Wikipedia talk:Did you know: Difference between revisions

Error reports Please do not post error reports for the current Main Page template version here. Instead, post them to Wikipedia:Main Page/Errors. Error reports relating to the next two queues to be promoted can also be posted to ERRORS. If you post an error report on one of the queues here, please include a link to the queue in question. Thank you.

DYK queue status There are currently 5 filled queues – all good, for now! v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 26 August 2024 (UTC) Current time: 23:34, 25 August 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 23 hours ago( verify reset purge )

Archives

Index 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200 201

• 2011 reform proposals • 2020 RFC LT Solutions • All RfCs

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.

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

There was a suggestion made by @Bagumba on WP:ERRORS about updating WP:QUIRKY. Just noting it here for wider attention. See Special:Diff/1193598287. RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For convenient reference today's QUIRKY hook was ultimately toned down Is a caveat to QUIRKY needed?—Bagumba (talk) 17:14, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My view is that we shouldn't be posting hooks that are blatantly misleading, as this one is- a capital P on Poison isn't enough for readers to understand that it's a quirky joke. Not least because not everyone will know the quirky hook slot. I think there should be a rule against deliberately misleading readers. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If I was approving this prep set, I would have not changed the hook. I think we are underestimating our readers' ability to decode information: they are smart enough to realise that the original hook was not talking about poison, but rather something else. If anyone thought it was talking about poison, they would probably click on the link to find out more information, and realise that we were talking about a song.

I did a completely unscientific test where I showed the original hook to someone who does not edit Wikipedia: they said, "first glance, I thought it might be the substance, but then I see it's capitalised and in quotes, so it's probably not and I would need to click on it to find out more. It's definitely clickbaity." (I didn't ask if it was, they volunteered that word without prompting). Z1720 (talk) 19:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is safe to say that most of us will agree that this DYK should not have gone as-it-did to the mainpage. I think that is straightforward. Upper-case P vs lower-case p distinction will escape most of our readers.

That aside, often times, DYK editors and nominators are guilty of misconstruing "click-baitiness" with "interestingness". Even as I type this post, there are at least two threads upstream on this page that are debating interestingness. In my view, a good DYK is something that should make our readers learn more about a subject, and roughly go "Ah! I learned something today!". Instead, what we might be prioritizing here is our readers going -- "Oh! What could that be?" and then followed by "Eikes! Why did I click on that one!" Ktin (talk) 19:23, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, they'd learn how to soothe all those babies. Especially if they'd already tried out Alice and all the 28 other songs with that title!! Martinevans123 (talk) 19:33, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Frankly, the most misleading thing about this hook to me was that the fact that we weren't talking about the Bell Biv DeVoe song. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 23:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Joseph2302, @Ktin: You've both been selective in your recollection of the original presentation. It was "Poison", upper-case P and the word in double-quotes, which I maintained in the discussion is substantially different from poison. Bazza (talk) 19:48, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Neither of which is significant enough for most readers to notice a difference in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:58, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I don't object to the change -- 'the song "Poison"' isn't that much less quirky. But I also don't think the original was a problem. Valereee (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bazza 7 I will admit, I missed the double quotes. It makes it only marginally better than without the quotes imho. Ktin (talk) 20:22, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A key distinction between interestingness and click-baitiness.

Interesting: Reader clicks on the article to know more about the presented fact and / or learn more about the article now that their interest has been piqued by the presented fact.

Click-baity: Reader clicks on the article now that their curiosity has been triggered because the fact has not been fully presented or worse still has been presented in a misleading manner. Ktin (talk) 20:19, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Criminal: Reader comes to DYK to learn more on how to poison noisy babies. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:56, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How exactly was the hook "blatantly misleading"? Regardless of what hook slot it's in, I can't imagine a reader possibly interpreting this as a literal suggestion that poison soothes babies. ~ F4U (talk • they/it) 23:20, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it should be dictated by common sense. Let's not write something that may lead to less-observant readers giving babies poison. That, look, sorry it seems obvious. We run on common sense, and I think that slipped through because people were thinking more about the "interesting"; this should be a reminder to have a good hard look at hooks before they get to MP, but not a moment to codify something about no hooks on harmful substances. Kingsif (talk) 01:57, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We seem to have forgotten the meaning of "quirky" lately. It should be something a bit bizarre but that's presented accurately. Tomorrow's is a decent one - "that although Olga Hartman believed that her basic research on marine worms had no practical value, it was applied to experimental studies of oysters?". Historically, we have allowed the other type of hook - ones designed to mislead or present things as other than what they're really saying, once a year on 1 April. I also don't like that myself, but you pick your battles I guess. The daily quirky slot was never meant to be an everyday version of April fools though, and today's hook veered too far in that direction IMHO.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Not only was that study not statistically significant... but Yōko Shimura [ja] had the audacity to use only Japanese babies!! I demand a poisonous infant refund! Martinevans123 (talk) 20:13, 4 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand the need to want to present funny or unusual hooks at the quirky slot, I do wonder if we're taking it too seriously. For example, I have seen in the past where sets even had to be delayed for lack of a quirky hook. Maybe we should make it clear that they aren't mandatory and that the last hook could be a regular hook if there aren't any suitable or available ones. In addition, given that there have been multiple discussions and complaints about the accuracy of such hooks, including concerns such as WP:EGG, maybe we need a discussion on whether or not we need more guidelines on how to deal with them? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:23, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree we should not be holding up a set for want of a quirky hook. RoySmith (talk) 01:56, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The instructions have always said that quirky is desirable, not an absolute requirement. WP:DYKCRIT currently reads, Consider picking an upbeat, funny, or quirky hook – if there is one available – and putting it in the bottom slot of the set. If there's a dearth of quirky available, make the set without it. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:37, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So we can expect readers to understand the difference between an ice cube and Ice Cube (WP:SMALLDETAILS), but not between poison and "Poison"? That seems... weird. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 00:01, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can see the vindictive headlines already: "Shock spate of A&E babe traumas after sick Wiki poison advice!!" Martinevans123 (talk) 13:39, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seems more like WP:SMALLDETAILS is just a bad idea. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:53, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems like we may need to discuss about quirky hooks in more detail given our experiences with them over the years, so I've started an RfC below. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Wikipedia policies and guidelines When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Should we have guidelines regarding the use of quirky hooks on DYK, including how to define a quirky hook, what is acceptable and what is not acceptable in the case of hook wordings, and how they should be handled? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As seen in the above discussion, there have been discussions over the years of what kind of quirky hooks are acceptable on DYK. Although WP:QUIRKY suggests (but does not require) DYK sets to have at least one "upbeat/funny/quirky" hook at the end of every set, this is not a mandatory rule and leaves open the possibility of sets not having such a hook. In practice, prep builders sometimes delay finishing a set if no quirky hook could be found, even if the guidelines suggest that while such hooks are desirable, they are not mandatory.

More importantly, the guideline does not define what counts as a "quirky" hook, nor does it specify any guidelines or restrictions regarding them. Editors have expressed varying views over the years about them, particularly when it comes to quirky hooks that are unusually written (see for example #Existence which is suggesting a hook that goes "... that ...") or intentionally misleading. Some support them running at any time, and some editors suggest that these hooks can only run on April Fools Day, which is the time we tend to be very loose with our rules. A common concern that has been raised over the years is that quirky hooks can either be intentionally or unintentionally misleading, along with how some quirky hooks rely on WP:EGG to work. In some cases, some editors have also wondered if accuracy or factualness had been sacrificed in the desire for quirkiness.

With this in mind, do we need to add anything to our guidelines regarding the use of quirky hooks, including defining them and if we need to set limits on their wording or use? Or is the status quo, where there are currently no guidelines regarding them, sufficient? Finally, do we need to codify the ambiguity in the guidelines, which suggest but doesn't outright state that quirky hooks are not required or mandatory in a set but merely a good practice? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:24, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarify WP:QUIRKY so it is clear that 1) such hooks are recommended, but not required, and 2) that hooks chosen for "quirkiness" should not compromise their informativeness for the sole gain of "hookiness" (as I believe the song lyrics discussion concluded last year). ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 01:14, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Besides clarifying that sets do not need a quirky hook, we could say that when approving hooks (at any stage of the process), meeting hook requirements cannot be sacrificed for the sake of quirkiness (except AFD). That will be a reminder to use common sense without encouraging quirky hooks to be passed over IMO. Kingsif (talk) 01:34, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• A lot of the "misleading" hooks we get arise from us monkeying around with quotes – I wrote an essay about best practice in this area, and I would of course advocate that it be considered and ratified into DYK guideline. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:10, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely agree with AirshipJungleman et al. that the rules for hooks should apply to every hook, even the last hook in the set. There is currently no guideline that says otherwise, but given the strength of the unwritten tradition that "quirky" hooks are exempt from the rules, I think it ought to be set down in writing that this is not the case.
  More generally, I'd like to endorse Ktin's comment in the section above: Often times, DYK editors and nominators are guilty of misconstruing "click-baitiness" with "interestingness" ... In my view, a good DYK is something that should make our readers learn more about a subject, and roughly go "Ah! I learned something today!". Instead, what we might be prioritizing here is our readers going -- "Oh! What could that be?" and then followed by "Eikes! Why did I click on that one!" Many so-called quirky hooks are pure clickbait, and the thing about clickbait is that it does not provide a positive experience for the reader. DYK is a reader-focused process. I'm well aware that one of its stated aims is to acknowledge the work of editors, but this does not mean that the accumulation of pageviews should be prioritized above all else. Honestly, I think even the use of the word "hook" rather than, say, "factoid" is a big part of the problem. As Ktin says, a DYK set should present the reader with a collection of interesting facts, and give them the option of clicking through to the article to learn more. If they click the link only to find out what the hook is going on about, and then shake their head and immediately click the back button, that is not a victory. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 10:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:QUIRKY should give more objective guidance on cases like the "Poison" and baby hook. Was it bad because it was clickbait and not "that" poison, or was it poor taste because someone might be harmed or offended, or was it simply because babies were involved? Or was the original hook fine? It's preferable to have a consistent process for nominators, reviewers, and posters, and not left to the common sense of those involved at any given time.—Bagumba (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Agreed with AJ29, TLC, and Sojourner. Talking to non-wiki people who look at the Main Page regularly, the impression I get is what we call "quirky" hooks are what many readers consider "cringey" and clickbait. JoelleJay (talk) 02:05, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Truthfully, the "quirkiness" standards of DYK are fairly low, since featuring new articles is ultimately the priority. The hooks people are complaining about here are no more risque or misleading than whats already common in headlines or other similar trivia-related media.Mach61 (talk) 15:40, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Before we start to engage in yet more instruction creep, somebody will need to convince me that this is a persistent problem and not just an inevitable occasional case of poor judgement. Gatoclass (talk) 17:36, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Considering we get discussions and arguments over if a quirky hook is accurate or not at least once a month, it does appear to be a regular enough issue to warrant discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 17:41, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance you could point me to a few? Gatoclass (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe "once a month" was a bit of an overstatement, but it has happened fairly often in the past. The above discussion is an example, there was also an archived discussion about poison at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 196#Poison: Iitai Koto mo Ienai Konna Yo no Naka wa, Another discussion at Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 195#CACP in P1 (which is actually more about the commercial advertising thing, though still involving quirky hooks), and a few others over the years (those are just examples of discussions I could find that mentioned "quirky" by name, there have been others that didn't bring up the term). Reading through the archives, there also seems to be that unofficial practice of quirky hooks being mandatory even if they're not.

Now that I think about it, it would probably be appropriate to get EEng's thoughts on the matter given that he is known for making such hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 18:09, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gatoclass: Here's a few recent ERRORS discussions about quirky hooks: [1][2][3][4]. Bear in mind that the response one gets at ERRORS tends to dissuade editors from posting errors there; I could point to many more problematic quirkies from within the past few months that never got reported. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 19:02, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sojourner, thank you for that. With respect however, none of those discussions are about DYK rules being bent or ignored for the quirky slot. Rather, they are just typical discussions about whether particular hooks are sufficiently accurate. That's a general problem for DYK, not one specifically related to quirkies. Gatoclass (talk) 06:35, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, okay, I thought you were looking for "discussions and arguments over if a quirky hook is accurate or not". If what you're looking for is evidence that quirky hooks tend to get a free pass on the rules, well, I could probably find you some diffs but I don't think that point is really in dispute? It's frequently acknowledged by the DYK regulars (example). Sojourner in the earth (talk) 18:44, 10 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm leery of writing more rules to deal with this. I like seeing accurate quirky hooks, and I'd like to see one in each set, but what matters isn't an official declaration that having a set completed is more important than ticking the box for a quirky hook; what matters is editors informally saying things like "I can't find a quirky hook for this set" and someone else replying "No big deal. Just do the best you can", or someone saying "I don't think this hook is entirely accurate" and others pitching in to help correct it. Setting simple group norms will help more than an ever-expanding list of WP:CREEPY rules. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:46, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  No one is proposing we do away with quirky hooks altogether, just that if there needs to be at least guidelines regarding them to prevent complains (as seen by the link Sojourner mentioned above), and to codify the implied but not-in-practice rule that quirky hooks are encouraged but not mandatory and sets can go without them if none are available. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:21, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I think the right way to look at this is that we've got a bunch of criteria for what makes up an ideal hookset; we're allowed to break pretty much any of those rules, but at a "badness" cost, and the goal is to minimize the badness. For example, we want 8 hooks; running fewer is bad, but as shown the other day with the New Zealand mega-hook, overflowing our allotted space on the main page is worse, so we went with fewer hooks. The quirky slot is the same way, and what I'm hearing in this thread (which I agree with) is that skipping a quirky hook gets a fairly small badness score. RoySmith (talk) 23:35, 9 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia: where even oddness and fun become regulated. I agree with WhatamIdoing. 🌺 Cremastra (talk) 22:33, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• User:Tamzin, Thx for a commendable close on an unanticipatedly complex polling. A lot of people were discussing this and many issues arose. I attempted to get everyone to opine on all the issues. Then, User:Gatoclass edited my poll in a way that I think made it confusing (splitting the current DYK alternative requirements for non-new articles that they either be 5x expansions or GA into two mandatory requirememts). It seems like change may be coming but it sounds like a formal RFC may be in the offing. Your simple rule change suggestion to change "previously" to "in the past five years" might be the answer.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:01, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• @Gatoclass, RoySmith, Schwede66, and Theleekycauldron: Based on the WP:DYK, you are the admin leaders of DYK who participated in this discussion. Apologies for overstepping by putting forth the poll. Are we going to go forward with an RFC on the simple change suggested by this close or something else?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 10:19, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a case for a new RFC on the basis of the straw poll above. The poll established that there might be support for allowing articles to be run more than once, and if so for a five-year hiatus between runs. But there was no agreement on the conditions for allowing more than one DYK appearance.

So if you still want to run an RFC, the issue of conditions will have to be addressed somehow. Regardless, you will need to get consensus on the wording of any RFC before initiating it. We have had far too many problematic outcomes from poorly worded RFCs in the past, and we don't want to go there again. Gatoclass (talk) 10:52, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ON one hand, yeah, I think it was a bit of a BOLD move to make a rule change based on what was meant to be an informal discussion. On the other hand, I think the conclusions reached in the closing statement(s) were a reasonable summary of the discussion. At first I thought the "Require expansion to GA standard" section was closed incorrectly, but upon reading the discussion more closely, I see that several of the nominal "support" statements are really "support as one option, but opposed to making it a strict requirement", so yeah, no consensus seems about right.

I don't see this a making a major difference one way or another, and we've wasted more than enough time arguing it about. I say let Tamzin's close stand and move on to actually getting useful work done. Running an RFC at this point would just be disruptive. RoySmith (talk) 15:18, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t see the point. The discussion had a clear enough outcome; why waste more editor time? Schwede66 17:51, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

gotta agree with this one. We can talk about this more later if there's problems, but i think we're in pretty good shape and the cost/benefit ratio of an RfC wouldn't make sense to me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:28, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@TonyTheTiger, are you thinking there is an RfC formulation that would get buy-in for proposals that would add to this? And I don't think you overstepped, anyone can ask a question. Valereee (talk) 19:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the close was reasonable and something that makes sense to just go forward with. As I think of my next potential DYK candidate, Joanne McCarthy (basketball) that I have 5xed over the weekend, the new set of rules allows two alternatives. 1. I could DYK now and GA-DYK in 5 years with minimal change 2. I could GA now and DYK within 7 days after it gets approved with a 2nd DYK only possible with another 5x in 5 years. I wish we had ratified a 5x of the original DYK 2 eliminate option 1. I doubt there is an RFC formulation that will get us to that. Since 3 of the 4 admins who participated think we should just go forward with the close, that is probably sage advice.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello! I'm a relatively new admin and I haven't worked in DYK before. I'd like to be able to help out in the future if there's a shortage of promoted preps, as there was over the last few days. I've been going over the policies and advice, but wanted to check here too. One question: is there any way to mark a prep as "I'm working on it" so you don't accidentally duplicate work another admin is already doing? Any advice from experienced DYKers on pitfalls to avoid? Thanks all! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:14, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome, I am happy to help. One pitfall is trying to control a prep set - sometimes hooks get moved for balance. There are many gleaners in here who will quickly correct problems. So do not worry about making mistakes. For me I spot check the citations and then I check image licenses. Then I check Earwig, and I determine of a hook is interesting and accurate, and cited in the article. There is a lot to know especially about the DYKCRIT - and I have other rules that are reflexively checked that I am not calling out here so best to start and ask someone to look over your work. That is how I did it. You need the PSHAW tool. It makes promoting easy. Bruxton (talk) 21:34, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811: Also it seems to me the administrators who promote prep to queue - they promote the set and then do their checks. That way no other admin will be looking at the same prep set. If they see issues in the promoted queue they call them out here, and if they cannot be fixed, they swap the hook. But admins here can help you with the procedure. Bruxton (talk) 21:47, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense and is helpful, thanks! —Ganesha811 (talk) 21:49, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, in theory, the right way to do it is check first, then promote. But in practice, it's so much more convenient to promote first, then check, and whine on this page about problems you find. When things are running well, the queue is deep enough that we'll have the better part of a week to sort out any problems. Unfortunately, when things are lean, we'll only have a day or two. If it looks like the problems won't get resolved in time, pull the hook and find something to replace it, but if we get to that point, it's an indication that something has come of the rails earlier in the review process. RoySmith (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Checking after promoting also has the benefit that other admins aren't doing the same work, as it signals to them that you're checking that one. Valereee (talk) 12:09, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It would be nice if PSHAW had a way to add an "in progress" indicator to a prep. RoySmith (talk) 15:47, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Say if you want me to look over your shoulder while you check a set. And Bruxton is right; I don't think there's anyone here who checks first before promoting to queue. Schwede66 23:11, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Ganesha811, ditto. I would be very happy to recheck a prep you've promoted after you did the checks yourself. Thank you for offering to work here. I do know there are admins who check first, but to avoid possibly wasting other people's time, I always promote, then check. If I got into a situation where I promoted and couldn't finish the checks, I'd post here for help. Valereee (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thanks all, I'll try my hand at it one of these days when I see a need. —Ganesha811 (talk) 17:55, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Anytime there's less than 7 sets in the queue, there's a need :-) RoySmith (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Alright, I've just promoted into Queue 3, and made one slight modification to a hook but found no other issues. If someone else wouldn't mind checking over my work, that would be appreciated! —Ganesha811 (talk) 15:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Rechecking. @Ganesha811, the sentence in the article that provides the support to the hook has to be directly cited at that sentence. I've added it to the Shovel Knight article, as I found it in the next-following-cite, but on Frank Duncan, the next-following-cite is behind a paywall so I can't confirm that the content is in that source in order to add it to the hook sentence. Ping to Gonzo fan2007, Bagumba, AirshipJungleman29, can one of you confirm that information is in that source? Valereee (talk) 10:41, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I made a couple of tweaks to one of the hooks:

  • ... that before going viral on TikTok TikTok for "Hit or Miss" aged at age fifteen, Georgia Twinn wanted to become a forensic scientist?

  I unbolded TikTok because it's unneeded (that is, most readers of English will know what TikTok is) and any additional link is a distraction from the target, especially if it appears in the sentence before the target. I try to pare them down to the essentials when I can.

  I changed aged>at age because it felt awkward to me in AmEng, but if that's not awkward in BrEng, feel free to change it back. Valereee (talk) 11:05, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Valereee: The relevant excerpts are at Template:Did you know nominations/Frank Duncan (American football) next to ALT1.—Bagumba (talk) 11:10, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Okay, I've added that source to the hook sentence to prevent anyone else from thinking they need to go hunt it down. Valereee (talk) 12:02, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I recently had to demote Template:Did you know nominations/Baldwin-Reynolds House due to copyright issues which really should have been caught at an earlier stage. The initial review was done by Broc. They are a newcomer to DYK reviewing; this was about the 5th nomination they have reviewed. I'm absolutely not saying it's their fault. Indeed, I am sincerely happy that somebody new is willing to help with the job of keeping DYK running, and they should not in any way be discouraged from continuing to help and learn.

At the same time, we've got a plethora of complicated rules and it's unreasonable to assume first-time reviewers will understand them all. I'm wondering if we should have some sort of "reviewer in training" process which would alert subsequent reviewers to take extra care to double-check their work. Maybe a badge system would do that while simultaneously provide recognition and positive feedback for people who have gained a certain level of experience.

This is not a "place blame" thing, it's a "help educate the new recruits" thing and a quality control thing. The earlier in the process we spot problems, the easier it is to fix. By the time it gets to a queue and has to be pulled, a lot of extra work has been created. Even worse if it doesn't get picked up until WP:ERRORS. RoySmith (talk) 16:03, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would expect that the promoters to the queue would catch a concern like this, as promoters are expected to be experienced editors at DYK. I encourage promoters to be strict about the rules, as it is better to address concerns early, and others can weigh in if a problem is raised. Z1720 (talk) 17:18, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, this one's on me. Apologies all. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:17, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith, should the Prepper instructions mention a copyvio check? They don't seem to currently. TSventon (talk) 00:56, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My view of things is that each person who moves the nomination along is responsible for making sure all the rules are met. When I promote from prep to queue, I check the things that I think matter the most: copying and to make sure the hook statement is stated in the article and backed up by a WP:RS. I trust that the two reviewers before me have checked things like length, age, if it's been on the MP before, etc. More to the point, if they haven't done those, I don't see anything horrible coming from it. I doubt anybody's going to pop up on WP:ERRORS and complain that we're idiots because we stretched the 7-day window to 10 days. RoySmith (talk) 01:04, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for pointing this out—probably a rookie mistake from my side. I did use Earwig and the most it spotted was a 9% match (I just tried running it again to the same result), which did not seem very relevant. Maybe separately from here someone (maybe RoySmith?) could explain me what I missed? I generally agree that maybe a training process for new reviewers could be a good idea! Maybe 3-4 example pages to "test review" (e.g., old DYKs) before reviewing a real one? --Broc (talk) 21:22, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Earwig is a wonderful (and indispensible) tool, but like all good tools, it takes a little finesse to use it well. I use the big "Violation Unlikely: 9.1% similarity" banner at the top as only a vague indicator. You need to take a deeper look at what it flags. For example, it says that the string "The Crawford County Historical Society" exists in both our article and the source. That's totally meaningless; it's the name of something, of course it's going to appear verbatim.

On the other hand, it also flags "Just a few months after [the house was completed]". There's so many possible ways to say, "The house was completed. Then a few months went by" the fact that that particular phrase is a match gets my copyvio antenna quivering. So then I start looking at what comes immediately before and after that and can put together more bits and pieces that are almost very similar. Not identical enough for Earwig to pick up on it, but obvious that one was copied from the other. RoySmith (talk) 23:30, 15 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the words of Taylor Swift, "Shake it off". We need you participating here. Ping me or post here for others to check your next review. We need you! None of us gets it right all the time. Bruxton (talk) 00:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That last post edit conflicted @Broc:. Bruxton (talk) 00:12, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are a lot of rules, but I'm not sure if training would help this particular case. Plagiarism is often misunderstood, and can be hard to pick up on, which is not a DYK issue but a Wikipedia-wide issue. We lay it out specifically here because we are pushing items to the front cover of en.wiki, but it is not specifically a DYK issue in the way that hooks are. CMD (talk) 01:29, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A pragmatic way to deal with new reviewers would be to flag that they are new at reviewing. If that's obvious, then every subsequent reviewer could maybe pay even more attention when doing their checks, and check the relevant article broader and deeper. I wouldn't support the idea of doing dummy runs using old nominations; it's better to learn on the (real) job. Schwede66 02:11, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, WP:DYKRI advises new reviewers to ask for a second opinion for their first few reviews (it's fresh on my mind because I'm currently waiting for one myself). It could be useful to make that a requirement rather than a suggestion. DrOrinScrivello (talk) 21:52, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is pointless IMO. Promoters and administrators are supposed to thoroughly check every article for compliance, regardless of who reviewed it, so I see no point in adding "training wheels" alerts. It will just add more complexity to an already complex process. Gatoclass (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's the theory. In practice of course things slip through the cracks, which we'd really want to avoid. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 10:19, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Adila Laïdi-Hanieh

I have pulled this from Prep 6. The hook is sourced to Middle East Monitor, a pro-Hamas site reportedly funded by Qatar. The sourced article itself is not controversial, but I'm a little concerned that with current events, the source may attract controversy. Some of the other sources also look a little ropey. The article basically just doesn't look ready for prime-time to me. Gatoclass (talk) 08:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass, did you restore the nomination to WP:DYKNA or WP:DYKN? I can't seem to find it. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 14:05, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I didn't, because the nominator already responded, and I'm planning to handle it from here myself. Gatoclass (talk) 14:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous list was archived about half a day ago, so I’ve created a new list of the first 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through December 11. We have a total of 320 nominations, of which 110 have been approved, a gap of 210 nominations that has increased by 7 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than two months old

• November 14: Template:Did you know nominations/1939 Liechtenstein putsch

More than one month old

• November 23: Template:Did you know nominations/The Torture Camp on Paradise Street
• November 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Sabrina the Teenage Witch: The Album
• November 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Coco & Clair Clair (two articles)
• November 25: Template:Did you know nominations/No Rome (two articles)
• November 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Lonnie R. Bristow
• November 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Effective accelerationism
• November 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Intangible Cultural Heritage of Palestine
• November 28: Template:Did you know nominations/Child poverty in New Zealand
• November 28: Template:Did you know nominations/History of Darul Uloom Deoband
• November 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Gig economy
• November 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Blanch v. Koons
• November 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Zarlor Mercenary
• November 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Concha Liaño
• November 30: Template:Did you know nominations/Outgroup favoritism
• December 1: Template:Did you know nominations/A Stormy Night
• December 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Fair Work Ombudsman v Quest South Perth
• December 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Richard Twine (sociologist)
• December 1: Template:Did you know nominations/Disappearance of Cecilia Strzyzowksi
• December 2: Template:Did you know nominations/N. D. Popescu-Popnedea
• December 2: Template:Did you know nominations/M'liss McClure
• December 3: Template:Did you know nominations/Arbeiter-Schutzbund
• December 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Colin MacKay (journalist, born 1944)
• December 4: Template:Did you know nominations/2023 AFL Women's Grand Final
• December 4: Template:Did you know nominations/Vincent Marks
• December 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Moles (nightclub)
• December 6: Template:Did you know nominations/We Work the Black Seam
• December 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Wolfgang Wieland
• December 6: Template:Did you know nominations/The Chinese Association of Gauteng
• December 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Oriana Skylar Mastro
• December 6: Template:Did you know nominations/Counterweight (novel)
• December 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Refaat Alareer
• December 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Ken Moore (American football)
• December 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Azerbaijan
• December 9: Template:Did you know nominations/Personality neuroscience
• December 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Tish (2023 documentary)
• December 11: Template:Did you know nominations/Sarah McCreanor

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 16:21, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, Toadboy123, and Voorts: this needs an end-of-sentence citation for the hook fact in the article. It also seems odd that the article doesn't actually say what his rank was when he was captured. It says he was "deputy commander", but that's a job title, not a rank. RoySmith (talk) 16:36, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Citation duplicated from end of paragraph. I presume, since deputy commanders are always colonels in the US (see Structure of the United States Air Force#Wing) it is much more illustrative to refer to him as the former. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:59, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't put much credence in what another wiki article (especially one with a "citation needed" tag) says, but the citation you added works. RoySmith (talk) 17:32, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! voorts (talk/contributions) 20:40, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, SounderBruce, and Z1720: Most of this was created in Special:Diff/1188049671, which says "using MLS Cup 2019 as a template, see that page's history for attribution". It's almost identical, with names and dates changed. The attribution in the edit comment certainly satisfies WP:COPYWITHIN, but is this really what we want to be considering "new content" for DYK purposes? It's also an exact match to https://www.deviantart.com/the-17th-man/art/MLS-Cup-Title-Banner-1004217656, but I'm virtually certain they copied from us.

I don't see why not; if you're expecting editors to come up with a completely new organisation for each year's event, I think that's barking up the WP:BURO tree. The vast majority of the content in MLS Cup 2023 is original in any case. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:03, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm late to the party on this, but that website has clearly copied from us, as they published their article on 22 December 2023, whereas the Wikipedia article was written on 3 and 4 December 2023. I've tagged Talk:MLS Cup 2023 appropriately to show this. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:32, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, Vortex3427, and Johnson524: This has two entire paragraphs which is word-for-word from https://www.lyrics.com/lyric-lf/7048838/TryHardNinja. It's entirely possible that they copied from us, and I was just starting to investigate if that was the case when I noticed this was a GA. NegativeMP1 you did that GA review, but I don't see any mention of this in your review. Could you walk us through what investigation you had done regarding this and how you concluded that it wasn't a problem? RoySmith (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Hmm, when I did the DYK review on the page, copyvio didn't come up positive for anything notable as far as I can remember, so I'm assuming lyrics.com is the culprit? Hope you get this sorted out for sure though, cheers! Johnson524 17:13, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm concurring the above. When I used the copyvio detector, it turned up what looked to be false positives and a percentage that would be completely insignificant. Additionally, I highly doubt that Vortex would have copied the entire lead section from lyrics, and also Tryhardninja and Sparkles are not the same person. I'm pretty sure it was lyrics that copied the text here. λ NegativeMP1 17:25, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find the lyrics.com page in archive.org, so yeah, I'm happy with assuming they got it from us. RoySmith (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that some lyrics in the music of Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance were compared to historical buffalo hunting?

- I have pulled this hook from prep 1 as the hook is incomprehensible, as is the text in the article that pertains to it. Unfortunately I could not fix it on the fly because the source is offline. Also, the article as a whole is poorly written and badly needs a copyedit - how it managed to pass GA is a mystery. Gatoclass (talk) 12:13, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging the editors who were involved in the Nomination: @NegativeMP1 and Kafoxe: and promotor AirshipJungleman29 Bruxton (talk) 14:17, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what's incomprehensible about the hook? What I took it to mean is that lyrics from the music of this game were compared to buffalo hunting. I don't see the issue there. I agree, on second look, that the sentence in the article about that comparison could be rewritten, but the article as a whole doesn't seem glaringly bad. Kafoxe (talk) 18:42, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I'm not exactly sure what desperately needs a copyedit or what is poorly written. I think the only issue I see in it in retrospect was a source I didn't use. I do agree that the sentence verifying the hook could have been written better–and I just attempted to make it better at that—but there was also an alternate hook that could've been used, which is verified in the article in its own sub-section. If it is truly written poorly enough to where it passing GA is a mystery, GAR exists. λ NegativeMP1 18:58, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the responses, but this discussion should be continued on the nomination page, where I will respond. I won't be able to do so immediately however as I'm about to log off for the day. Gatoclass (talk) 20:41, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was there a reason for this I missed? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:11, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like @Weggers removed it from the prep in Special:Diff/1196104735 just before promoting. RoySmith (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Um, make that @Waggers RoySmith (talk) 21:34, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Waggers, if you encounter an incomplete prep set, the thing to do is to plug that hole (either by moving a hook from a later prep, or you could promote from the set of approved nominations). The former is easier, as another editor has already done the prep checks, but it does create a hole somewhere else. Schwede66 23:00, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @DYK admins: : can one of you please move a hook from a later prep into Queue 6 so it has its full complement of eight? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:26, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Moved M'liss McClure RoySmith (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, thanks WaggersTALK 08:56, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, Hameltion, and Launchballer: The hook calls him a "professor of medieval literature and comic books". At a university, "professor of ..." is generally a specific job title. His university page says he's a Lecturer in "English, General Literature and Rhetoric". Calling him "professor of medieval literature and comic books" is, at best, misleading. RoySmith (talk) 23:49, 18 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: "teacher of ..." an okay replacement? Hameltion (talk | contribs) 00:23, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe not the cleanest wording, but it would certainly be accurate. RoySmith (talk) 00:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, Thriley, and Prodraxis: I pulled this as a blatent copyvio. Several paragraphs are almost word-for-word from the NY Times. Come on, folks. You can't have

and call it original. RoySmith (talk) 00:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I felt it was acceptable paraphrasing. My apologies if it isn’t considered that. Thriley (talk) 00:07, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at this some more. It's bad enough that I tagged it for WP:G12. RoySmith (talk) 00:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thriley Pardon me for being abrupt, but you've been around a long time. I think you need to go back and read up on what "acceptable paraphrasing" is. RoySmith (talk) 00:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am truly sorry. Amateurish of me. Thriley (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I regard DYK as a very good area of Wikipedia if you want to become a better editor / learn new things. Don't be too hard on yourself, Thriley; it's a volunteer role after all and stuff happens occasionally. Thanks for all your good work. Schwede66 03:01, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy was declined by A. B. – I agree that there's content worth preserving, i've cut the copyvio and deleted prior revisions. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:30, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Leeky. Thriley (talk) 01:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Sorry, should have looked closer earlier. Prodraxis _(talk) 02:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we need to work on the backlog quickly as several nominations over the last few days are not being transcluded properly over at WP:DYKN. Thanks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah; saw that, too. I hate to say it but maybe it's time for 12-hour sets... Schwede66 03:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would 12 hour sets help? The backlog is at WP:DYKN, not WP:DYKNA. I think the emergency QPQ requirement needs to be activated, and possibly enlarged. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 03:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12-hour slots are a bad idea when we are struggling to maintain 6-7 filled queues. Instead, I encourage anyone reading this to go review some hooks at WP:DYKN. Z1720 (talk) 03:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

12-hour sets also won't solve the problem, which as AirshipJungleman29 notes is because we need more reviews to be completed and approved, which moves the approved nominations off the WP:DYKN page. The switchover happens at 10+ sets approved and 120+ noms approved, and we're not at either level at the moment. On the other hand, perhaps if we invoke the emergency QPQ requirement for the first time (people with at least 20 nominations have to review two articles per nomination rather than the normal one article for their QPQ), it would start helping with the backlog of unreviewed noms. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, yes. Of course. Schwede66 03:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let’s activate a temporary two QPQ request with the option to reuse the qpq later. Ktin (talk) 06:08, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is akin to kicking the can down the road. It won't hurt anybody to have to do an extra QPQ for a few days until the backlog is cleared. Gatoclass (talk) 06:45, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not technically a violation of DYK rules, but I'm a little concerned that we're running "Jesus did cocaine on a night out" (Queue 5) followed a few days later by "a pornographic script about Jesus" (Queue 2). I don't object to either, but maybe we should space them out more? RoySmith (talk) 17:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Four days and four sets apart, Jesus was debauched at DYK..." I think it's fine, but I don't really mind. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:31, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, while this technically squeezes under the 200 character limit (discounting the second bold link), it really is a mouthful and could benefit from some trimming. If nothing else, condemnations by a pope and a queen, a firebombing, and the writer's ban from the UK is awkwardly worded; it looks like the firebombing and the writer's ban are both part of a list of things that condemned the script. RoySmith (talk) 17:33, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Tamzin and Frzzl: pinging nominator and reviewer. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no opinion on spacing w/r/t the cocaine hook. I feel that this—a two-article saga most interesting for its complexity and absurdity—is a good use case for coming right up to the maximum, and was careful not to exceed it. I do see the point about the list's wording, though. How about papal and royal condemnations? Flows better, and six characters shorter, too. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 18:09, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

How about:

... that a pornographic script about Jesus, condemned by a pope and a queen, led to a firebombing, the writer's banishment from the UK, and demands to ban a non-existent gay Jesus film?

RoySmith (talk) 22:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To me that flows worse, and it incorrectly implies that the condemnation by Queen Elizabeth predated the firebombing, when it actually came several years after. How about

... that a pornographic screenplay about Jesus led to papal and royal condemnations, a firebombing, the writer's ban from the UK, and thousands of letters per week demanding the ban of a non-existent gay Jesus film? (181 chars.)

Previously I'd used "script" over the more standard "screenplay" just to stay under 200, but with some more wiggle room here I've used the latter instead. And if the first "ban" is undesirable, "denial of entry to" or "being barred from" would be more accurate than "banishment from". Thorsen did technically set foot on British soil, but never cleared Customs. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:12, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and since the removal of "spawned a hoax" does potentially risk the misunderstanding that the screenplay and the non-existent film are the same thing, "the ban of" → "Illinois ban" is only +3 chars. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 23:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was just a suggestion; I'll leave it up to you. RoySmith (talk) 23:56, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well I appreciate having had the chance to think this over, Roy! I'd initially thought I got it as short as possible to convey what I wanted, but you got me to think further, and I find I like my new suggestion better than the original. If there's no objection, could you or another uninvolved admin swap them out? Thanks so much. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (they|xe) 01:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Schwede66 17:37, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, Generalissima, and Jo-Jo Eumerus: I don't understand this hook. Why "actually"? The article talks about how the figure is supposed to be performing a Haka, which is a kind of dance, so I don't get what the hook is trying to say. Not to mention that the article doesn't say anything about a uniform. RoySmith (talk) 17:11, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Uniform is a synonym of costume here, but I see that this kind of variance isn't necessary. The warrior looks like he's in a war-like pose, not dance-like, hence the "actually". Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 17:15, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the reception section; "The ahistorical usage of the piupiu garment (associated with modern haka dance and ceremony) in a combat scenario was criticised, alongside the awkward pose with which the taiaha was held." (There's also the letter to the editor in that quotebox explaining how this was incorrect) If he was depicted doing a haka as was originally requested, the piupiu would be correct, but he's crouching on some sort of cliff holding a weapon in a defensive stance. I clarified the text a little to specify he's not actually doing a haka on the final coin. Generalissima (talk) 17:17, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith I found the hook fairly straightforward: simply contrasting the intention of a warrior preparing for battle and looking rather fearsome, with what the coin actually displays, which is a man in the Maori equivalent of a cheerleading outfit, or something. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:18, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AirshipJungleman29, CurryTime7-24, and Gerda Arendt: I'm not seeing where in the article the hook fact is stated. RoySmith (talk) 17:20, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith "John Riley ... observed that the unrealized Gogoliad "closed the loop [of the composer's film career] in two ways: with the director who... had been his first cinema collaborator..." ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:22, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that works, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 18:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

May I suggest:

... that in 2014, BBC Three cancelled a debate on being gay and Muslim which featured a Muslim drag queen?

would be a snappier hook. RoySmith (talk) 17:27, 19 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We have a very large backlog at WP:DYKN, so much so that the WP:PEIS limit is occasionally breached, a problem normally reserved for the approved list. WP:QPQ refers to an "unreviewed backlog mode" where nominators of twenty or more articles are required to provide an extra QPQ. This needs to be activated, for technical reasons if nothing else. This would likely also push us above the WP:DYKROTATE boundary and into 12-hour sets; however, I do not see any alternative. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Or, if 12-hour sets puts too much stress on the @DYK admins: , we could temporarily bump up the number of hooks/set to 10 (which the main page has the space for). Regardless, something needs to be done now so we don't hit all-hands-on-deck panic stations in the next couple of weeks. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could start rejecting marginal submissions. RoySmith (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could also time out nominations that do not attract reviewer or prep builder interest in a reasonable period of time, perhaps with a newbie exemption. —Kusma (talk) 17:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So you're suggesting we reject all workshopping of original hooks RoySmith? If a reviewer or prep-builder finds hooks to be un-runnable, it should be summarily rejected? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:20, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's not what I said. In any process that accepts submissions, if you have more submissions than you can publish, there's two things you can do about it. One is to increase your publishing capacity, the other is to sort the submissions by some quality metric and accept the best ones. It doesn't have to be as draconian as eliminating all workshopping of hooks, but I do think we need to move away from allowing an unbounded amount of time and effort being put into improving submissions. RoySmith (talk) 17:36, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Any ideas for how to formalise that into the guidelines? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 17:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like @Kumsa's idea of using time in queue as a proxy for quality. It's not perfect but nothing else will be perfect either and when faced with a choice of imperfect alternatives, picking the simplest way is attractive. Different reviewers/preppers will have their own idea of what makes a good hook, which will tend to even out individual differences. RoySmith (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh, mis-pinged @Kusma, sorry about that. RoySmith (talk) 18:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gatoclass suggested something similar below. @RoySmith and Kusma: What's the best cut-off time, in your opinions? Looking at WP:DYKN, maybe around 45 days? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 18:59, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The problem seems to be WP:PEIS, so rather than setting a specific time limit, how about "Keep deleting the oldest entry in WP:DYKN or WP:DYKN/A until it's under the size limit"? Or more likely 90% of the limit to allow a little wiggle room. RoySmith (talk) 19:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simple solution for the technical PEIS issue, so we should do that. I also think we should generally not allow noms to linger for such an absurdly long time. I haven't done any data analysis, but I think we should do something like close nominations that have been open for longer than 90% of the nominations we had last year, and/or close nominations that have had zero activity for longer than 90% of noms. If we can't get such data, I would suggest to close nominations that have been open for six weeks or that have not had any activity for three weeks.

From what I remember of DYK in 2006, it was normal that nominations that were not chosen within a few days were discarded. After all, DYK was supposed to be interesting facts from new articles. The boring hooks were more likely to be discarded by time out, which made the Main Page more interesting. We currently often have boring facts from articles that are two months old but have passed our byzantine set of rules and processes. I think we can do better. —Kusma (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This project has pretty much a perpetual backlog, and yet the people who don't do the work want to increase the workload. It's hard to understand. Valereee (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's time change the QPQ requirements. Regardless of the rules, I always try to do 2-4 reviews for every one of mine. Viriditas (talk) 19:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I actually don't think it's the QPQs so much. They more or less balance out, with occasional backlogs, and the amount of work involved in asking people to do a few reviews is minor, so the backlogs tend to get dealt with. The chronic problem is the moves to prep and queue. Building a prep or moving a queue takes 8x the work of doing a QPQ, and it attracts hostile scrutiny. A lot of people understandably aren't interested in doing it. If you want to ease the workload here, build a prep. If you're an admin, move a prep to queue. But, yeah, if you slip up, someone's probably going to point it out. So. Valereee (talk) 22:14, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I think you could still automate a bit more of the process by using more tags in the initial nomination phase. For example, the variety criterion could be facilitated by such nom-assigned tags (spec. occas., bio, short, quirky, US, etc.) Same thing could be used for quality control (short hook, long hook, no cite, etc.) Then automatically build the sets, but finalize them with real people. Apologies if that's science fiction. Viriditas (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No idea whether it's science fiction or not. One of the things prep builders have to do is create a 'balanced' set, which means no more than 3-4 US-centric hooks, alternating bio vs. non-bio, and generally no more than one science or music or building or radio station or whatever other topic. An automatic process to build the sets would have to take all of that into account, which would mean we'd also need tags like bio, US, music, science, etc. Valereee (talk) 11:52, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm running a bot which automatically tags hooks as biographies or US-centric. The heuristics I use do a reasonable job, but they're not perfect. I think of it as an aid for human preppers to find what they're looking for. We may eventually get to the point where a bot can do the whole job, but we're far from there now, and I'm not sure I want to live in a world where it becomes reality. RoySmith (talk) 15:54, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also, WP:DYKPBI requires prep builders to do some checks on the nominations they choose, which I don't believe a bot could do. TSventon (talk) 16:01, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think Viriditas is suggesting that prep builders could simply do the checks after the bot created the set. Although, for me, the building of the set is the fun part, the puzzle. It's not the tedious part. Valereee (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not building preps these days, but when I was, yeah, I was not just looking to keep the set balanced in terms of biography/US, but also looking at the previous days' sets to make sure we're not running too many pictures of frogs in a row, or too much Taylor Swift, etc. RoySmith (talk) 18:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I was just hoping a bit more automation of the creation of the initial sets could allow preppers to have more free time to get creative with it at the decision-making stage, not replace them. I'm currently reading Brian Merchant's book Blood in the Machine. He makes an interesting, long-drawn-out argument about how automation can be more inclusive and democratic if we embed those values in the decision-making process. Viriditas (talk) 20:11, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is that directed at me Valereee? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:23, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, @AirshipJungleman29, is what directed at you? Valereee (talk) 23:26, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

One proposal I have put forward in the past is that nominations whose nominators fail to respond to issues raised within a week should be discarded. The project should not have to continue to wrestle with nominations that their own originators have effectively abandoned. That may not get rid of a lot of nominations, but it would account for at least some. Gatoclass (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alternatively, just fail nominations that have remained on the nomination page for a certain time period. That is actually what a previous administrator here used to do as a matter of course and there were never any complaints. Gatoclass (talk) 18:23, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Call me a soft touch, but I'd rather a nomination fail on its merits, rather than being arbitrarily timed out. I could absolutely get behind nixing noms with issues unresolved after a week though.--Launchballer 19:00, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When I recently returned to DYK, I had planned to help out with queue promotion, but since it seems there is a more pressing problem with reviewing, for what it's worth I have switched to doing that instead. I've completed four reviews today and if I can keep up that pace for a while it might make a modest dint in the backlog. Unfortunately though, I can't guarantee that I will be able to find the time, we'll just have to see I guess. Gatoclass (talk) 19:11, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: (edit conflict) I would be most unhappy if my own nominations were failed on technicalities or they timed out. I imagine in addition to myself, it may turn off editors who would otherwise become regular contributors here. For my latest submission I did two QPQs; that seems like a fair requirement. We have a crisis every once in a while here and This too shall pass. Bruxton (talk) 19:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've cleaned out all nominations that were more than two months old. All of them weren't moving along for one reason or another. Schwede66 20:01, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I think that if a nominator fails to respond to review feedback, failing a nomination by "time-out" is understandable. However, I've seen some nominations stalled because a reviewer, after giving rigorous feedback which the nominator carries out, doesn't promptly (or sometimes ever) finish the review. In cases like that, I'd hope it could be possible to encourage participants to step in and finish such reviews, rather than leave nominators (especially potential newcomers to DYK) feeling as if they've been penalized for someone else not circling back. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:17, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We could protect newbie nominations (i.e. QPQ exempt ones) from time out rules. —Kusma (talk) 20:56, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sympathetic to the time-out rules but I don't know if we should be strict about them. For instance, sometimes the delays are on the reviewer side, as in the reviewer hasn't returned or commented for various reasons. Or sometimes an article gets stuck simply because the hook hasn't been reviewed at all. While this could be an argument towards the hook being uninteresting and thus being unsuitable for Wikipedia, it could also be due to the subject material. Several DYK articles about controversial topics, for example, can remain unreviewed for a long time since editors are often unwilling to touch hot potatoes. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:16, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• We do need to attack this backlog at both ends. Once we manage to hit 10 preps/queues, we should go into 2/day mode for as long as we can tolerate it (I will promote a few sets).
  To limit nominations (and to increase quality), another option I can see would be to require slightly longer articles. How about 1800 or 2000 bytes minimal size instead of the current 1500? —Kusma (talk) 17:43, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • We could do that, but I doubt it would have much effect. When, as a reviewer, I've sometimes had to point out that articles are a bit too short, they are normally easily padded out a bit. I'm not sure what proportion of noms are near the lower length limit. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    This may also fall into the "be careful what you measure" category. If you tell somebody, "You need to give me another 300 characters", you'll get it. But that probably won't translate into a better article. RoySmith (talk) 18:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    +1. I've written articles that are naturally short. We don't want to incentivize padding. Valereee (talk) 18:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I would really like to have higher quality articles and more interesting hooks. The length would be the easiest formal criterion to manipulate. For "interesting hooks", I would really like to try dropping nominations that are so boring that nobody engages with them in a reasonable amount of time. —Kusma (talk) 20:07, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This nomination for Young Girls (painting) was closed on account of reviewer inactivity. Would it be possible to reopen that? I was not the nominator or original reviewer, but from what I see the nomination is ready to be approved. The only thing holding the page back was the original reviewer's dissatisfaction with an earlier proposed hook and their subsequent inactivity. Since I happened across the page and have already read it, I'm unexpectedly in a decent position to finish the review. I definitely understand the desire to clear out old nominations from the page; I only ask an exception in this case because I think this is one that I an approve so it can subsequently move to the approved P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:14, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done No trouble; happy reviewing. Schwede66 20:22, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks very much; I just finished the review. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Turpin

@DYK admins:

This was a slip-up on the review itself, I think. Anyway, it probably ought to be pulled but I think it's about to rotate off. — Maile (talk) 23:15, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Pulled. Saw this with 12 minutes to go. I would normally have procedurally closed the AfD (as you cannot nominate an article for deletion while it is on the main page) but with so little time to run, it's easier to pull and let the AfD run its course. Schwede66 23:50, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Stuff happens, I guess. — Maile (talk) 23:54, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest, I probably wouldn't have caught this either. I'm mostly looking for copying and being able to trace the hook back to a RS. WP:N just isn't something I'm looking at. RoySmith (talk) 00:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It develops one review at a time. — Maile (talk) 02:11, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, reading WP:DYKCRIT, I don't see anything that says we're supposed to be reviewing for WP:N. WP:RS, yes, but that's not the same as WP:N. So I can't fault our review of this. RoySmith (talk) 03:27, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

WP:DYKHFC says "All content subject to the policy on biographies of living persons must conform with it". WP:BLP requires (among other things) Verifiability. And therein comes the problem with the vague claims about this person. — Maile (talk) 04:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasn't "Did you know" once restricted to new articles? When did that change? (I'm asking purely out of curiosity.) —scs (talk) 03:09, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It still has that restriction. Depends on how you calculate newness: WP:DYKNEW. Also, it wasn't always this many articles available. My first nomination was because an admin grabbed Estacado, Texas from the Special:NewPages. DYK didn't then have the glut of nominations it does today. Even when I joined, we sometimes had to go out looking for something to nominate. — Maile (talk) 16:44, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gradually, over the years. But even with 5x expansions, GAs, & now repeat offenders soon to be allowed under certain circumstance, most DYK articles are still new creations. Johnbod (talk) 17:53, 21 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Got it, thanks! —scs (talk) 11:59, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started contributing to DYK in 2016 and I remember by then the "from Wikipedia's new and recently-improved content" line had already been deleted long before then, but I'm not exactly sure when that line was removed. In any case, since at least the "promotion to GA status" pipeline was introduced after 2012 (I can't remember the exact year), DYK hasn't been strictly about newness anymore, but can also be about newly-improved content too. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at Concha Liaño which is nominated for DYK, I am unsure if it meets one of the criteria. WP:DYKCITE says "The article must be based on reliable sources, which must be cited inline." This article does have sources, they are cited inline, and I don't see a lack of notability for the subject. But I don't know if the cited sources meet DYK's standards. There are only six, so I'll outline below:

1. Published by an anarchist labor union, cited 3 times.
2. Interview with the subject, cited 4 times.
3. SlideShare is user-uploaded and I don't see an indication that this has been published elsewhere, cited 1 time.
4. Interview with the subject, cited 2 times.
5. Published book that seems to provide considerable coverage, cited 1 time.
6. Published by an anarchist labor union, cited 1 time.

Much of the sourcing seems involved with the subject, but I am not familiar with the organizations. @Grnrchst, David Eppstein, Silver seren, and BlueMoonset: courtesy ping to all who posted on the DYK page. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 10:16, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, in retrospect, the cited sources in this article aren't of high enough quality for DYK. I should have thought twice before nominating this one, apologies. Feel free to withdraw it. --Grnrchst (talk) 10:34, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me, this would be sufficient as long as the hook fact is sourced to 1, 5, or 6 or is so noncontroversial that sourcing to one of the interviews would be okay. The slideshare looks like it was uploaded by Mujeres Libres, so I'd probably accept it for a noncontroversial hook. The content from it seems to be properly attributed in the article, so I wouldn't have a problem with it in the article but personally wouldn't source a hook to it here if there was any other hook. Valereee (talk) 13:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: The hook is sourced to citation 2, the interview with Aporrea. It was the thing that I found the most interesting about the article, which is why I put it for the hook. Citations 1 and 6 are mostly for general biographical information. --Grnrchst (talk) 14:24, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Grnrchst, I don't have a problem with that hook being sourced to an interview. She isn't saying anything extraordinary about herself. I searched her on google to see if I could improve the article, and I didn't find much beyond what you've used, but she clearly is a notable figure. The simple fact (Columbia University?) did an oral history interview is enough to convince me of that. Valereee (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Generally speaking, I think we should be okay with interviews as long as we don't have any reason to doubt their reliability or veracity. Even if the source itself might be potentially unreliable, if the information came from the horse's mouth and we don't think they're lying, it should be okay as long as it doesn't violate BLP or if the information is uncontroversial. Sometimes we overcorrect with regards to our treatment of unreliable sources and think that they're unacceptable in all cases when they can be usable in limited circumstances. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 12:13, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't see an issue with the sources. Silverseren^C 00:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi could someone move Carol Mutch's nomination to the special occasion holding area for 22 Feb? The approved hook is dependent on it running on the anniversary of the Christchurch earthquake. Thanks. DrThneed (talk) 18:53, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the hook needs more work. Maybe:

...that Dr. Disaster's office collapsed in an earthquake on this day in 2011?

Valereee (talk) 19:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with that, thank you! DrThneed (talk) 19:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've struck ALT1, which then leaves Valereee's suggestion, and moved the nomination to the special occasion area. Schwede66 04:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I just promoted this, but I'd like more eyes on this, as coverage of the Israel–Hamas war is a potential minefield. The main source is The New Arab, which seems reasonably reliable to me. Perhaps the sentence "It had been targeted by Israeli bombing since 7 October 2023" is not as neutral and neutrally-sourced as it could be. Any thoughts? Pinging nom Lajmmoore, reviewer Kingoflettuce, promoter theleekycauldron for awareness. —Kusma (talk) 22:13, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did allude to similar concerns in my review although it seemed just about O.K. to me. But perhaps we could err on the side of caution a little more and I would be happy to endorse anything that's more "neutral and neutrally-sourced". KINGofLETTUCE 👑 🥬 23:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello both, thanks for picking this up @Kusma - I've edited the sentence to add the names of the news sources and I think toned the phrasing down a little Lajmmoore (talk) 09:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Thomas Meng, AirshipJungleman29, and Dylan620:

• ... that How the Red Sun Rose demonstrated how Western scholars had been "sold a bill of goods" by accepting the Chinese government's narrative of the Yan'an Rectification Movement?

I am not sure that this can be definitively proven, as the Chinese government would state that its narrative is correct and whether Western scholars accept it is subjective. I would prefer changing "demonstrated how" to "claimed that". Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 00:09, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Not sure why I didn't think of that – sounds good to me. --Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if that quite works; "sold a bill of goods" isn't a line from How the Red Sun Rose; it's from David Chen Chang's review of the book. In Chang's words, How the Red Sun Rose shows how Western scholars had been "sold a bill of goods". I understand not quite feeling right about this hook, but I don't think the proposed change quite works either.

The originally proposed hook (the current version was a "punch[ier]" version suggested by the reviewer) was as follows:

• ... that How the Red Sun Rose rewrote scholarly understanding of the Yan'an Rectification Movement and showed that authors who accepted the Party line narrative were deceived?

P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 06:47, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

both of these hooks seem to assert that the book is an accurate representation of scholarly consensus. does the sourcing in the article prove such a statement? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@leek: The relevant line in the article, Gao's book has contributed to rewriting scholarly understanding of the Yan'an Rectification Movement, is sourced to reviews by three separate historians, all of whom claimed the book obsoleted what had been at that point the scholarly consensus on the subject. I have a suggestion for an alternate hook:

• ... that at least three historians asserted How the Red Sun Rose to have rendered outdated the scholarly understanding of the Yan'an Rectification Movement?

Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:36, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Gerda Arendt, AirshipJungleman29, and Dylan620:

• ... that Anna Nekhames performed the dual role of Venus and Chief of the Gepopo in Ligeti's Le Grand Macabre with "coloratura acrobatics" that "almost seem[ed] to exceed vocal limits"?

The quotes in the hook do not match the quotes in the article. The source for the quotes is in a foreign language that I do not speak (I assume German) so I do not know which quotes are better to modify so they line up. Z1720 (talk) 00:15, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: Hmmm... the source for the "coloratura acrobatics" quote uses the word "Koloraturakrobatik" which seems to verify the translation ("koloratur" = coloratura, "akrobatik" = acrobatics). The second quote should probably be rephrased, as the original text "scheint fast die stimmlichen Grenzen zu sprengen" appears to translate into "seems to break vocal boundaries" (emphasis mine). I'd value Gerda's feedback as her userpage indicates she is well-versed in German. --Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I gave my comment in the nomaination: don't use quotes. BlueMoonset made the hook. You could just say

• ... that Anna Nekhames performed the dual role of Venus and Chief of the Gepopo in Ligeti's Le Grand Macabre?

and would say something interesting: we mention only four others who performed that (extremeky difficult) role with an interesting name. If you just add "in 2023" she will be the only one, the first of two performances in the composer's centenary year, two more to come. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think what makes it interesting that she sang this dual role is that it's considered difficult, which wasn't even in the article. I've added it there. I think the hook needs that included in order to be something other than "singer sang song". At this discussion I added an alt:

...that at not yet 30, Anna Nekhames performed one of opera's most demanding coloratura parts, that of the dual role of Venus and Gepopo in Ligeti's Le Grand Macabre?

Valereee (talk) 12:49, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee, I like that! It emphasizes the difficulty of what Nekhames accomplished at a relatively young age. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 17:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, @Dylan620! It would need an approval, does this count as that? Gerda Arendt, thoughts? Valereee (talk) 17:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't an admin needed to approve changes to hooks that are already in queue? I'm a bit rusty, having just returned to helping at DYK within the last week or so after a long absence. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You can approve the change, you just can't physically make it. Valereee (talk) 18:55, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like it, thank you for offering, and making changes to articles. I'm the last person to approve, however. You probably know who reviews about all my nominations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, Gerda, didn't mean to be asking you for the reviewer approval, simply wanted to know that you don't object to this ALT. Sorry, not following your final sentence...I think I've reviewed multiple of your noms over the past five years or so, but I've never noticed any one person doing it particularly often.

At any rate, so we can take this as you not objecting to that ALT? @Z1720, I'm not sure it would be kosher for me to replace that hook, would you be willing to? Valereee (talk) 18:12, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ALT: ...that before the age of 30, Anna Nekhames performed the dual role of Venus and Gepopo in Ligeti's Le Grand Macabre, one of opera's most demanding coloratura parts?

It's a rearrangement of the above hook and adds a wikilink for coloratura. @Gerda Arendt, Valereee, and Dylan620: Thoughts? Z1720 (talk) 18:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please make the link to coloratura soprano, piped or not, as we just deal with a coloratura contralto, Ewa Podleś. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:40, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Z1720 (talk) 18:42, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think we've got the hook. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 18:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@WeirdNAnnoyed, Cielquiparle, and Dylan620:

• ... that the Humboldt Wagon Road connected Humboldt County but not Humboldt County?

Neither source used to verify this hook mentions that the road does not reach Humboldt County, California. I think that the nominators and reviewers were trying to create an interesting hook, but I think this information is either original research or just not notable enough to be in the article. Is there a source that specifically talks about how this road does not reach the California Humdoldt, or should a new hook be used? Z1720 (talk) 00:25, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720: (Courtesy ping to Lightburst who was also involved in reviewing the hook.) The cited route map does demonstrate that the route ends far away from the coast, while the cited government page for Humboldt County states it to be directly on the shore, but I take your point. If drawing the conclusion from those two sources is not enough, then I'd like to suggest a modified version of ALT1 from the nomination page: "... that stagecoaches on the Humboldt Wagon Road could make a 400-mile trip in under four days?" Revisiting the discussion, Cielquiparle's concern with the original version of this hook was that it gave the reader so much information right off the bat, they wouldn't be compelled to read the article. This trims the endpoints so as to make the reader wonder where the trip would be to and from, while also removing mention of the fares as well (the value of $60 in the 1860s was very different from how much it's worth today). What do you all think? Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 01:08, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We did all we could to make that hook work and I thought it may be enough to have a map showing that the route ended nowhere near. But I like Dylan620s idea of we cannot make that hook work. Lightburst (talk) 02:05, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is it original research? Maps constitute secondary sources. P-Makoto (she/her) (talk) 03:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Z1720 It was the map on p. 11 of Leicester and Nopel (first source cited) that clinched it for me, plus the reminder that maps constitute secondary sources, It is because of the map that we've also carefully qualified the claim in the article to say "Between 1865 and 1867" (plus the rest of the article provides historical context). As for your other concern: It was just intended as a quirky hook. Cielquiparle (talk) 05:24, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Dylan620, Lightburst, and Cielquiparle: I see that the maps indicate where the Humboldt Wagon Road goes, but I haven't seen a map that indicates that the road doesn't go to Humboldt, or even indicates where Humboldt, California, is. Thus, there isn't a source that I've seen that indicates that it is notable or significant that the road doesn't reach the California Humboldt. I understand that this is meant to be a quirky hook, but I don't know if this can run as is. ALT1 should be OK to swap in. Z1720 (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Etriusus, Generalissima, and Dylan620:

• ... that Aptostichus barackobamai is a species of spider named after Barack Obama, the 44th president of the United States?

Maybe I'm getting old and grumpy, but does the main page really need to explain who Barack Obama is? Isn't it common knowledge that he was president of the United States? Can "the 44th president of the United States" be removed? Z1720 (talk) 00:34, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I did wonder about this. I'd instead take out "Barack Obama" to avoid repetition.--Launchballer 00:37, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I toyed with removing/trimming that clause when I promoted the hook, but hesitated. 86ing either the "44th" clause or "Barack Obama" would work for me. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 00:39, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the updated version Aptostichus barackobamai is a species of spider named after Barack Obama, the 44th president of the United States?is punchier. Also, Z1720's removal of "the 44th president of the United States" works fine as well. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:46, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I would rephrase to just "is a species of spider named after the 44th president of the United States" Generalissima (talk) 00:44, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would wikilinking "44th president of the United States" to Obama create an MOS:EGG, as we are asking readers to click on the link to find out who the 44th president is? I would rather leave it as Obama as I think it would make readers more likely to click on the actual bolded article, not the 44th link. Z1720 (talk) 00:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, "...that Aptostichus barackobamai is a species of spider named after Barack Obama" is more direct than "that Aptostichus barackobamai is a species of spider named after the 44th president of the United States". I went ahead and changed it. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 00:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Etriusus: Since the hook is in the queue, an admin will have to change it. I will wait until others opine before making the change (or another admin can do so for me). Z1720 (talk) 01:00, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reverted, thanks for letting me know. 🏵️Etrius ( Us) 01:10, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have thought the phrase "barackobama" appearing in the name of the species would be a bit of a clue as to who the 44th president is.--Launchballer 01:19, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We definitely do not need to contextualize Obama in hooks, no. This feels like a case of "trying to avoid Americentrism and overcorrecting" -- we've ran hooks regarding Boris Johnson without feeling the need to specify who he is. Having said that, both versions of this hook feel a little awkward due to the repetition/overexplanation in "barackobamai ... named for Obama". The article says it's also known as the "Barack Obama trapdoor spider" -- is there something we can do with that? Vaticidalprophet 02:20, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Something as simple and hooky as ... that a trapdoor spider species is named after a former U.S. president? JennyOz (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I endorse JennyOz's suggestion and was in fact *just* about to comment something to that affect. Dylan620 (he/him • talk • edits) 02:58, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In today's (January 23, 2024) DYK, the phrase quoted above is too colloquial to be accurate. He wasn’t trying to just give it away, he "was unable to find a buyer for" or "was unable to find someone to buy" the painting in question. If he only wanted to "get rid" of it he could have given it away or thrown it away. Wis2fan (talk) 04:33, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That was Q1. RoySmith, any thoughts? Schwede66 04:54, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We're talking about Sleep (painting), right? Meh. It's not formal language, but I think for this purpose it's fine. RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings,

Do we have a member here who is well versed with discography sourcing? Need your assistance in continuing the review at Lewis Pragasam. Context can be seen at the nomination (link here) and at a thread that I started at WP:RSN (link here). Both the reviewer and I agree that we would benefit from another reviewer's assistance to complete the review. Thanks. Ktin (talk) 04:48, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe Ritchie333? Valereee (talk) 18:14, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Per comments made by User:Zeng8r in the nomination, this is a formal request to move Template:Did you know nominations/Gasparilla Pirate Festival to the special occasion holding area to expedite a review before the 27th, which is the start of the Gasparilla Pirate Festival. I also think the image should be changed as it doesn't display well at that resolution. There's a lot of images available here, but in terms of what is already in the article, this image displays well. Thank you. Viriditas (talk) 21:32, 23 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]