Wikipedia talk:Did you know

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 is currently 1 filled queue. Admin assistance in moving preps is requested. v t e Earliest time for next DYK update: 00:00, 24 June 2024 (UTC) Current time: 17:29, 23 June 2024 (UTC) Update frequency: once every 24 hours Last updated: 17 hours ago( verify reset purge )

Did you know?
Introduction and rules
Introduction	WP:DYK
General discussion	WT:DYK
Guidelines	WP:DYKCRIT
Reviewer instructions	WP:DYKRI
Nominations
Nominate an article	WP:DYKCNN
Awaiting approval	WP:DYKN
Approved	WP:DYKNA
April 1 hooks	WP:DYKAPRIL
Holding area	WP:SOHA
Preparation
Preps and queues	T:DYK/Q
Prepper instructions	WP:DYKPBI
Admin instructions	WP:DYKAI
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
History
Statistics	WP:DYKSTATS
Archived sets	WP:DYKA
Just for fun
Monthly wraps	WP:DYKW
Awards	WP:DYKAWARDS
Userboxes	WP:DYKUBX
Hall of Fame	WP:DYK/HoF
List of users ...
... by nominations	WP:DYKNC
... by promotions	WP:DYKPC
Administrative
Scripts and bots	WP:DYKSB
On the Main Page	T:DYK
Main Page errors	WP:ERRORS
To ping the DYK admins	{{DYK admins}}
v t e

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

• 2011 reform proposals • 2020 RFC LT Solutions • All RfCs • Removed hooks: 2023–24

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.

May 2024 errors

May error rate:

• 93% error-free overall (18 errors / 276 hooks)
• 95% error-free before MP (15 / 276)

May 2024 errors

Date	Hook	Error
May 5	that cosplaying as a character from the New California Republic (flag pictured) could potentially lead to accidental arrest due to mistaken suspicion of carrying a bomb?	failed verification (report, queue fix)
May 7	that opera composer and librettist Joseph Redding (pictured) was also a chess polymath and lawyer who won a landmark decision before the United States Supreme Court?	failed verification (report, MP fix)
May 7	that Kooraban National Park provides a habitat for more than twenty endangered animal species, including koalas?	failed verification (report, MP fix)
May 7	that sisters Joanne, Lynette, Amy and Jenny McCarthy were all gymnasts and ten-pin bowlers?	failed verification (report, MP fix)
May 7	that the production team of the TV series The Falcon and the Winter Soldier created a highway more than five miles (8 km) long to capture visual effects for a truck action sequence for the episode "The Star-Spangled Man"?	hook didn't specify it was a "digital" highway (report, MP fix)
May 8	that even though about 100,000 bombs fell on Le Touquet during World War II, making it "the most mined city in France", it was the first resort in northern France to open its beaches after its liberation?	failed verification (report, queue fix)
May 11	that when the Bukharian-Jewish Soviet newspaper Bajroqi Miⱨnat switched to the Latin script, it did not use capital letters, following Jewish writing rules?	hook did not specify that it "initially" did not use capital letters (report, queue fix)
May 14	that William F. Fiedler was the only American fighter pilot to become a flying ace in the P-39 Airacobra?	failed verification (report, MP fix)
May 15	that Oophaga solanensis frogs can be bought for $3 in their native Colombia and sold for up to $1,000 overseas?	hook didn't convey illegality (report, MP fix)
May 17	that the comedian Jonny Pelham is one of only 200 people in the UK to suffer from popliteal pterygium syndrome?	"only 200" failed verification and MEDRS (report, MP fix)
May 19	that winter wonderland fairs have become a celebrated annual British tradition – but often for the wrong reasons?	"wrong reasons" not in article and not NPOV (report, MP fix)
May 21	that Spider began making alternative music because she felt that not enough Black women were doing so?	link to set index article (report, MP fix)
May 22	that the U.S. Army Air Corps were so unimpressed by the Estoppey D-8 that one member stated that he would rather use "nails and a wire"?	attributed one person's opinion to entire US Army Air Corps (report, MP fix)
May 24	that actress Nellie McCoy (pictured) suffered a mental breakdown after her theatre performance was criticized, leading to her being committed to a sanatorium?	"after her theatre performance was criticized" not in article (report, not fixed)
May 24	that Axel Downard-Wilke (pictured) led a campaign in 2020 to have macrons used in Māori place names in Wikipedia articles?	COI (report, MP fix)
May 24	that women were 33 percent more likely than men to search for clown pornography in 2016?	"on Pornhub" not specified in hook fact (report, MP fix)
May 26	that during the "trial from hell" Matthew Charles Johnson and his co-accused hurled abuse at the judge and threw human excrement at a member of the jury?	certain hook details failed verification; BLPvio (report, MP fix)
May 29	that Israel's systematic destruction of trees and farmland in Gaza has been described as an ecocide?	"systematic" in wikivoice instead of attributed (report, MP fix)

June 2024 errors

June error rate (through June 16):

• 92% error-free overall (11 errors / 140 hooks)
• 94% error-free before MP (8 / 140)

June 2024 errors

Date	Hook	Error
June 4	that Barron Trump signed for D.C. United Academy as a midfielder?	notability and BLP concerns (report, MP fix)
June 6	that despite "C U in da Ballpit" being Camping in Alaska's best known song, the band says they all hate it?	"best known song" failed verification (report, MP fix)
June 8	that the Tang-dynasty politician Fang Yi'ai was put to death and his wife Princess Gaoyang was forced to commit suicide after their failed rebellion against Emperor Gaozong?	"put to death" not in article; possibly unapproved/unverified hook promoted (report, MP fix)
June 9	that Carrie Swain was possibly the first woman entertainer to perform in blackface?	"first" fails verification (report, MP fix)
June 10	that the ancient Greek game polis is one of the world's oldest strategy games?	didn't specify "oldest known" (report, MP fix)
June 10	that dance teacher Mary Ann Wells, despite being in the "I AM" movement, did not enforce rigid technical standards on her students?	Pulled for SYNTH (report, queue fix)
June 12	that Professor Layton and the New World of Steam is planned to be the first main entry since 2013 in the series Professor Layton, despite it being its developer's most popular media franchise?	failed verification (report, queue fix)
June 13	that Arthur Fulton, his father and his son all won the Sovereign's Prize for rifle shooting?	hook fact not clearly in article (report, queue fix)
June 15	Chinese characters DYK image	image not in article (report, MP fix)
June 15	that although it was never built, Lynn Conway notes that IBM's ACS-1 would have been the premier supercomputer of the era?	not a definite fact (report, MP fix)
Jun 17	that Zombie Plane cannot take flight from Chuck Norris?	confusing; not a definite fact; WP:DYKFICTION (report, MP fix)

Error rate discussion

Anyone should feel free to update the table. I didn't list everything that was at WP:ERRORS, e.g. I didn't list simple copyedits like changing "$" to "US$". Overall, 93% or 95% error-free ain't bad, but IMO given the visibility, it really should be 99%, i.e. less than one per week. It's not ideal to have to rely on people fixing things at WP:ERRORS multiple times per week. Levivich (talk) 20:57, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've always thought that if a hook ran for more than six hours and turned out to have a serious error, we should issue a retraction in the next set. A basic retraction policy underlies most honest sources of information, there's no reason we shouldn't have one as well – we're not like the rest of the project in that you can just edit stuff and it'll be fixed going forward, nothing is on the page for more than 24 hours. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

+1. Ironically, one of the ways that we judge whether a source is reliable is by looking at whether it prints retractions, yet we do not print retractions. I would go further and say that there ought to be a "retraction box" on the main page, where we post as retractions everything that ends up having to be fixed on the main page. In other words, every fix made at WP:ERRORS should be noted in the retraction box on the main page (not just DYK). I have a vague memory of this being discussed and rejected by the community at some point in the last 5 years or so but I don't remember where. Levivich (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I do like the idea of being transparent about errors, but it feels tricky. Maybe 'Corrections' instead of 'Retractions'; retraction seems like it should be for something possibly harmful that was factually incorrect. Like, I wouldn't want us to say we'd 'retracted' that Trump signed as a midfielder.

And really I'm not sure it's a fix to have Trump appear a second time at the MP with us noting the hook was pulled for the article being a BLP vio and questions being raised as to notability and we regret the error, that seems worse than the simple pull. Valereee (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would a reader be more likely to encounter a retraction box at the bottom of the main page? Or at the talk page of the linked article? The second would be fairly easy to implement. Online, some newspapers don't offer anymore than a "published" and "corrected/updated" date on the article's page.[1] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:59, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Valereee: I think we'd mainly want to use a corrections/retractions box for errors of the hooks; while we can and do pull hooks for article issues, we generally don't maintain a retractions log on articles. I was just thinking something more like:

• In the second DYK set on June 8, 2024, it was claimed that Jane Doe invented the flywheel. However, multiple inventors have credible claims to the flywheel, some predating Doe by up to 20 years.

theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 15:55, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That would work for me Valereee (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I think there's different levels of error. A poorly worded hook that should be rephrased is bad, but not as bad as something being actively not in the source stated. Lots of those above seem to be that the hook is the thing that isn't covered by the citation - perhaps that is the thing to stress to both reviewers and set promoters - to check that the source being used explicitly states the info being written.

As much as the rest of the article is important, the hook itself is the only bit that is given such high visibility. Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:33, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the Spider error – WP:DYKG doesn't mention SIAs, because they're articles, not DABs. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:20, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There was a reasonable argument at ERRRORs that perhaps that page should be marked as a disambiguation—Bagumba (talk) 08:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a perfect measure but I'm using "changed at WP:ERRORS" as basically the definition of "error." I think there's an argument to be made that this particular one might be a de minimis example, like changing "$" to "US$" or adding a wikilink to "George Washington" but I included it because I thought it fell into the category of "clearly against some DYK rule." I'm no expert about DYK rules so maybe that one isn't against any actual rule? Levivich (talk) 12:37, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The most concerning errors are the failed verification ones, sadly they seem the most common. Focusing on those would make the most difference both to quality and to the error rate. CMD (talk) 08:33, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find the fact verification seems to be a chronic problem concerning, but for me the most concerning is BLP issues. Levivich, it looks like the May 8 Le Touquet hook was pulled before it hit the main page, is that an outlier in these tables? (That is, I'm seeing most of the reports at ERRORS were in Current DYK, which I'm assuming means most actually made it to the main page?) Valereee (talk) 12:02, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I included it because it was caught at WP:ERRORS and not by "internal" DYK error-correction processes. I think "next DYK" ERRORS should "count" as "DYK errors," e.g. something that DYK "missed." (It's true that most are current-DYK and not next-DYK, but isn't that a bug not a feature?) Levivich (talk) 12:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I just wasn't clear on what the inclusion criteria were, and I do think we should be aiming for all errors to be caught before a set hits Next-but-one DYK. But it would also be interesting to understand how many errors actually made it onto the main page. The vagaries of transclusion and date stamps make my head spin...is there an easy way to note which errors were fixed after the hook moved onto the main page? Valereee (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And IIRC some were flagged as next-DYK but fixed after it hit the main page (due to length of discussion); I think that's the only one that was fixed before it hit the main page, going from memory. That can be checked by looking whether the "fix" link is to the DYK template or a queue. Levivich (talk) 12:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give the clueless an example? :D Er, one that even I can understand? Valereee (talk) 13:01, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes of course! Okay, so the "mouse" is that little plastic thing with buttons on it next to your keyboard that kind of looks like a mouse with no tail. Now when you move the mouse on your desk, it'll move the arrow on your screen, and if you hover over one of the links and press the left mouse button... :-D Just kidding, it's a good catch, I can update the list in two seconds later today when I get to a desktop and differentiate between fixed-at-current-DYK and fixed-at-next-DYK. Going from memory there is only one "next" and the rest are "current" but I'll double check and update the table to clarify this. Levivich (talk) 13:05, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

My mouse is wired, so kind of looks like it does have a tail...does that still count? Valereee (talk) 13:12, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

lol, somebody please get val a WMF tech grant for a wireless mouse. (On the other hand the tail might make it easier to find.) Levivich (talk) 13:21, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found my TV remote in the fridge the other day. Valereee (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Tell me you're a stoner without telling me you're a stoner" Levivich (talk) 14:24, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh and to actually answer your question, if you click the "fix" link for the May 8 entry, it takes you to a diff of an edit to one of the queue templates; the other "fix" links go to a diff of the actual DYK template that's transcluded on the main page -- that's how we know those were live when the diff was made, whereas the queue template diff means it wasn't live yet (still in the queue). So ERRORS report + DYK template fix = fixed when it was already on the main page, while ERRORS report + queue template fix = not on main page yet. Levivich (talk) 13:09, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OHHH. God, I can't even claim not enough coffee. Thanks! Valereee (talk) 13:42, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, they're all now updated to specify "MP fix" or "queue fix," and my memory was wrong: there were three queue fixes. I'll note though that there are examples where the error was reported to WP:ERRORS before the item hit the main page, but due to the length of discussion or admin response, the error wasn't actually fixed until it hit the main page. So, for example, the Kooraban error was reported on May 5 as a next-but-one error 2 days before going live, but wasn't fixed until May 7 when it was already live. So just because something is an "MP fix" doesn't mean it wasn't caught until it hit the MP, but it does mean the error hit the MP. Just thought I'd mention this wrinkle. Levivich (talk) 14:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This seems quite good. I still support efforts to raise standards, especially at the main page, and to use DYK/GA/FA to promote higher standards, but studies have consistently found that most published news articles contain errors.[2] Many of the errors noted above are also somewhat minor rather than outright bogus. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 13:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not just newspapers – see Why Most Published Research Findings Are False. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:33, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Updated. Levivich (talk) 02:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

User:Bernanke's Crossbow, User:evrik, User:SL93 ... that making manganese nitride alloys requires a sponge? I don't think that claim is in the article, not stated that broadly. It says " A sponge is essential to Mn₂N synthesis:", but the article also says there are other formulas besides Mn₂N that can also be called manganese nitride. And the next paragraph appears to describe an alternate way to make manganese nitride that doesn't mention a sponge. Art LaPella (talk) 06:32, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• ... that making manganese nitride alloys sometimes requires a sponge? --evrik ^(talk) 06:36, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I added that word. Art LaPella (talk) 14:24, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The words "sometimes" and "requires" are contradictory. The issue arises because the article's structure and title is confusing. The name "manganese nitride" is used here for a family of compounds with a variety of formulae, properties and methods of synthesis. The title of the article should be changed to "manganese nitrides" to make it clear that it's talking about a collection rather than a single compound. And whatever hook we end up with should make it clear exactly what compound it is talking about. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:52, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• This is now at WP:ERRORS. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Is there some special award we get if every hook in a set gets dragged to WP:ERRORS? I think we're in the running today. RoySmith (talk) 18:42, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I award you with this. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:45, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You're winner! In all seriousness, of the five that made ERRORS today, I count one courtesy ping, two non-errors, and one typo. Only one of them actually resulted in a pull. We ought to be more careful than that, but this isn't as bad as it looks.--Launchballer 20:14, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We've still got almost 4 hours to reach our goal :-) RoySmith (talk) 20:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am doubtful about the source for the Alexandru Talex hook, but it is a bit late to do anything about it. TSventon (talk) 21:24, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We are in the running for it today as well! Schwede66 07:24, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The various discussions at Errors about today's DYKs come to 2585 words. Surely, that must be a record! Schwede66 22:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Probably not a major concern; just a note to say the next set in the queue Template:Did you know/Queue/6 is less than 800 characters so even with nine hooks in the set, it will leave empty space. Bruxton (talk) 20:01, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm more worried about the fact that manganese nitride is a redirect. I do wonder if it's worth having some sort of character counter in each set for precisely this purpose. What is the optimum number of characters?--Launchballer 20:10, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect bypassed. RoySmith (talk) 20:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Launchballer: With the ellipsis 1000-1100 is near the right number. For reference, the set now is 1134 and seems to work well. Bruxton (talk) 20:30, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When we had the 400+ character multihook last month, I promoted several very short hooks and I managed to get it down to 1100 characters, not including ellipses or (pictured). The April Fools' set had ten hooks. We shouldn't be afraid to adjust the number of hooks if they all happen to be very long or very short.--Launchballer 20:44, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe we should stop counting hooks and start counting column-inches. As The New York Times says^{[citation needed]}, "All the hooks that fit, we print"" RoySmith (talk) 20:46, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Typesetters! We can sell the extra space for ads. Bruxton (talk) 21:08, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When the revenue starts rolling in, you guys will finally appreciate my copyediting, eh? RoySmith (talk) 21:12, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a big problem either way. If the left column is too short, we'll nuke an OTD entry. If it's too long, we'll add an OTD entry. Simple! Schwede66 23:51, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@DYK admins: In March of this year, I worked extensively to improve/expand the article Gezer, but for reasons unbeknownst to me - perhaps even because of the vicissitudes of work on other topics, I downright forgot to submit a DYK on this article. Is it possible for me to receive a waiver to submit a belated DYK on this article, even though 3 months have now passed?Davidbena (talk) 00:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would say no, three months is a fair bit too long. Perhaps the article could pass GA? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree; GA is the route to DYK for you. Schwede66 00:37, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's also got significant referencing issues, so is not oven ready for a DYK run...  — Amakuru (talk) 08:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus issues with Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Summary style, both of which are part of the Good Article criteria. GA would be the path to DYK, but the article needs a bit of work. Davidbena, if you do the GA route, it may be wise to request peer review first, and to leave a link to the peer review request at WT:GAN. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 08:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I'm in favour of removing the time restriction on DYKs altogether but until then, rules are rules WaggersTALK 11:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Prep 3 has five biographies, and three of them are in a row. This will need to be fixed. SL93 (talk) 01:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kicked back the one in the middle.--Launchballer 07:19, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

1940 NFL All-Star Game (January)

• ... that all of the players on the Green Bay Packers were selected for the 1940 NFL All-Star Game?

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/1940 NFL All-Star Game (January))

This hook seems very misleading to me... when I think of an "all-star game", that implies that teams are selected from the entire pool of players in the league, and that if all the Green Bay Packers players were picked, this was an extraordinary achievement, in that every one of them was deemed better than players from other teams. In fact, though, when we look at the article, it just turns out that due to the format of the day the Packers team was one of the two competitors in the event, as league champions, with only the opposition taken from other teams. This format of champions vs all-star team remained in place for several seasons after this, so is not even particularly remarkable as a one-off. I'd suggest a hook focusing on something different would be appropriate here. Pinging @Gonzo fan2007, DrOrinScrivello, and Hey man im josh:. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: I raised similar concerns at the review and probably should have stuck to my guns, apologies. What about something like,

ALT1: ... that the Green Bay Packers once defeated a team of all-stars chosen from the rest of the league?

DrOrinScrivello (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru, isn't that the point of WP:DYK and "hookiness"? We have hooks that run counter to prevailing thoughts but do so in a technically correct way. Is this hook wrong or incorrect in anyway? No. I mean come on, we had a hook recently that said "DYK ... that 69 is 'nice'?" The purpose of the hook is to draw the reader into the article. I don't see anything wrong with the hook, nor does it go against any DYK criteria. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 15:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is fine. It's a little easter-eggy, but just a little, and that's what DYK is about. The sources all seem to use the term "All Star", so we're OK doing that too, even if it differs from the modern usage of the term. RoySmith (talk) 15:23, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is absolutely not fine. Hooky doesn't mean misleading readers and stating something run-of-the-mill as if it's remarkable. I'd be fine with DrOrinScrivello's alternative suggestion FWIW. Otherwise maybe we reopen the nom.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru, with respect, you are not in charge of WP:DYK. If you are uncomfortable with it, while at least 4 others are ok (I proposed it, DrOrinScrivello originally approved it, Hey man im josh promoted it and RoySmith supports it), then maybe move on to other noms? You aren't conveying any criteria this is going against and the hook is not "misleading", as the statement is a true fact. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 16:58, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is a hook on Main Page right now that says "DYK ... how salamanders cross the road (pictured)?" This is the same thing, the wording is unique and ambiguous to pull readers into the article. Do all salamanders on earth cross using this salamander tunnel? No. Does that make the hook misleading? No. Because the reader satisfies their interest by reading the article. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I feel strongly that we should not run this hook. The salamander and number hooks cited were not actively misleading readers. This hook gives the clear impression that all of the Packers players were specifically selected, not that this was an automatic entry as a league champion. Yes, we've run misleading hooks in the past but this is a practice that really needs to stop. Hog Farm _Talk 17:42, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, I was in favor of running this (despite us being in an NFL-heavy phase) because I thought the objection was to calling it an All-Star game. But if the objection is to the "all of the players ... were selected" part, yeah, I can see that's a problem. BeanieFan11's proposed alt might work better. RoySmith (talk) 21:08, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Would the alt proposed at the nom be any better? ... that the entire Green Bay Packers team was chosen to play in the 1940 NFL All-Star Game? BeanieFan11 (talk) 21:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For me, that's close to the same thing and still carries the connotation that there was something remarkable about them being "chosen" for this game, as if it were an open field if selection in which the entire squad was deemed worthy of choosing. But in reality they were "chosen" because that was the format of the day, no other reason. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 22:27, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, exactly. It's not misleading at all and nowhere does it say that the ALT has to clearly state everything. That is the point of "hookiness". All Pro Bowl selectees are chosen today based on the format of the day. The fun part of the hook is that a normal reader says "wow! Really? Let me read more about that" and then finds out more about a niche topic that isn't well known, even in NFL history circles.

Let's look at some more of today's hooks: :"DYK ... that Drake discovered an ancient Chinese city?" Please, tell me what makes this a good hook? Is it a good hook because it purposefully misleads the reader, knowing full well that "Drake" is way more well-known on the English Wikipedia as Drake (musician) (Drake (musician) has 450k views in the last month, Frederick Seguier Drake has 222 views). I mean come on, this is the exact purpose of DYK. If the purpose is to not mislead, this hook should read as "... that Frederick Seguier Drake discovered an ancient Chinese city?" « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Even ChatGPT got fooled when I asked it "Who is Drake?", it came up with several paragraphs about the musician. When I corrected it with, "No, not that Drake", the best it could do was "It sounds like you might be referring to a different Drake. Could you please provide more context or specify the field or context in which this Drake is known?" RoySmith (talk) 22:54, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly, some of this is frustration from constantly getting "your hook isn't hooky enough" on NFL articles. I finally have a good hook and now its too hooky. I still look at it as not misleading, but begging the question for more information, which is the purpose of DYK. To get people to click on the link from our new or greatly expanded content. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 23:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Considering that we're running hooks that read, e.g. "DYK ... that Drake discovered an ancient Chinese city?" – which are 100% obviously meant to be misleading (and arguably even more misleading than this), I see no issue with this hook, considering it is factually accurate (the Green Bay Packers were chosen to the NFL All-Star game). BeanieFan11 (talk) 23:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru, RoySmith, and Hog Farm: thoughts? « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 18:46, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Drake hook is IMO highly problematic as well and is far worse than this one. Running one bad hook we shouldn't have doesn't mean we should run this one also. DYK is turning into a clickbait farm of unencyclopedic/misleading information as everyone just chases views which is why I'm finding myself less and less inclined to participate in the DYK process Hog Farm _Talk 19:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I think since we haven't come to any agreement on this, it's going to be a case of pulling it from the queue and reopening the nom page for fresh ideas. I wouldn't mind something that says the Packers played the all-stars or whatever, something factual, but not this trick line that the whole team was chosen. I don't have a strong view on the Drake thing in fact... in my "what comes to your mind" universe, Sir Francis Drake would be at least as significant as the singer anyway. But either way, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't going to magically make this hook a good one for our readers or acceptable for the main page. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 20:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've pulled the hook. I'll finish up the backend stuff in a few minutes, but I'll leave it for somebody else to find a replacement (or maybe we can just run with 8). RoySmith (talk) 21:05, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

For clarity, the point wasn't "this one hook exists, so this one is fine too" but rather that this is the routine process for DYK. This is what makes hooks interesting and unique. RoySmith, just go with DrOrinScrivello ALT1 above. That's fine. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 22:14, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled the hook. Please build consensus for a new version on the nomination page, thanks. RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have done so. That said, @Amakuru, RoySmith, and Hog Farm: any thoughts on today's "... that Bills plays for the Bills?" I point this out, not because I have a problem with it or that it is a one-off thing, but because it is so common to change up the linking of the main article in a hook to some type of pun, play on words, or shortening of a name to make a hook hooky. This is purposefully misleading the reader to make a hook "hooky". Let's expand both links on that hook: "... that Keaton Bills plays for the Buffalo Bills?" Is it hooky anymore? This is my point: DYK makes a point to approve hooks that at the very least are purposefully confusing, but more often than not, are outright misleading, to make the hook interesting. And that's fine! Anything to draw our readers in while still being factual should (and has generally always been) fine. This whole discussion has been bizarre considering how often this "infraction" occurs. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 14:02, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Metaphysics

• ... that metaphysics may have received its name by a historical accident?

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Metaphysics)

This seems to be not compliant with the guidelines at WP:DYKHOOK, which say that "The hook should include a definite fact". If it may have received its name thus, then it's not definite is it. Also, the line in the article saying "it is often suggested that metaphysics got its name by a historical accident" is an unsupported attribution, we need to be saying who suggests this. And the next line saying "his editor may have coined it" is also rather vague. I'd suggest we need a more thorough detailing in the prose as to what the issue with the name actually is, and reasons as to why it may or may not have been a historical accident, with quotes if appropriate. @Phlsph7, Generalissima, and Launchballer: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 08:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Amakuru and thanks for raising this concern. I'm not sure what the right interpretation of "definite fact" in WP:DYKHOOK is. If it means that we cannot state common opinions (in the academic discourse) as such, then it is not a definite fact. If it means that the claim is well supported by reliable sources and "unlikely to change", then it is a definite fact. My experience with this type of meta-discussions is that there is usually no simple way to resolve them so unless you find what I've said so far convincing, it might be best to save ourselves the trouble and go for ALT1 instead.

As for the passage in the article, I don't think it's feasible or desirable to provide a representative list of all philosophers that have suggested this common opinion. I agree that vagueness should usually be avoided but there are cases where it is fitting and this may be one of them. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we wanted, we could ascribe the view to Mumford 2012, who uses the exact term "historical accident". This might give the false impression that this is a view advanced by a single philosopher. Phlsph7 (talk) 09:55, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Hi @Phlsph7: and thanks for your response. I'll leave it for DYK regulars here to comment on the issue of whether facts that may not be true but whose "possible" status is well-attested and frequently said are valid at DYK - I'd lean towards saying not myself, simply because there are many things that "may" be true, and if they're not necessarily true then such facts aren't generally going to be very remarkable. As for the second point, however, I think this definitely does need to be addressed before the hook goes live. Unsupported attributions are contrary to guidelines at WP:INTEXT and WP:WEASEL, and while I wouldn't expect you to list every philosopher who's ever said it, we need to provide enough information that readers can infer the state of research on this and the likelihood that it's true. This will need to be remedied before the hook goes live. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I reformulated the passage to include attribution. Does this change solve your concern? Phlsph7 (talk) 11:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Phlsph7: yes, that's great now. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 16:44, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• There are multiple problems with this hook. Mumford's claim that this was an accident seems to be nonsense and, as discussion of the matter goes back millennia, reference to him would be WP:RECENTISM. The OED has an extensive etymology and the word "accident" does not appear in it. Here are some of its key points:

Asclepius in his commentary on the Metaphysics says that Aristotle thought that ontological philosophy should be taught after natural philosophy, and that this explains why the work is entitled μετὰ τὰ ϕυσικά ‘After the Physics’. Asclepius does not say who first gave the work that title; modern scholars sometimes assume that the title goes back to Eudemus of Rhodes (later 4th cent. B.C.), who, according to Asclepius, produced an edition of the work. The explanation which Asclepius offers for the title of the work receives support from the fact that, as Porphyry (3rd cent., in In Aristotelis Categorias Expositio) and some later writers make clear, Aristotle's Categories was sometimes called πρὸ τῶν τοπικῶν or πρὸ τῶν τόπων ‘Before the Topics’.
...
The title came to be used as the name for the branch of study treated in these books, and hence came to be interpreted as meaning ‘the science of things transcending what is physical or natural’.

So, the word has a likely origin while its later meaning is something of a false etymology or semantic change. Such shifts in meaning are a natural part of language. For example, "science" originally meant knowledge in a general sense from the Latin scientia but has developed over the centuries to its modern meaning of formal and systematic disciplines such as physics. This is not accidental; it's just a consequence of the way the word and the world have developed over time.

Anyway, as there seem to be different ways of presenting this and there's some conjecture involved, it's not a definite fact.

Andrew🐉(talk) 21:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Andrew and thanks for weighing in. I agree with your concerns about attributing this claim to Mumford. This was mainly done because of the repeated explicit requests above. Mumford 2012 is a high-quality reliable source, so I would be careful about dismissing it as nonsense. There are usually different ways to present or describe a passage of events. I don't think that anything in the text you quote contradicts that this passage of events can be accurately described as a historical accident.

For more high-quality sources supporting this claim:

• [3]: "The use of the term 'metaphysics' to denote these topics is a historical accident"
• [4]: "Indeed, it is largely just an historical accident that metaphysics is called what it is..."
• [5]: "It is a historical accident that gave us the expression ta meta ta physika for certain writings of Aristotle..."

These sources support a stronger claim than Mumford 2012. We could make the hook more "definite" by changing it to:

• ALT0a: ... that metaphysics received its name by a historical accident?

However, it's not my intention to get into a lengthy discussion on this. It seems that you two are convinced that this claim is inappropriate as a DYK hook. Would ALT1 be acceptable to you? Phlsph7 (talk) 06:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it would be good to consider alternatives. The current ALTs are:

• ALT1: ... that 20th-century metaphysics started with a "revolt against idealism"?
• ALT2: ... that according to some metaphysicians, everything in the world is predetermined, but humans are free nonetheless?

My impression is that ALT1 is about a local development in British philosophy and that the division between that and continental philosophy is not adequately explained.

ALT2 has a blatant weasel and so needs to be more specific.

Browsing for ideas, I find a good aphorism that "There are arguments in metaphysics, not facts." An especially astounding example is given and that might make a good hook:

• ALT3: ... that a nihilist school of metaphysics contends that tables and chairs do not exist?

The article already mentions this in a couple of places and it's easy to find more sources such as this and that.

Andrew🐉(talk) 09:15, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

ALT3 is fine with me. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done  — Amakuru (talk) 13:33, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sadie O. Horton

• ... that Sadie O. Horton was the first recorded female United States Merchant Marine veteran of World War II?

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Sadie O. Horton)

Several issue with this... Firstly, the first source for this - [6] - attributes the fact to Horton's son, so shouldn't really even be there as a reliable source for that fact... As for the other sources, [7] is flagged at the bottom as "The opinions expressed herein are the author's and not necessarily those of The Maritime Executive", although who the actual author is isn't mentioned... so not sure if this is reliable or not? The third source, [8] says "Thanks to the tireless efforts of her son Don, Sadie would eventually become the first recognized female veteran of the Merchant Marine during World War II"... although this one doesn't directly attribute the claim to the son, it does rather sound like they're repeating something that he asserted rather than having independently verified this. And finally, what does "recorded" mean? That would suggest to me that there's some record of it anywhere, not just officially recorded by the military or anything like that... and some of the sources here say "recognised" rather than "recorded". Clarity on exactly what this refers to seems necessary. There are other sources that list different women who served in the Merchant Marine, for example Mary Collom Kimbro, who was killed in June 1942, the same month that Horton enlisted, and in the same article Clara Gordon Main, who became a POW and later received a Merchant Marine Meritorious Service Medal. So are we sure Horton was the first? For me, hooks which assert something as the "first" or "only" need to be more watertight than this, but happy to hear other views. Pinging @SL93, CSJJ104, and AirshipJungleman29:  — Amakuru (talk) 09:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would read the third source as saying her son led the campaign to have her recognised as a veteran, rather than saying he made the claim. Reading it again I would agree that this should say she is the first to be recognised, rather than recorded. CSJJ104 (talk) 11:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I’m fine with this being pulled. SL93 (talk) 11:09, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I found a copy of her discharge certificate. It's a DD 256, not a DD 214. I don't know much about these things, but a bit of searching shows they're not quite the same thing. There's enough questions here, I'm going to take SL93's suggestion and pull this. RoySmith (talk) 14:16, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the nomination can be withdrawn. I see nothing else that might work as a hook. SL93 (talk) 18:39, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Stainmore

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Battle of Stainmore)

• ... that the events following the Battle of Stainmore have been called the end of the first Viking age in England?

If we're going to say a topic "has been called" something, then the article needs to attribute in the prose who called it this, per WP:INTEXT. I wonder if we need to add something about this to the DYK checklist, because these issues come up a lot... @CSJJ104, Soman, and Hey man im josh: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for highlighting @Amakuru. I'll see what I can find later today. If there is a source which states "Historians have called this...", or even one willing to outright state this was the end of the first Viking invasion, would that be acceptable? CSJJ104 (talk) 11:18, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noted, I'll keep this in mind in the future when moving hooks to the prep area. Thank you for the feedback! Hopefully CSJJ104 gets this sorted out shortly. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:14, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was not able to find a source to attribute the statement, and I have removed it. Thanks for drawing my attention to a policy I had not fully appreciated the application of. Is it too late to suggest an alternative hook? Possibly "...that Eric's death at the Battle of Stainmore ended the independence of Scandinavian York?" CSJJ104 (talk) 21:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@CSJJ104: sure, that would be fine I think. @Soman and Hey man im josh: what do you think?  — Amakuru (talk) 22:20, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think that sounds pretty neat, so I support that alt hook. Hey man im josh (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but put Eric Bloodaxe name in full linked in hook. It's a pretty cool name. --

 Done  — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ella Scoble Opperman

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Ella Scoble Opperman)

• ... that American pianist Ella Scoble Opperman, the first dean of the Florida State College for Women, was praised for growing the college into a credible school of music?

So firstly, it should say "creditable", not "credible", since that's the word used in the source.[9] I have fixed this in the article already, we can also fix it in the hook once we have a final version. But additionally, since this is a quote, it should be a quote in the hook, we're not saying in Wikivoice whether the school was credi(ta)ble or not. And secondly, as per the Battle of Stainmore above, the quote is unattributed. The source itself also has this down as a quote, attributed in footnote 37, but that's a footnote I don't have access to via the Google Books preview so not sure if anyone does know who originally said this? @SL93, Innisfree987, and AirshipJungleman29: Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 10:11, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru I was able to see it as being from "Campbell, University in Transition". I looked it up at and it refers to Doak S. Campbell, who was once the president of the college, so that won't work as a hook. I will suggest some alt hooks.

• ... that it was said that the "legacy" of American pianist Ella Scoble Opperman, the first dean of the Florida State College for Women, "continues to entertain and draw attention to Tallahassee"?
• ... that American pianist Ella Scoble Opperman, the first dean of the Florida State College for Women, has a picture painted by Marie Goth inside the hall that was named after her? SL93 (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru Do either of these work? I can suggest more. SL93 (talk) 18:31, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @SL93: Sorry for delay, back for a look now. I'm not sure the second one here is terribly interesting... Having a painting inside your own namesake hall would be quite a normal outcome. The first one's probably OK. I would remove the quotes from legacy, since the later quotes already mean we're not talking about a WIKIVOICE truth. @Innisfree987: as approver, do you have an opinion?  — Amakuru (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine with me, agree about removing the quotes around legacy. Here’s a brief attempt to punch it up but I don’t feel strongly, if others prefer the way it was previously written.

ALT *…that the legacy of American pianist Ella Scoble Opperman has been said to continue "to entertain and draw attention to Tallahassee" decades after her death?

Thank you for catching the issue with the original hook @Amakuru, I regret that I missed it. Innisfree987 (talk) 07:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That removes the filler about her being the first dean of the Florida State College for Women I guess. I would be OK with either version. @SL93: what think you?  — Amakuru (talk) 09:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That’s fine. SL93 (talk) 12:34, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done  — Amakuru (talk) 13:31, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kekerengu

Template:Did you know nominations/Kēkerengū

• ... that the sheep-herding founder of Kekerengu in New Zealand became an international fugitive?

OK, so technically the article does not directly say he was an "international fugitive", it says "Incurring massive debts, Tetley fled to Uruguay"... that would probably OK as a paraphrasing, except that the cited source [10] doesn't mention Uruguay anywhere. The article on Tetley himself also says that the Uruguay story is only a possibility, and that he also might have been in England. Probably just need to tidy this up a bit and make sure that source(s), article and hook are all in agreement. As a minor aside, the article also doesn't say that he herded sheep, it merely says he was a sheep farmer. Perhaps it's obvious that a sheep farmer herds sheep, but I prefer it if hook facts are definitely stated rather than just implied myself! @Generalissima, Silver seren, and Hey man im josh:  — Amakuru (talk) 10:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Amakuru: The source does mention Uruguay, it's just under the "Detailed List Entry" on the bottom of the page. It'd be okay to change herding to farming here though. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  @Generalissima Didn't I already show you how to deal with this, i.e. the at= attribute? RoySmith (talk) 23:09, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, under #List of historic places in Gore District RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  sigh I felt it was self-explanatory, but I will add it to the other Heritage NZ cites. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 23:18, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, I've seen this pattern on other sites. It's just terrible website design. It's the kind of thing that once you've discovered how the site works, it makes sense. But to a new user of the site, there's no hint what you need to do to get to the hidden content. It's sad. People pay web designers good money to create these sites and the client doesn't even understand how bad a product they got for their money. RoySmith (talk) 00:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The Heritage New Zealand website upgrade was the most shocking piece of web design that I've seen in quite a few years. They have a few thousand entries and with the upgrade, they broke all access to individual entries from the existing URLs. I thought we stopped being that dumb in about 2000, but heh, they managed to employ such a dumb outfit in 2023! Schwede66 04:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  1998, actually. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 12:27, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of historic places in Gore District

@Hey man im josh, Generalissima, and SL93: The cited source[11] doesn't appear to verify any of the facts in the hook. RoySmith (talk) 16:05, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

RoySmith It's there. Clicking Detailed List Entry will show the information. SL93 (talk) 16:13, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Click on "Detailed List entry" near the bottom of that page. There's no way to link to just the entry, sadly. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:12, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Had I not already been on that site for a related featured list nomination I wouldn't have known the exact spot to find that information either. Hey man im josh (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ugh. I suggest you use the "at=" parameter (see Template:cite web#In-source locations) to describe how to find it and/or quote=. RoySmith (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, added. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 16:28, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I Am Human (film)

@Hey man im josh, TheSandDoctor, and Chris Woodrich: I don't see where the article says anything about a "conversation starter". RoySmith (talk) 16:10, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: I can work that in but I thought that was just a more concise way of saying "The documentary film has subsequently become the topic of screenings and expert panel discussion". The film was screened and then the panels would discuss the science/technology, ethical issues, answer questions from the audience etc. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 16:17, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I interpreted it as well. If this is not acceptable then I'll keep this in mind in the future when adding hooks to the prep area (new to it and dipping my toes in). Hey man im josh (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry, we appreciate the help. RoySmith (talk) 16:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Seconding SandDoctor, though I missed the ping. — Chris Woodrich (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  The problem is, your signature doesn't match your user name, so when I copy-pasted your signature to ping you, it failed. The rules give you wide latitude to pick a signature that pleases you, but if it doesn't match your user name and you miss pings because of that, it's on you :-) RoySmith (talk) 21:04, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator of Dagmar Skálová, Evrik, has been temporarily blocked (for 30 days, roughly 27 days remaining); I'm not sure what the protocol is here. Does the nomination stay open until they're unblocked so that they have a chance to respond, or will it be closed due to inactivity? And if the nomination closes without being promoted, does it still count as my QPQ for Brunel University lecture centre? Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 17:40, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At least as far as the QPQ goes, the credit is for doing the review, regardless of what happens to the nomination after that. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When it comes to Dagmar itself, it depends on the circumstances of the nomination. If another editor is willing to take over the nomination in Evrik's absence, it can probably continue. As for the QPQ, it does not matter what happens to the original nomination as QPQs refer to the review itself. Even a nomination that fails or rejects the article can still count as a QPQ. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:52, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Open Evrik nominations

While we're here, it might be appropriate to list Evrik's open nominations to discuss what to do with them in his absence.

• Template:Did you know nominations/Xenophon of Robeika (courtesy ping reviewer @Zanahary: and commenters @Valereee and TSventon:)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Gary Orfield (currently unreviewed) (currently being reviewed by @Crisco 1492:)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Dagmar Skálová (courtesy ping reviewer @Suntooooth:)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Lookwide Camp (currently unreviewed)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Theobald of Marly (currently unreviewed)
• Template:Did you know nominations/Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra (currently unreviewed and lacking a QPQ; courtesy ping commenter @Miraclepine:)

Should these nominations be allowed to continue in his absence or should they be closed? The Crien Bolhuis-Schilstra nomination is probably the one here that needs the most attention as it has an open AFD discussion and is also missing a QPQ; given it was nominated on the 13th, a QPQ would need to be provided by the 20th (or the 27th if we give our usual extension) for it to proceed. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:24, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Xenophon nom has not produced a sourced interesting hook. ꧁Zanahary꧂ 05:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't an argument either way, just an observation, but it'd be a real shame if the Dagmar one is closed considering I think its ALT1 hook would do pretty well. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 05:34, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone who wants to adopt a nom is free to do so; everything else should be getting closed if reviews turn up issues that require evrik to be resolved. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 05:40, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Orfield and Lookwide Camp would at the very least need new hooks. For the nominations where evrik nominated the work of others, reviewers could ping those writers, who may be open to participating. CMD (talk) 05:48, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've pinged the major contributors to the Dagmar article - we'll see if it gets picked up, I guess. Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 06:38, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orfield is now being reviewed by Crisco 1492 so I'm pinging him about this discussion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:42, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to renominate Joy (dog) for DYK with the status "Improved for GA" but got an error that the duplicate nomination can't be created. Please advise how to resolve this issue. Thanks, Jacob0790 (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You should have got an error message saying 'please copy the following substituted template'. I've created it for you at Template:Did you know nominations/Joy (dog) (2nd nomination). I'll leave it to you to add it to T:TDYK.--Launchballer 19:46, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Launchballer! Jacob0790 (talk) 22:02, 17 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota State Highway 36

@Rjjiii, NotDragonius, and Nyanardsan: This doesn't seem to pass the interesting test. A highway goes over a river using a bridge. I'm guessing the putative interest factor is that it's a lift bridge, which is relatively rare, but only somebody into bridges would know that, so fails the likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest criteria of WP:DYKINT. On the plus side, I see this nomination was processed mostly by editors I don't see a lot at DYK, so thank you all for helping out! RoySmith (talk) 12:56, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Having read the whole article now, I'm not sure there's anything in there that would make a good replacement hook. The best I can come up with is:

... that you can take Minnesota Legislative Route 118 to the Wisconsin state line, but you'll never see a sign for it?

based on the first sentence of History, but it's questionable if there's solid sourcing for the lack of signs. RoySmith (talk) 13:29, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Its not currently supported by any source... The given source is from 1933 but the statement is about 2024, so unless they were time travelers or clairvoyants no bueno. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:04, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've collapsed the sub-thread about the GA and maps. If anybody thinks the GA is not valid, WP:GAR is the place to discuss that. My original question is about WP:DYKINT, so hopefully I can steer us back to that. RoySmith (talk) 16:22, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mi-naow think this is interesting either. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:27, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps

• ... that when authorized in 1933, Minnesota State Highway 36 was defined as Legislative Route 118 but wasn't marked as 118?

(A is called B but isn't marked B)

• ... that Legislative Route 118, Cedar Avenue, and Officer Richard Crittenden, Sr. Memorial Highway have all been terms for Minnesota State Highway 36?

(leaning into the several names the road's had.)

• ... that there's a little Canada on Minnesota State Highway 36?

(Some Canada on a road for a U. S. state? What's that about? (and thinking that, the reader clicks))

• ... that Minnesota State Highway 36 passes Grant and Elmo?

(last one is trying to be quirky by leaning into the somewhat person-sounding names of the cities)

Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 16:44, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the last two suggestions, to me those are interesting and quirky. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:59, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the little Canada one. RoySmith (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The linked bridge (Stillwater Bridge (St. Croix River)) is on the National Register of Historic Places. I won't object to the ALTs but did not see an issue with the original hook. Rjjiii (ii) (talk) 20:08, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As I originally quoted, the hook need to be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest. The fact that the bridge is on the NRHP is precisely the kind of "special knowledge" that requirement is talking about. RoySmith (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, I feel like the average reader doesn't see many lift bridges and thus would be interested in the article. I agree that the last two are pretty interesting and could work as a hook. What are the next steps?

Also confused as to how the use of maps in the article is non-routine. The GAR has been deleted. NotDragonius (talk) 22:18, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The trick I reckon is alerting the viewer that a "lift bridge" is interesting. (Not helped by the article using a photo where the bridge isn't lifted!) CMD (talk) 01:07, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The average reader probably doesn't even know that there are different types of bridges. If you want them to know it's unusual, tell them. Something like:

... that Minesota State Highway 36 has one of only XX lift bridges in the entire interstate system? RoySmith (talk) 02:13, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@NotDragonius: since multiple editors have objected to the previous hook, the next step would be come up with alternative hooks. You can post them and discuss here in this thread. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, NotDragonius said he was fine with both the Little Canada and the Grant/Elmo hooks, so maybe either could just work instead? Also pinging reviewer Nyanardsan as he hasn't given his input here yet. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:14, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. I've switched the hook that others objected to with the "little Canada" hook in Template:Did you know/Preparation area 2.[12] If the nominator is good with that, then I think the issue is resolved and they don't have to do anything. Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:40, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alright then, thanks. NotDragonius (talk) 18:32, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for my late reply and this tangent. I don't have much input here that might help, as I am a bit opinionated or biased here. I believe all articles a user has worked hard for and deemed interesting enough by them deserve to be considered for DYKN and should place heavier emphasis on more objective criteria such as length, newly promoted or expanded, and cited. Throwing out some articles arbitrarily because they were deemed "not interesting enough" is counterproductive to the improvement of Wikipedia and is demotivating to the nominator (as I have experienced myself several times). Nyanardsan (talk) 19:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nyanardsan, nobody has ever had their article rejected because it was deemed not interesting enough. That's not a criterion at all! What is required is for a hook to hold some interest. That's where some articles struggle; there just isn't anything interesting that lends itself for a good hook. I have written many articles that I never bothered to nominate at DYK because there just wasn't a good hook in it. Schwede66 02:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

nobody has ever had their article rejected because it was deemed not interesting enough. That's not a criterion at all! What is required is for a hook to hold some interest.: Er—these amount to the same criterion. 'Why was the hook rejected?' 'Because it wasn't interesting.' If the hook had been deemed interesting, it would've been 'interesting enough' to not be rejected. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 02:20, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Er–an article is not a hook. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 02:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There's a nuance to it. WP:DYKINT refers to hooks, not articles. Articles can be interesting especially to people interested in the subject or its field, but they may not necessarily lend well to hooks. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

A couple notes before I log off:

• I've added some additonal material about the bridges if there is anything hookable there.[13]
• The nominator NotDragonius does not seem to edit frequently,[14] so they may not comment here.
• I've left a notice on the article talk page and nominator talk page.

Regards, Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 05:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In the meantime, given that there are still concerns about the hook and it is close to running, I would suggest either bumping it off to prep or even pulling to buy us more time. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 06:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Swapped into prep 2. RoySmith (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The previous list of older nominations is now a week old and could be archived at any moment, so I've created a new list of 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through May 29. We have a total of 225 nominations, of which 73 have been approved, a gap of 152 nominations that has increased by 7 over the past 7 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.

More than one month old

• April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/DarkZero Esports
• April 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Lunch (song)
• May 2: Template:Did you know nominations/Bar Kokhba refuge caves
• May 5: Template:Did you know nominations/Adnan al-Bursh
• May 7: Template:Did you know nominations/Toro de fuego
• May 10: Template:Did you know nominations/Party of Revolutionary Communism (five articles)
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Ceasefire proposal for Israel–Hamas war (May 5)
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Interstate 85 in North Carolina
• May 12: Template:Did you know nominations/Vinland Saga (TV series)
• May 16: Template:Did you know nominations/Baubau
• May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/South by South Lawn
• May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Rashmika Mandanna
• May 17: Template:Did you know nominations/Anna Russell Cole

Other nominations

• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Jump (Tyla, Gunna and Skillibeng song)
• May 20: Template:Did you know nominations/Flyover (book)
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Hamad City
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Pascal Maynard
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/LS Power
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Voluntary war
• May 21: Template:Did you know nominations/Gary Orfield
• May 22: Template:Did you know nominations/I'm really excited about the opening of Tuen Ma line
• May 22: Template:Did you know nominations/The Rise and Fall of the Dinosaurs
• May 23: Template:Did you know nominations/Thriller (Fall Out Boy song)
• May 24: Template:Did you know nominations/Expedition climbing
• May 24: Template:Did you know nominations/List of Green Bay Packers Associated Press All-Pro selections
• May 25: Template:Did you know nominations/73 Yards
• May 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Adama Touré (PAI general secretary)
• May 25: Template:Did you know nominations/Sud 777
• May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Yang Jingru (speed skater)
• May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Ludwig Krug
• May 26: Template:Did you know nominations/Brittany Luse
• May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Broward County Convention Center
• May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/Croton alabamensis
• May 27: Template:Did you know nominations/At the Name of Jesus
• May 28: Template:Did you know nominations/List of historic places in Kaikōura District
• May 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Ștefan Tita
• May 29: Template:Did you know nominations/M/T Petar Hektorović
• May 29: Template:Did you know nominations/Rhapsody (climb)

Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 02:37, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you all for your work on the Henry Street salamander tunnels hook. It performed well because of everyone's work on images, and on the hook: 28,432 views (1,184.6 per hour). I think the shortened hook and the great images certainly helped. Bruxton (talk) 04:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was glad that nobody took action on the complaint filed at Errors about the hook. I thought it was perfectly fine and a great hook. Good work, Bruxton et al. Schwede66 04:08, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

yes I think Valereee and levivich workshopped it. I saw the discussion at errors too. I am glad others found the subject interesting. Bruxton (talk) 04:13, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Valereee and levivich I am the worst pinger ever. Bruxton (talk) 04:29, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And Faolin42 for taking a whole category of photos, and RoySmith for the cleanup on the lead image/hook image.

It's an example of the effect where adjacent content is improved from a DYK appearance. I dunno if there's a name for that. Uk-wiki got a whole new article,[15] and Wikidata was updated.[16] It seems pretty common for Wikidata to get corrected/updated after an article hits the front page. Several articles linked from the lead of the DYK nomination got cleaned up including spotted salamander,[17] amphibian and reptile tunnel,[18] and Big Night (amphibians).[19] Rjjⁱⁱⁱ (talk) 04:45, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That is great. I also started a draft for draft:congressing when I saw the redlink in Big Night but I have not had the motivation to develop. I love it when a plan comes together. Bruxton (talk) 04:54, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It takes a village. RoySmith-Mobile (talk) 10:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've noticed that content on other wikis often appears after mainpage appearances on en.wp—it's an oft-under-appreciated phenomenon. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 10:47, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Definitely a thing. I created Big Night because while I was checking sources at Henry Street, I came across the term, added it to Henry Street, discovered it was a redlink. It got 3000 views while HSST was on the front page. I created Esther Tailfeathers because I came across her at the Bjarne Store-Jakobsen nomination, ditto. That's two articles from a single editor in a couple of weeks directly because of DYK. And it's absolutely routine for at minimum several editors to make improvements to the target article, which is the whole reason I nominate. For all the criticism we idiots at DYK get for embarrassing WP with our incompetence, the net is a huge positive.

And articles being nominated for ITN get improved routinely to get them onto the MP. OTD probably shows some of the same effect. Valereee (talk) 11:11, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Great work! I enjoyed the article as well. Lightburst (talk) 14:38, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

At Template:Did you know nominations/John Caples, User:SafariScribe intends to run with the following hook: that John Caples's mail-order advert for the US School of Music in 1926, became successful and was one of the 100 greatest advertisements of all time? I've attempted to explain why this isn't an acceptable hook, but the nominator refuses to listen. Bringing this here for more visibility - surely this isn't an acceptable hook? We can't just say that something is "the best" in Wikipedia voice without attributing that claim (which is an opinion) to a specific source. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Another example of poor superlatives. Probably shouldn't be in Wikivoice in the article either. I see Launchballer has already struck it out at nom. CMD (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand your points and was never trying to refute that. Well, I had wanted to change the hook but wanted to get a better way of putting it either. You saying I refused was never done anywhere. Please next time try to check well to know when someone wants to clarify and when they have made up their mind. Thanks though as I will run another hook. Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 13:41, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to interpret @Trainsandotherthings, No, it's a fact. I also saw the same here in p.6. as anything other than a refusal to change the hook. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed the hook. If there is any error with it, let me know too. Courtesy ping to @Trainsandotherthings, @Chipmunkdavis, and @Launchballer. Thanks! Safari Scribe^{Edits! Talk!} 14:04, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

FYI: I just saw a discussion about the lead image at errors. Seems the image has been removed so our lead hook is without. Do we have one to swap? Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I checked all the hooks in the running set, and this one has a free image. It is not ideal but it is something. Template:Did you know nominations/Sitdown strike Lightburst (talk) 14:42, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on it. RoySmith (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wondering what others think about a IAR for a nomination that appears to be 1442 characters short of a 5x expansion. Template:Did you know nominations/Sam Kee Building. I guess I would willing to IAR if others agree but 1442 is significant enough that I thought it best to ask here. Bruxton (talk) 19:03, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Comparing the current version of the article to what it was prior to Yue's expansion of it, I think it's in the spirit of DYK's interest in showing readers recently improved articles to WP:IAR this and let the nomination go forward. 1442 characters amounts to around 200 words, about a paragraph, and I don't think we gain as much from letting a paragraph's difference stop this nomination as we gain from letting it go forward. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 19:14, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From the other point of view, Akinada Tobishima Kaido (currently at WP:DYKNA) is 1519 characters long and viable for DYK on its own; your final sentence could thus be rephrased as "letting an article's difference stop this nomination..." I don't really have an opinion on this particular request—I just thought the different lens was interesting. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 21:05, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No objection to IAR. Valereee (talk) 21:26, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I started doing checks but I do not have time to stick with this nomination and promote. Another promotor is free to IAR and check it out. Bruxton (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to go against the grain here and oppose an IAR. It being so close to meeting 5x means it shouldn't hurt to add the 200 words or so as long as it's still possible. I get the idea but I'm more of the idea that IAR exemptions should be used sparingly and only with good reason. Allowing this nomination to be passed right now per IAR but not similar cases seems just as unfair as failing the nomination and depriving it of its opportunity. I'm not saying we should reject the nomination, but rather maybe ask for more time for an expansion that shouldn't really be too hard to do. If the nominator was new to DYK, an IAR might have been more appropriate given we tend to be more lenient on newcomers, but this is already their sixth nomination. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:38, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Also not seeing the IAR case. Will note however that the lead doesn't really cover the Architecture section, so that's a chunk of the characters needed. CMD (talk) 01:11, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5 and Chipmunkdavis: You are both not wrong - I think a 1,400 shortage is a lot. I initially liked the story and hook ideas. I tried to confirm part of a hook sentence and it went to a map. So primary source with inferences made. Bruxton (talk) 01:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see first if what Chipmunkdavis said about possibly expanding the architecture section can put it over the edge. One possibility, of course, would just simply be to nominate the article for GA status, thus bypassing the question of 5x expansion entirely if it passes. With a quick look at the article, it already seems like a viable GAN once the lead issue is addressed. Pinging Yue for their input. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:04, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Narutolovehinata5: I will incorporate all the suggestions brought up here and double check the sources I provided (some mistakes already noted here) before I nominate for GA, which I intended to do at some point anyways. I think even if I remedy the issue to the lead, I do not think it would pass the 5× threshold because I misunderstood the unit of measurement and by characters, 1,400+ is a lot. I will make some tweaks nonetheless and let you lot decide on how to move forward. Yue🌙 03:15, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure this would be discussed at Errors. It's not necessarily an Error, but let us be deliberate. Here's the nomination form. With this edit, Ravenpuff added quotation marks to the hook with the edit summary add quotation marks since this counts as an inline quote. Two thoughts:

• I'm not convinced that we need quotation marks here.
• But if we do, I suggest that the quotation marks should also be italicised.

On the latter point, there's nothing in MOS:ITALICS that covers this. I regard it as being similar to the brackets around the word "pictured" in hooks; those brackets are to be italicised as per WP:DYKMOS. Anyway, there's heaps of time to come to some agreement, I'm sure. Schwede66 05:20, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter a Day seems to be the name of a series, which would demand italics. Not seeing the need for quotation marks.--Launchballer 14:43, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am also not sure why we need quotation marks but I Will ping @Sammi Brie and Oltrepier: to get their thoughts. Bruxton (talk) 16:46, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The italics are because this was the title of a radio show, but I would also now not be opposed to "a chapter a day" with no formatting. Turns out Chapter a Day is a thing, and it isn't in Utah. (In very related news, I just expanded a radio station in Wisconsin.) Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 16:57, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chapter a Day is a great read. A series that's been running for close to 100 years. That is quite something. With regards to our hook, I see consensus for the quotation marks to go. Thanks! Schwede66 19:50, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66 Sorry for replying just now, but I agree with Sammi's point here. Thank you for flagging it, by the way! Oltrepier (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Schwede66, Sammi Brie, and Oltrepier: With apologies for missing this discussion: my opinion is that marking the phrase in italics means that it refers to the radio show, but the hook exploits the literal meaning of the words, i.e. literally a "chapter a day". I tried to use quotation marks to point out that we're using the show title as part of the phrasing here. Of course, if this feels totally unnecessary and pedantic, I should say that I don't mind keeping the hook as is, but I would slightly prefer Sammi Brie's suggestion that we just omit the italic formatting – they're not that essential to the hook. — RAVENPVFF · talk · 16:12, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Scotch any indications of a title, @Ravenpuff. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Remembering that we did themed sets for the FIFA Women's World Cup last year, I thought of an idea for a themed set of hooks: the 2024 Summer Olympics take place from July 26 to August 11 this year (in a little over five weeks) and I think there will probably be a decent number of Olympics-related hooks; I at least plan to write a good number of them. I was thinking we might be able to do something like one Olympics hook per day for the duration of the event, similar to how we did for the FIFA World Cup. Thoughts? BeanieFan11 (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I coordinated something like that for the last Olympics and had been planning on offering that service once more. Schwede66 21:22, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Cool idea! Lightburst (talk) 22:18, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also like this idea! I know of a couple topics that could provide Olympics-related hooks; I'll look into them. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 22:58, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've dug out the item that shows how we went about it last time: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 180#Olympic hooks. Schwede66 22:26, 20 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like work @Schwede66:! Hopefully we can identify a few. Bruxton (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It was somewhat involved! Schwede66 01:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Some related considerations:

• Can I suggest that we pull Solomon Islands at the 2020 Summer Olympics out of Prep7 Prep6 and run it just prior to the Paris Olympics kicking off?
• Other candidates for a warmup are articles relating to the 2024 Winter Youth Olympics, which were held at the beginning of 2024. Template:Did you know nominations/Yang Jingru (speed skater) is one such article.
• The 2024 European Athletics Championships – Women's 400 metres hurdles nomination names Femke Bol, who is set to compete for the Netherlands at the 2024 Summer Olympics.

All the Olympic-related hooks that I could spot are in the table below. Schwede66 03:52, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal

The Paris Olympics will be kicking off on 26 July 2024 with an opening ceremony in the early evening. Event competitions start two days earlier on 24 July with association football and rugby sevens. The closing ceremony (article yet to be written!) is on 11 August. That's 19 days of Olympics and as suggested above, we could run Solomon Islands at the 2020 Summer Olympics as a warmup just before that period.

There'll be some special date requests coming in and to avoid filling up individual hook sets with too much sport, I suggest we co-ordinate what will run when to spread things out in a logical fashion. I suspect that we'll stay in a 24-hour cycle for the duration of the event but if that changes, we can accommodate that as well. Time zone–wise, Paris is currently at UTC+02:00 (Central European Summer Time or CEST), hence there are no mental gymnastics necessary as long as we stay in the 24-hour cycle. Comments welcome. Helpers are welcome and essential; I certainly don't want to do this all by myself as this was quite a bit of work some three years ago for the Tokyo Olympics. And with regards to my own special interests, I shall tell you that the Kiwi rowers are in good shape; I can hear the medals clinking already! Schwede66 01:20, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• @Schwede66: I can get the hooks as long as you help figuring out the schedule (in addition to the two of mine mentioned below, I also have pending Dylan Travis and Alyssa Mendoza that I need to work on, and am preparing to nominate (haven't yet) Evann Girault and Emmanuella Atora; I also created Maia Weintraub but I can't think of a good hook...). BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Olympic hooks table

Article (nom)	Requested	Suggested date	Prep set	Notes (all times in CEST)	Status	Views
Fathimath Dheema Ali (nom)	none	27 July		The women's singles prelim round starts on 27 July	QPQ pending
Shachar Sagiv (nom)	none	30 July		Men's triathlon is scheduled for 30 July starting at 8:00	Under review
Manizha Talash (nom)	none	9 August		Breaking or breakdancing is a new sport. Who would have known.	Review not started yet
[[]] (nom)

Yazathingyan (14th-century minister)

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Yazathingyan (14th-century minister))

• ... that Yazathingyan Nga Mauk betrayed his brother, Commander Nga Nu, after being promised Nu's wife Queen Saw Omma in marriage?

Quick and slightly minor question on this... if his common name is simply Yazathingyan, as implied by the title of the article, why does the hook refer to him as Yazathingyan Nga Mauk, a concatenation of two different names which isn't in itself found within the article? @Hybernator, Silver seren, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 13:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure, but this Google Books snippet from The Maniyadanabon of Shin Sandalinka, Volumes 113-116 gives that as his full name. SL93 (talk) 18:36, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: you mean his full name is "Yazathingyan Nga Mauk"? If that's the case, then the article should say so I'd think. Currently it lists "Yazathingyan" and "Nga Mauk" as two separate and alternative names.  — Amakuru (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru I'm just saying that the one English source I can find has it as his full name. I'm not sure if it's wrong. SL93 (talk) 20:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now I'm thinking it's his full name per the article on the work at Mani Yadanabon. I'm hoping that Hybernator comes along. SL93 (talk) 20:16, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Nga Nu article implies that Nga is an honorific, and the Yazathingyan article so implies the guy's name was Mauk, who came to be referred to with the honorific Nga, and then elevated to the title Yazathingyan. "Yazathingyan Nga Mauk" is unlikely to be the right way to refer to him - Nga Mauk is probably more correct. Or maybe with commas - ...that Yazathingyan, Nga Mauk, betrayed his brother... Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 07:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps Hybernator intended not to be confused with other people in Burmese history who have the same name "Yazathingyan." (Pls refer to Yazathingyan (disambiguation))

To be exact, in the case of ministers, Burmese tradition is that they were conferred the royal titles by the king and referred in the chronicles by that titles as their official names. But here in this case, since there are several people with the same name (or title), it is his given/ birth name that is used to differentiate from other Yazathingyans.

So to sum up, the subject’s name officially mentioned in the royal chronicle is "Yazathingyan". "Nga Mauk" is his birth name which in this case is used not to be confused with others.

Hope this would explain the confusion. Htanaungg (talk) 09:59, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, so what I'm getting from this is that the hook as it stands is good to go, right? If yes, please ping Amakuru informing em that it is. Kind regards, Wilhelm Tell DCCXLVI (^{talk to me!}/_{my edits}) 13:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC) P.S.: Disclosure—I pointed Htanaungg to this discussion. See here.[reply]

Climate change in Asia

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Climate change in Asia)

• ... that climate change in Asia is expected to increase already-high flood risks in Asian cities, potentially affecting 932 million people?

A slight mismatch I think between the hook and the article here... For the 932 million figure, the article text says "Over a third of the cities in Asia, with a combined population of around 932 million, are considered at high risk of flooding", but as far as I can tell that's a current statistic, not something that's expected. Presumably that's what also supports the already-high part of the hook, which otherwise might not be in the article. But the increase that's expected is separate and in the next paragraph - "Future warming is expected to substantially increase annual precipitation ... making floods substantially more frequent". I would think this expectation would therefore perhaps affect even more than the 932 million people who are at risk right now? @InformationToKnowledge, Crisco 1492, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 13:28, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru Would the original hook of ... that climate change in Asia will increase flood risks in the continent's cities, which are already high for 932 million people? From what you said, it appears the original hook will fix the issue. SL93 (talk) 18:32, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: yes, it does sound like that matches what the article says...  — Amakuru (talk) 20:03, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru Should the original hook be used since it's almost time for the hook to go live? SL93 (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: Oh yes,  Done thanks. I forgot I needed to implement the change myself as well!  — Amakuru (talk) 08:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh Manaf

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Saleh Manaf)

• ... that Saleh Manaf was elected as the regent of Bekasi despite being a dummy candidate in the election?

Just wanted to check what the source says about him being a "dummy canddiate" here? I can't directly see it myself, source [3] doesn't address that part. The main question is whether he was actually a dummy candidate in the senses meant by our article, i.e. someone inserted by others as a foil or non-serious candidate, or whether he was in fact merely a genuine candidate who wasn't expected to win? The wording "Saleh was nominated by small parties inside the council" in the article suggests to me that he and those who nominated him genuinely wanted to win, which may mean a term other than dummy candidate needs to be used. @Jeromi Mikhael, Z1720, Crisco 1492, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 15:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru: Is it possible to use the term underdog? Regards, Jeromi Mikhael 00:37, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Jeromi Mikhael: if that's what sense of the source says, and the article is also updated, then go for it.  — Amakuru (talk) 06:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Jeromi Mikhael The set will be live soon. Can you fix the issue in time or should the hook be pulled? SL93 (talk) 22:14, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've pulled the hook as this is unresolved. I'll reopen the nomination. Schwede66 23:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've plugged that gap with Suicidal Tour; have done the credits manually. And the article is recommended reading; that's quite the story. Schwede66 00:27, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Answers Research Journal

(nom page: Template:Did you know nominations/Answers Research Journal)

• ... that according to one creationist journal, HIV has its origins in the Fall?

Minor point perhaps, but according to the article it wasn't the journal itself which espoused this view, but an article therein written by Liberty University professor Alan Gillen. Since it's not an editorial or with any direct endorsement, does that still count as being "according to" the journal? In fact, the variant hook suggested by Rjjiii might be better here (reworded to avoid the word claim anyway), as it directly attributes who said this... @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d, Sohom Datta, and SL93:  — Amakuru (talk) 16:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If we want to be quite rigorous, this could be rephrased to

• that a creationist journal's inaugural article attributed HIV to the biblical Fall?

Saying "attributed" would require some revision of the article, as currently it just states Gillen argued the origins of HIV goes back to the biblical Fall. The source cited, an article in The Guardian, states that Gillen seems to be suggesting that HIV turned nasty because of Eve munching on the apple and humankind being banished from the Garden of Eden.

Though now that I look at the template page, I've sort of just recreated ALT2. I recognize that Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d considers attribution to the article slightly less snappy, but I'm not sure how else to address what Amakuru has raised here. Hydrangeans (she/her | talk | edits) 17:24, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Amakuru@Hydrangeans, thank you for the ping. Well, I guess since journals are inanimate objects, they can never make “claims” or “arguments” in the most literal sense. The journal is simply the medium this professor used to make such claims/arguments. Since DYK hooks typically prefer brevity, how about something like this: that according to research in one creationist journal, HIV has its origins in the Fall? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 19:45, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support that wording. Sohom (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the hook and I don't like the use of "research" here. Research is defined as "the systematic investigation into and study of materials and sources in order to establish facts and reach new conclusions". That is not what happened here. I would prefer a far less controversial hook that doesn't promote crazy religious pseudoscience on the main page. I'm sure people can come up with a hook that doesn't do this. Viriditas (talk) 21:52, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I like the original hook, and the first rephrased hook. I don't consider the journal itself to have any actual research. SL93 (talk) 22:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Looking briefly at the article and its links, there's an enormous opportunity to come up with better hooks. For example, the editor in chief of the YEC journal, Andrew Snelling, has both supported standard geological dating in billions of years and young-earth creationist dating in thousands of years. That's hilarious and would make a great hook. Does his preferred dating depend on which side of the bed he wakes up on? Viriditas (talk) 22:55, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how I feel about Wikipedia ridiculing a person on the main page. (However deserving that might actually be) Sohom (talk) 01:31, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, and I’m not sure which part of the ARJ article Viriditas is referring to. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well research can be heavily flawed, misleading, or—in this case—purely unscientific. How about replacing research with “study” or “article”:

that according to an article in one creationist journal, HIV has its origins in the Fall? or

that according to one creationist journal’s article, HIV has its origins in the Fall? Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 23:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Just curious, but what is it that you like about this hook? If I nominated this article for DYK, that would be the last hook I would ever choose. Just wondering about your thought process. Viriditas (talk) 23:20, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Plus, in accordance with MOS:SEASONS we should say "... has its origins in autumn." EEng 00:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Ambiguity is the least of our problems, but it's still a problem. Viriditas (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It's not referring to a season. SL93 (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We know! That's the joke EEng was making. It's too ambiguous. Viriditas (talk) 00:58, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the season of fall isn't capitalized, and it is wiki-linked. I get the joke and was messing around, but it really isn't funny. SL93 (talk) 01:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I find it funny, because the hook assumes (or asserts) "The Fall" is a thing. It is not. It's a religious belief unique to a certain kind of religion, and even within that domain, a certain kind of interpretation. Not everyone believes in the "fall of humanity" and "sin". This almost sounds like it violates DYKFICTION. Viriditas (talk) 01:03, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, but the hook makes it clear it's from a creationist viewpoint. I would feel different if it was portrayed as some type of actual research-based journal. I guess adding biblical or something similar to the hook is fine though. I do agree with you that there are better options for hooks. I added the hook to the last slot because the whole thing is nonsense. SL93 (talk) 01:13, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I was curious about this, so I did some searching. Apparently, less than 10% of Americans believe in a Biblical worldview, with numbers as low as 4%. Now, I don't know if any of that is accurate, but I think saying "HIV has its origins in the Fall" might confuse a lot of our readers, perhaps even more so outside the US. Viriditas (talk) 01:17, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would have never guessed that. I really need to move at some point. SL93 (talk) 01:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We explicitly say that the claim is being made by "one creationist journal". I don't see how somebody could misconstrue this as a actual fact (especially outside the US), unless I am missing something here? Sohom (talk) 01:29, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Viriditas, to answer your question, I like this hook and I chose this hook for the precise reason of WP:DYKINT: The hook should be likely to be perceived as unusual or intriguing by readers with no special knowledge or interest. The most interesting hooks are the ones that leave the reader wanting to know more. This hook is undoubtedly unusual and intriguing. From the perspective of the reader, they will probably ponder, “what does HIV have to do with the season of fall”? That’s when their curiosity kicks in and they notice that Fall links to the biblical fall. “Well, what the heck does the Bible have to do with HIV?” the reader will ask themselves next. That’s when the reader will likely start exploring the bolded link. Frankly speaking, a hook about how a person views Earth’s geological process is uninteresting for the general reader (thus failing WP:DYKINT). Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You think a hook that says an editor in chief who can’t decide between standard geological dating in billions of years and creationist dating in thousands of years is uninteresting? Seriously? Viriditas (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, that proposal, although interesting to me, doesn't seem to be in the article or at least reflected in its wording. I do think we can probably move away from either the original angle or that proposal and try some wackier options:

• ... that the Answers Research Journal excludes members of the scientific community from its peer review process?
• ... that a creationist research journal requires authors to sign a statement of faith and may reject papers that contradict its religious beliefs?
• ... that a creationist research journal does not list authors in its table of contents, and authors are allowed to publish papers under a pseudonym?

I'm not sure if any of these could work (or why we aren't mentioning the "journal" by name in the hook) as non-specialist hooks, I'm just putting these here for consideration. To me the second proposal might seem like a "well duh" hook given it's about a creationist "journal", but it might still be weird or unusual to readers. For the first proposal I decided to mention the journal by name since it isn't blatantly obvious from the title that it's creationist in tone, and the contrast between being a "research journal" and excluding mainstream scientists might raise eyebrows even if it is a bit of a gotcha hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:45, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it would really depend on your exact wording/set-up. But for the general reader, it doesn’t seem very hook-y. Also, as mentioned above, there might be some WP:DYKBLP concerns + that content is not in the article. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This set is next to go up so given the concerns raised about the current hook it might be a good idea to pull it or at least bump it off to prep for now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:41, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

• Thinking about the original hook again, another possible issue with the hook is that it might not be immediately clear for non-Christians or even non-devout Christians. Calling it simply "the Fall" could be too vague and it might not necessarily click even to Christians what "the Fall" is referring to. One possible solution could be to clarify it as being the "Fall of man" or "the Fall of Adam" to make the connection much clearer, though another option is of course to move away from that angle entirely. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:50, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
• Kind of shocked this is one of the DYK items that Wikipedia has chosen to highlight. I can't help but feel that something like this is borderline endorsing a statement with likely homophobic intentions (...and during pride month?). I don't know. I know that DYK items are not necessarily endorsing their comments (and that Wikipedia's purpose is to document - certainly I have no objection to this being in the original article), but frankly it's not even an interesting or shocking fact - 'did you know Christian fundamentalists think HIV is punishment for sinning' is news to almost no one, and I have no clue why this should be on Wikipedia's main page. It certainly seems there were objections raised in the process, so why was this approved? (And, calling it the 'Fall' is definitely a gotcha that just hides what this statement is actually saying - that's not a did you know! If you have to trick people into clicking, maybe that's a bad sign that your fact is not actually very interesting or informative on its own?) --Nerd1a4i (they/them) (talk) 02:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I’m sorry you feel that way but there’s absolutely no violation of WP:DYKG here. The original minor objection raised by Amakuru was to simply make the hook a bit more specific by attributing it to the original article. The “Fall” was not a trick at all. It’s simply a pun. I’ve seen harmless word play on DYK numerous times. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:01, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  I don't see this as a endorsement of anything, as I have mentioned above, we explicitly label this take "creationist". I don't see how much more clearer we could get. I also (personally) do not see it how this is homophobic, the message of the hook/my takeaway from the hook is "did you know ... that pseudo-science believers have a academic journal that said this weird shit?" rather than a specific endorsement of the weird shit itself. Sohom (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  That’s exactly correct. Fringe journal saying weird nonsense /= WP saying weird nonsense. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 03:55, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maria Pizzoli

@SL93, Phlsph7, and Bruxton: sorry, a late query on this. I was slightly concerned that the article depends entirely on only two sources, although in fairness you've done a reasonable job of it not seeming like they're very closely paraphrased. There are two sentences that I couldn't match to their sources though:

• "Pilotti praised her for being as well versed as himself with music"
• "Her first public appearance was in 1837 when she was invited to attend a music festival with a well-regarded harpist at Società del Casino di Bologna headquarters."

Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I will look soon. I’m currently waiting for my ride home from work. SL93 (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The second part is in the second reference. - “In 1837, at just twenty years old, the girl made her first public appearance. The opportunity arose when the director of the Società del Casino di Bologna called her to accompany on the piano a famous harpist who was supposed to perform at their headquarters.” I don’t know where I got “music festival”. I will remove that now. SL93 (talk) 18:10, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article now says - “Her first public appearance was in 1837 when she was invited to the Società del Casino di Bologna headquarters to perform on the piano with a well-regarded harpist.” SL93 (talk) 18:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Amakuru I removed the "praised" part because I cannot recall where I found it at, and I fixed the second part. Thank you for the help. SL93 (talk) 18:30, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@SL93: great, thank you.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current hook for Flemish bond (presently in Prep 6) needs to swap "was" to "were" due to "bricks" being plural. "Bricks" can also be swapped for "brickwork", retaining "was". ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about that. Certainly "bricks" is plural and would take "were". But "bricks laid in Flemish bond"? Isn't that a collective noun which is treated (at least in American English) as singular? RoySmith (talk) 14:13, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"brick laid in Flemish bond" is a noncount noun (or "mass noun"), and so takes "is" in any national variety (like "water treated with chlorine is"). It's not a collective noun like "the American team", which is interpreted as singular in some varieties and plural in others. EEng 22:53, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If bricks are laid
in flemish bond
it makes them quite a mass
to call them plural
in wiki-speak
you'd have to be an ass
Burma-shave

RoySmith (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"... that bricks laid in Flemish bond were a sign of wealth in colonial Virginia?" is currently in queue 6. I take it that has to be changed. SL93 (talk) 00:11, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, wait, stop. "bricks laid in Flemish bond were a sign" is also correct. From a grammar point of view, you could say "brick laid in Flemish bond is" or "bricks laid in Flemish bond are". But the former formulation has a slightly better tone to it. EEng 00:25, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

More importantly, that's sourced to a blog, so not a WP:RS. RoySmith (talk) 14:19, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The blog was by a university researcher on a university-managed blog (different from a typical, self-published blog site), with the information quoted from Carolyn Whittenburg, an expert in colonial Virginia. ~ Pbritti (talk) 15:01, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. A common misconception is that all blogs are unreliable. SL93 (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

McClain isn't an expert and the blog is not editorially reviewed, but Whittenburg is indeed a subject-matter expert so I'm inclined to let it slide. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:43, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know that these are any better as sources, but:

• https://davetabler.com/how-to-dignify-a-once-grand-property/
• https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/GetAsset/NRHP/64000020_text

RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: good sources! I bought three books that'll further color this topic more after it stands at DYK. ~ Pbritti (talk) 04:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I gather that the DYK volunteers are already working hard and stretched thin, so I understand if nobody has time for this. I nominated Braver Angels for a DYK on June 14th, with the hope that it might be put into the DYK queue for their national convention on June 27-29. Anyway, it's coming up soon, so I'm posting it here in case anyone has a chance to review it, etc. Template:Did you know nominations/Braver Angels. Thanks very much, ProfGray (talk) 17:05, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am not too knowledgeable on Wikipedia etiquette or systems but am an avid front page reader everyday. I have noticed and checked through the archive that we've listed 4 Porter Robinson facts in just the first half of 2024. Is it potentially time to retire his facts? I've read his page twice now! Thanks 81.97.68.199 (talk) 19:59, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you know what days these ran? That'll help us understand the problem better. RoySmith (talk) 21:17, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Four hooks about Robinson in six months isn't that many when you compare to the time when we were full of Tay-tay hooks, or our regular features on New York buildings, opera, and radio stations. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:01, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone want to weigh in on this? I'm seeing it as a hook basically of the form "... that [Circus performer] was known as [performer's PR nickname]", but the nominator and promoter would probably disagree with that characterization. Courtesy pings to @Silver seren and Bruxton. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:49, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I responded on the nom page. RoySmith (talk) 23:11, 21 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RoySmith: Side note: I was wondering why someone would want to use the method of whispering to tigers... Lots of tabloid-looking-sources say that tigers are one of the only animals who seek revenge. NPR also has an anecdote about tiger revenge. But first they say a tiger "can jump as far as 25 ft (7.6 m) -- vertically, they can jump over a basketball hoop". Yikes. They tell the story of how one tiger stalked a man and took revenge by killing and eating him. So I conclude that whispering commands to tigers seems prudent because they just might remember the whipping and shouting. Bruxton (talk) 01:00, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a PR nickname should not be used. SL93 (talk) 01:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because it's PR or what? Since it's not actually promotional for the place in question. The person hasn't worked there in two decades and the place doesn't even have animals anymore. Silverseren^C 01:51, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Because whatever PR nickname is used is boring, and also not independent of the subject. SL93 (talk) 03:21, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that she used whispered commands instead of threats of physical violence is boring? And any information about her is not going to be "independent" of the subject when it's about the subject. Unless you're meaning something else by using independent, since the article isn't about Ringling, so that's not the subject. Silverseren^C 03:23, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I said that relying on the PR nickname is boring. It seems like the name was chosen by Ringling Bros so the name itself wouldn't be independent of the subject. She worked for Ringling + name from Ringling = not independent by Ringling and her by extension. SL93 (talk) 03:25, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

a different ALT has been approved – thanks, all :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 04:22, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Not strictly a DYK thing, but congratulations to theleekycauldron and Tamzin for Capri-Sun being featured on WP:TFA! RoySmith (talk) 00:57, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

:D thanks, Roy! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 01:39, 22 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is embarrassing. I created an article that already existed. I've nominated said article for CSD and, therefore, am requesting my DYK nomination be failed. (To prevent the inevitability of confusion that will result, I probably shouldn't self-close.) Thank you and sorry. Chetsford (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Closed the nom, but which one is the correct title? One should redirect to the other.--Launchballer 11:35, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chetsford, you should merge your content to the existing article. Your work is much better. And when done, you should redirect the title as Launchballer suggests. Schwede66 12:09, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and I agree with you both. I've saved a copy and, once it's deleted, will merge the content over. The philosophical issue is I'm not really certain which is the more appropriate title and, because the parallel article's only active editor is retired, and I'm the only active editor on the new article I probably need to resolve that issue which will require some contemplation. During this interregnum, I'm concerned about the existence of two identical articles. But maybe I'm overthinking this? Chetsford (talk) 12:14, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This kind of thing happens all the time. I think it has happened to me at least five times, maybe more. It’s totally normal. Viriditas (talk) 12:36, 23 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]