re: Prep 7, the picture hook needs to insert the words "fighter jet" so it reads:
Further tweaks possible. The main thing to keep in mind is that Katie Higgins became the first female Blue Angels pilot in 2015. Higgins was a support plane demonstration pilot, whereas Amanda Lee was a pilot on the elite fighter jet demonstration squadron (i.e. what most people picture when they hear "Blue Angels") in 2023. (Considering whether or not to nominate Higgins for DYK...if I do I'll try to make it totally different from this one.) Cc: Bruxton, Lightburst Cielquiparle ( talk) 11:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#RfC: change GA criteria to require inline citations in all cases in which GA is thinking about adopting WP:DYKSG#D2 for GA articles. It may be relevant to DYK, and frequent DYK viewers may have insights on its application. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 21:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone has a way to see when an internet website was created or edited. In the case of this Nomination and article: Zakir Husain (politician) I find a very high copyvio score. I do not think they are mirrors and I am wondering if the good article process may have missed something. Lightburst ( talk) 21:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
i am wondering if the unit symbol "km" that was used in the originally approved hook may be restored. i am admittedly not sure why it was replaced with "kilometres" in this edit. from what i can tell, we have had no issues previously with using "km" in dyk hooks, as seen here, here, and here.
i had originally used the unit symbol in the spirit of mos:commonality. to be honest, i don't even know which spelling is considered more prevalent in the united arab emirates, or even if there is one. a comparison between google searches for instances of "kilometres" and "kilometers" within the .ae top-level domain suggests that "kilometers" is used more, but not significantly enough that i would consider the difference definitive. i can't seem to find either spelling of the full word on the marathon's official web site.
in addition, within the context of road races, the word is generally abbreviated, to the point where race types have common names like " 5K", " 10K", and " 25K", and proper names of road races that mention a metric distance generally abbreviate the word as well, as seen in " New York Mini 10K", " Breaking Barriers 50km", and " IAU 100 km World Championships". the article was written with this in mind, so spelling out the word would be contrary to the style of the article. (the single use of "kilometer" in the article is in a quote, where the person quoted appears to be based in the u.s., so that spelling should not be viewed as dispositive.)
please note that this hook is queued in the set scheduled to appear next on the main page. courtesy pinging Ravenpuff. dying ( talk) 18:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Roy McGrath, Queue 2 (next to hit the main page): TDKR Chicago 101 is receiving a creator credit, but the article was created and written by Y2hyaXM. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 22:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I am traveling this week so I will be off and on as internet connectivity allows. Bruxton ( talk) 14:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
... that after the Wolverines passed on the return of their "Moose" for a fifth year, he went on to win another Big Ten Championship with the Hoosiers?
After our recent discussion about athlete comparisons, I promoted this hook to prep 1. It was the one accepted by all concerned and the nomination had been languishing. I wanted to get feedback about it before it proceeds. Lightburst ( talk) 19:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
In queue 7, we have a hook about Charles III, and another mentioning Princess Margaret, - isn't that a bit too much for one set? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
In Queue 7: ... that at the time, the Battle of Shiloh was the largest battle fought in the United States with nearly 24,000 casualties—including 20,000 killed or wounded? – Nomination; credits: TwoScars, Lingzhi.Renascence; nominator: Onegreatjoke
What happened to those other nearly 4000 "casualties"? What's a casualty other than being killed or wounded? (If it's something like disease, it wouldn't seem right to classify it as a battle casualty.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
—including 20,000 killed or wounded. That removes any ambiguity. Schwede 66 01:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Would someone please move Template:Did you know nominations/Holy door (Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela) to the holding area? -- evrik ( talk) 03:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I guess this is the second time the article has been made a GA according the nomination. So does it qualify? Article: The Holocaust, Nom. Bruxton ( talk) 01:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
This is about the current lead hook, but isn't an error that would get it pulled from the Main Page, so I'm raising it here.
... that one
NFL scout compared watching
Marvin Harrison Jr. (pictured) to "window shopping at a Lamborghini dealership for the model that doesn't come out until next year"?
I'm sure this wasn't intentional on the part of anyone involved (and so I'm not pinging anyone because I really just want a general discussion), but this hook is about buying a Black man because of his physical strength. Yes, athletes are signed to contracts, which is a transaction based on their bodies' worth, but this quote explicitly compares that process to buying an inanimate object. Is this maybe a kind of phrasing we can work harder to avoid in the future? I think we've done a decent job of avoiding hooks that objectify women on the basis of attractiveness, but it's important to remember that objectification occurs in the context of race too, not just gender. In fact one of the first results I found on the topic is about Black male college football players in the U.S., and explains the issue quite clearly:
Black players are much more likely than white players to have their bodies objectified. ... Dehumanization occurs in many ways, including through language and symbols, such as likening individuals to animals or inanimate objects. ... In the US, bodily objectification has been used to justify a litany of sins: enslavement (both because the Black body was recast as a machine, made to work, and in terms of the imagined risks inherent in not containing allegedly libidinal Black bodies); over-policing; mass incarceration; excessive force; denial of civil rights; and lynching.
— "Invincible bodies: American sport media’s racialization of Black and white college football players" TWL (internal references omitted)
-- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 19:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
-- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 22:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)We found support for our novel hypothesis that praise can be dehumanizing, so long that it praises one’s bodily skills. ... [T]he media depicts Black athletes (when compared to White athletes) more in terms of their body (e.g., naturally athletic, physically strong) than their mind ... [W]hile Black and White athletes may both be infrahumanized as a function of being described in terms of their bodies, these descriptions are far more likely to affect Black athletes in practice.
I believe the hook is not offensive to anyone, Bruxton, that's a somewhat weird statement as it was brought here by Tamzin as it's, well, offensive. Schwede 66 00:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
you are ... Perpetually offended about things that are not offensive at all, that's a personal attack. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I imagine if the quote was said too but about a non-black athlete I don't think it would raise attention toothat's essentially what BD2412 said above. Please read Tamzin's response. — Qwerfjkl talk 20:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
... that in 1953, zookeepers accused Penelope the platypus at the Bronx Zoo of "posing as an expectant mother just to lead a life of luxury on double rations"?
Factually correct according to the source, but were these zookeepers seriously accusing a platypus of faking a pregnancy for material gain? It seems more likely to me that these were merely ironic expressions of exasperation after it turned out that "five months of anxious waiting" were for naught. The only actual zoologist quoted in the source has "no doubt" that Penelope really was pregnant but suffered some kind of miscarriage. The article doesn't mention this, and takes it for granted that she was faking.
In fact, I find the entire article strangely judgemental, not only in this but in reference to Penelope's treatment of Cecil; language like "abandoned Cecil", "deserted Cecil", and the inclusion of a quote from TIME that calls her "one of those saucy females who like to keep a male on a string". It's common for journalists to anthropomorphize animals in this way, but it's out of place in an encyclopedia article.
The ALT1 hook proposed in the DYK nom would work as a replacement for this one, but I do think the article needs a bit of an objectivity check before promotion. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 18:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC) @ Crunchydillpickle, TompaDompa, and Bruxton: Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 18:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
BLP (biographies of living platypi) rulesROFL — Schwede 66 03:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
I've replaced a hook in Q2 (see above). Upon undertaking the necessary checks (AGF for hook fact as it's from an offline book), I wonder about the photo license. It's PD in Europe (fine) but what about the US where the servers are based? As far as I can see, Template:PD-1996 should apply but I'm not 100% sure. Can somebody with deeper copyright knowledge please weigh in? Schwede 66 04:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
* {{DYKnom|The Holocaust|Onegreatjoke}}
.
MANdARAX •
XAЯAbИAM
06:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Currently in the "quirky" slot for Prep 6, I think the target article needs to read "Captain Katie Higgins", because at the time she was a Blue Angel and a Marine Captain, her surname was "Higgins", not Cook. (All explained in the actual article; she married another ex-Blue Angel pilot, Dusty Cook, later, after which she changed her name again.) @ Bruxton, Onegreatjoke, and Lightburst: Sincere thanks for nominating/progressing in my absence; I would have pointed this out during review but it all seems to have gone so fast in a good way. Cielquiparle ( talk) 13:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
I recently did a 2x expansion of charm quark, but the hooks I found are really interesting, and the article itself is a level-5 vital article, so I am nominating it for DYK. User:Onegreatjoke suggested that I bring this article to the discussion here.
The nomination can be found at Template:Did you know nominations/Charm quark.
Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 06:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Zakir Husain (politician) in Queue 4 has been moved, so it's now a redirect. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
... that seagull eggs (examples pictured) "make a smashing meringue"?
The quote should read "make smashing meringue", without the "a". But also, I don't think this hook meets the DYK guidelines. It's presenting an opinion rather than a fact, and the opinion in question comes from the owners of a store that sells gull eggs, who obviously aren't an independent source for that claim.
I'm sorry to be pouring cold water on this hook because the article is great, and exactly the kind of article that DYK was made for. However, I think there are plenty of alternative hooks to be found. For example:
Hope these ideas help. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 17:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
At some point the hook for
1987 Bullingdon Club photograph was changed from (my emphasis) ...commissioned a painting of a 1987 Bullingdon Club photograph featuring...
to ...commissioned a painting of the 1987 Bullingdon Club photograph featuring...
. Is it possible to change back to "a 1987 Bullingdon Club photograph". Saying "the" makes it sound like this is the title of the photograph which it is not - it's just the name of the article.
Vladimir.copic (
talk)
00:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I think a reviewer is having difficulty closing Template:Did you know nominations/75/24 Split. I would help, but I'm not the most experienced here. Bneu2013 ( talk) 21:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
If you have nominated five or more articles in the past, you must review one other nomination. See also Fencepost error :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived yesterday. I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 8. We have a total of 211 nominations, of which 59 have been approved, a gap of 152 nominations that has increased by 5 over the past 9 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
More than two months old
More than one month old
Other nominations
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 1:
Urwa ibn al-Zubayr (
nom) @
Onegreatjoke @
BorgQueen @
AhmadLX I see in the article that Alfred Guillaume calls him the "founder of Islamic history"
, some other authors made similar statements, and one argued the other way. I'm not seeing how that supports the hook statement in wiki voice that he is widely considered to be the founder of Islamic historiography
. Maybe there's this handful of authors who feel this way, but there's also hundreds of others, not cited here, who feel differently? On the other hand, maybe I'm being overly picky; I'd like to hear what others think on this. --
RoySmith
(talk)
16:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 1: Max Bielfeldt ( nom) @ Cielquiparle @ Launchballer @ Lightburst I can't verify the sourcing for the hook. Can you walk me through it? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2: J. Howard Crocker ( nom) The cited source only talks about "introducing volley ball into the Chinese public schools", which isn't quite the same thing as introducing it "to China". But more than that, it's a letter written by the subject about his own activities. We shouldn't assert something in wiki voice based on a first-person account. @ Bruxton @ Flibirigit @ Onegreatjoke -- RoySmith (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2:
Micro Star v. FormGen Inc. (
nom) The wording in the hook video game case
is confusing. I read that as meaning
Computer case, i.e. some legal notice was stamped into the plastic housing of the game. It took me a while to figure out it meant
Legal case. Could this be reworded to avoid the ambiguity? @
BorgQueen @
Joraham @
Onegreatjoke @
Launchballer --
RoySmith
(talk)
17:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I was looking over this Nomination before promotion, and I wondered, what does everyone think about the article and image. About the image, I was specifically wondering if we should be showing the image of the pint in the image. The image is also not very clear. Lightburst ( talk) 15:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
In this edit, PSHAW (used by Bruxton) erroneously replaced a hook in Prep 4 with another, while leaving behind the credits from the hook which was removed. I'm assuming this was a PSHAW error; theleekycauldron, was it because, prior to that edit, the credits were not in the same order as the hooks? (I've removed the stray credits, and added the hook and credits to Prep 5.) Promoters and others should be aware of this issue, and check for it happening again. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2:
Huntsville, Alabama (
nom) needs an end-of-sentence citation for Huntsville remains the center for rocket-propulsion research in NASA and the Army
@
Bruxton @
Epicgenius @
Onegreatjoke @
MyCatIsAChonk --
RoySmith
(talk)
16:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Huntsville remains the center for rocket-propulsion research in NASA and the Army. Saying "the center" implies it's the only one. The source doesn't say that. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I've finally finished Marie Sophie Hingst and moved the article to mainspace only took 1.5 years. This article is not a BLP -- its subject has been dead for nearly half a decade -- and is a tragic but fascinating story I feel worthy of main page attention. Nonetheless, while BLP has hard cutoffs that this has crossed even by the most lenient of them, there's a complicated sliding scale from "articles where BLP policy applies" to "long-dead historical figures", and everywhere in the middle is sometimes a mess. (I remember fielding ERRORS complaints about BLP for subjects who died in the 1980s.)
While Hingst has been dead for some time now, there are many people who've been dead much longer than her, and the whole article is a sensitive one. I feel that 'being on the main page at all' is completely viable for this article (I'd be happy to put it in OTD, for instance, or TFA if I take it through FAC), but I'm drawing up some blanks with the specific 'interesting <200 character snippet' context. I don't know whether this is Skill Issue on my behalf, or if there just isn't anything that can treat the whole complex story right while simplifying it that far. I'd be interested in sparking some discussion on this -- what possibilities exist, whether possibilities exist, how to handle that sliding scale. It wouldn't be the first complex BDP I've seen at DYK (we get more than a few gruesome murders, for instance), but it might be the most, and I really want to get a sense of the community here. Vaticidal prophet 16:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Only three queues are filled. As soon as Prep 4 is emptied there is something from the special occasion holding are for it. -- evrik ( talk) 14:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, DYK. Hope everyone is doing well. This David Kushner hook was recently promoted to Prep 2 after two months of waiting, which I am grateful for. However, I was really trying to achieve the picture spot for the Switch challenge. Two Kushner articles are nominated, with his bio one of them, and there are two quality pictures available. I followed all of theleekycauldron's suggestions. Just wanted to ask politely if the picture spot was possible, after two months of waiting. I was extremely hopeful this time. Ping Evrik as promotor. Thank you very much for the help. It is fine if it is not possible, please be kind while replying. Regards.-- N Ø 05:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
In the fourth hook of Queue 5, " Bahsahwahbee" should not be in italics. It was italicized in the article until I changed it. (Courtesy ping to Reywas92.) According to WP:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Foreign terms, italics are used for foreign words, but an exception to this is that proper names should not be italicized unless referring to the name itself. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to promote this prep to queue, but I am not satisfied with this hook.
The article states that "In 2018, City Nights became one of the many targets of threats made by a terrorist allegedly supporting the Islamic State. The ISIS supporter, named Amer Alhaggagi, suggested hitting nightclubs and other popular places in San Francisco and while suggesting that all San Francisco nightclubs were crowded, City Nights was the club which the news reported Alhaggagi planned to bomb." and the linked source has him pleading guilty but a forensic psychiatrist saying he was a troll instead of a terrorist, and just says that he talked about bombing the club, and there is no evidence that he actually had the means to do so. Not quite good enough for the claim in the hook, I think. Pinging nom @ InvadingInvader, reviewer @ Evrik, promoter @ BorgQueen. Any ideas how to fix this (or source the statement in the hook?) — Kusma ( talk) 21:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 6: Child abuse in association football ( nom) @ BorgQueen, FuzzyMagma, and Gonzo fan2007: There's a lot of copy-paste going on here. I'd like to get a 2O on how bad it is, but my initial impression is that this would fail our close paraphrasing rule and possibly WP:Copyvio. The Earwig report doesn't look too bad on the surface, but it's the same story with a half dozen different sources. For example:
The president of the Gabonese Football Federation (Fegafoot), Pierre-Alain Mounguengui, was held in preventive custody for six months and faced charges of "failure to report crimes of paedophilia," with a report alleged sexual abuse of hundreds of children within the football system.[57] Despite awaiting trial, Mounguengui travelled to Qatar and attended the opening match of the 2022 FIFA World Cup. This action was criticised by Fifpro, the international football players' union.-->
The president of the Gabonese Football Federation, Pierre-Alain Mounguengui, spent six months in preventive custody and was charged with “failure to report crimes of paedophilia”. Despite the fact he was awaiting trial, Mounguengui went to Qatar and attended the opening match of the 2022 Fifa World Cup – a move denounced by the international football players’ union, Fifpro.
-- RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Gonzo fan2007, BorgQueen, and RoySmith: I saw this nomination in the preps – I didn't have the energy at the time to raise any issues, but now that this appears to be in the limbo of post-approval reworking and rechecking, I gotta put in my two cents: I feel that this nomination should be closed without action. The fact that FuzzyMagma admitted to deliberately 1. breaching copyvio policy and 2. attempting to cover it up, combined with the fact that article remains riddled with prose and neutrality issues, should signal that the amount of combined volunteer time and effort needed to bring such an important article to an acceptable standard outweighs the time it would take to simply draftify the article and have someone else rewrite it from the ground up. AirshipJungleman29 made this edit removing quite a bit of non-neutral and poorly sourced prose, but I don't think that even finishes it up. Remaining issues include:
The research, funded by the European Union, highlighted that abuse is common in non-school sports was psychological, such as a lack of recognition to humiliating treatmentbut lack of recognition was defined as "negligence" in an earlier section? Abuse might be an umbrella term, though
emphasising the need for comprehensive understanding and effective interventions to address this serious issueopinion in wikivoice
The power of football in Brazil is significant, and speaking out about abuse in the sport requires immense courage, as getting a break in football is often a dream for many familiessome opinion in wikivoice
There are documented historic sex abuse cases in Scotland especially at Celtic Boys Club and Rangers F.C..undue singling out
I think the best thing to do right now is draftify the article, it's a long way from meeting Wikipedia's standards and such an important article needs more attention from a variety of contributors. It's certainly not going to be fit for the Main Page any time soon, and a rush job to patch this up is not – in my humble opinion – a worthwhile endeavour. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
"... that the San Diego Chargers suffered their worst margin of defeat during the 1964 San Diego Chargers season that would remain until an even worse loss 56 years later?"
Ugh. Just ugh. What happens when nominators believe, or are led to believe, they absolutely have to include the article title as is in the hook.
Can we reword this to: "... that the 1964 San Diego Chargers suffered the team's worst margin of defeat for 56 years?"
Much more elegant. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
the 2020 season is linked to conform with the originally proposed hook, currently in the prep area. alt0c is admittedly reworded rather radically, but it is short, so i thought i might mention it too. (i am not sure if it reads better with or without the comma before "until".) dying ( talk) 18:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [struck alt0b. dying ( talk) 05:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
alt0b: ... that during their 1964 season, the San Diego Chargers suffered their worst margin of defeat, surpassed only 56 years later?alt0c: ... that 1964 saw the San Diego Chargers suffer their worst margin of defeat, until 2020?
It is currently sitting in Q4 as: "... that the San Diego Chargers suffered their worst margin of defeat during the 1964 San Diego Chargers season, which stood until an even worse loss 56 years later?"
Facepalm This solved the lesser of the two problems, the one
BlueMoonset found made my proposed replacement inelegant, but leaves the bigger one intact. Would we expect the Chargers to suffer a defeat during the
1964 New York Yankees season? Once we've mentioned the team, do we really need to clarify this in the linked wording? Why have we not used the wording of any alt suggested here?
Also, another issue occurs to me: If the 1964 defeat margin has since been eclipsed, it cannot be described as "the worst".
So, now I propose ALT 0D: "...that in 1964 the San Diego Chargers suffered what would be their worst margin of defeat for 56 years?"
Really compact, and unambiguous. Daniel Case ( talk) 02:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
i think alt0bii could work, but also think alt0c was fine as is. i believe "until" tells the reader that a statement was true up to a certain point, and strongly suggests that it was not true after that point. in this case, the 1964 season's margin of defeat was actually their worst until 2020; qualifying "worst" with "then-" would suggest that, after 2020, the margin of defeat in the 1964 season was not their worst at the time.i am not sure why this point had not been resolved earlier, but it might be because the section heading did not explicitly mention the article, or possibly because the editors involved with the hook's promotion had not been pinged. i don't think replacing the hook with your own is a good idea; i believe the processes established at dyk aim to prevent such conflicts of interest.pinging Onegreatjoke (nominator), BeanieFan11 (reviewer), Bruxton (promoter), and BorgQueen (approver). courtesy pinging Harper J. Cole (ga nominator). linking to the nomination so that it can be more easily referenced. Onegreatjoke, thanks for your earlier input. i thought you might also be interested in offering your opinion on the more recently proposed hook alternatives. dying ( talk) 19:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [struck alt0bii. dying ( talk) 05:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
alt0bii: ... that during their 1964 season, the San Diego Chargers suffered their then-worst margin of defeat, surpassed only 56 years later?alt0cii: ... that 1964 saw the San Diego Chargers suffer their then-worst margin of defeat, until 2020?
Daniel Case, i admittedly haven't been at dyk long (and am certainly much less experienced than you in the area), but my impression is that, at least recently, accurate semantics have generally taken precedence over issues of style, which may be why editors have largely ignored your initial suggestion. i had tried to help you out by suggesting alt0b and alt0c. so far, no one else has agreed with the "for 56 years" wording, and two editors have found it confusing, so had i been in your position, i don't think i would have used it. i am not sure if the concern over semantics is focused on whether the 56 years should be counted beginning from 1908 or from 1964; the original hook considers that season's margin of defeat their worst starting from their first season (which appears to have been in 1960) until 2020, and i don't think "for 56 years" accurately captures that.
Harper J. Cole makes a very good point; i had not considered the possibility that "only" could refer to the number of years that had passed. therefore, i am striking alt0b and alt0bii, and implementing Harper J. Cole's suggestion.
alt0biibis: ... that during their 1964 season, the San Diego Chargers suffered their then-worst margin of defeat, only surpassed 56 years later?
alt0b was a bit long because it was worded to preserve a link to the team itself, respecting the choice to include one in the original hook. i had actually drafted a hook that had a length between that of alt0b and alt0c, but had only proposed two to avoid having too many alternatives being suggested. however, as it seems like this is no longer a concern, i am proposing alt0f, which drops the link, preferring to be brief, but otherwise follows the wording of alt0biibis.
alt0f: ... that the 1964 San Diego Chargers suffered their then-worst margin of defeat, only surpassed 56 years later?
for the record, i am fine with alt0biibis, alt0f, or alt0c. (i think alt0cii is problematic, as explained before, but had proposed it to address your earlier concern.) alt0f seems closest with your alt0e without using the "for 56 years" wording.
by the way, i think you may have read the dyk schedule incorrectly; this hook is scheduled to appear on the main page tomorrow, not today. dying ( talk) 05:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Sleep in the NBA: "between 68 and 70 degrees"—what does that mean? Doesn't anyone check before DYKs go on the main page? Tony (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@ DYK admins: I think we need to pull the double hook for Order of Excellence for Women in Template:Did you know/Queue/4. The lead and background sections are almost directly copied from the foreign language source. I am not finding the same issues with El-Tigani el-Mahi which is in Template:Did you know/Queue/5. Bruxton ( talk) 00:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any entries for June 13 on Template:Did you know nominations. I know this would should appear there: {{ Did you know nominations/Cross of Saint James}}.
What's the fix? -- evrik ( talk) 14:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to introduce CREEP, but is this kind of error and fix documented anywhere? -- evrik ( talk) 23:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Why is Template:Did you know nominations/Rick Suder not listed at WP:DYKN.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived earlier today. I've created a new list of 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 24. We have a total of 216 nominations, of which 62 have been approved, a gap of 154 nominations that has increased by 2 over the past 13 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
More than three months old
More than one month old
Other nominations
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 3: Associated Students of the University of California, Los Angeles ( nom)
... that when UCLA was founded in 1919, the university's students were tasked with providing numerous services, including athletics, housing, and parking?The part that I'm bringing up is the
were tasked withwording. The source doesn't say they were tasked with this and indeed the source given in the DYK nom stresses that the ASUCLA was very much independent of the school's governance in its early years. From reading the article and its sources it looks like they weren't tasked with this so much as they did it of their own initiative. If I'm reading this right, would there be any objection to rewording it to read
... that when UCLA was founded in 1919, the university's students provided numerous services, including athletics, housing, and parking?or some variation of that? - Aoidh ( talk) 20:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Just pulled the Ramón Iribarren hook per concerns raised at ERRORS. Courtesy ping @ RoySmith:. BorgQueen ( talk) 17:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 4: Vaal Reefs mining disaster ( nom). This possibly fails "C11 (sensational): Excessively sensational or gratuitous hooks should be rejected.". Seeking 2O on that. @ Lightburst @ Zaian @ Reywas92 RoySmith (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 4:
Evelyn Pruitt (
nom) I can't verify highest ranking woman
. The source only says "highest ranking woman scientist" @
Dafodil007 @
Grnrchst @
Lightburst.
RoySmith
(talk)
18:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
There have been a few cases in the past where a nomination has been delayed for so long that, at one point, a nominator or another editor suggests (long after the actual nomination) that the nomination could run on a particular special occasion. The requested date is within six weeks from the date the suggestion was made. However, it was beyond six weeks from the actual date of the nomination. For example, an article was nominated back in March but did not have a special occasion request (for example, for June 15) until May 25. For context, the nomination was either not reviewed for that long, or had issues that kept pushing back the approval until a possible date fell under that six-week period. I can't remember exact examples of this happening (apart from I think at least one NBA-related hook that was requested to run around the NBA Finals, despite the original nomination date being outside the six-week period).
For such cases, should such request be declined as going against the spirit of the six-weeks rule, or should they be treated on a case-by-case basis? Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 09:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 5: Mackay Davashe ( nom) The article says "single", but the source only says "record". Is there a source that says it's a single? @ Evrik @ Vanamonde93 @ Graham87 @ Elias RoySmith (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 6: Pope Sisinnius ( nom) simple:List of popes by length of reign says 21 days vs the 20 we say. My guess is that simple just got it wrong, but worth double-checking for accuracy. Hmmm, our own Pope#Shortest-reigning popes also says 21, so definitely needs to be verified. @ Bruxton @ Unlimitedlead @ Onegreatjoke @ Ffranc RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher Lowrey. Am I the only one to think that the interchange is not productive? Anybody ready to approve ALT0, or ALT2 of which the so far only reviewer said it was the better option, only to return weeks later to say it may be not interesting enough? - Read Template:Did you know nominations/Soňa Červená to see how I like reviewing. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Source: severalin your submissions. It make it difficult to review.
Everybody else, lighten up on this narrow interpretation of "interesting".I'd argue that Narutolovehinata5 is exactly correct in his interpretation of the guideline – a guideline that was recently re-written by RfC, as a result of Gerda. She wanted to continue writing hooks like this, but we all agreed that her hooks didn't follow the guideline as written then, and then an RfC found a consensus against loosening the guidelines for her. That we're turning around and say that we're being too strict is only because Gerda is back to pushing for the same thing the community turned down, and now we're all back to spending editor time parsing and dissecting it like it's new. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
We can WP:TBAN her from DYK (which I don't think anybody wants)you're wrong. I do want it very, very much. BorgQueen ( talk) 07:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
continuing to bicker about it in novella length nomination discussions is pointless, but isn't that why we got done with the RfC? To settle this question? Maybe a TBAN is too harsh, but as much as it pains me to say it, we do have a term for continuing to edit against the wishes of the community: that is disruptive editing. It is disruptive to the DYK process – instead of spending their time vetting, reworking, and reviewing nominations, now have to get sucked into these novella-length bickerings. Discussion is healthy, but the discussions have been over for a while – now we have to uphold what the result of the discussion was, instead of rehashing it. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 6: The Stone Breakers ( nom) @ BorgQueen @ Bruxton @ JJonahJackalope I'm a little concerned about this being misleading, almost to the point of being click-bait. When you say "X did Y", it implies that X intended to do Y. The truck carrying the painting may have been destroyed by a bomb dropped from an allied plane, but that wasn't the intent of the bombing mission. I think it would be better if the hook said something like "... was destroyed in 1945 during a bombing raid by the Allies of World War II?" RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 6: KPBT-TV ( nom) The source talks about a "church meeting space", the article says "church venue", but the hook says just "church" which I don't think is accurate. To me, "a church" means the place where religious services are held, but a "church meeting space" could be some other space owned by the church but used for non-religious activities (community center, etc). @ Sammi Brie @ MatthewHoobin @ Lightburst. And while I'm here, the {{ DYKsubpage}} template is broken on the nom page. RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 4:
Come On Over (
nom) I can't verify the best-selling album by a Canadian country artist
. The source says "the best-selling country album and the best-selling album of all time by a female artist" but I don't see anything about Canadian. @
Lightburst @
Onegreatjoke @
TabooMatters94 @
Magiciandude
RoySmith
(talk)
18:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
biggest-selling studio albumLightburst ( talk) 22:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Am I allowed to very selfishly request that a hook from this nomination is included in a set before 27 June, solely and entirely for WikiCup reasons? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
{{
died in}}
templates on two occasions.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
15:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Why does Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas redirect to Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Rules of thumb for preparing updates, and not, y'know, Template:Did you know/Queue ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 21:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
{{R from merge|Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines}}
. —
Mx. Granger (
talk ·
contribs)
02:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Prep 2: Beyond the Wall (2023 book) ( nom) @ AirshipJungleman29 @ MaranoFan @ Llewee Are we OK with the length of this vis-a-vis quoting? DYK check says it's 2804 prose, but 1168 of that is quotes. I know the rules say only block quotes are excluded, but several of these are long enough that they really should be set as block quotes. It still squeaks by the letter of the rule, but it just doesn't seem like what we're trying to encourage. RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I was unable to confirm the hook in the given source. I may be missing something but the hook was something I could not confirm. Can anyone else find that the ship was the "earliest warship known from archeological evidence
". I put a stop on the nomination when I could not confirm it, but the hook was promoted anyway. Pinging the promotor @
AirshipJungleman29:.
Bruxton ( talk) 01:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
... that due to climate change, there are not only more heatwaves over land, but also more heatwaves within the ocean?
Perhaps I'm being overcautious, but climate change is a hot topic and I'd be wary of stating something as fact which isn't definitely known to be true. Here's what the source says (italics in original):
It is virtually certain that hot extremes (including heatwaves) have become more frequent and more intense across most land regions since the 1950s ... with high confidence that human-induced climate change is the main driver of these changes ... Marine heatwaves have approximately doubled in frequency since the 1980s (high confidence), and human influence has very likely contributed to most of them since at least 2006.
A footnote on p. 4 explains the italicized terms. Confidence levels aren't quantified, but the available levels are: very low, low, medium, high, and very high. As to expressions of likelihood, "very likely" indicates a 90–100% probability, while "virtually certain" indicates 99–100%.
So my main concerns are that "high confidence" is something less than "very high confidence", and the source's claim that human-induced climate change has very likely contributed to most marine heatwaves since 2006 is different from the hook claim that "due to climate change, there are ... more heatwaves within the ocean". Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 06:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Prep 2: Mark Curry (rapper) ( nom) @ AirshipJungleman29 @ Ritchie333 @ Launchballer Maybe I'm just missing it, but it looks like this needs a QPQ. RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Howard Florey was closed as ineligible after its GA review was deleted per WP:G5. (Although WP:G5 explicitly says this should not be done.) The article has since passed GA again, but I cannot find the procedure for renominating the article. Can someone help? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2: 1934 Central Eagles football team ( nom) @ AirshipJungleman29 @ BeanieFan11 @ Epicgenius It's WP:OR to call the Rinkeydinks the "reserve squad". The yearbook mentions that ''something'' exists which is called the Rinkeydinks, and lists some people who are associated with it, but doesn't actually say what it is. For all we know from what's written in the yearbook, it's the cheerleading section. RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
... that
Beyond the Wall, a book about
East Germany, was well reviewed in the UK but deeply controversial in Germany?
With the proviso that English isn't my first language, I shall state that this appears clumsy to me. But I may be wrong. Either way, had I written the hook, I would have suggested:
ALT1 ... that
Beyond the Wall, a book about
East Germany, received positive reviews in the UK but was deeply controversial in Germany?
Schwede
66
02:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello there. Long time. Hope you are all well.
I need some guidance on approving a hook with the AGF check mark. The nomination under question is this one: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Fore_River_Railroad
Typically, I ask the nominator for text as-is in the offline source to be an additional pair of eyes and ensure that the hook is rightly referenced by the source. And, once that is done I mark the nomination as approved with AGF. Though, I admit, I have not had to do that many times in the recent past.
However, in this nomination -- The nominator does not have the text as-is and I am being asked Can't you just AGF and have it done with?
. I personally do not feel too great about that. However, if I should be marking this one as AGF despite not having the text from the nominator / editor, I am happy to do that. I want to ensure that I am not holding the nominator to a higher standard than I should be -- please let me know. Thanks.
Ktin (
talk)
22:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Given the quote supplied by TAOT, we're obviously good on that score. But I suggest we add a rule requiring a quote be included in the nomination for any off-line source used to support a hook. For non-English sources, we should require an English translation. It means a little more work for the nom, but presumably they've got it at hand already so it's just a matter of typing out a sentence or two. But it will save a lot of work for the THREE people who conduct reviews (initial approval, promotion to prep, promotion to queue) and generally improve quality. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
This section documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow, where "normally" is linked to Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE. I think it's common sense that if I wanted to use a scan of a portion of a source document to support a hook, I think you'd be OK as long as you followed the intent of Wikipedia:NFCCP. Common sense would tell you that Minimal usage would be met by just upload that portion of the scanned document needed to verify the hook. And One-article minimum would be met not by transcluding it in the article page, but by transcluding it in the DYK nomination for that article. Those of you who are better wiki-lawyers than I am, feel free to tell me I'm being an idiot. RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace. A DYK nomination is not in the article namespace. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
subject to exemptionsand if you follow the "exemptions" link, you find language like,
uses [that] are necessary for creating or managing the encyclopedia. Is a DYK nomination template not necessary for managing the encyclopedia? RoySmith (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
quote=
and trans-quote=
are our friends.
BorgQueen (
talk)
07:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)quote=
parameter which I've found very helpful. I almost always use it whenever I cite foreign language offline sources.
BorgQueen (
talk)
13:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting the hook. If this is being ignored to the point where nominators are pushing back against reviewers asking for a quote, then perhaps a hard rule is appropriate. Even if the rule weren't followed to the letter, it would at least create an expectation that nominators should be willing to provide quotes on request. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 10:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
quote=
or trans-quote=
parameter.or
is probably not the correct logical operator here. The trans-quote
parameter has to be accompanied by quote
as the former is merely an added translated text facility for the latter, meaning trans-quote
can't be used alone, unless I'm mistaken. So it will have to be something like [...] this can be done with a quote= and, if necessary, trans-quote= parameter.BorgQueen ( talk) 14:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
script-quote=
. I'll come up with something more generic.
RoySmith
(talk)
14:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
This will often involve a good deal of work for very little extra benefit.I've done this for every DYK I've filed using an offline source, and it never takes me more than a minute or two. All you're adding is 1 or 2 sentences. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 15:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and updated the hook as discussed in #Prep 5: Beyond the Wall above. RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 3: 2004 Nosratabad fuel tanker explosion ( nom) @ Bruxton @ M Imtiaz @ Evrik Saying this crash "highlighted" Iran's road safety record is WP:OR. The source doesn't say anything about "highlighting". RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
References
Right now on WP:DYK, there are multiple nominations by Launchballer regarding songs by a group called Piri & Tommy Villiers, all of which feature hooks that are just song lyrics. There have been concerns raised by other editors that the hooks in question are either too vague to be interesting or give information, or may violate the "articles must have a relation to the real-world" criterion. What should be done about these song lyrics hooks? Should all these hooks be rejected and be replaced with something else? Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 13:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Now that I am finally up to date with QPQs, I would just like to agree that whatever the rules are regarding quirky hooks, they should be recorded somewhere. I have seen loads of hooks that don't strictly adhere to guidelines, and would point out that they all went through at least three people who saw no problem with them - Sojourner names four including On & On, though my immediate influence was a hook that consisted of nothing but "... ?", and I've also seen "... that?". In fact, if I had my time again, out of seven hooks, six I'd propose again, and one I'd propose with added context. For my use, the following are the Piri related hooks I proposed (note that all of them are cited within their respective articles):
Queue 5: Soňa Červená ( nom) @ AirshipJungleman29 @ Gerda Arendt @ Onegreatjoke The hook isn't wrong but it would be cleaner if you just worked out her exact age when she got the award and use that instead of "over 80 years old". RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a few days ago. I've created a new list of 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 9. We have a total of 230 nominations, of which 78 have been approved, a gap of 152 nominations that has decreased by 2 over the past 11 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
More than one month old
Other nominations
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I would like to nominate Catherine de Parthenay for a DYK with the following DYK scan results: DYK eligibility scan results: (See here for details.)
The tool (very cool by the way), though, for nomination looks to just accept new articles. I am sure I am missing something, but cannot figure out how to nominate it as 5x expanded. Your help is much appreciated!– CaroleHenson ( talk) 17:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I read through the Nomination. The article survived AfD with a no consensus result. There is an objection from @ SnowFire: in the nomination about the suitability of the article for DYK. Pinging the involved parties from the discussion: @ Launchballer, Edge3, Dr vulpes, and Surtsicna:. I would like to have a discussion before promotion in order to avert a later discussion. Bruxton ( talk) 14:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 7: Atonio Mafi ( nom) @ Edge3 @ BeanieFan11 @ Onegreatjoke The hook says he "holds" the record, but the source only says he tied for the record. RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
The PBS Appalachia Virginia blurb is misleading because the entire United States transitioned to all- digital television before this station even launched. It is unique but “digital” is the wrong word to express that. 98.97.15.49 ( talk) 04:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
---
Original hook: ... that
PBS Appalachia Virginia is the first all-digital public TV station in the United States?
Amended hook: ... that
PBS Appalachia Virginia is the first all-non-terrestrial public TV station in the United States?
I've fixed a hook that's currently live but I wonder whether we should pull it altogether. The issue is not that it wasn't the "first" but it was described as the "first all-digital", where digital is the wrong word as pointed out in the discussion above. The reason why I considered pulling the hook is that the article no longer contains the hook fact (at least not at the time I amended the hook some 90 minutes ago). I didn't have time to check the editing history and dive into the sources. I leave it to others to decide and take action; I'm off to work now. Schwede 66 19:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
but how do we know that some kid in Kenya wasn't running 4 minute miles 500 years ago when nobody was keeping notes-- well, we can't verify that kid existed, so we assume he doesn't. I can picture-perfect imagine the hypothetical DYK conversation for Bannister where people try to come up with a hook that isn't "he ran the first sub-4-minute mile", and I very much doubt they'd be good. ("Did you know... ... that Roger Bannister became a neurologist after retiring from athletics?" Well, you'd suppose he didn't become a beggar.) Vaticidal prophet 14:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
we can't verify that kid existed, so we assume he doesn'tis exactly how we get into trouble. In this specific case, there's plenty of WP:RS [1] [2] [3] [4] so there's really no doubt and no need to rely on failure to find a counter-example. But the fact remains that we've had multiple instances of "first" claims in hooks turning out to not be correct, so it does deserve greater scrutiny. RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
References
Queue 7: Drew O'Connor ( nom) @ Edge3 @ HickoryOughtShirt?4 @ Theleekycauldron @ Cielquiparle I agree that the source supports "four teams recruited Drew O'Connor", but saying "heavily recruited" in wikivoice seems like Wikipedia:OR. RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
The kid who was desperate for so long to get noticed had become arguably the most sought-after free agent in college hockey.. Beyond that, hockey pundits have said:
There is definitely no shortage of NHL interest in O’Connorand he was described as a "prized" free agent [3]. HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 05:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 7: Obviously 5 Believers ( nom) @ BennyOnTheLoose @ Bruxton @ Onegreatjoke the hook seems really complicated. I can't get to the end of it without getting lost. Isn't there some simpler way to say this? RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 5: Lord Adolphus FitzClarence ( nom) Maybe I'm just not following this correctly, but it looks like @ Festucalex approved their own hook, @ Sojourner in the earth pointed out that they couldn't do that, but the self-approved hook was promoted by @ Evrik anyway. Am I missing something? RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
This is yet another instance where a no-longer-approved nom should've been moved back from the approved page to the pending page. I've lost track of where we were, but if I recall correctly, both RoySmith and theleekycauldron were working (or thinking about working?) on bot code to take care of this, and Wugapodes had it basically done but didn't have time to work on it. Any progress from anybody? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Anyone have any hooks for Prep 3 that we can work in here for Independence Day (United States)? The set is presently empty. Bruxton ( talk) 13:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I've placed all three of the hooks I suggested above into Prep 3. Happy to entertain other ideas. If there are a lot of ideas, we could consider lifting the 4-hook limit on American topics just for this set. Edge3 ( talk) 03:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
If we're going to do US Independence Day, we should also do Canada Day, Independence Day (India), Australia Day, and so on.Agree, doing this only for the US seems like a clear bias. Especially when we've already had a bias of US images on the DYK image set recently..... Joseph 2302 ( talk) 20:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Here are some other U.S. political hooks: Template:Did you know nominations/Fred Plump and Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Strong (also being discussed at #Suitability of United States v. Strong Nomination for DYK). Edge3 ( talk) 03:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
My hook for the article Anita Gustafson was just promoted to Prep 6 by Lightburst - is there any way this hook could be held so that it can run on August 1? Thanks. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 02:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 3: Ali al-Hadi ( nom) @ AirshipJungleman29 @ Onegreatjoke @ Launchballer somebody needs to walk me through the sourcing for the hook. RoySmith (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Prep 1: Missa brevis in B (Tambling) ( nom) @ Edge3 @ Gerda Arendt @ Kusma I've renamed the page per WP:TITLEDAB. I'm also unsure if the image makes sense for this article. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE says "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context". I don't see how a picture of a church helps the reader understand a piece of music that was performed in that building. I think it's distracting as a main page image; it leads the reader to think the hook is about the church, when it's not that at all. RoySmith (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I understand that the hook's a double hook, but isn't the hook a bit too complicated? I think it could be made a bit more concise. It's so long that to me at least the point of the hook (showing how many instruments were used for it and the number of people involved) easily gets lost. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 04:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I wish the second link could be moved up or made larger, but the average reader won't notice. -- evrik ( talk) 14:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
i don't know if it's too late to comment, but i had also been surprised at the omission of tambling's given name (as mentioned at wp:errors) and the inclusion of the somewhat uninformative word "work" in the hook (as mentioned above). i admittedly hadn't brought up my concerns earlier because i didn't think they were that important, but now that they are the object of discussion, i thought i might say something.
personally, i would just drop "work" altogether instead of replacing it with "mass", because "missa" already means "mass". i don't know enough about how churches are usually referred to in hooks to determine how best to mention this church, but would suggest switching to the common name simply because the hook is currently longer than 200 characters. with the shorter name of the church, there's plenty of space left to include tambling's given name. also, i think the "'s" should not be included as part of the link text, but that's just a minor style issue. dying ( talk) 19:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 4: Catherine de Parthenay ( nom) @ Bruxton @ CaroleHenson @ CurryTime7-24 I'm not sure calling her a "key" member is justified by the source. A member, sure. But "key" seems a bit WP:OR RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 4: Sack of Mecca (930) ( nom) @Dympies I'm curious why you performed this rename. WP:TITLEDAB says you don't use the "(930)" unless there's other articles with the same title. RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I've been busy IRL so haven't been helping out much recently. Just transferred one set to Q5; would appreciate if anyone could double-check the hooks. Thanks! BorgQueen ( talk) 05:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/United States documents leak of the Russian invasion of Ukraine was closed by BuySomeApples after it was marked for closure. The following day, Novem Linguae undid the closure and asked for a re-review. Considering Novem is not the nominator and had not previously participated in the nom, was this re-opening without a formal request proper, or should Novem have first asked either here or somewhere else for a re-opening? Although this is about a specific case, I'm also asking in the general sense, just in case something similar happens again. Courtesy pings to Launchballer who was the reviewer and the nominator ElijahPepe. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 14:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I feel like there's an amazing hook around According to the Kentucky Distiller's Association, they receive "regular calls from state residents asking what they can do with unopened bourbon cases they discovered while cleaning out a relative’s attic or basement" at Revival Vintage Bottle Shop, but I can't even come up with categories for this article. Any help? Valereee ( talk) 04:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Alt6 ...that Revival Vintage Bottle Shop helps people with their unwanted bourbon?-- evrik ( talk) 17:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived not quite two hours ago, so I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 24. We have a total of 265 nominations, of which 121 have been approved, a gap of 144 nominations that has decreased by 8 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
More than one month old
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) 03:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
and now we have another upcoming in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3? There are alternatives. Johnbod ( talk) 04:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Why would we run out of high-quality articles really quickly?- The DYK criteria are relatively strict. Although there are certainly tons of articles that are of decent (or even exceptional) quality, the most pressing criterion is that they have to be created, expanded fivefold, or improved within seven days, which disqualifies people from just nominating any random article of reasonably high quality. There are also other requirements, such as a minimum length, as well as neutrality and sourcing requirements, which would disqualify many of the articles that you're thinking of.
Also note that presumably if people are restricted in the number they can nominate they will on average nominate a higher caliber of article than they would otherwise.- In practice, this seldom works. If such a restriction is implemented, someone can just wait until they are able to nominate another hook, without taking the time to improve the article that they previously nominated. Or, worse, create sockpuppets to get around such a restriction (thus gaming the system).DYK exists to showcase newly improved, relatively high-quality articles. If only a few users are nominating such articles, the problem isn't with DYK regulars; it's the fact that other editors aren't getting involved in DYK. The solution is to try to attract these other editors, not to restrict existing nominators. – Epicgenius ( talk) 23:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Are there currently problems with following simple instructions?it's like herding water with a sieve. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 6: Pachysentis ( nom) @ Edge3 @ Mattximus @ Premeditated Chaos do any of the sources say these things "attach" to the intestine? I see where the sources say they're found in the intestine, but can't find where it explicitly talks about attachment. RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Mercy! That 120 number is creeping up on us. Total 263 117 with four queues and 2 preps filled. Probably still a bit off but the promotors might soon get a taste of the WP:DYKROTATE Merry go round. Bruxton ( talk) 17:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 3: Piero del Pollaiuolo ( nom) @ Johnbod in the nomination, you say the sourcing is "Complicated, as there is a before and after aspect to several". Could you uncomplicate it a bit for me, please? @ Onegreatjoke @ AirshipJungleman29 RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @ DYK admins: we're down to a single queue, which will be promoted in the next couple of hours, so promoting at least a couple of the available preps would be most welcome. If you could keep an eye on things over the next few days to make sure we don't get so low again, that would be great, too. Thank you all very much. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I just promoted the Gerard image and hook to Prep 6. I feel like the image could use a closer crop to remove the edge of a book that David Gerard is holding. Lightburst ( talk) 14:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I did my first QPQ but can't see the article on any lists of pending DYKs, queues, etc. (please see Template:Did you know nominations/Patricia Davies (cryptographer). Have I missed a step? Thank you, Cl3phact0 ( talk) 06:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I just promoted this to queue, but I have a concern.
The source mentions Cameron Cuties and has Jenkyns refer to herself as "feisty Yorkshirewoman", but she does not explicitly reject the other term as far as I can see. I would like to see further eyes on whether this juxtaposition is sufficiently sourced. Pinging nom @ Moondragon21, reviewer @ Epicgenius, promoter @ Bruxton. — Kusma ( talk) 09:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Pulled, replaced by Soft Spot (song) from Prep 4 ( nom). Pinging nom @ Moondragon21, reviewer @ Epicgenius, promoter @ Bruxton again: Cameron Cuties have been returned to WP:DYKN, please use Template:Did you know nominations/Cameron Cutie to find a new hook or source this one properly. — Kusma ( talk) 07:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Separate concern on this—I'd raise this at the nom page, but I'm genuinely not sure of the answer, so maybe better to ask here: Does the general reference to "the DYK criteria" at Template:Did you know nominations/Seda Kaçan satisfy the "all five criteria"/"full review" requirement ? -- 'zin is short for Tamzin (she|they|xe) 02:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@ P199, Onegreatjoke, and 97198: The paper's claim is explicitly cited to a single nurse in the area who claims no expertise other than residency (strike that, she claims to be in the area) – i.e. not really a reliable source. I'd also concerned about close paraphrasing of the hook fact to the source. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Theleekycauldron: OK, let's return it to the DYK nomination page and I'll work on another hook. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
@ dying, Alaexis, and Red-tailed hawk: ClickOrlando.com is cited as a source – it looks like local news, and not upper-tier local news at that. Are we sure that we want to call that a reliable source for a local South Asian custom? theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, so I don't really see any potential issue here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I've marked this as ineligible due to extensive close paraphrasing and other issues, but nominator Chidgk1 has requested more time to work on the article. The nomination has been open for over a month already so I'd like a second opinion on whether this can be kept on hold. Thanks. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 09:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This is currently the third-earliest active DYK nom (April 15). The nom had promised to expand Sarah Bryce article for the nom, but this went slow because they had been hospitalized and the stats at ESPNcricinfo mostly went down, causing the expansion to eventually fall short of the five times/one week criterion. I therefore initially considered declining the Sarah Bryce article and gave them the option of a GA nom, but then I later felt inclined to request WP:IAR given the causes behind the stalling and the nom's self-admitted lack of GA nom experience and desire to have both sisters bolded. However, given how long the expansion stalled ( a month), I would like to see what others think before I can ask Bahnfrend to do a second QPQ and the entire nom can be taken care of. ミラP@ Miraclepine 19:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 4:
Les Avariés (
nom) @
Evrik @
Colin M @
Theleekycauldron The lede says it was censored for some time in France and later in England.
but that needs an end-of-sentence citation.
RoySmith
(talk)
00:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
... that M. Farooqui, who had been expelled from his studies for having organized a strike in 1940, received his Delhi University degree in a special convocation 1989?
Missing "in" before 1989. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
First, a shout out to @ Theleekycauldron: for her work on developing the {{ DYK promoter of the month}}, and on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYK promotions. I was amused to see I had just squeaked onto the bottom of the list. More important, this morning I went through and cleared a backlog of unawarded barnstars. Not everyone is comfortable claiming an award. I just gave out {{ The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal}} and {{ The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal}} awards up to the 100 DYK level in the 100 DYK level. I have not tackled any of the missing awards for people with more than 100 DYKs, nor anyone of the list of DYK nominations list. If anyone else has time, maybe you can go through the list and hand out the missing awads? Thanks. -- evrik ( talk) 16:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Kusma, Gerda Arendt, and Edge3: While the article says "Through this translation, Gessner became the best known German-language poet in Europe" I cannot find in the article where it says Gessner was the best-known German poet before Goethe. Did I miss something in the article, or does this need to be added in? Z1720 ( talk) 18:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@ SeoR, TheLonelyPather, and Edge3: The second half of the hook (the info about editing a magazine with works by Lennon and Ginsberg) is not cited in the article, and the source used in the DYK nomination does not seem to be used as an inline citation or a source in the article. I have added a "citation needed" to indicate the location. Please cite this fact in the article. Z1720 ( talk) 18:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2: Killing of Jerry Waller ( nom) @ Edge3 @ Muboshgu @ Daniel Case The hook verifies, but we seem to be running a lot of hooks about errant shootings by police. I'm wondering if we're doing too many of those. RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Launchballer, DigitalIceAge, and Edge3: The about section in the source ( [5]) implies that she was signed onto Island Records before Kissing You was featured on Love Island. I think a different hook is needed. Z1720 ( talk) 01:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
{{
's}}
should be used after italics; when incorrectly used, as it is here, it adds undesirable extra space. Please replace with {{
`s}}
.
MANdARAX •
XAЯAbИAM
17:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Heartfox, Launchballer, and Edge3: While this fact is cited in the article, there is a note beside this citation mentioning an interview where Carey does not confirm that the song is about Eminem. I don't think the hook should state this as fact in Wikivoice. Perhaps Carey's non-answer should be incorporated into the hook, perhaps as something like below:
Thoughts? Z1720 ( talk) 01:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2:
Clown (Mariah Carey song) (
nom) @
Edge3 @
Heartfox @
Launchballer The footnote When asked about the song by
USA Today, Carey did not explicitly acknowledge it is about Eminem
says to me that this isn't certain. Given this is a
WP:BLP, I'm dubious about saying this in wikivoice.
RoySmith
(talk)
15:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
dying ( talk) 03:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)alt30: ... that sources have described " Clown" by Mariah Carey as an answer song to Eminem's comments about their relationship in " Superman"?
Another problem here is that the first two paragraphs of the article are identical to text from http://songstube.net/77312-Mariah%20Carey-Clown.html. I'm guessing they copied from us, but the intertwined history of our article in User:Heartfox/sandbox/Clown makes it hard to trace. I'd appreciate if somebody who's better at copyvio sleuthing took a look at this and confirmed we're OK. @ Heartfox: a much better way to do this would be to just start a new draft page in your userspace for each article you write, then move that into mainspace instead of copy-pasting it and re-using a shared sandbox page. That would leave the histories intact and simplify auditing. RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2: Jack Critchley ( nom) @ 97198 @ Peacemaker67 @ Onegreatjoke I can find in the source where he was diagnosed with "torticollis", but can't see anyplace it talks about "wry neck". RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2: Antonio Dini ( nom) @ Edge3 @ Onegreatjoke @ Theleekycauldron the source says he had no memory of the crash, but I don't see anywhere that says it was due to a concussion. RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
While working on Prep 1, I changed the hooks on Template:Did you know nominations/Save America and Template:Did you know nominations/David Gerard (author). Would someone please remind me how to document this? Thanks. -- evrik ( talk) 17:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
How to check how far yet left to expand article five times? DYKcheck only shows after it's already expanded five times. The article is quite long and there is a lot to do for just 7 days. What about unreferenced sentences which been removed due to lack of sources? These sentences still counts for article length and from this point it counts 5 times expansion? From DYK rules, it's 7 days ("within the past seven days"), but DYKcheck counts 10 days ("within the past 10 days"). Eurohunter ( talk) 19:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
While working on Prep 1, I changed the hooks on Template:Did you know nominations/Save America and Template:Did you know nominations/David Gerard (author). Would someone please remind me how to document this? Thanks. -- evrik ( talk) 17:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
How to check how far yet left to expand article five times? DYKcheck only shows after it's already expanded five times. The article is quite long and there is a lot to do for just 7 days. What about unreferenced sentences which been removed due to lack of sources? These sentences still counts for article length and from this point it counts 5 times expansion? From DYK rules, it's 7 days ("within the past seven days"), but DYKcheck counts 10 days ("within the past 10 days"). Eurohunter ( talk) 19:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
We're in the odd situation right now of prep 1 being the only one that's ready to promote to a queue, but 5th in chronological order. Is there any process for promoting a prep area out of order? RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm a new user just getting into DYK and wanting to learn. I noticed the top of prep 6 that no more than half of them can be biographical. However, I noticed that hooks 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 appear to biographical. Is the half rule a hard and fast rule, or am I misinterpreting something. Thanks for helping me, Heart (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Is there a tool or a script that can figure out an editor's QPQ-status, either to run it on your own contributions or to see if someone else in DYK?-land has fulfilled the QPQ stuff? I just submitted Robert Todd Lincoln for a DYK? but it's been a long time since I've done a GA and I have no idea if I have fulfilled the QPQ parameter. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 20:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 6: Gansen-ji ( nom) The article uses {{ convert}}, but the hook doesn't. Is that intentional? RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 4: 75/24 Split ( nom) @ Evrik @ Bneu2013 @ Theleekycauldron I see where the source says "aims to make the river of cars and trucks flow better and more safely", but I don't see where anything that justifies the "one of the worst bottlenecks for trucks" language in the hook, i.e. why specifically for trucks? RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 6: Betty Clements ( nom) @ Vaticidalprophet @ Whispyhistory @ CeeGee I don't see where the article says she was removed from training. RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 6: Soundbombing II ( nom) @ Vaticidalprophet @ AstonishingTunesAdmirer @ Onegreatjoke the cited source doesn't say anything about funding the album. RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 7: Francis Slater Rebow ( nom)
@
Pickersgill-Cunliffe,
Onegreatjoke,
Normsupon, and
Kusma: The hook currently reads ... that a misreport led to
Francis Slater Rebow being promoted to lieutenant-colonel twice?
but I think from reading the article and supplemental information that he was not promoted to "lieutenant-colonel" but to the
Life Guards-specific rank of "Major and lieutenant-colonel", as pointed out by
Note 1 in the article. Here's a
non-Rebow example of the rank being used. The source for the relevant text, Wellington's Brigade Commanders, similarly lists "Major & Lieutenant Colonel" as the rank both in the line-by-line breakdown of ranks obtained at the beginning of his entry in the book as well as in the text itself which discusses the appointment of the rank of "major and lieutenant colonel" as well as the mixup regarding the rank announcement. I wanted to check first because I'm no expert on British military ranks by any means, but would something like ... that a misreport led to
Francis Slater Rebow being promoted to the rank of "major and lieutenant-colonel" twice?
in quotes be better, since it is an odd rank and is easily confused for two separate ranks? -
Aoidh (
talk)
18:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
was dual rank in the regiment and the army.Unless I'm misreading the source, it says he was appointed major and lieutenant colonel two years into his service in the 2nd Life Guards, which was announced incorrectly on 1 October 1799, and the second "promotion" was via
a War Office Memorandum of 25 September 1802that fixed the error, but both were specifically the Major and Lieutenant Colonel rank, not just lieutenant colonel, unless you're talking about something that I'm not seeing? On the initial list of promotions he was "Major & Lieutenant Colonel", then "Lieutenant Colonel & Colonel" and then Lieutenant Colonel with the 90th foot, so even without the dual ranks there's a lot of lieutenant colonelcy (a word I just learned) going on there so I am admittedly confused and will defer to what you're saying if you're sure, because I am not. - Aoidh ( talk) 19:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
... that Ann Tahincioğlu is Turkey's first female car racing driver to have competed in a national racetrack championship?
Here's a Google translation of the Turkish source; I've also run it through DeepL Translate and it's pretty much the same. The relevant passage reads:
Fighting in the 1st leg of the 2022 Turkish Track Championship, Kaçan broke new ground as the first woman to drive in this organization after Ann Tahincioğlu, who competed in the Turkish Track Championship in 1992.
This is not saying that Tahincioğlu was the first to do anything, just that Kaçan was the first since Tahincioğlu. @ CeeGee: Is this translation correct? If so, the hook will need revising. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 20:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Please check. CeeGee 05:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
... that Egghead & Twinkie is reputed to be the first feature film crowdsourced on TikTok?
I think we should be clearer that it is the film's creator, Sarah Kambe Holland, who is making this claim. The Slugmag source says "Crowdfunded through TikTok ... the film now credits itself as the first to do so". The Knockturnal source only says "Known as the first feature film to crowdfund on TikTok", but this line contains an embedded link to a TikTok video by Holland, in which she says "As far as I know, there hasn't been a feature-length film that has successfully crowdfunded on TikTok". I suggest rewording the hook to something like "...that Egghead & Twinkie claims to be the first feature film crowdsourced on TikTok?" Pinging nominator Peaceray. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 20:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
...that Egghead & Twinkie claims to be the first feature film crowdsourced on TikTok?Peaceray ( talk) 20:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
... that police in Indianola, Mississippi shot an unarmed 11-year-old African-American boy after responding to his 911 call for help at his home?
I'm concerned about featuring this on DYK because this is an ongoing event. An investigation is underway, a lawsuit is in progress, the body camera footage has not yet been released, the officer has not been charged, and there is currently no "official" version of events, only the mother's eyewitness testimony (and she didn't see the actual shooting). The content of the article is likely to change significantly in the coming weeks, and this would seem to be a fail of WP:DYKSG#D7: the article should be complete and not a work in progress. Given the sensitive nature of the subject, and the potential criminal charges against a living person, I think we should be especially wary of putting this on the main page when we still don't know what really happened. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 20:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@ AllWeKnowOfHeaven, Juxlos, and Vaticidalprophet: The article and the sources say that Williams received this nickname after ordering the wings at a strip club while breaking COVID-19 quarentine restrictions. I could not verify that he recieved the nickname because of his "love of" the food. Should this hook be changed? Z1720 ( talk) 19:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Williams was a regular who eventually saw the kitchen team formalize his order, name it after him, and add it to the establishment’s menu well before he broke the NBA bubble and garnered the club’s chicken wings a new flood of national media attention(cite 4). Vaticidal prophet 19:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
@ PlanetJuice, Onegreatjoke, and Vaticidalprophet: The source used to verify that the station closed does not mention that the station was closed in 2003, only that Amtrak ceased its operations to that station. The source also says that "The Transit Authority of River City also uses the station, where it has its headquarters" giving me the impression that the station was not closed down at this time. I'm proposing an ALT below:
Thoughts? Z1720 ( talk) 19:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I have
Marie Sophie Hingst in
prep 7 right now and just noticed that the hook is either one of "ungrammatical" or "grammatical, but in a way most people will think is wrong anyway" (... that when the German-Irish historian
Marie Sophie Hingst was revealed to be pretending descent from Holocaust survivors, the media of different countries disagreed on how to report on it?
). I'd go tweak that, but I wrote the hook, and want to avoid the appearance of impropriety by reworking one of my own hooks in prep, and I was very careful with this one given the sensitivity of the subject. Would changing it to "faking" be fine, both from a 'literally doing that' perspective and from a 'not too blunt/insensitive' one?
Vaticidal
prophet
23:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I've just promoted this to queue. Earwig flags this up as a straight copyvio, but my impression is that [10] is a copyvio from our article, not the other way around (editing history makes no sense otherwise). Just mentioning this here in case someone wants to check my work and comes to a different conclusion. — Kusma ( talk) 08:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 7:
Bokura no Kazoku (
nom) The article says inspiration for Bokura no Kazoku came shortly after development on the first Boku no Natsuyasumi concluded, which coincided with the birth of his first child
which isn't really the same as being inspired by the birth of his child. The citation URL should be the more specific
https://scroll.vg/extras/summer-vacation-confidential, which does support the hook statement about inspiration, but that needs to be in the article. I'm also a little dubious about whether scroll.vg is a
WP:RS, a point which I see was raised in the nomination. @
AirshipJungleman29 @
Morgan695 @
Maury Markowitz
RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I know I'm an occasional noob around here and don't often understand Wiki-coding but this doesn't seem quite right... I clicked on the bottom link in the toolbox - "Find sources (notability)" - but all that comes up is a template, Template:Find sources. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here but it doesn't seem to be an actual tool that reviewers can run... Shearonink ( talk) 14:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I just completed a huge expansion for the Glyn Johns article, and had it reviewed and it made GA. So, I nominated the article for DYK. However, before I was able to properly address the reviewer's concerns, I noticed that it disappeared off of the nomination page, so I re-nominated it (with the same template Template:Did you know nominations/Glyn Johns)--then my re-nomination got reverted. If they put it into the queue schedule, nobody let me know. I they withdrew it, then I was not given a fair chance to correct it. I just want this nomination to have a fair chance. I was wondering if someone could help me. GloryRoad66 ( talk) 01:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Is queerbaiting and, by extension, any sort of baiting based on such implicit characteristics explicitly disallowed, generally discouraged, or okay? I ask this because I noticed that a previous DYK was changed on this basis. Thank you in advance, Cessaune [talk] 16:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of all 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 5. We have a total of 252 nominations, of which 125 have been approved, a gap of 127 nominations that has decreased by 17 over the past 9 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
More than two months old
More than one month old
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) 02:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Yay Robert Todd Lincoln made it to a GA and I nom'ed it for DYK and that was approved -> Template talk:Did you know/Approved#Robert Todd Lincoln. So now I am thinking I should have included any one of these images of him from the article in the DYK Nom...like:
but is it just too late? Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 02:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Template talk:Did you know/Approved has breached the post-expand include size limit and has stopped transcluding all nominations. We need volunteers to help build prep sets so the approved nominations don't clog up that page. We can't move to 2 sets per day (our usual fix) without sufficient prep building throughput. — Kusma ( talk) 16:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
There are two things wrong with the hook currently in Prep 5. Thompson didn't actually sing on This Time Around, taking Respect the Cock out of scope of the article, and most sources refer to him as Tony Thompson, not Anthony Benedict Thompson. (He's at that title due to Tony Thompson and Tony Thompson (singer) both being taken.) I only found out after spotting a claim in a YouTube comment, prompting me to pull out the liner notes. No-one has said ALT7 is not interesting, so let's start by adapting that: ALT9 ... that the Benz and Phats & Small singer Tony Thompson is an ex-cage fighter? Laun chba ller 21:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Is there some reason why the bot performed the update an hour and a half early? Pinging Shubinator. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I expressed my opinion that the hooks in this
Nomination are a violation of
WP:DYKNOT DYK must not provide inappropriate advantage for such causes (e.g. during election campaigns or product launches
and
WP:DYKHOOK (not neutral) because
Donald Trump is a declared candidate in the
2024 United States presidential election - it was promoted over my objection. Pinging promotor @
Evrik:.
I am not seeing much neutrality in the article either WP:DYKCRIT#4d. Bruxton ( talk) 21:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
promoting ... political causes. This is more bashing than promoting, but the spirit of the rule covers both and I agree that we should steer clear of this hook. RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Could anyone add screenshot where it is located? Eurohunter ( talk) 17:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
For me, it's on the left hand side of the screen.
-- evrik ( talk) 23:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
criteria reached, iirc. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per WP:DYKROTATE, with 10 queues full and 122 approved hooks, I think we are supposed to go to 2/day TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Please only update this between midnight (00:00) and noon (12:00) UTC. It is currently 16:41, on a 24-hour clock. RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
{{#ifexpr:{{CURRENTHOUR}}>11|{{Warning|Do '''not''' change this page past 12:00 UTC! It is currently {{CURRENTTIME}} UTC.}}}}
. Does that work for you? You can copy/paste the warning template inside to look at the text.
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (she/her)
18:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I've been trying to do what I can to cut back on the backlog of unapproved DYK noms this last week in hopes that someone might get to my recent nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/Scottish Prayer Book (1637), before the date I hoped it might run on passed. The hook has to do with an event which occurred on 23 July 1637, so I would really appreciate anyone who has a spare moment seeing if there's a chance it could run on that anniversary. I know that's annoying, but it would mean the world. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 22:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 7: KANG-TV ( nom) I find this hook befuddling, even for the quirky slot. What do other people think? @ AirshipJungleman29 @ Sammi Brie @ Onegreatjoke RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Prep 6: Isaac Newton's apple tree ( nom) @ Vaticidalprophet @ FuzzyMagma @ Krisgabwoosh How would folks feel about holding this for next March 14? You know, Pi Day. As in Apple pie. RoySmith (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Glyn Johns ( nomination) is currently in the image slot for Prep 4. The reviewer ( RAJIVVASUDEV) rejected the image for having low resolution, but the promoter ( Vaticidalprophet) disagreed and approved the image.
I agree with the initial decision to reject the image due to its low resolution. I raised the same concerns at the nom's talk page, and welcome more input from other editors. Also pinging nominator GloryRoad66 for awareness. Edge3 ( talk) 19:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Sure. The image is in line with many other images that have run suitably in the image slot and received high views, such as Kid Canfield (~30k views), Teraura (~17k views), and John Rolph (politician) (~17k views). The Canfield comparison is most prominent, IMO -- high-quality hooks strongly benefit from image slot placements even when the image itself isn't 'perfect'. From my experience with bio-lead sets in particular, this image is in a fairly typical range for them and can be expected to benefit from the substantial image slot boost independent of 'being on the more low-res end of image hooks'.
[...] I don't really agree that there's a marked difference between the Canfield and Johns photos. Of course, these things are subjective, but I actually have a noticeably harder time making out much in the Canfield photo. I'm inclined to think that they inhabit the same sphere of acceptability.
Looking through the sources, I am slightly confused whether the case was in 1858 or in 1859 (as I have added to the article, please double check that). Would it be better to play it safe and go for
Pinging nom WatkynBassett, reviewer Onegreatjoke, promoter AirshipJungleman29. — Kusma ( talk) 15:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2: Dolly Johnson ( nom) @ AirshipJungleman29 @ Jengod @ Firefangledfeathers There's a trend in contemporary journalism to use "was an enslaved person" instead of "was a slave". I don't know what our style is on these things, but bringing it up here for discussion. RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
... that Dolly Johnson (pictured), who had once been a slave of 17th U.S. president Andrew Johnson, opened her own bakery business in 1881?and if a change is required it should probably be to "...had been enslaved by 17th U.S. president..." (not "an enslaved person of 17th U.S. president"). Kingsif ( talk) 13:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2: Nina Tonga ( nom) @ AirshipJungleman29 @ Pakoire @ Soman The source ( https://www.thecoconet.tv/coco-talanoa/humans-of-the-islands/women-of-the-islands-ane-tonga/) says "first Pacific person", but the article and hook turned that into " first Pasifika person". It's not clear to me that the two terms are interchangeable. RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Pretty much all of the information contained therein is woefully out of date – Unless there's strong objection, I'm redirecting anything that purports to contain guidelines where we actually keep our guidelines and standard practices, at Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules and Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines. It's a good idea, and we may want to bring it back at some point, but right now it's pretty confusing for anyone who happens to stumble upon it (we don't market it too heavily). theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Point 1-A of WP:DYKCRIT mentions that an article is eligible for DYK if it has been promoted to Good Article within the last seven days, but it doesn't mention anything about Featured Lists. The most recent discussion I could find regarding Featured Lists promoted in the past seven days was ~6 and a half years ago. Has there been a more recent discussion or is this still the status quo? Just looking for a bit of clarification since I'm unfamiliar with DYK. Hey man im josh ( talk) 00:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
"... that Brison Manor, who played eight years in the National Football League, had never set foot outside of his home state before attending college?" Does anyone else find this insufficiently interesting? Therapyisgood ( talk) 01:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The article for Luisa González, a presidential candidate in next month's 2023 Ecuadorian general election, is currently featured on DYK. Isn't there a rule against featuring contemporary politicians that are up for election? If there isn't, there really should be. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 01:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Promoted this to queue last night before going to sleep, but now I have second thoughts. Everything about the person (not about general Burmese history) and the hook fact rely solely on either the 1560 Razadarit Ayedawbon or possibly on the editorial material for the 2005 edition. I can't check, and I can't read Burmese. Even worse, searching for "မပစ်နွဲ" on Google gives me essentially only this Wikipedia article, so I am having WP:V concerns. I'm inclined to pull this again unless there are better sources, but feel bad about both FUTON and Western bias. Any good suggestions for a replacement? Pinging nom Hybernator, reviewer Juxlos, prep builder theleekycauldron. — Kusma ( talk) 07:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 1 is missing a credit: * {{DYKmake|Reason (software)|Launchballer|subpage=Goddard.}}
. However,
Pbritti, on
the nomination page, you reviewed the first article, listing how various criteria had been met, but when the second article was then added, you responded with a tick and no mention of anything specific about the second article, so it's not clear if you did a thorough review of that article. Note that
Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide suggests: "After posting the icon, indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed".
MANdARAX •
XAЯAbИAM
20:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived over an hour ago, so I've created a new list of all 34 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 13. We have a total of 220 nominations, of which 113 have been approved, a gap of 107 nominations that has decreased by 20 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
More than two months old
More than one month old
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) 03:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I know we just switched to two-a-day, but we're already below the WP:DYKROTATE threshold for going back to one-a-day (i.e. only 5 filled queues/preps). If we don't have the capacity, it's pointless to try and crank out hooks at double speed. I'll go promote a prep to queue, but that's not going to change the total. RoySmith (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I see no problem until the end of the month. We can revaluate then. -- evrik ( talk) 15:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Also, {{ Did you know nominations/Elene Lete}} is one I wrote for the women's soccer effort. She's a Spaniard. She would fit into the set.
Right, @ Kingsif:? -- evrik ( talk) 03:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:DYKAI#Changing from 1-a-day to 2-a-day and vice versa requires that the change be done After 00:00 UTC but before 12:00 UTC
. Is that actually necessary in the 2 -> 1 direction? I understand that when we did the most recent 1 -> 2 switch, it was done outside that window, which caused an early promotion. Could somebody walk me through the details of what went wrong there?
RoySmith
(talk)
13:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey, so for the hook, I posted several fact ideas for Etika along with a poll to decide per consensus the best hook to use for DYK. However, it seems that the mural fact was already added to the prep. While I do like that fact for its strong sentimental value, I actually intended for other editors* to vote on it as well, and if it wasn't allowed I would've gone with ALT1 or 2 (preferably ALT2). Admittedly there were a lot less votes than I expected, but so far on the poll the two most voted options just so happen to be ALT1 and 2. So, I wanted to ask how long would it take for the prep to go on the front page, and if we could get more votes on the poll as well. At this point, I personally wouldn't mind delaying it for a couple more days so long as it's still guaranteed to be on DYK.
Also out of curiosity, how are the hooks with an image chosen? What's the priority for choosing an article for the image hook slot? I tried to find it in the rules but couldn't find a clear answer yet. PantheonRadiance ( talk) 05:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2: Peter II (cat) ( nom) @ AirshipJungleman29 @ Tim O'Doherty @ Onegreatjoke Given subject matter, it seems almost criminal to waste a quirky slot on such a boring hook. Surely we can do better?
ALT2: ... that Peter II, at the age of eight months, died in service to the British Crown? (I'm assuming it's correct to describe being an employee of the government as "service to the British Crown")
ALT3: ... that despite Peter and Peter III serving for 17 years each, Peter II's tenure only lasted six months?
I'm sure people can come up with others.
RoySmith (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2:
A New World (The Flash) (
nom) @
AirshipJungleman29 @
OlifanofmrTennant @Hameltion I don't see anywhere in the article that talks about an eleven-year television franchise
.
RoySmith
(talk)
22:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2: Leeds 13 ( nom) @ AirshipJungleman29 @ Onegreatjoke @ Launchballer I don't see where in the article it says anything that supports the hook statement. RoySmith (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
In queue3, we've got Sofía Otero ("youngest actor to win...") and Lara Esponda ("youngest goalkeeper to play"). There's been pushback in the past about too many youngest, oldest, etc hooks. Are we OK with both of these? RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that quite often DYK template date is one day earlier than actual (?) date on Wikipedia:Recent additions/Year, so which date is correct? Eurohunter ( talk) 22:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
{{
DYK talk}}
template, try clicking on the DYKA archive link at e.g.
Talk:Jane Severance.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
13:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have depromoted the hook created by @ Evrik: twice now as a violation of WP:DYKNOT and I was reverted by Evrik . I will not continue to edit war the nomination but Evrik has written and approved their own hook which is not allowed. The hook involves a candidate for the 2024 United States presidential election and it is negative. I believe we should reject the nomination if all we have to say about this PAC is negative. Bruxton ( talk) 03:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
"Saving something, but probably not America". We have the spirit and letter of the law involved and we should steer clear of bashing the front runners. Bruxton ( talk) 03:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Our mission is to elect a new generation of leaders from diverse service backgrounds who will always put the interests of the American people before their own.but that is not in the article. Bruxton ( talk) 00:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
DYK stands for readers to discover fascinating and lesser-known facts. So what about the facts that has been added to wikipedia page and eligable by very defination of DYK but doesn't quilify due one sigle rule: Expanded at least fivefold.
So I'm pruposing addition of one more rule as or: "Expanded to something significant" which means added somthing significant which can be showcased at DYK. As something can be interesting enough to showcase at DYK without being 5x.
Or call it: Expanded at least fivefold or to something significant. Expand the rule.
As I faced it recently here: Template:Did you know nominations/Martin Luther King Jr.
@ TSventon
-- BeLucky ( talk) 23:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was looking at this discussion, Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_178#Yoninah_tribute, but when I looked at Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2021/July#3_July_2021 I could figure out what was the tribute. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary makes no mention of it. @ Valereee: do you remember? Thanks. -- evrik ( talk) 03:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello DYK folks,
Earlier this year I expanded the Charm quark article. I first nominated it (see Template:Did you know nominations/Charm quark), but decided to retract it because it was not five fold expansion. Now that I have improved the article to GA status, I wish to nominate it for DYK again. How should I nominate this article? I cannot use Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination, for it will try to write into Template:Did you know nominations/Charm quark and tell me that such page already exists.
Many thanks in advance!
-- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 15:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I know I've proposed this before, but we need to have something in WP:DYKROTATE which enforces a minimum number of filled queues. I pushed the rule a bit yesterday to switch back to 1-per-day because our queue depth was hovering near exhaustion. Right now, we've got a single filled queue, which I promoted yesterday, and with under 10 hours to go, we're still working on resolving problem and verifying facts. There needs to be a bigger buffer against running out of main-page-ready material, and there needs to be more time to resolve problems found in the final reviews. I'd like to make the following change:
fewer than six filled prep/queue sets => fewer than two filled queues and six filled prep/queue sets overall.
It's either that or I just keep doing IAR switches when things get too close for comfort :-) RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
if (filled_queues < 2) or (filled_queues + filled_preps < 6)
revert_to_one_per_day()
fewer than 60 approved nominations or fewer than six filled prep/queue sets | |
→ | fewer than 60 approved nominations, fewer than two filled queue sets, or fewer than six filled prep/queue sets |
We switch modes because when the list of approved templates grows too large, we hit some more-or-less arbitrary limit in the MediaWiki software on how much text can be transcluded.isn't accurate. We switch modes because we've accumulated an enormous backlog of unpromoted approved nominations, or because we've started to run low on approved nominations. The transclusion issue is separate, and is a symptom of having gone way over the number of approved nominations (or having gone overboard in nomination comments). If there's a better way of creating pages to avoid the transclusion issue, that will leave the oversupply or undersupply of approved nominations an issue that still needs dealing with, and we do that by switching between one set and two sets a day. BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 1: Antonia Niedermaier ( nom) @ Vaticidalprophet @ Joseph2302 @ Sammi Brie I can't find where the article says she won the stage before crashing out. RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
But one day after taking her breakthrough stage victory at her debut Giro Donne, Niedermaier was involved in a crash with Jayco-AlUla's Urška Žigart, and both riders were forced to abandon the Giro Donne.Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
personally, i feel that this hook, as currently worded, appears to be a somewhat cringy use of gratuitous profanity. it says nothing about who de falco and schettino are, so to someone unfamiliar with this incident, the hook gives no reason as to why this particular use of profanity is notable enough to be mentioned on the main page. (i assume that many other similarly strong words were exchanged between others during the sinking.) also, the wording used to explain what the italian phrase actually means seems unnecessarily wordy, making me feel like the hook was stumbling over itself before it was able to drop the f-bomb.
i admittedly am not sure how best to reword this. my attempt below fleshes out the incident more, and adds the reaction noted in alt1, but drops the actual profanity due to length considerations. in a way, it follows a common practice of horror story writing: describe the situation and the reaction, but not the monster itself. i am somewhat worried if it feels a bit too much like clickbait, though.
alt2: ... that during the sinking of the Costa Concordia, coast guard officer Gregorio de Falco shouted a profane order at fleeing captain Francesco Schettino that later became a catchphrase in Italy?
however, if the point of the hook was to include profanity on the main page, then feel free to ignore alt2. i would still suggest tightening the wording by using a simple gloss with single quotation marks, as seen in the hook for walter von pückler here, or in that for surrexit a mortuis here.
please note that this hook is scheduled to appear on the main page at noon, so if it is too late to make any significant changes, i'll understand. dying ( talk) 10:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers.
the hook itself does not give any reason for including the profanity, which is why i think it would appear to be gratuitous to a reader unfamilar with the disaster.Exactly, leaving them wondering why was this said? Then, hopefully, they'll click on the article and read it.
that some of the people who died due to the sinking of the Costa Concordia had a penis (example pictured): this isn't a notable fact in any way. It isn't especially interesting, either, or relevant. You already agreed that "the profane order is relevant, verifiable, and notable"; your example fails all three of those, so I don't get its purpose. The day we allow such direct nudity to grace the Main Page, I wil be on your side, but fuck is nowhere near that.
one generally doesn't expect the use of profanity (or nudity) without an appropriate reason: My reason is that it's relevant, verifiable, and notable, which cannot be said of all DYK hooks. Sure, without the profanity the hook becomes substantially less interesting, but the profanity has been included, so the hook stays interesting.
what i am worried about is whether, to someone skimming the main page, the hook appears to be a violation of wp:gratuitous.If someone thinks so, then they should say so. Anyone aware of GRATUITOUS very likely knows where to come to complain if they feel the need to. Simple.
the only thing in the hook that may grab the attention of a reader is the use of profanity, which feels cheap, and may give people the impression that we are a bunch of amateurs using profanity on the main page just because we can: Sure, I can agree with this. But, to the casual reader, I would imagine that a) they were unaware that Wikipedia is allowed to swear, leading to their entrance (which was inevitable, let's be honest) into the realm of profane and nasty stuff that we show here, b) they are disgusted by it and refuse to keep reading Wikipedia/become a less active reader, which could and would've happened sooner than later, c) they don't care/find it a little funny. If anyone thinks that we at Wikipedia are amateurs in a bad sense, based on a single swear word, despite the vast heaps of actual amateurish stuff that goes on every day (certain people's talk page behavior, or allowing Main Page images to get replaced with penises and stuff, to name two) I'm fine with that. That's a them problem. Wikipedia will still keep on moving forward.
my concern is that, as the hook is currently worded, the only thing clearly interesting is the profanity, which may lead readers to not wonder more about the incident, but rather why the profanity was mentioned in the first place: Exactly. Repeating what I sai above, it'll leave them wondering why was this said? Then they'll click on the article and hopefully read it. It's actually an interesting topic, and even the context around why the swear word was said is interesting, see the call transcript. Again, there are less interesting hooks, and, sure this one could be made more interesting, but I feel like this is only an issue in the context of profanity, and would not be an issue if there was no profanity included. Cessaune [talk] 22:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Cessaune, forgive me if i am misinterpreting your comments, but to me, it looks like we disagree on two major points: (1) whether it is better to ask for permission or forgiveness, and (2) whether presenting profanity, in and of itself, is an appropriate way to get clicks. i believe that both issues are rooted in one's life philosophy, so i realize that it will likely be futile for either of us to change the other's opinion of this hook. however, i did want to mention a few things, to better explain what i believe are some of the concepts in play, and to clarify some things that may have been misinterpreted.
regarding the first point, personally, i generally prefer to ask for permission first, and try to course-correct before encountering any significant negative feedback. (unfortunately, i cannot say the same about captain schettino.) however, as wp:bold effectively codifies the opposing view, i would not be surprised if i was in the minority here. in any case, upon encountering any negative feedback, i think it would be wiser to take it into account, rather than simply ignore it as a "them problem". also, i do not believe other editors acting in an amateurish way elsewhere on wikipedia is a proper justification for us to behave similarly. (as an aside, regarding vandalism of the article featured at tfa, you may be pleased to know of this discussion [ perm at wt:tfa, which aims to address that.)
i am admittedly not sure what location you are referring to when you state that "Anyone aware of GRATUITOUS very likely knows where to complain if they feel the need to.". previously, i had thought that this discussion board was one such location, which is why i had raised my concern here. i am also aware of an off-wiki criticism site which had strong words for us here at dyk for running this hook. in particular, one commenter complained that there was undue focus on the meaning of the italian profanity, and another remarked that the hook was not respectful, considering that a lot of people had died in the disaster. i won't debate your choice to highlight the catchphrase, but i feel that, at least, the phrase could have been presented better.
regarding the second point, i believe there has been a consensus that hooks should not be promoted to simply get profanity on the main page, but i admittedly do not know if there is a similar consensus regarding running hooks that focus on profanity, to the detriment of providing any appropriate context for it. on a related note, personally, i am somewhat wary of the current trend to use page views as a proxy to determine how well a hook has performed, as there is a danger of turning the dyk section into clickbait as more pressure is placed on page views. hooks like this will be able to get clicks, but over time, if such hooks become a trend, more people will end up avoiding the dyk section, which will end up impacting dyk's main goal: showcasing new articles and recently improved articles.
i'm sorry that it was not clear to you that the example i had provided was not meant to be an example of a hook that was relevant, verifiable, and notable. (well, i am pretty sure it is verifiable, but that is beside the point.) i had used it only to illustrate why i had felt that the presentation of the hook was problematic. as an alternative, consider the hypothetical hook "... that during a musical performance, one of the singers had her breast (pictured) exposed?". this example states a fact relevant to the target article that is verifiable and notable. however, the hook does not do much other than present nudity to try to hook a reader; the hook does not provide much context to indicate why this specific instance of nudity was relevant or notable.
also, when i said that "readers [may wonder] why the profanity was mentioned in the first place", i meant that they may wonder why the people at dyk chose to run a hook that presented a profanity in this manner, rather than wonder why de falco swore at schettino. the act occurred during a disaster, so presumably, it should not be too difficult to determine why anyone would be cursing during such a stressful situation.
by the way, when i was reading your user page, i was surprised to see that you had apparently bowdlerized your own poem about a little froggo. i believe you are generally free to curse on your own user page if you want. there are some policies that should still be adhered to, such as wp:civil and wp:npa, but i don't think you would be violating any if you chose to swear in a whimsical poem presented on your own user page. dying ( talk) 02:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Freedom4U has requested more eyes on this nomination, and I think it would be good to have a general conversation about whether this article should be featured on the main page. Sanctioned Suicide is an internet forum which encourages its users to kill themselves, and the danger is that running this on DYK will steer vulnerable people toward the site. Personally, I think this risk far outweighs any potential benefits (I'm not even sure what the benefits would be), and so I don't think the article should run.
This article discusses how the New York Times journalists who reported on the site in 2021 dealt with the question of whether or not to name it in their article. They consulted with "industry guidelines, editors, veteran reporters, the standards team at the Times, and medical professionals", before deciding to name the site only once, "deep in the article", and to include a prominent (full-screen) disclaimer at the top, with links to suicide resources (see the NYT article here). I think this demonstrates the seriousness of the ethical problems involved. Other news outlets cited in our article – BBC, ABC, Buzzfeed, Vice – all refrain from naming the site. In my opinion, it would be very bad form to buck this trend by placing a prominent reference to it on the front page of the 7th-most visited website in the world.
Of course it's important that we have a neutral and informative article on the subject, and Freedom4U deserves much thanks for their work on it, but whether it's appropriate for the main page is another matter. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 17:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Prep 5: Sundari (paintings) ( nom) continuing on my "better images" theme, I suggest we use File:Paan Sundari.jpg instead of the current File:Promoda Sundari.jpg. They're both in the article but I think Paan Sundari will look better, especially at a small size. RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello DYK people,
I have a DYK nomination (see Template:Did you know nominations/Charm quark 2) that has been approved by a fellow reviewer. I think the hook is interesting and I would like to make it an April Fools hook. My reviewer said they don't know how that is done, so I am here looking for help.
Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 19:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. 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 the current talk page. |
Archive 190 | Archive 191 | Archive 192 | Archive 193 | Archive 194 | Archive 195 | → | Archive 200 |
Can we remove the comma after " Charles Prince of Wales" in the second hook? Cheers, Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 17:47, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
If people want the comma, it would have to be "that in 1984, Charles, the Prince of Wales, described [...]". Otherwise, the comma is superfluous. Tim O'Doherty ( talk) 11:15, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
Re: Prep 7, the picture hook needs to insert the words "fighter jet" so it reads:
Further tweaks possible. The main thing to keep in mind is that Katie Higgins became the first female Blue Angels pilot in 2015. Higgins was a support plane demonstration pilot, whereas Amanda Lee was a pilot on the elite fighter jet demonstration squadron (i.e. what most people picture when they hear "Blue Angels") in 2023. (Considering whether or not to nominate Higgins for DYK...if I do I'll try to make it totally different from this one.) Cc: Bruxton, Lightburst Cielquiparle ( talk) 11:04, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Good article nominations#RfC: change GA criteria to require inline citations in all cases in which GA is thinking about adopting WP:DYKSG#D2 for GA articles. It may be relevant to DYK, and frequent DYK viewers may have insights on its application. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 21:27, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
I wonder if anyone has a way to see when an internet website was created or edited. In the case of this Nomination and article: Zakir Husain (politician) I find a very high copyvio score. I do not think they are mirrors and I am wondering if the good article process may have missed something. Lightburst ( talk) 21:42, 29 May 2023 (UTC)
i am wondering if the unit symbol "km" that was used in the originally approved hook may be restored. i am admittedly not sure why it was replaced with "kilometres" in this edit. from what i can tell, we have had no issues previously with using "km" in dyk hooks, as seen here, here, and here.
i had originally used the unit symbol in the spirit of mos:commonality. to be honest, i don't even know which spelling is considered more prevalent in the united arab emirates, or even if there is one. a comparison between google searches for instances of "kilometres" and "kilometers" within the .ae top-level domain suggests that "kilometers" is used more, but not significantly enough that i would consider the difference definitive. i can't seem to find either spelling of the full word on the marathon's official web site.
in addition, within the context of road races, the word is generally abbreviated, to the point where race types have common names like " 5K", " 10K", and " 25K", and proper names of road races that mention a metric distance generally abbreviate the word as well, as seen in " New York Mini 10K", " Breaking Barriers 50km", and " IAU 100 km World Championships". the article was written with this in mind, so spelling out the word would be contrary to the style of the article. (the single use of "kilometer" in the article is in a quote, where the person quoted appears to be based in the u.s., so that spelling should not be viewed as dispositive.)
please note that this hook is queued in the set scheduled to appear next on the main page. courtesy pinging Ravenpuff. dying ( talk) 18:41, 30 May 2023 (UTC)
Roy McGrath, Queue 2 (next to hit the main page): TDKR Chicago 101 is receiving a creator credit, but the article was created and written by Y2hyaXM. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 22:08, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I am traveling this week so I will be off and on as internet connectivity allows. Bruxton ( talk) 14:45, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
... that after the Wolverines passed on the return of their "Moose" for a fifth year, he went on to win another Big Ten Championship with the Hoosiers?
After our recent discussion about athlete comparisons, I promoted this hook to prep 1. It was the one accepted by all concerned and the nomination had been languishing. I wanted to get feedback about it before it proceeds. Lightburst ( talk) 19:57, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
In queue 7, we have a hook about Charles III, and another mentioning Princess Margaret, - isn't that a bit too much for one set? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 13:35, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
In Queue 7: ... that at the time, the Battle of Shiloh was the largest battle fought in the United States with nearly 24,000 casualties—including 20,000 killed or wounded? – Nomination; credits: TwoScars, Lingzhi.Renascence; nominator: Onegreatjoke
What happened to those other nearly 4000 "casualties"? What's a casualty other than being killed or wounded? (If it's something like disease, it wouldn't seem right to classify it as a battle casualty.) MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:48, 31 May 2023 (UTC)
—including 20,000 killed or wounded. That removes any ambiguity. Schwede 66 01:30, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
Would someone please move Template:Did you know nominations/Holy door (Cathedral of Santiago de Compostela) to the holding area? -- evrik ( talk) 03:19, 1 June 2023 (UTC)
I guess this is the second time the article has been made a GA according the nomination. So does it qualify? Article: The Holocaust, Nom. Bruxton ( talk) 01:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
This is about the current lead hook, but isn't an error that would get it pulled from the Main Page, so I'm raising it here.
... that one
NFL scout compared watching
Marvin Harrison Jr. (pictured) to "window shopping at a Lamborghini dealership for the model that doesn't come out until next year"?
I'm sure this wasn't intentional on the part of anyone involved (and so I'm not pinging anyone because I really just want a general discussion), but this hook is about buying a Black man because of his physical strength. Yes, athletes are signed to contracts, which is a transaction based on their bodies' worth, but this quote explicitly compares that process to buying an inanimate object. Is this maybe a kind of phrasing we can work harder to avoid in the future? I think we've done a decent job of avoiding hooks that objectify women on the basis of attractiveness, but it's important to remember that objectification occurs in the context of race too, not just gender. In fact one of the first results I found on the topic is about Black male college football players in the U.S., and explains the issue quite clearly:
Black players are much more likely than white players to have their bodies objectified. ... Dehumanization occurs in many ways, including through language and symbols, such as likening individuals to animals or inanimate objects. ... In the US, bodily objectification has been used to justify a litany of sins: enslavement (both because the Black body was recast as a machine, made to work, and in terms of the imagined risks inherent in not containing allegedly libidinal Black bodies); over-policing; mass incarceration; excessive force; denial of civil rights; and lynching.
— "Invincible bodies: American sport media’s racialization of Black and white college football players" TWL (internal references omitted)
-- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 19:30, 27 May 2023 (UTC)
-- Tamzin cetacean needed (she|they|xe) 22:51, 27 May 2023 (UTC)We found support for our novel hypothesis that praise can be dehumanizing, so long that it praises one’s bodily skills. ... [T]he media depicts Black athletes (when compared to White athletes) more in terms of their body (e.g., naturally athletic, physically strong) than their mind ... [W]hile Black and White athletes may both be infrahumanized as a function of being described in terms of their bodies, these descriptions are far more likely to affect Black athletes in practice.
I believe the hook is not offensive to anyone, Bruxton, that's a somewhat weird statement as it was brought here by Tamzin as it's, well, offensive. Schwede 66 00:04, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
you are ... Perpetually offended about things that are not offensive at all, that's a personal attack. -- RoySmith (talk) 20:09, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
I imagine if the quote was said too but about a non-black athlete I don't think it would raise attention toothat's essentially what BD2412 said above. Please read Tamzin's response. — Qwerfjkl talk 20:50, 28 May 2023 (UTC)
... that in 1953, zookeepers accused Penelope the platypus at the Bronx Zoo of "posing as an expectant mother just to lead a life of luxury on double rations"?
Factually correct according to the source, but were these zookeepers seriously accusing a platypus of faking a pregnancy for material gain? It seems more likely to me that these were merely ironic expressions of exasperation after it turned out that "five months of anxious waiting" were for naught. The only actual zoologist quoted in the source has "no doubt" that Penelope really was pregnant but suffered some kind of miscarriage. The article doesn't mention this, and takes it for granted that she was faking.
In fact, I find the entire article strangely judgemental, not only in this but in reference to Penelope's treatment of Cecil; language like "abandoned Cecil", "deserted Cecil", and the inclusion of a quote from TIME that calls her "one of those saucy females who like to keep a male on a string". It's common for journalists to anthropomorphize animals in this way, but it's out of place in an encyclopedia article.
The ALT1 hook proposed in the DYK nom would work as a replacement for this one, but I do think the article needs a bit of an objectivity check before promotion. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 18:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC) @ Crunchydillpickle, TompaDompa, and Bruxton: Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 18:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
BLP (biographies of living platypi) rulesROFL — Schwede 66 03:36, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
I've replaced a hook in Q2 (see above). Upon undertaking the necessary checks (AGF for hook fact as it's from an offline book), I wonder about the photo license. It's PD in Europe (fine) but what about the US where the servers are based? As far as I can see, Template:PD-1996 should apply but I'm not 100% sure. Can somebody with deeper copyright knowledge please weigh in? Schwede 66 04:07, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
* {{DYKnom|The Holocaust|Onegreatjoke}}
.
MANdARAX •
XAЯAbИAM
06:53, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Currently in the "quirky" slot for Prep 6, I think the target article needs to read "Captain Katie Higgins", because at the time she was a Blue Angel and a Marine Captain, her surname was "Higgins", not Cook. (All explained in the actual article; she married another ex-Blue Angel pilot, Dusty Cook, later, after which she changed her name again.) @ Bruxton, Onegreatjoke, and Lightburst: Sincere thanks for nominating/progressing in my absence; I would have pointed this out during review but it all seems to have gone so fast in a good way. Cielquiparle ( talk) 13:31, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello,
I recently did a 2x expansion of charm quark, but the hooks I found are really interesting, and the article itself is a level-5 vital article, so I am nominating it for DYK. User:Onegreatjoke suggested that I bring this article to the discussion here.
The nomination can be found at Template:Did you know nominations/Charm quark.
Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 06:37, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Zakir Husain (politician) in Queue 4 has been moved, so it's now a redirect. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 20:12, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
... that seagull eggs (examples pictured) "make a smashing meringue"?
The quote should read "make smashing meringue", without the "a". But also, I don't think this hook meets the DYK guidelines. It's presenting an opinion rather than a fact, and the opinion in question comes from the owners of a store that sells gull eggs, who obviously aren't an independent source for that claim.
I'm sorry to be pouring cold water on this hook because the article is great, and exactly the kind of article that DYK was made for. However, I think there are plenty of alternative hooks to be found. For example:
Hope these ideas help. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 17:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
At some point the hook for
1987 Bullingdon Club photograph was changed from (my emphasis) ...commissioned a painting of a 1987 Bullingdon Club photograph featuring...
to ...commissioned a painting of the 1987 Bullingdon Club photograph featuring...
. Is it possible to change back to "a 1987 Bullingdon Club photograph". Saying "the" makes it sound like this is the title of the photograph which it is not - it's just the name of the article.
Vladimir.copic (
talk)
00:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I think a reviewer is having difficulty closing Template:Did you know nominations/75/24 Split. I would help, but I'm not the most experienced here. Bneu2013 ( talk) 21:43, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
If you have nominated five or more articles in the past, you must review one other nomination. See also Fencepost error :-) -- RoySmith (talk) 16:32, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived yesterday. I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 8. We have a total of 211 nominations, of which 59 have been approved, a gap of 152 nominations that has increased by 5 over the past 9 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
More than two months old
More than one month old
Other nominations
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 05:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 1:
Urwa ibn al-Zubayr (
nom) @
Onegreatjoke @
BorgQueen @
AhmadLX I see in the article that Alfred Guillaume calls him the "founder of Islamic history"
, some other authors made similar statements, and one argued the other way. I'm not seeing how that supports the hook statement in wiki voice that he is widely considered to be the founder of Islamic historiography
. Maybe there's this handful of authors who feel this way, but there's also hundreds of others, not cited here, who feel differently? On the other hand, maybe I'm being overly picky; I'd like to hear what others think on this. --
RoySmith
(talk)
16:13, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 1: Max Bielfeldt ( nom) @ Cielquiparle @ Launchballer @ Lightburst I can't verify the sourcing for the hook. Can you walk me through it? -- RoySmith (talk) 15:57, 5 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2: J. Howard Crocker ( nom) The cited source only talks about "introducing volley ball into the Chinese public schools", which isn't quite the same thing as introducing it "to China". But more than that, it's a letter written by the subject about his own activities. We shouldn't assert something in wiki voice based on a first-person account. @ Bruxton @ Flibirigit @ Onegreatjoke -- RoySmith (talk) 17:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2:
Micro Star v. FormGen Inc. (
nom) The wording in the hook video game case
is confusing. I read that as meaning
Computer case, i.e. some legal notice was stamped into the plastic housing of the game. It took me a while to figure out it meant
Legal case. Could this be reworded to avoid the ambiguity? @
BorgQueen @
Joraham @
Onegreatjoke @
Launchballer --
RoySmith
(talk)
17:10, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I was looking over this Nomination before promotion, and I wondered, what does everyone think about the article and image. About the image, I was specifically wondering if we should be showing the image of the pint in the image. The image is also not very clear. Lightburst ( talk) 15:16, 4 June 2023 (UTC)
In this edit, PSHAW (used by Bruxton) erroneously replaced a hook in Prep 4 with another, while leaving behind the credits from the hook which was removed. I'm assuming this was a PSHAW error; theleekycauldron, was it because, prior to that edit, the credits were not in the same order as the hooks? (I've removed the stray credits, and added the hook and credits to Prep 5.) Promoters and others should be aware of this issue, and check for it happening again. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 09:25, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2:
Huntsville, Alabama (
nom) needs an end-of-sentence citation for Huntsville remains the center for rocket-propulsion research in NASA and the Army
@
Bruxton @
Epicgenius @
Onegreatjoke @
MyCatIsAChonk --
RoySmith
(talk)
16:57, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
Huntsville remains the center for rocket-propulsion research in NASA and the Army. Saying "the center" implies it's the only one. The source doesn't say that. -- RoySmith (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2023 (UTC)
I've finally finished Marie Sophie Hingst and moved the article to mainspace only took 1.5 years. This article is not a BLP -- its subject has been dead for nearly half a decade -- and is a tragic but fascinating story I feel worthy of main page attention. Nonetheless, while BLP has hard cutoffs that this has crossed even by the most lenient of them, there's a complicated sliding scale from "articles where BLP policy applies" to "long-dead historical figures", and everywhere in the middle is sometimes a mess. (I remember fielding ERRORS complaints about BLP for subjects who died in the 1980s.)
While Hingst has been dead for some time now, there are many people who've been dead much longer than her, and the whole article is a sensitive one. I feel that 'being on the main page at all' is completely viable for this article (I'd be happy to put it in OTD, for instance, or TFA if I take it through FAC), but I'm drawing up some blanks with the specific 'interesting <200 character snippet' context. I don't know whether this is Skill Issue on my behalf, or if there just isn't anything that can treat the whole complex story right while simplifying it that far. I'd be interested in sparking some discussion on this -- what possibilities exist, whether possibilities exist, how to handle that sliding scale. It wouldn't be the first complex BDP I've seen at DYK (we get more than a few gruesome murders, for instance), but it might be the most, and I really want to get a sense of the community here. Vaticidal prophet 16:15, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
Only three queues are filled. As soon as Prep 4 is emptied there is something from the special occasion holding are for it. -- evrik ( talk) 14:47, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
Greetings, DYK. Hope everyone is doing well. This David Kushner hook was recently promoted to Prep 2 after two months of waiting, which I am grateful for. However, I was really trying to achieve the picture spot for the Switch challenge. Two Kushner articles are nominated, with his bio one of them, and there are two quality pictures available. I followed all of theleekycauldron's suggestions. Just wanted to ask politely if the picture spot was possible, after two months of waiting. I was extremely hopeful this time. Ping Evrik as promotor. Thank you very much for the help. It is fine if it is not possible, please be kind while replying. Regards.-- N Ø 05:39, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
In the fourth hook of Queue 5, " Bahsahwahbee" should not be in italics. It was italicized in the article until I changed it. (Courtesy ping to Reywas92.) According to WP:Manual of Style/Text formatting#Foreign terms, italics are used for foreign words, but an exception to this is that proper names should not be italicized unless referring to the name itself. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:00, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
I wanted to promote this prep to queue, but I am not satisfied with this hook.
The article states that "In 2018, City Nights became one of the many targets of threats made by a terrorist allegedly supporting the Islamic State. The ISIS supporter, named Amer Alhaggagi, suggested hitting nightclubs and other popular places in San Francisco and while suggesting that all San Francisco nightclubs were crowded, City Nights was the club which the news reported Alhaggagi planned to bomb." and the linked source has him pleading guilty but a forensic psychiatrist saying he was a troll instead of a terrorist, and just says that he talked about bombing the club, and there is no evidence that he actually had the means to do so. Not quite good enough for the claim in the hook, I think. Pinging nom @ InvadingInvader, reviewer @ Evrik, promoter @ BorgQueen. Any ideas how to fix this (or source the statement in the hook?) — Kusma ( talk) 21:26, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 6: Child abuse in association football ( nom) @ BorgQueen, FuzzyMagma, and Gonzo fan2007: There's a lot of copy-paste going on here. I'd like to get a 2O on how bad it is, but my initial impression is that this would fail our close paraphrasing rule and possibly WP:Copyvio. The Earwig report doesn't look too bad on the surface, but it's the same story with a half dozen different sources. For example:
The president of the Gabonese Football Federation (Fegafoot), Pierre-Alain Mounguengui, was held in preventive custody for six months and faced charges of "failure to report crimes of paedophilia," with a report alleged sexual abuse of hundreds of children within the football system.[57] Despite awaiting trial, Mounguengui travelled to Qatar and attended the opening match of the 2022 FIFA World Cup. This action was criticised by Fifpro, the international football players' union.-->
The president of the Gabonese Football Federation, Pierre-Alain Mounguengui, spent six months in preventive custody and was charged with “failure to report crimes of paedophilia”. Despite the fact he was awaiting trial, Mounguengui went to Qatar and attended the opening match of the 2022 Fifa World Cup – a move denounced by the international football players’ union, Fifpro.
-- RoySmith (talk) 01:25, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Gonzo fan2007, BorgQueen, and RoySmith: I saw this nomination in the preps – I didn't have the energy at the time to raise any issues, but now that this appears to be in the limbo of post-approval reworking and rechecking, I gotta put in my two cents: I feel that this nomination should be closed without action. The fact that FuzzyMagma admitted to deliberately 1. breaching copyvio policy and 2. attempting to cover it up, combined with the fact that article remains riddled with prose and neutrality issues, should signal that the amount of combined volunteer time and effort needed to bring such an important article to an acceptable standard outweighs the time it would take to simply draftify the article and have someone else rewrite it from the ground up. AirshipJungleman29 made this edit removing quite a bit of non-neutral and poorly sourced prose, but I don't think that even finishes it up. Remaining issues include:
The research, funded by the European Union, highlighted that abuse is common in non-school sports was psychological, such as a lack of recognition to humiliating treatmentbut lack of recognition was defined as "negligence" in an earlier section? Abuse might be an umbrella term, though
emphasising the need for comprehensive understanding and effective interventions to address this serious issueopinion in wikivoice
The power of football in Brazil is significant, and speaking out about abuse in the sport requires immense courage, as getting a break in football is often a dream for many familiessome opinion in wikivoice
There are documented historic sex abuse cases in Scotland especially at Celtic Boys Club and Rangers F.C..undue singling out
I think the best thing to do right now is draftify the article, it's a long way from meeting Wikipedia's standards and such an important article needs more attention from a variety of contributors. It's certainly not going to be fit for the Main Page any time soon, and a rush job to patch this up is not – in my humble opinion – a worthwhile endeavour. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 20:33, 12 June 2023 (UTC)
"... that the San Diego Chargers suffered their worst margin of defeat during the 1964 San Diego Chargers season that would remain until an even worse loss 56 years later?"
Ugh. Just ugh. What happens when nominators believe, or are led to believe, they absolutely have to include the article title as is in the hook.
Can we reword this to: "... that the 1964 San Diego Chargers suffered the team's worst margin of defeat for 56 years?"
Much more elegant. Daniel Case ( talk) 05:23, 7 June 2023 (UTC)
the 2020 season is linked to conform with the originally proposed hook, currently in the prep area. alt0c is admittedly reworded rather radically, but it is short, so i thought i might mention it too. (i am not sure if it reads better with or without the comma before "until".) dying ( talk) 18:30, 7 June 2023 (UTC) [struck alt0b. dying ( talk) 05:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
alt0b: ... that during their 1964 season, the San Diego Chargers suffered their worst margin of defeat, surpassed only 56 years later?alt0c: ... that 1964 saw the San Diego Chargers suffer their worst margin of defeat, until 2020?
It is currently sitting in Q4 as: "... that the San Diego Chargers suffered their worst margin of defeat during the 1964 San Diego Chargers season, which stood until an even worse loss 56 years later?"
Facepalm This solved the lesser of the two problems, the one
BlueMoonset found made my proposed replacement inelegant, but leaves the bigger one intact. Would we expect the Chargers to suffer a defeat during the
1964 New York Yankees season? Once we've mentioned the team, do we really need to clarify this in the linked wording? Why have we not used the wording of any alt suggested here?
Also, another issue occurs to me: If the 1964 defeat margin has since been eclipsed, it cannot be described as "the worst".
So, now I propose ALT 0D: "...that in 1964 the San Diego Chargers suffered what would be their worst margin of defeat for 56 years?"
Really compact, and unambiguous. Daniel Case ( talk) 02:04, 10 June 2023 (UTC)
i think alt0bii could work, but also think alt0c was fine as is. i believe "until" tells the reader that a statement was true up to a certain point, and strongly suggests that it was not true after that point. in this case, the 1964 season's margin of defeat was actually their worst until 2020; qualifying "worst" with "then-" would suggest that, after 2020, the margin of defeat in the 1964 season was not their worst at the time.i am not sure why this point had not been resolved earlier, but it might be because the section heading did not explicitly mention the article, or possibly because the editors involved with the hook's promotion had not been pinged. i don't think replacing the hook with your own is a good idea; i believe the processes established at dyk aim to prevent such conflicts of interest.pinging Onegreatjoke (nominator), BeanieFan11 (reviewer), Bruxton (promoter), and BorgQueen (approver). courtesy pinging Harper J. Cole (ga nominator). linking to the nomination so that it can be more easily referenced. Onegreatjoke, thanks for your earlier input. i thought you might also be interested in offering your opinion on the more recently proposed hook alternatives. dying ( talk) 19:30, 12 June 2023 (UTC) [struck alt0bii. dying ( talk) 05:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
alt0bii: ... that during their 1964 season, the San Diego Chargers suffered their then-worst margin of defeat, surpassed only 56 years later?alt0cii: ... that 1964 saw the San Diego Chargers suffer their then-worst margin of defeat, until 2020?
Daniel Case, i admittedly haven't been at dyk long (and am certainly much less experienced than you in the area), but my impression is that, at least recently, accurate semantics have generally taken precedence over issues of style, which may be why editors have largely ignored your initial suggestion. i had tried to help you out by suggesting alt0b and alt0c. so far, no one else has agreed with the "for 56 years" wording, and two editors have found it confusing, so had i been in your position, i don't think i would have used it. i am not sure if the concern over semantics is focused on whether the 56 years should be counted beginning from 1908 or from 1964; the original hook considers that season's margin of defeat their worst starting from their first season (which appears to have been in 1960) until 2020, and i don't think "for 56 years" accurately captures that.
Harper J. Cole makes a very good point; i had not considered the possibility that "only" could refer to the number of years that had passed. therefore, i am striking alt0b and alt0bii, and implementing Harper J. Cole's suggestion.
alt0biibis: ... that during their 1964 season, the San Diego Chargers suffered their then-worst margin of defeat, only surpassed 56 years later?
alt0b was a bit long because it was worded to preserve a link to the team itself, respecting the choice to include one in the original hook. i had actually drafted a hook that had a length between that of alt0b and alt0c, but had only proposed two to avoid having too many alternatives being suggested. however, as it seems like this is no longer a concern, i am proposing alt0f, which drops the link, preferring to be brief, but otherwise follows the wording of alt0biibis.
alt0f: ... that the 1964 San Diego Chargers suffered their then-worst margin of defeat, only surpassed 56 years later?
for the record, i am fine with alt0biibis, alt0f, or alt0c. (i think alt0cii is problematic, as explained before, but had proposed it to address your earlier concern.) alt0f seems closest with your alt0e without using the "for 56 years" wording.
by the way, i think you may have read the dyk schedule incorrectly; this hook is scheduled to appear on the main page tomorrow, not today. dying ( talk) 05:17, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Sleep in the NBA: "between 68 and 70 degrees"—what does that mean? Doesn't anyone check before DYKs go on the main page? Tony (talk) 09:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)
@ DYK admins: I think we need to pull the double hook for Order of Excellence for Women in Template:Did you know/Queue/4. The lead and background sections are almost directly copied from the foreign language source. I am not finding the same issues with El-Tigani el-Mahi which is in Template:Did you know/Queue/5. Bruxton ( talk) 00:21, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't see any entries for June 13 on Template:Did you know nominations. I know this would should appear there: {{ Did you know nominations/Cross of Saint James}}.
What's the fix? -- evrik ( talk) 14:31, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't want to introduce CREEP, but is this kind of error and fix documented anywhere? -- evrik ( talk) 23:36, 13 June 2023 (UTC)
Why is Template:Did you know nominations/Rick Suder not listed at WP:DYKN.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:00, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived earlier today. I've created a new list of 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 24. We have a total of 216 nominations, of which 62 have been approved, a gap of 154 nominations that has increased by 2 over the past 13 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
More than three months old
More than one month old
Other nominations
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:20, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 3: Associated Students of the University of California, Los Angeles ( nom)
... that when UCLA was founded in 1919, the university's students were tasked with providing numerous services, including athletics, housing, and parking?The part that I'm bringing up is the
were tasked withwording. The source doesn't say they were tasked with this and indeed the source given in the DYK nom stresses that the ASUCLA was very much independent of the school's governance in its early years. From reading the article and its sources it looks like they weren't tasked with this so much as they did it of their own initiative. If I'm reading this right, would there be any objection to rewording it to read
... that when UCLA was founded in 1919, the university's students provided numerous services, including athletics, housing, and parking?or some variation of that? - Aoidh ( talk) 20:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
Just pulled the Ramón Iribarren hook per concerns raised at ERRORS. Courtesy ping @ RoySmith:. BorgQueen ( talk) 17:46, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 4: Vaal Reefs mining disaster ( nom). This possibly fails "C11 (sensational): Excessively sensational or gratuitous hooks should be rejected.". Seeking 2O on that. @ Lightburst @ Zaian @ Reywas92 RoySmith (talk) 18:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 4:
Evelyn Pruitt (
nom) I can't verify highest ranking woman
. The source only says "highest ranking woman scientist" @
Dafodil007 @
Grnrchst @
Lightburst.
RoySmith
(talk)
18:08, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
There have been a few cases in the past where a nomination has been delayed for so long that, at one point, a nominator or another editor suggests (long after the actual nomination) that the nomination could run on a particular special occasion. The requested date is within six weeks from the date the suggestion was made. However, it was beyond six weeks from the actual date of the nomination. For example, an article was nominated back in March but did not have a special occasion request (for example, for June 15) until May 25. For context, the nomination was either not reviewed for that long, or had issues that kept pushing back the approval until a possible date fell under that six-week period. I can't remember exact examples of this happening (apart from I think at least one NBA-related hook that was requested to run around the NBA Finals, despite the original nomination date being outside the six-week period).
For such cases, should such request be declined as going against the spirit of the six-weeks rule, or should they be treated on a case-by-case basis? Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 09:22, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 5: Mackay Davashe ( nom) The article says "single", but the source only says "record". Is there a source that says it's a single? @ Evrik @ Vanamonde93 @ Graham87 @ Elias RoySmith (talk) 19:42, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 6: Pope Sisinnius ( nom) simple:List of popes by length of reign says 21 days vs the 20 we say. My guess is that simple just got it wrong, but worth double-checking for accuracy. Hmmm, our own Pope#Shortest-reigning popes also says 21, so definitely needs to be verified. @ Bruxton @ Unlimitedlead @ Onegreatjoke @ Ffranc RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Christopher Lowrey. Am I the only one to think that the interchange is not productive? Anybody ready to approve ALT0, or ALT2 of which the so far only reviewer said it was the better option, only to return weeks later to say it may be not interesting enough? - Read Template:Did you know nominations/Soňa Červená to see how I like reviewing. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 16:24, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Source: severalin your submissions. It make it difficult to review.
Everybody else, lighten up on this narrow interpretation of "interesting".I'd argue that Narutolovehinata5 is exactly correct in his interpretation of the guideline – a guideline that was recently re-written by RfC, as a result of Gerda. She wanted to continue writing hooks like this, but we all agreed that her hooks didn't follow the guideline as written then, and then an RfC found a consensus against loosening the guidelines for her. That we're turning around and say that we're being too strict is only because Gerda is back to pushing for the same thing the community turned down, and now we're all back to spending editor time parsing and dissecting it like it's new. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:22, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
We can WP:TBAN her from DYK (which I don't think anybody wants)you're wrong. I do want it very, very much. BorgQueen ( talk) 07:59, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
continuing to bicker about it in novella length nomination discussions is pointless, but isn't that why we got done with the RfC? To settle this question? Maybe a TBAN is too harsh, but as much as it pains me to say it, we do have a term for continuing to edit against the wishes of the community: that is disruptive editing. It is disruptive to the DYK process – instead of spending their time vetting, reworking, and reviewing nominations, now have to get sucked into these novella-length bickerings. Discussion is healthy, but the discussions have been over for a while – now we have to uphold what the result of the discussion was, instead of rehashing it. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 17:57, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 6: The Stone Breakers ( nom) @ BorgQueen @ Bruxton @ JJonahJackalope I'm a little concerned about this being misleading, almost to the point of being click-bait. When you say "X did Y", it implies that X intended to do Y. The truck carrying the painting may have been destroyed by a bomb dropped from an allied plane, but that wasn't the intent of the bombing mission. I think it would be better if the hook said something like "... was destroyed in 1945 during a bombing raid by the Allies of World War II?" RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 6: KPBT-TV ( nom) The source talks about a "church meeting space", the article says "church venue", but the hook says just "church" which I don't think is accurate. To me, "a church" means the place where religious services are held, but a "church meeting space" could be some other space owned by the church but used for non-religious activities (community center, etc). @ Sammi Brie @ MatthewHoobin @ Lightburst. And while I'm here, the {{ DYKsubpage}} template is broken on the nom page. RoySmith (talk) 16:49, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 4:
Come On Over (
nom) I can't verify the best-selling album by a Canadian country artist
. The source says "the best-selling country album and the best-selling album of all time by a female artist" but I don't see anything about Canadian. @
Lightburst @
Onegreatjoke @
TabooMatters94 @
Magiciandude
RoySmith
(talk)
18:26, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
biggest-selling studio albumLightburst ( talk) 22:16, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Am I allowed to very selfishly request that a hook from this nomination is included in a set before 27 June, solely and entirely for WikiCup reasons? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:32, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
{{
died in}}
templates on two occasions.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
15:51, 15 June 2023 (UTC)Why does Wikipedia:Did you know/Preparation areas redirect to Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines#Rules of thumb for preparing updates, and not, y'know, Template:Did you know/Queue ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 21:46, 20 June 2023 (UTC)
{{R from merge|Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines}}
. —
Mx. Granger (
talk ·
contribs)
02:36, 21 June 2023 (UTC)Prep 2: Beyond the Wall (2023 book) ( nom) @ AirshipJungleman29 @ MaranoFan @ Llewee Are we OK with the length of this vis-a-vis quoting? DYK check says it's 2804 prose, but 1168 of that is quotes. I know the rules say only block quotes are excluded, but several of these are long enough that they really should be set as block quotes. It still squeaks by the letter of the rule, but it just doesn't seem like what we're trying to encourage. RoySmith (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
I was unable to confirm the hook in the given source. I may be missing something but the hook was something I could not confirm. Can anyone else find that the ship was the "earliest warship known from archeological evidence
". I put a stop on the nomination when I could not confirm it, but the hook was promoted anyway. Pinging the promotor @
AirshipJungleman29:.
Bruxton ( talk) 01:12, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
... that due to climate change, there are not only more heatwaves over land, but also more heatwaves within the ocean?
Perhaps I'm being overcautious, but climate change is a hot topic and I'd be wary of stating something as fact which isn't definitely known to be true. Here's what the source says (italics in original):
It is virtually certain that hot extremes (including heatwaves) have become more frequent and more intense across most land regions since the 1950s ... with high confidence that human-induced climate change is the main driver of these changes ... Marine heatwaves have approximately doubled in frequency since the 1980s (high confidence), and human influence has very likely contributed to most of them since at least 2006.
A footnote on p. 4 explains the italicized terms. Confidence levels aren't quantified, but the available levels are: very low, low, medium, high, and very high. As to expressions of likelihood, "very likely" indicates a 90–100% probability, while "virtually certain" indicates 99–100%.
So my main concerns are that "high confidence" is something less than "very high confidence", and the source's claim that human-induced climate change has very likely contributed to most marine heatwaves since 2006 is different from the hook claim that "due to climate change, there are ... more heatwaves within the ocean". Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 06:01, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Prep 2: Mark Curry (rapper) ( nom) @ AirshipJungleman29 @ Ritchie333 @ Launchballer Maybe I'm just missing it, but it looks like this needs a QPQ. RoySmith (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2023 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/Howard Florey was closed as ineligible after its GA review was deleted per WP:G5. (Although WP:G5 explicitly says this should not be done.) The article has since passed GA again, but I cannot find the procedure for renominating the article. Can someone help? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:20, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2: 1934 Central Eagles football team ( nom) @ AirshipJungleman29 @ BeanieFan11 @ Epicgenius It's WP:OR to call the Rinkeydinks the "reserve squad". The yearbook mentions that ''something'' exists which is called the Rinkeydinks, and lists some people who are associated with it, but doesn't actually say what it is. For all we know from what's written in the yearbook, it's the cheerleading section. RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
... that
Beyond the Wall, a book about
East Germany, was well reviewed in the UK but deeply controversial in Germany?
With the proviso that English isn't my first language, I shall state that this appears clumsy to me. But I may be wrong. Either way, had I written the hook, I would have suggested:
ALT1 ... that
Beyond the Wall, a book about
East Germany, received positive reviews in the UK but was deeply controversial in Germany?
Schwede
66
02:30, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello there. Long time. Hope you are all well.
I need some guidance on approving a hook with the AGF check mark. The nomination under question is this one: Template:Did_you_know_nominations/Fore_River_Railroad
Typically, I ask the nominator for text as-is in the offline source to be an additional pair of eyes and ensure that the hook is rightly referenced by the source. And, once that is done I mark the nomination as approved with AGF. Though, I admit, I have not had to do that many times in the recent past.
However, in this nomination -- The nominator does not have the text as-is and I am being asked Can't you just AGF and have it done with?
. I personally do not feel too great about that. However, if I should be marking this one as AGF despite not having the text from the nominator / editor, I am happy to do that. I want to ensure that I am not holding the nominator to a higher standard than I should be -- please let me know. Thanks.
Ktin (
talk)
22:03, 14 June 2023 (UTC)
Given the quote supplied by TAOT, we're obviously good on that score. But I suggest we add a rule requiring a quote be included in the nomination for any off-line source used to support a hook. For non-English sources, we should require an English translation. It means a little more work for the nom, but presumably they've got it at hand already so it's just a matter of typing out a sentence or two. But it will save a lot of work for the THREE people who conduct reviews (initial approval, promotion to prep, promotion to queue) and generally improve quality. -- RoySmith (talk) 12:41, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
This section documents an English Wikipedia policy, a widely accepted standard that all editors should normally follow, where "normally" is linked to Wikipedia:COMMONSENSE. I think it's common sense that if I wanted to use a scan of a portion of a source document to support a hook, I think you'd be OK as long as you followed the intent of Wikipedia:NFCCP. Common sense would tell you that Minimal usage would be met by just upload that portion of the scanned document needed to verify the hook. And One-article minimum would be met not by transcluding it in the article page, but by transcluding it in the DYK nomination for that article. Those of you who are better wiki-lawyers than I am, feel free to tell me I'm being an idiot. RoySmith (talk) 01:24, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
Non-free content is allowed only in articles (not disambiguation pages), and only in the article namespace. A DYK nomination is not in the article namespace. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:40, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
subject to exemptionsand if you follow the "exemptions" link, you find language like,
uses [that] are necessary for creating or managing the encyclopedia. Is a DYK nomination template not necessary for managing the encyclopedia? RoySmith (talk) 01:45, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
quote=
and trans-quote=
are our friends.
BorgQueen (
talk)
07:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)quote=
parameter which I've found very helpful. I almost always use it whenever I cite foreign language offline sources.
BorgQueen (
talk)
13:42, 16 June 2023 (UTC)You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting the hook. If this is being ignored to the point where nominators are pushing back against reviewers asking for a quote, then perhaps a hard rule is appropriate. Even if the rule weren't followed to the letter, it would at least create an expectation that nominators should be willing to provide quotes on request. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 10:10, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
quote=
or trans-quote=
parameter.or
is probably not the correct logical operator here. The trans-quote
parameter has to be accompanied by quote
as the former is merely an added translated text facility for the latter, meaning trans-quote
can't be used alone, unless I'm mistaken. So it will have to be something like [...] this can be done with a quote= and, if necessary, trans-quote= parameter.BorgQueen ( talk) 14:19, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
script-quote=
. I'll come up with something more generic.
RoySmith
(talk)
14:27, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
This will often involve a good deal of work for very little extra benefit.I've done this for every DYK I've filed using an offline source, and it never takes me more than a minute or two. All you're adding is 1 or 2 sentences. Trainsandotherthings ( talk) 15:32, 17 June 2023 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and updated the hook as discussed in #Prep 5: Beyond the Wall above. RoySmith (talk) 14:24, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 3: 2004 Nosratabad fuel tanker explosion ( nom) @ Bruxton @ M Imtiaz @ Evrik Saying this crash "highlighted" Iran's road safety record is WP:OR. The source doesn't say anything about "highlighting". RoySmith (talk) 13:23, 24 June 2023 (UTC)
References
Right now on WP:DYK, there are multiple nominations by Launchballer regarding songs by a group called Piri & Tommy Villiers, all of which feature hooks that are just song lyrics. There have been concerns raised by other editors that the hooks in question are either too vague to be interesting or give information, or may violate the "articles must have a relation to the real-world" criterion. What should be done about these song lyrics hooks? Should all these hooks be rejected and be replaced with something else? Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 13:51, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
Now that I am finally up to date with QPQs, I would just like to agree that whatever the rules are regarding quirky hooks, they should be recorded somewhere. I have seen loads of hooks that don't strictly adhere to guidelines, and would point out that they all went through at least three people who saw no problem with them - Sojourner names four including On & On, though my immediate influence was a hook that consisted of nothing but "... ?", and I've also seen "... that?". In fact, if I had my time again, out of seven hooks, six I'd propose again, and one I'd propose with added context. For my use, the following are the Piri related hooks I proposed (note that all of them are cited within their respective articles):
Queue 5: Soňa Červená ( nom) @ AirshipJungleman29 @ Gerda Arendt @ Onegreatjoke The hook isn't wrong but it would be cleaner if you just worked out her exact age when she got the award and use that instead of "over 80 years old". RoySmith (talk) 14:14, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a few days ago. I've created a new list of 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 9. We have a total of 230 nominations, of which 78 have been approved, a gap of 152 nominations that has decreased by 2 over the past 11 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
More than one month old
Other nominations
Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset ( talk) 17:04, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I would like to nominate Catherine de Parthenay for a DYK with the following DYK scan results: DYK eligibility scan results: (See here for details.)
The tool (very cool by the way), though, for nomination looks to just accept new articles. I am sure I am missing something, but cannot figure out how to nominate it as 5x expanded. Your help is much appreciated!– CaroleHenson ( talk) 17:28, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
I read through the Nomination. The article survived AfD with a no consensus result. There is an objection from @ SnowFire: in the nomination about the suitability of the article for DYK. Pinging the involved parties from the discussion: @ Launchballer, Edge3, Dr vulpes, and Surtsicna:. I would like to have a discussion before promotion in order to avert a later discussion. Bruxton ( talk) 14:13, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 7: Atonio Mafi ( nom) @ Edge3 @ BeanieFan11 @ Onegreatjoke The hook says he "holds" the record, but the source only says he tied for the record. RoySmith (talk) 23:39, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
The PBS Appalachia Virginia blurb is misleading because the entire United States transitioned to all- digital television before this station even launched. It is unique but “digital” is the wrong word to express that. 98.97.15.49 ( talk) 04:07, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
---
Original hook: ... that
PBS Appalachia Virginia is the first all-digital public TV station in the United States?
Amended hook: ... that
PBS Appalachia Virginia is the first all-non-terrestrial public TV station in the United States?
I've fixed a hook that's currently live but I wonder whether we should pull it altogether. The issue is not that it wasn't the "first" but it was described as the "first all-digital", where digital is the wrong word as pointed out in the discussion above. The reason why I considered pulling the hook is that the article no longer contains the hook fact (at least not at the time I amended the hook some 90 minutes ago). I didn't have time to check the editing history and dive into the sources. I leave it to others to decide and take action; I'm off to work now. Schwede 66 19:45, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
but how do we know that some kid in Kenya wasn't running 4 minute miles 500 years ago when nobody was keeping notes-- well, we can't verify that kid existed, so we assume he doesn't. I can picture-perfect imagine the hypothetical DYK conversation for Bannister where people try to come up with a hook that isn't "he ran the first sub-4-minute mile", and I very much doubt they'd be good. ("Did you know... ... that Roger Bannister became a neurologist after retiring from athletics?" Well, you'd suppose he didn't become a beggar.) Vaticidal prophet 14:47, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
we can't verify that kid existed, so we assume he doesn'tis exactly how we get into trouble. In this specific case, there's plenty of WP:RS [1] [2] [3] [4] so there's really no doubt and no need to rely on failure to find a counter-example. But the fact remains that we've had multiple instances of "first" claims in hooks turning out to not be correct, so it does deserve greater scrutiny. RoySmith (talk) 15:01, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
References
Queue 7: Drew O'Connor ( nom) @ Edge3 @ HickoryOughtShirt?4 @ Theleekycauldron @ Cielquiparle I agree that the source supports "four teams recruited Drew O'Connor", but saying "heavily recruited" in wikivoice seems like Wikipedia:OR. RoySmith (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
The kid who was desperate for so long to get noticed had become arguably the most sought-after free agent in college hockey.. Beyond that, hockey pundits have said:
There is definitely no shortage of NHL interest in O’Connorand he was described as a "prized" free agent [3]. HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 05:41, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 7: Obviously 5 Believers ( nom) @ BennyOnTheLoose @ Bruxton @ Onegreatjoke the hook seems really complicated. I can't get to the end of it without getting lost. Isn't there some simpler way to say this? RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 5: Lord Adolphus FitzClarence ( nom) Maybe I'm just not following this correctly, but it looks like @ Festucalex approved their own hook, @ Sojourner in the earth pointed out that they couldn't do that, but the self-approved hook was promoted by @ Evrik anyway. Am I missing something? RoySmith (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
This is yet another instance where a no-longer-approved nom should've been moved back from the approved page to the pending page. I've lost track of where we were, but if I recall correctly, both RoySmith and theleekycauldron were working (or thinking about working?) on bot code to take care of this, and Wugapodes had it basically done but didn't have time to work on it. Any progress from anybody? MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 03:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)
Anyone have any hooks for Prep 3 that we can work in here for Independence Day (United States)? The set is presently empty. Bruxton ( talk) 13:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I've placed all three of the hooks I suggested above into Prep 3. Happy to entertain other ideas. If there are a lot of ideas, we could consider lifting the 4-hook limit on American topics just for this set. Edge3 ( talk) 03:09, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
If we're going to do US Independence Day, we should also do Canada Day, Independence Day (India), Australia Day, and so on.Agree, doing this only for the US seems like a clear bias. Especially when we've already had a bias of US images on the DYK image set recently..... Joseph 2302 ( talk) 20:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Here are some other U.S. political hooks: Template:Did you know nominations/Fred Plump and Template:Did you know nominations/United States v. Strong (also being discussed at #Suitability of United States v. Strong Nomination for DYK). Edge3 ( talk) 03:31, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
My hook for the article Anita Gustafson was just promoted to Prep 6 by Lightburst - is there any way this hook could be held so that it can run on August 1? Thanks. PCN02WPS ( talk | contribs) 02:34, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 3: Ali al-Hadi ( nom) @ AirshipJungleman29 @ Onegreatjoke @ Launchballer somebody needs to walk me through the sourcing for the hook. RoySmith (talk) 02:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Prep 1: Missa brevis in B (Tambling) ( nom) @ Edge3 @ Gerda Arendt @ Kusma I've renamed the page per WP:TITLEDAB. I'm also unsure if the image makes sense for this article. MOS:IMAGERELEVANCE says "Images must be significant and relevant in the topic's context". I don't see how a picture of a church helps the reader understand a piece of music that was performed in that building. I think it's distracting as a main page image; it leads the reader to think the hook is about the church, when it's not that at all. RoySmith (talk) 17:33, 28 June 2023 (UTC)
I understand that the hook's a double hook, but isn't the hook a bit too complicated? I think it could be made a bit more concise. It's so long that to me at least the point of the hook (showing how many instruments were used for it and the number of people involved) easily gets lost. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 04:09, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I wish the second link could be moved up or made larger, but the average reader won't notice. -- evrik ( talk) 14:18, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
i don't know if it's too late to comment, but i had also been surprised at the omission of tambling's given name (as mentioned at wp:errors) and the inclusion of the somewhat uninformative word "work" in the hook (as mentioned above). i admittedly hadn't brought up my concerns earlier because i didn't think they were that important, but now that they are the object of discussion, i thought i might say something.
personally, i would just drop "work" altogether instead of replacing it with "mass", because "missa" already means "mass". i don't know enough about how churches are usually referred to in hooks to determine how best to mention this church, but would suggest switching to the common name simply because the hook is currently longer than 200 characters. with the shorter name of the church, there's plenty of space left to include tambling's given name. also, i think the "'s" should not be included as part of the link text, but that's just a minor style issue. dying ( talk) 19:07, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 4: Catherine de Parthenay ( nom) @ Bruxton @ CaroleHenson @ CurryTime7-24 I'm not sure calling her a "key" member is justified by the source. A member, sure. But "key" seems a bit WP:OR RoySmith (talk) 01:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 4: Sack of Mecca (930) ( nom) @Dympies I'm curious why you performed this rename. WP:TITLEDAB says you don't use the "(930)" unless there's other articles with the same title. RoySmith (talk) 01:14, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
I've been busy IRL so haven't been helping out much recently. Just transferred one set to Q5; would appreciate if anyone could double-check the hooks. Thanks! BorgQueen ( talk) 05:41, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Template:Did you know nominations/United States documents leak of the Russian invasion of Ukraine was closed by BuySomeApples after it was marked for closure. The following day, Novem Linguae undid the closure and asked for a re-review. Considering Novem is not the nominator and had not previously participated in the nom, was this re-opening without a formal request proper, or should Novem have first asked either here or somewhere else for a re-opening? Although this is about a specific case, I'm also asking in the general sense, just in case something similar happens again. Courtesy pings to Launchballer who was the reviewer and the nominator ElijahPepe. Narutolovehinata5 ( talk · contributions) 14:01, 2 July 2023 (UTC)
I feel like there's an amazing hook around According to the Kentucky Distiller's Association, they receive "regular calls from state residents asking what they can do with unopened bourbon cases they discovered while cleaning out a relative’s attic or basement" at Revival Vintage Bottle Shop, but I can't even come up with categories for this article. Any help? Valereee ( talk) 04:48, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Alt6 ...that Revival Vintage Bottle Shop helps people with their unwanted bourbon?-- evrik ( talk) 17:42, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived not quite two hours ago, so I've created a new list of 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through June 24. We have a total of 265 nominations, of which 121 have been approved, a gap of 144 nominations that has decreased by 8 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
More than one month old
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) 03:53, 4 July 2023 (UTC)
and now we have another upcoming in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 3? There are alternatives. Johnbod ( talk) 04:32, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Why would we run out of high-quality articles really quickly?- The DYK criteria are relatively strict. Although there are certainly tons of articles that are of decent (or even exceptional) quality, the most pressing criterion is that they have to be created, expanded fivefold, or improved within seven days, which disqualifies people from just nominating any random article of reasonably high quality. There are also other requirements, such as a minimum length, as well as neutrality and sourcing requirements, which would disqualify many of the articles that you're thinking of.
Also note that presumably if people are restricted in the number they can nominate they will on average nominate a higher caliber of article than they would otherwise.- In practice, this seldom works. If such a restriction is implemented, someone can just wait until they are able to nominate another hook, without taking the time to improve the article that they previously nominated. Or, worse, create sockpuppets to get around such a restriction (thus gaming the system).DYK exists to showcase newly improved, relatively high-quality articles. If only a few users are nominating such articles, the problem isn't with DYK regulars; it's the fact that other editors aren't getting involved in DYK. The solution is to try to attract these other editors, not to restrict existing nominators. – Epicgenius ( talk) 23:56, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Are there currently problems with following simple instructions?it's like herding water with a sieve. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 21:34, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Queue 6: Pachysentis ( nom) @ Edge3 @ Mattximus @ Premeditated Chaos do any of the sources say these things "attach" to the intestine? I see where the sources say they're found in the intestine, but can't find where it explicitly talks about attachment. RoySmith (talk) 16:38, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Mercy! That 120 number is creeping up on us. Total 263 117 with four queues and 2 preps filled. Probably still a bit off but the promotors might soon get a taste of the WP:DYKROTATE Merry go round. Bruxton ( talk) 17:52, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 3: Piero del Pollaiuolo ( nom) @ Johnbod in the nomination, you say the sourcing is "Complicated, as there is a before and after aspect to several". Could you uncomplicate it a bit for me, please? @ Onegreatjoke @ AirshipJungleman29 RoySmith (talk) 02:01, 1 July 2023 (UTC)
Pinging @ DYK admins: we're down to a single queue, which will be promoted in the next couple of hours, so promoting at least a couple of the available preps would be most welcome. If you could keep an eye on things over the next few days to make sure we don't get so low again, that would be great, too. Thank you all very much. BlueMoonset ( talk) 21:39, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
I just promoted the Gerard image and hook to Prep 6. I feel like the image could use a closer crop to remove the edge of a book that David Gerard is holding. Lightburst ( talk) 14:38, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I did my first QPQ but can't see the article on any lists of pending DYKs, queues, etc. (please see Template:Did you know nominations/Patricia Davies (cryptographer). Have I missed a step? Thank you, Cl3phact0 ( talk) 06:57, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I just promoted this to queue, but I have a concern.
The source mentions Cameron Cuties and has Jenkyns refer to herself as "feisty Yorkshirewoman", but she does not explicitly reject the other term as far as I can see. I would like to see further eyes on whether this juxtaposition is sufficiently sourced. Pinging nom @ Moondragon21, reviewer @ Epicgenius, promoter @ Bruxton. — Kusma ( talk) 09:21, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
Pulled, replaced by Soft Spot (song) from Prep 4 ( nom). Pinging nom @ Moondragon21, reviewer @ Epicgenius, promoter @ Bruxton again: Cameron Cuties have been returned to WP:DYKN, please use Template:Did you know nominations/Cameron Cutie to find a new hook or source this one properly. — Kusma ( talk) 07:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Separate concern on this—I'd raise this at the nom page, but I'm genuinely not sure of the answer, so maybe better to ask here: Does the general reference to "the DYK criteria" at Template:Did you know nominations/Seda Kaçan satisfy the "all five criteria"/"full review" requirement ? -- 'zin is short for Tamzin (she|they|xe) 02:22, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
@ P199, Onegreatjoke, and 97198: The paper's claim is explicitly cited to a single nurse in the area who claims no expertise other than residency (strike that, she claims to be in the area) – i.e. not really a reliable source. I'd also concerned about close paraphrasing of the hook fact to the source. theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:00, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Theleekycauldron: OK, let's return it to the DYK nomination page and I'll work on another hook. -- P 1 9 9 ✉ 12:46, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
@ dying, Alaexis, and Red-tailed hawk: ClickOrlando.com is cited as a source – it looks like local news, and not upper-tier local news at that. Are we sure that we want to call that a reliable source for a local South Asian custom? theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 16:05, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact, so I don't really see any potential issue here. — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 17:41, 5 July 2023 (UTC)
I've marked this as ineligible due to extensive close paraphrasing and other issues, but nominator Chidgk1 has requested more time to work on the article. The nomination has been open for over a month already so I'd like a second opinion on whether this can be kept on hold. Thanks. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 09:21, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
This is currently the third-earliest active DYK nom (April 15). The nom had promised to expand Sarah Bryce article for the nom, but this went slow because they had been hospitalized and the stats at ESPNcricinfo mostly went down, causing the expansion to eventually fall short of the five times/one week criterion. I therefore initially considered declining the Sarah Bryce article and gave them the option of a GA nom, but then I later felt inclined to request WP:IAR given the causes behind the stalling and the nom's self-admitted lack of GA nom experience and desire to have both sisters bolded. However, given how long the expansion stalled ( a month), I would like to see what others think before I can ask Bahnfrend to do a second QPQ and the entire nom can be taken care of. ミラP@ Miraclepine 19:54, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 4:
Les Avariés (
nom) @
Evrik @
Colin M @
Theleekycauldron The lede says it was censored for some time in France and later in England.
but that needs an end-of-sentence citation.
RoySmith
(talk)
00:45, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
... that M. Farooqui, who had been expelled from his studies for having organized a strike in 1940, received his Delhi University degree in a special convocation 1989?
Missing "in" before 1989. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 18:35, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
First, a shout out to @ Theleekycauldron: for her work on developing the {{ DYK promoter of the month}}, and on Wikipedia:List of Wikipedians by number of DYK promotions. I was amused to see I had just squeaked onto the bottom of the list. More important, this morning I went through and cleared a backlog of unawarded barnstars. Not everyone is comfortable claiming an award. I just gave out {{ The 25 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal}} and {{ The 50 DYK Creation and Expansion Medal}} awards up to the 100 DYK level in the 100 DYK level. I have not tackled any of the missing awards for people with more than 100 DYKs, nor anyone of the list of DYK nominations list. If anyone else has time, maybe you can go through the list and hand out the missing awads? Thanks. -- evrik ( talk) 16:42, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Kusma, Gerda Arendt, and Edge3: While the article says "Through this translation, Gessner became the best known German-language poet in Europe" I cannot find in the article where it says Gessner was the best-known German poet before Goethe. Did I miss something in the article, or does this need to be added in? Z1720 ( talk) 18:25, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@ SeoR, TheLonelyPather, and Edge3: The second half of the hook (the info about editing a magazine with works by Lennon and Ginsberg) is not cited in the article, and the source used in the DYK nomination does not seem to be used as an inline citation or a source in the article. I have added a "citation needed" to indicate the location. Please cite this fact in the article. Z1720 ( talk) 18:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2: Killing of Jerry Waller ( nom) @ Edge3 @ Muboshgu @ Daniel Case The hook verifies, but we seem to be running a lot of hooks about errant shootings by police. I'm wondering if we're doing too many of those. RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Launchballer, DigitalIceAge, and Edge3: The about section in the source ( [5]) implies that she was signed onto Island Records before Kissing You was featured on Love Island. I think a different hook is needed. Z1720 ( talk) 01:15, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
{{
's}}
should be used after italics; when incorrectly used, as it is here, it adds undesirable extra space. Please replace with {{
`s}}
.
MANdARAX •
XAЯAbИAM
17:54, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
@ Heartfox, Launchballer, and Edge3: While this fact is cited in the article, there is a note beside this citation mentioning an interview where Carey does not confirm that the song is about Eminem. I don't think the hook should state this as fact in Wikivoice. Perhaps Carey's non-answer should be incorporated into the hook, perhaps as something like below:
Thoughts? Z1720 ( talk) 01:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2:
Clown (Mariah Carey song) (
nom) @
Edge3 @
Heartfox @
Launchballer The footnote When asked about the song by
USA Today, Carey did not explicitly acknowledge it is about Eminem
says to me that this isn't certain. Given this is a
WP:BLP, I'm dubious about saying this in wikivoice.
RoySmith
(talk)
15:51, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
dying ( talk) 03:57, 8 July 2023 (UTC)alt30: ... that sources have described " Clown" by Mariah Carey as an answer song to Eminem's comments about their relationship in " Superman"?
Another problem here is that the first two paragraphs of the article are identical to text from http://songstube.net/77312-Mariah%20Carey-Clown.html. I'm guessing they copied from us, but the intertwined history of our article in User:Heartfox/sandbox/Clown makes it hard to trace. I'd appreciate if somebody who's better at copyvio sleuthing took a look at this and confirmed we're OK. @ Heartfox: a much better way to do this would be to just start a new draft page in your userspace for each article you write, then move that into mainspace instead of copy-pasting it and re-using a shared sandbox page. That would leave the histories intact and simplify auditing. RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2: Jack Critchley ( nom) @ 97198 @ Peacemaker67 @ Onegreatjoke I can find in the source where he was diagnosed with "torticollis", but can't see anyplace it talks about "wry neck". RoySmith (talk) 15:28, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2: Antonio Dini ( nom) @ Edge3 @ Onegreatjoke @ Theleekycauldron the source says he had no memory of the crash, but I don't see anywhere that says it was due to a concussion. RoySmith (talk) 15:38, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
While working on Prep 1, I changed the hooks on Template:Did you know nominations/Save America and Template:Did you know nominations/David Gerard (author). Would someone please remind me how to document this? Thanks. -- evrik ( talk) 17:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
How to check how far yet left to expand article five times? DYKcheck only shows after it's already expanded five times. The article is quite long and there is a lot to do for just 7 days. What about unreferenced sentences which been removed due to lack of sources? These sentences still counts for article length and from this point it counts 5 times expansion? From DYK rules, it's 7 days ("within the past seven days"), but DYKcheck counts 10 days ("within the past 10 days"). Eurohunter ( talk) 19:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
While working on Prep 1, I changed the hooks on Template:Did you know nominations/Save America and Template:Did you know nominations/David Gerard (author). Would someone please remind me how to document this? Thanks. -- evrik ( talk) 17:23, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
How to check how far yet left to expand article five times? DYKcheck only shows after it's already expanded five times. The article is quite long and there is a lot to do for just 7 days. What about unreferenced sentences which been removed due to lack of sources? These sentences still counts for article length and from this point it counts 5 times expansion? From DYK rules, it's 7 days ("within the past seven days"), but DYKcheck counts 10 days ("within the past 10 days"). Eurohunter ( talk) 19:23, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
We're in the odd situation right now of prep 1 being the only one that's ready to promote to a queue, but 5th in chronological order. Is there any process for promoting a prep area out of order? RoySmith (talk) 19:54, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm a new user just getting into DYK and wanting to learn. I noticed the top of prep 6 that no more than half of them can be biographical. However, I noticed that hooks 1, 2, 3, 5, 7 appear to biographical. Is the half rule a hard and fast rule, or am I misinterpreting something. Thanks for helping me, Heart (talk) 06:02, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Is there a tool or a script that can figure out an editor's QPQ-status, either to run it on your own contributions or to see if someone else in DYK?-land has fulfilled the QPQ stuff? I just submitted Robert Todd Lincoln for a DYK? but it's been a long time since I've done a GA and I have no idea if I have fulfilled the QPQ parameter. Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 20:18, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 6: Gansen-ji ( nom) The article uses {{ convert}}, but the hook doesn't. Is that intentional? RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 4: 75/24 Split ( nom) @ Evrik @ Bneu2013 @ Theleekycauldron I see where the source says "aims to make the river of cars and trucks flow better and more safely", but I don't see where anything that justifies the "one of the worst bottlenecks for trucks" language in the hook, i.e. why specifically for trucks? RoySmith (talk) 00:38, 9 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 6: Betty Clements ( nom) @ Vaticidalprophet @ Whispyhistory @ CeeGee I don't see where the article says she was removed from training. RoySmith (talk) 23:50, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 6: Soundbombing II ( nom) @ Vaticidalprophet @ AstonishingTunesAdmirer @ Onegreatjoke the cited source doesn't say anything about funding the album. RoySmith (talk) 23:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 7: Francis Slater Rebow ( nom)
@
Pickersgill-Cunliffe,
Onegreatjoke,
Normsupon, and
Kusma: The hook currently reads ... that a misreport led to
Francis Slater Rebow being promoted to lieutenant-colonel twice?
but I think from reading the article and supplemental information that he was not promoted to "lieutenant-colonel" but to the
Life Guards-specific rank of "Major and lieutenant-colonel", as pointed out by
Note 1 in the article. Here's a
non-Rebow example of the rank being used. The source for the relevant text, Wellington's Brigade Commanders, similarly lists "Major & Lieutenant Colonel" as the rank both in the line-by-line breakdown of ranks obtained at the beginning of his entry in the book as well as in the text itself which discusses the appointment of the rank of "major and lieutenant colonel" as well as the mixup regarding the rank announcement. I wanted to check first because I'm no expert on British military ranks by any means, but would something like ... that a misreport led to
Francis Slater Rebow being promoted to the rank of "major and lieutenant-colonel" twice?
in quotes be better, since it is an odd rank and is easily confused for two separate ranks? -
Aoidh (
talk)
18:34, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
was dual rank in the regiment and the army.Unless I'm misreading the source, it says he was appointed major and lieutenant colonel two years into his service in the 2nd Life Guards, which was announced incorrectly on 1 October 1799, and the second "promotion" was via
a War Office Memorandum of 25 September 1802that fixed the error, but both were specifically the Major and Lieutenant Colonel rank, not just lieutenant colonel, unless you're talking about something that I'm not seeing? On the initial list of promotions he was "Major & Lieutenant Colonel", then "Lieutenant Colonel & Colonel" and then Lieutenant Colonel with the 90th foot, so even without the dual ranks there's a lot of lieutenant colonelcy (a word I just learned) going on there so I am admittedly confused and will defer to what you're saying if you're sure, because I am not. - Aoidh ( talk) 19:00, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
... that Ann Tahincioğlu is Turkey's first female car racing driver to have competed in a national racetrack championship?
Here's a Google translation of the Turkish source; I've also run it through DeepL Translate and it's pretty much the same. The relevant passage reads:
Fighting in the 1st leg of the 2022 Turkish Track Championship, Kaçan broke new ground as the first woman to drive in this organization after Ann Tahincioğlu, who competed in the Turkish Track Championship in 1992.
This is not saying that Tahincioğlu was the first to do anything, just that Kaçan was the first since Tahincioğlu. @ CeeGee: Is this translation correct? If so, the hook will need revising. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 20:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
Please check. CeeGee 05:52, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
... that Egghead & Twinkie is reputed to be the first feature film crowdsourced on TikTok?
I think we should be clearer that it is the film's creator, Sarah Kambe Holland, who is making this claim. The Slugmag source says "Crowdfunded through TikTok ... the film now credits itself as the first to do so". The Knockturnal source only says "Known as the first feature film to crowdfund on TikTok", but this line contains an embedded link to a TikTok video by Holland, in which she says "As far as I know, there hasn't been a feature-length film that has successfully crowdfunded on TikTok". I suggest rewording the hook to something like "...that Egghead & Twinkie claims to be the first feature film crowdsourced on TikTok?" Pinging nominator Peaceray. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 20:09, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
...that Egghead & Twinkie claims to be the first feature film crowdsourced on TikTok?Peaceray ( talk) 20:18, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
... that police in Indianola, Mississippi shot an unarmed 11-year-old African-American boy after responding to his 911 call for help at his home?
I'm concerned about featuring this on DYK because this is an ongoing event. An investigation is underway, a lawsuit is in progress, the body camera footage has not yet been released, the officer has not been charged, and there is currently no "official" version of events, only the mother's eyewitness testimony (and she didn't see the actual shooting). The content of the article is likely to change significantly in the coming weeks, and this would seem to be a fail of WP:DYKSG#D7: the article should be complete and not a work in progress. Given the sensitive nature of the subject, and the potential criminal charges against a living person, I think we should be especially wary of putting this on the main page when we still don't know what really happened. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 20:36, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
@ AllWeKnowOfHeaven, Juxlos, and Vaticidalprophet: The article and the sources say that Williams received this nickname after ordering the wings at a strip club while breaking COVID-19 quarentine restrictions. I could not verify that he recieved the nickname because of his "love of" the food. Should this hook be changed? Z1720 ( talk) 19:32, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Williams was a regular who eventually saw the kitchen team formalize his order, name it after him, and add it to the establishment’s menu well before he broke the NBA bubble and garnered the club’s chicken wings a new flood of national media attention(cite 4). Vaticidal prophet 19:37, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
@ PlanetJuice, Onegreatjoke, and Vaticidalprophet: The source used to verify that the station closed does not mention that the station was closed in 2003, only that Amtrak ceased its operations to that station. The source also says that "The Transit Authority of River City also uses the station, where it has its headquarters" giving me the impression that the station was not closed down at this time. I'm proposing an ALT below:
Thoughts? Z1720 ( talk) 19:53, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I have
Marie Sophie Hingst in
prep 7 right now and just noticed that the hook is either one of "ungrammatical" or "grammatical, but in a way most people will think is wrong anyway" (... that when the German-Irish historian
Marie Sophie Hingst was revealed to be pretending descent from Holocaust survivors, the media of different countries disagreed on how to report on it?
). I'd go tweak that, but I wrote the hook, and want to avoid the appearance of impropriety by reworking one of my own hooks in prep, and I was very careful with this one given the sensitivity of the subject. Would changing it to "faking" be fine, both from a 'literally doing that' perspective and from a 'not too blunt/insensitive' one?
Vaticidal
prophet
23:32, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
I've just promoted this to queue. Earwig flags this up as a straight copyvio, but my impression is that [10] is a copyvio from our article, not the other way around (editing history makes no sense otherwise). Just mentioning this here in case someone wants to check my work and comes to a different conclusion. — Kusma ( talk) 08:29, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 7:
Bokura no Kazoku (
nom) The article says inspiration for Bokura no Kazoku came shortly after development on the first Boku no Natsuyasumi concluded, which coincided with the birth of his first child
which isn't really the same as being inspired by the birth of his child. The citation URL should be the more specific
https://scroll.vg/extras/summer-vacation-confidential, which does support the hook statement about inspiration, but that needs to be in the article. I'm also a little dubious about whether scroll.vg is a
WP:RS, a point which I see was raised in the nomination. @
AirshipJungleman29 @
Morgan695 @
Maury Markowitz
RoySmith (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
I know I'm an occasional noob around here and don't often understand Wiki-coding but this doesn't seem quite right... I clicked on the bottom link in the toolbox - "Find sources (notability)" - but all that comes up is a template, Template:Find sources. Maybe I'm misunderstanding something here but it doesn't seem to be an actual tool that reviewers can run... Shearonink ( talk) 14:54, 10 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I just completed a huge expansion for the Glyn Johns article, and had it reviewed and it made GA. So, I nominated the article for DYK. However, before I was able to properly address the reviewer's concerns, I noticed that it disappeared off of the nomination page, so I re-nominated it (with the same template Template:Did you know nominations/Glyn Johns)--then my re-nomination got reverted. If they put it into the queue schedule, nobody let me know. I they withdrew it, then I was not given a fair chance to correct it. I just want this nomination to have a fair chance. I was wondering if someone could help me. GloryRoad66 ( talk) 01:34, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Is queerbaiting and, by extension, any sort of baiting based on such implicit characteristics explicitly disallowed, generally discouraged, or okay? I ask this because I noticed that a previous DYK was changed on this basis. Thank you in advance, Cessaune [talk] 16:03, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived yesterday, so I've created a new list of all 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 5. We have a total of 252 nominations, of which 125 have been approved, a gap of 127 nominations that has decreased by 17 over the past 9 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
More than two months old
More than one month old
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) 02:42, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Yay Robert Todd Lincoln made it to a GA and I nom'ed it for DYK and that was approved -> Template talk:Did you know/Approved#Robert Todd Lincoln. So now I am thinking I should have included any one of these images of him from the article in the DYK Nom...like:
but is it just too late? Thanks, Shearonink ( talk) 02:18, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Template talk:Did you know/Approved has breached the post-expand include size limit and has stopped transcluding all nominations. We need volunteers to help build prep sets so the approved nominations don't clog up that page. We can't move to 2 sets per day (our usual fix) without sufficient prep building throughput. — Kusma ( talk) 16:23, 11 July 2023 (UTC)
There are two things wrong with the hook currently in Prep 5. Thompson didn't actually sing on This Time Around, taking Respect the Cock out of scope of the article, and most sources refer to him as Tony Thompson, not Anthony Benedict Thompson. (He's at that title due to Tony Thompson and Tony Thompson (singer) both being taken.) I only found out after spotting a claim in a YouTube comment, prompting me to pull out the liner notes. No-one has said ALT7 is not interesting, so let's start by adapting that: ALT9 ... that the Benz and Phats & Small singer Tony Thompson is an ex-cage fighter? Laun chba ller 21:39, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Is there some reason why the bot performed the update an hour and a half early? Pinging Shubinator. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 22:43, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
I expressed my opinion that the hooks in this
Nomination are a violation of
WP:DYKNOT DYK must not provide inappropriate advantage for such causes (e.g. during election campaigns or product launches
and
WP:DYKHOOK (not neutral) because
Donald Trump is a declared candidate in the
2024 United States presidential election - it was promoted over my objection. Pinging promotor @
Evrik:.
I am not seeing much neutrality in the article either WP:DYKCRIT#4d. Bruxton ( talk) 21:31, 7 July 2023 (UTC)
promoting ... political causes. This is more bashing than promoting, but the spirit of the rule covers both and I agree that we should steer clear of this hook. RoySmith (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2023 (UTC)
Could anyone add screenshot where it is located? Eurohunter ( talk) 17:32, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
For me, it's on the left hand side of the screen.
-- evrik ( talk) 23:59, 6 July 2023 (UTC)
criteria reached, iirc. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 ( talk) 11:11, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Per WP:DYKROTATE, with 10 queues full and 122 approved hooks, I think we are supposed to go to 2/day TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:45, 12 July 2023 (UTC)
Please only update this between midnight (00:00) and noon (12:00) UTC. It is currently 16:41, on a 24-hour clock. RoySmith (talk) 17:30, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
{{#ifexpr:{{CURRENTHOUR}}>11|{{Warning|Do '''not''' change this page past 12:00 UTC! It is currently {{CURRENTTIME}} UTC.}}}}
. Does that work for you? You can copy/paste the warning template inside to look at the text.
theleekycauldron (
talk •
contribs) (she/her)
18:15, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I've been trying to do what I can to cut back on the backlog of unapproved DYK noms this last week in hopes that someone might get to my recent nomination, Template:Did you know nominations/Scottish Prayer Book (1637), before the date I hoped it might run on passed. The hook has to do with an event which occurred on 23 July 1637, so I would really appreciate anyone who has a spare moment seeing if there's a chance it could run on that anniversary. I know that's annoying, but it would mean the world. ~ Pbritti ( talk) 22:19, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 7: KANG-TV ( nom) I find this hook befuddling, even for the quirky slot. What do other people think? @ AirshipJungleman29 @ Sammi Brie @ Onegreatjoke RoySmith (talk) 15:05, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Prep 6: Isaac Newton's apple tree ( nom) @ Vaticidalprophet @ FuzzyMagma @ Krisgabwoosh How would folks feel about holding this for next March 14? You know, Pi Day. As in Apple pie. RoySmith (talk) 18:17, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Glyn Johns ( nomination) is currently in the image slot for Prep 4. The reviewer ( RAJIVVASUDEV) rejected the image for having low resolution, but the promoter ( Vaticidalprophet) disagreed and approved the image.
I agree with the initial decision to reject the image due to its low resolution. I raised the same concerns at the nom's talk page, and welcome more input from other editors. Also pinging nominator GloryRoad66 for awareness. Edge3 ( talk) 19:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
Sure. The image is in line with many other images that have run suitably in the image slot and received high views, such as Kid Canfield (~30k views), Teraura (~17k views), and John Rolph (politician) (~17k views). The Canfield comparison is most prominent, IMO -- high-quality hooks strongly benefit from image slot placements even when the image itself isn't 'perfect'. From my experience with bio-lead sets in particular, this image is in a fairly typical range for them and can be expected to benefit from the substantial image slot boost independent of 'being on the more low-res end of image hooks'.
[...] I don't really agree that there's a marked difference between the Canfield and Johns photos. Of course, these things are subjective, but I actually have a noticeably harder time making out much in the Canfield photo. I'm inclined to think that they inhabit the same sphere of acceptability.
Looking through the sources, I am slightly confused whether the case was in 1858 or in 1859 (as I have added to the article, please double check that). Would it be better to play it safe and go for
Pinging nom WatkynBassett, reviewer Onegreatjoke, promoter AirshipJungleman29. — Kusma ( talk) 15:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2: Dolly Johnson ( nom) @ AirshipJungleman29 @ Jengod @ Firefangledfeathers There's a trend in contemporary journalism to use "was an enslaved person" instead of "was a slave". I don't know what our style is on these things, but bringing it up here for discussion. RoySmith (talk) 12:58, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
... that Dolly Johnson (pictured), who had once been a slave of 17th U.S. president Andrew Johnson, opened her own bakery business in 1881?and if a change is required it should probably be to "...had been enslaved by 17th U.S. president..." (not "an enslaved person of 17th U.S. president"). Kingsif ( talk) 13:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2: Nina Tonga ( nom) @ AirshipJungleman29 @ Pakoire @ Soman The source ( https://www.thecoconet.tv/coco-talanoa/humans-of-the-islands/women-of-the-islands-ane-tonga/) says "first Pacific person", but the article and hook turned that into " first Pasifika person". It's not clear to me that the two terms are interchangeable. RoySmith (talk) 13:12, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Pretty much all of the information contained therein is woefully out of date – Unless there's strong objection, I'm redirecting anything that purports to contain guidelines where we actually keep our guidelines and standard practices, at Wikipedia:Did you know#DYK rules and Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines. It's a good idea, and we may want to bring it back at some point, but right now it's pretty confusing for anyone who happens to stumble upon it (we don't market it too heavily). theleekycauldron ( talk • contribs) (she/her) 05:10, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Point 1-A of WP:DYKCRIT mentions that an article is eligible for DYK if it has been promoted to Good Article within the last seven days, but it doesn't mention anything about Featured Lists. The most recent discussion I could find regarding Featured Lists promoted in the past seven days was ~6 and a half years ago. Has there been a more recent discussion or is this still the status quo? Just looking for a bit of clarification since I'm unfamiliar with DYK. Hey man im josh ( talk) 00:47, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
"... that Brison Manor, who played eight years in the National Football League, had never set foot outside of his home state before attending college?" Does anyone else find this insufficiently interesting? Therapyisgood ( talk) 01:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The article for Luisa González, a presidential candidate in next month's 2023 Ecuadorian general election, is currently featured on DYK. Isn't there a rule against featuring contemporary politicians that are up for election? If there isn't, there really should be. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 01:02, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Promoted this to queue last night before going to sleep, but now I have second thoughts. Everything about the person (not about general Burmese history) and the hook fact rely solely on either the 1560 Razadarit Ayedawbon or possibly on the editorial material for the 2005 edition. I can't check, and I can't read Burmese. Even worse, searching for "မပစ်နွဲ" on Google gives me essentially only this Wikipedia article, so I am having WP:V concerns. I'm inclined to pull this again unless there are better sources, but feel bad about both FUTON and Western bias. Any good suggestions for a replacement? Pinging nom Hybernator, reviewer Juxlos, prep builder theleekycauldron. — Kusma ( talk) 07:58, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 1 is missing a credit: * {{DYKmake|Reason (software)|Launchballer|subpage=Goddard.}}
. However,
Pbritti, on
the nomination page, you reviewed the first article, listing how various criteria had been met, but when the second article was then added, you responded with a tick and no mention of anything specific about the second article, so it's not clear if you did a thorough review of that article. Note that
Wikipedia:Did you know/Reviewing guide suggests: "After posting the icon, indicate all aspects of the article that you have reviewed".
MANdARAX •
XAЯAbИAM
20:24, 19 July 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived over an hour ago, so I've created a new list of all 34 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through July 13. We have a total of 220 nominations, of which 113 have been approved, a gap of 107 nominations that has decreased by 20 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations!
More than two months old
More than one month old
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) 03:30, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
I know we just switched to two-a-day, but we're already below the WP:DYKROTATE threshold for going back to one-a-day (i.e. only 5 filled queues/preps). If we don't have the capacity, it's pointless to try and crank out hooks at double speed. I'll go promote a prep to queue, but that's not going to change the total. RoySmith (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
I see no problem until the end of the month. We can revaluate then. -- evrik ( talk) 15:11, 17 July 2023 (UTC)
Also, {{ Did you know nominations/Elene Lete}} is one I wrote for the women's soccer effort. She's a Spaniard. She would fit into the set.
Right, @ Kingsif:? -- evrik ( talk) 03:19, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
WP:DYKAI#Changing from 1-a-day to 2-a-day and vice versa requires that the change be done After 00:00 UTC but before 12:00 UTC
. Is that actually necessary in the 2 -> 1 direction? I understand that when we did the most recent 1 -> 2 switch, it was done outside that window, which caused an early promotion. Could somebody walk me through the details of what went wrong there?
RoySmith
(talk)
13:19, 18 July 2023 (UTC)
Hey, so for the hook, I posted several fact ideas for Etika along with a poll to decide per consensus the best hook to use for DYK. However, it seems that the mural fact was already added to the prep. While I do like that fact for its strong sentimental value, I actually intended for other editors* to vote on it as well, and if it wasn't allowed I would've gone with ALT1 or 2 (preferably ALT2). Admittedly there were a lot less votes than I expected, but so far on the poll the two most voted options just so happen to be ALT1 and 2. So, I wanted to ask how long would it take for the prep to go on the front page, and if we could get more votes on the poll as well. At this point, I personally wouldn't mind delaying it for a couple more days so long as it's still guaranteed to be on DYK.
Also out of curiosity, how are the hooks with an image chosen? What's the priority for choosing an article for the image hook slot? I tried to find it in the rules but couldn't find a clear answer yet. PantheonRadiance ( talk) 05:00, 20 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2: Peter II (cat) ( nom) @ AirshipJungleman29 @ Tim O'Doherty @ Onegreatjoke Given subject matter, it seems almost criminal to waste a quirky slot on such a boring hook. Surely we can do better?
ALT2: ... that Peter II, at the age of eight months, died in service to the British Crown? (I'm assuming it's correct to describe being an employee of the government as "service to the British Crown")
ALT3: ... that despite Peter and Peter III serving for 17 years each, Peter II's tenure only lasted six months?
I'm sure people can come up with others.
RoySmith (talk) 22:56, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2:
A New World (The Flash) (
nom) @
AirshipJungleman29 @
OlifanofmrTennant @Hameltion I don't see anywhere in the article that talks about an eleven-year television franchise
.
RoySmith
(talk)
22:36, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 2: Leeds 13 ( nom) @ AirshipJungleman29 @ Onegreatjoke @ Launchballer I don't see where in the article it says anything that supports the hook statement. RoySmith (talk) 22:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
In queue3, we've got Sofía Otero ("youngest actor to win...") and Lara Esponda ("youngest goalkeeper to play"). There's been pushback in the past about too many youngest, oldest, etc hooks. Are we OK with both of these? RoySmith (talk) 15:45, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that quite often DYK template date is one day earlier than actual (?) date on Wikipedia:Recent additions/Year, so which date is correct? Eurohunter ( talk) 22:08, 14 July 2023 (UTC)
{{
DYK talk}}
template, try clicking on the DYKA archive link at e.g.
Talk:Jane Severance.
~~ AirshipJungleman29 (
talk)
13:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I have depromoted the hook created by @ Evrik: twice now as a violation of WP:DYKNOT and I was reverted by Evrik . I will not continue to edit war the nomination but Evrik has written and approved their own hook which is not allowed. The hook involves a candidate for the 2024 United States presidential election and it is negative. I believe we should reject the nomination if all we have to say about this PAC is negative. Bruxton ( talk) 03:11, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
"Saving something, but probably not America". We have the spirit and letter of the law involved and we should steer clear of bashing the front runners. Bruxton ( talk) 03:27, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
Our mission is to elect a new generation of leaders from diverse service backgrounds who will always put the interests of the American people before their own.but that is not in the article. Bruxton ( talk) 00:53, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
DYK stands for readers to discover fascinating and lesser-known facts. So what about the facts that has been added to wikipedia page and eligable by very defination of DYK but doesn't quilify due one sigle rule: Expanded at least fivefold.
So I'm pruposing addition of one more rule as or: "Expanded to something significant" which means added somthing significant which can be showcased at DYK. As something can be interesting enough to showcase at DYK without being 5x.
Or call it: Expanded at least fivefold or to something significant. Expand the rule.
As I faced it recently here: Template:Did you know nominations/Martin Luther King Jr.
@ TSventon
-- BeLucky ( talk) 23:49, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I was looking at this discussion, Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_178#Yoninah_tribute, but when I looked at Wikipedia:Recent_additions/2021/July#3_July_2021 I could figure out what was the tribute. Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2021-03-28/Obituary makes no mention of it. @ Valereee: do you remember? Thanks. -- evrik ( talk) 03:16, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello DYK folks,
Earlier this year I expanded the Charm quark article. I first nominated it (see Template:Did you know nominations/Charm quark), but decided to retract it because it was not five fold expansion. Now that I have improved the article to GA status, I wish to nominate it for DYK again. How should I nominate this article? I cannot use Wikipedia:Did you know/Create new nomination, for it will try to write into Template:Did you know nominations/Charm quark and tell me that such page already exists.
Many thanks in advance!
-- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 15:26, 24 July 2023 (UTC)
I know I've proposed this before, but we need to have something in WP:DYKROTATE which enforces a minimum number of filled queues. I pushed the rule a bit yesterday to switch back to 1-per-day because our queue depth was hovering near exhaustion. Right now, we've got a single filled queue, which I promoted yesterday, and with under 10 hours to go, we're still working on resolving problem and verifying facts. There needs to be a bigger buffer against running out of main-page-ready material, and there needs to be more time to resolve problems found in the final reviews. I'd like to make the following change:
fewer than six filled prep/queue sets => fewer than two filled queues and six filled prep/queue sets overall.
It's either that or I just keep doing IAR switches when things get too close for comfort :-) RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2023 (UTC)
if (filled_queues < 2) or (filled_queues + filled_preps < 6)
revert_to_one_per_day()
fewer than 60 approved nominations or fewer than six filled prep/queue sets | |
→ | fewer than 60 approved nominations, fewer than two filled queue sets, or fewer than six filled prep/queue sets |
We switch modes because when the list of approved templates grows too large, we hit some more-or-less arbitrary limit in the MediaWiki software on how much text can be transcluded.isn't accurate. We switch modes because we've accumulated an enormous backlog of unpromoted approved nominations, or because we've started to run low on approved nominations. The transclusion issue is separate, and is a symptom of having gone way over the number of approved nominations (or having gone overboard in nomination comments). If there's a better way of creating pages to avoid the transclusion issue, that will leave the oversupply or undersupply of approved nominations an issue that still needs dealing with, and we do that by switching between one set and two sets a day. BlueMoonset ( talk) 23:42, 23 July 2023 (UTC)
Queue 1: Antonia Niedermaier ( nom) @ Vaticidalprophet @ Joseph2302 @ Sammi Brie I can't find where the article says she won the stage before crashing out. RoySmith (talk) 13:24, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
But one day after taking her breakthrough stage victory at her debut Giro Donne, Niedermaier was involved in a crash with Jayco-AlUla's Urška Žigart, and both riders were forced to abandon the Giro Donne.Joseph 2302 ( talk) 13:47, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
personally, i feel that this hook, as currently worded, appears to be a somewhat cringy use of gratuitous profanity. it says nothing about who de falco and schettino are, so to someone unfamiliar with this incident, the hook gives no reason as to why this particular use of profanity is notable enough to be mentioned on the main page. (i assume that many other similarly strong words were exchanged between others during the sinking.) also, the wording used to explain what the italian phrase actually means seems unnecessarily wordy, making me feel like the hook was stumbling over itself before it was able to drop the f-bomb.
i admittedly am not sure how best to reword this. my attempt below fleshes out the incident more, and adds the reaction noted in alt1, but drops the actual profanity due to length considerations. in a way, it follows a common practice of horror story writing: describe the situation and the reaction, but not the monster itself. i am somewhat worried if it feels a bit too much like clickbait, though.
alt2: ... that during the sinking of the Costa Concordia, coast guard officer Gregorio de Falco shouted a profane order at fleeing captain Francesco Schettino that later became a catchphrase in Italy?
however, if the point of the hook was to include profanity on the main page, then feel free to ignore alt2. i would still suggest tightening the wording by using a simple gloss with single quotation marks, as seen in the hook for walter von pückler here, or in that for surrexit a mortuis here.
please note that this hook is scheduled to appear on the main page at noon, so if it is too late to make any significant changes, i'll understand. dying ( talk) 10:33, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Wikipedia editors should not remove material solely because it may be offensive, unpleasant, or unsuitable for some readers.
the hook itself does not give any reason for including the profanity, which is why i think it would appear to be gratuitous to a reader unfamilar with the disaster.Exactly, leaving them wondering why was this said? Then, hopefully, they'll click on the article and read it.
that some of the people who died due to the sinking of the Costa Concordia had a penis (example pictured): this isn't a notable fact in any way. It isn't especially interesting, either, or relevant. You already agreed that "the profane order is relevant, verifiable, and notable"; your example fails all three of those, so I don't get its purpose. The day we allow such direct nudity to grace the Main Page, I wil be on your side, but fuck is nowhere near that.
one generally doesn't expect the use of profanity (or nudity) without an appropriate reason: My reason is that it's relevant, verifiable, and notable, which cannot be said of all DYK hooks. Sure, without the profanity the hook becomes substantially less interesting, but the profanity has been included, so the hook stays interesting.
what i am worried about is whether, to someone skimming the main page, the hook appears to be a violation of wp:gratuitous.If someone thinks so, then they should say so. Anyone aware of GRATUITOUS very likely knows where to come to complain if they feel the need to. Simple.
the only thing in the hook that may grab the attention of a reader is the use of profanity, which feels cheap, and may give people the impression that we are a bunch of amateurs using profanity on the main page just because we can: Sure, I can agree with this. But, to the casual reader, I would imagine that a) they were unaware that Wikipedia is allowed to swear, leading to their entrance (which was inevitable, let's be honest) into the realm of profane and nasty stuff that we show here, b) they are disgusted by it and refuse to keep reading Wikipedia/become a less active reader, which could and would've happened sooner than later, c) they don't care/find it a little funny. If anyone thinks that we at Wikipedia are amateurs in a bad sense, based on a single swear word, despite the vast heaps of actual amateurish stuff that goes on every day (certain people's talk page behavior, or allowing Main Page images to get replaced with penises and stuff, to name two) I'm fine with that. That's a them problem. Wikipedia will still keep on moving forward.
my concern is that, as the hook is currently worded, the only thing clearly interesting is the profanity, which may lead readers to not wonder more about the incident, but rather why the profanity was mentioned in the first place: Exactly. Repeating what I sai above, it'll leave them wondering why was this said? Then they'll click on the article and hopefully read it. It's actually an interesting topic, and even the context around why the swear word was said is interesting, see the call transcript. Again, there are less interesting hooks, and, sure this one could be made more interesting, but I feel like this is only an issue in the context of profanity, and would not be an issue if there was no profanity included. Cessaune [talk] 22:28, 13 July 2023 (UTC)
Cessaune, forgive me if i am misinterpreting your comments, but to me, it looks like we disagree on two major points: (1) whether it is better to ask for permission or forgiveness, and (2) whether presenting profanity, in and of itself, is an appropriate way to get clicks. i believe that both issues are rooted in one's life philosophy, so i realize that it will likely be futile for either of us to change the other's opinion of this hook. however, i did want to mention a few things, to better explain what i believe are some of the concepts in play, and to clarify some things that may have been misinterpreted.
regarding the first point, personally, i generally prefer to ask for permission first, and try to course-correct before encountering any significant negative feedback. (unfortunately, i cannot say the same about captain schettino.) however, as wp:bold effectively codifies the opposing view, i would not be surprised if i was in the minority here. in any case, upon encountering any negative feedback, i think it would be wiser to take it into account, rather than simply ignore it as a "them problem". also, i do not believe other editors acting in an amateurish way elsewhere on wikipedia is a proper justification for us to behave similarly. (as an aside, regarding vandalism of the article featured at tfa, you may be pleased to know of this discussion [ perm at wt:tfa, which aims to address that.)
i am admittedly not sure what location you are referring to when you state that "Anyone aware of GRATUITOUS very likely knows where to complain if they feel the need to.". previously, i had thought that this discussion board was one such location, which is why i had raised my concern here. i am also aware of an off-wiki criticism site which had strong words for us here at dyk for running this hook. in particular, one commenter complained that there was undue focus on the meaning of the italian profanity, and another remarked that the hook was not respectful, considering that a lot of people had died in the disaster. i won't debate your choice to highlight the catchphrase, but i feel that, at least, the phrase could have been presented better.
regarding the second point, i believe there has been a consensus that hooks should not be promoted to simply get profanity on the main page, but i admittedly do not know if there is a similar consensus regarding running hooks that focus on profanity, to the detriment of providing any appropriate context for it. on a related note, personally, i am somewhat wary of the current trend to use page views as a proxy to determine how well a hook has performed, as there is a danger of turning the dyk section into clickbait as more pressure is placed on page views. hooks like this will be able to get clicks, but over time, if such hooks become a trend, more people will end up avoiding the dyk section, which will end up impacting dyk's main goal: showcasing new articles and recently improved articles.
i'm sorry that it was not clear to you that the example i had provided was not meant to be an example of a hook that was relevant, verifiable, and notable. (well, i am pretty sure it is verifiable, but that is beside the point.) i had used it only to illustrate why i had felt that the presentation of the hook was problematic. as an alternative, consider the hypothetical hook "... that during a musical performance, one of the singers had her breast (pictured) exposed?". this example states a fact relevant to the target article that is verifiable and notable. however, the hook does not do much other than present nudity to try to hook a reader; the hook does not provide much context to indicate why this specific instance of nudity was relevant or notable.
also, when i said that "readers [may wonder] why the profanity was mentioned in the first place", i meant that they may wonder why the people at dyk chose to run a hook that presented a profanity in this manner, rather than wonder why de falco swore at schettino. the act occurred during a disaster, so presumably, it should not be too difficult to determine why anyone would be cursing during such a stressful situation.
by the way, when i was reading your user page, i was surprised to see that you had apparently bowdlerized your own poem about a little froggo. i believe you are generally free to curse on your own user page if you want. there are some policies that should still be adhered to, such as wp:civil and wp:npa, but i don't think you would be violating any if you chose to swear in a whimsical poem presented on your own user page. dying ( talk) 02:00, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Freedom4U has requested more eyes on this nomination, and I think it would be good to have a general conversation about whether this article should be featured on the main page. Sanctioned Suicide is an internet forum which encourages its users to kill themselves, and the danger is that running this on DYK will steer vulnerable people toward the site. Personally, I think this risk far outweighs any potential benefits (I'm not even sure what the benefits would be), and so I don't think the article should run.
This article discusses how the New York Times journalists who reported on the site in 2021 dealt with the question of whether or not to name it in their article. They consulted with "industry guidelines, editors, veteran reporters, the standards team at the Times, and medical professionals", before deciding to name the site only once, "deep in the article", and to include a prominent (full-screen) disclaimer at the top, with links to suicide resources (see the NYT article here). I think this demonstrates the seriousness of the ethical problems involved. Other news outlets cited in our article – BBC, ABC, Buzzfeed, Vice – all refrain from naming the site. In my opinion, it would be very bad form to buck this trend by placing a prominent reference to it on the front page of the 7th-most visited website in the world.
Of course it's important that we have a neutral and informative article on the subject, and Freedom4U deserves much thanks for their work on it, but whether it's appropriate for the main page is another matter. Sojourner in the earth ( talk) 17:59, 21 July 2023 (UTC)
Prep 5: Sundari (paintings) ( nom) continuing on my "better images" theme, I suggest we use File:Paan Sundari.jpg instead of the current File:Promoda Sundari.jpg. They're both in the article but I think Paan Sundari will look better, especially at a small size. RoySmith (talk) 16:06, 25 July 2023 (UTC)
Hello DYK people,
I have a DYK nomination (see Template:Did you know nominations/Charm quark 2) that has been approved by a fellow reviewer. I think the hook is interesting and I would like to make it an April Fools hook. My reviewer said they don't know how that is done, so I am here looking for help.
Cheers, -- TheLonelyPather ( talk) 19:26, 25 July 2023 (UTC)