Wikipedia

Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 177

< Wikipedia talk:Did you know
Latest comment: 3 years ago by Andrew Davidson in topic "First person to do X" hooks
Archive 170←Archive 175Archive 176Archive 177Archive 178Archive 179Archive 180

in memory of Yoninah

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Psalm 115, article and hook wording were made in memory of Yoninah, best on Earth Day, 22 April. It was approved on 13 April, and sits now in prep 5, sometime later. While I believe that pictured later is better than not pictured on the right day, I wonder what our readers will say if we proclaim Earth Day the wrong day. Yoninah would have found a solution. Anybody for IAR? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:22, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I did the promotion here. 22 April is in Queues 3 and 4, which are pretty locked at this point; I could conceivably imagine it being switched, but I at least can't technically perform such a switch. I considered whether my best option was to promote to P5 or bring up a switch at the talk page, and concluded it was the promotion. If the hook proclaimed that it was specifically about, say, "today's Earth Day", I would have done differently, but I don't think it was so associated that it couldn't run a few days later, and as the hook is really a memorial to Yoninah first and foremost I thought it more important that it run at all than that it run a specific day. I don't per se oppose a switch if someone with the technical ability wishes to do one, though. Vaticidalprophet 11:31, 20 April 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Today is Earth Day. Earth is the featured article, excellent scheduling. DYK will mention it in four days. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:48, 22 April 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The previous list was archived a few days ago. The list below includes 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 10. We currently have a total of 260 nominations, of which 125 have been approved, a gap of 135, down 35 from twelve days ago. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over two months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 00:58, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Queue 4

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

@Amakuru: there's a duplicate "the" in the 7th hook, start of the wikilink. Kingsif (talk) 22:38, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

P7 April27b

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Music of Sudan

  • ... that during the Sudanese Revolution, young urban musicians used the subversive power of the music of Sudan to call for freedom of expression and democratic unity?

Munfarid1

This assertion doesn't have a source in the article. I've marked the article sentence as needing both a citation and probably direct attribution, because this is kind of an exceptional claim. Who is saying the musicians are using the "subversive power" of their music? —valereee (talk) 13:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, Valereee - you are right about this statement missing a source. (It was one of the few sentences I found in the earlier version of this article, that hat been written by somebody else.) - I just changed it to read: "young urban musicians have used their musical talents and creativity to express the revolt of protesters against President Al Bashir and his regime." and gave the source and the name of the journalist, Ola Diab.
But anyway, I think the reviewer of my hooks, Drmies (talk) chose the first hook about the hakamat singers for the DYK page, and I agree with this preference. Munfarid1 (talk) 15:03, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I've switched to the other hook. I didn't see anything in the article about hate speech, so I've removed that part of the hook. —valereee (talk) 23:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Queue 6

Latest comment: 3 years ago22 comments11 people in discussion
Virtually NONE of the facts in this hook appear in the article. Yoninah would be shocked that it has made it to the queue! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:57, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Why haven't you pulled it then? Gatoclass (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass:Two reasons; I wanted to draw wide attention to this problem, without pointing the finger of blame at any particular editors, with the aim of improving reviewing in the future; secondly, I could see that the issue could be readily resolved by adding text from the Guldner House page and there was plenty of time to do this before the hook appeared on the main page. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 08:15, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
@Drmies and Uncle G. I will not comment on the second sentence of the post, nor the edit summary. Vaticidalprophet 06:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
For the record, my consistent experience is both editors are reasonable and dedicated on matters of content, and I have no reason to think they would not have happily either verified the hook in the article or provided an alternative if they had been respectfully asked to do so. I indeed suspect they will remain gracious enough to do so after being accused of insulting Yoninah's memory and trouted. I would hope further disputes can be resolved through such an easier mannner. Vaticidalprophet 06:16, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
You are overreacting. Nobody is being accused of "insulting Yoninah's memory" and a trout is nothing more than a friendly rebuke. The core issue here is that the problem, assuming Cwmhiraeth's assessment is correct, has to be rectified quickly or the hook should be pulled, so please let's keep the focus on that. Gatoclass (talk) 06:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
A search reveals that the information appears with a citation at Guldner House instead. — Goszei (talk) 06:24, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Well the hook fact is supposed to be in the nominated article, so that should be rectified. Gatoclass (talk) 06:34, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
What a strange conversation. A link to the DYK template would have been helpful, but virtually nothing in this thread is helpful. Drmies (talk) 12:26, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
My bigger issue is that the hook (for anyone who manages to parse it in the first place) is (a) pretty uninteresting and (b) not really about the person. I'd be far more likely, for example, to click on a hook that says he created a 1700-page Encyclopedia about cement... Black Kite (talk) 12:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
No comment on the hook (I'm merely a messenger), but the edit is made. Or does the basic fact of the listing need to be verified also? Drmies (talk) 12:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Should we just pull the hook for now and try to come up with a replacement hook about the cement encyclopedia? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 12:41, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Probably! How do you fill 1700 pages on concrete in the early 20th century, and why isn't this public domain monstrosity easily accessible online? CMD (talk) 13:20, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Giving it a shot: ALT ... that William A. Radford wrote a 1700-page encyclopedia on concrete? Although given the subsequent sentence, I'm not actually sure if he wrote the encyclopedia or merely edited it (and the mentioned team was the actual writer). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:25, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) How about "... that William A. Radford assisted in producing a 1700-page encyclopedia about concrete titled Radford Cyclopedia of Cement Construction?" Anarchyte (talk • work) 13:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not really sure if the mention of the title is necessary when the main hook fact is merely the concrete encyclopedia fact. Sometimes more concise is better. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:36, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I find the title somewhat humorous, however I would not be opposed to "... that William A. Radford assisted in producing a 1700-page encyclopedia about concrete?" Anarchyte (talk • work) 13:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Ha, that's fun stuff--thanks Anarchyte. Drmies (talk) 14:32, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
Is the encyclopedia about concrete or cement? They're not the same thing. PaleCloudedWhite (talk) 15:09, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
It's about construction using cement, which would of course include concrete. The book is subtitled "A General Reference Work on Up-to-date Practice in the Manufacture and Testing of Cements; the Selection of Concreting Materials, Tools, and Machinery; the Proportioning, Mixing, and Depositing of Concrete, and Its Application to All Types and Details of Construction, Plain, Ornamental, and Reinforced; Together with Analysis of the Principles of Constructive Design, Cost Estimating, and the Allied Branches of Stone and Brick Masonry and Steel Construction; Based on the Practical Experience of a Large Staff of Experts in Actual Construction Work". I would go with Anarchyte's hook, with cement instead of concrete, especially as Radford is better known for cement (i.e. [1]). Black Kite (talk) 20:30, 25 April 2021 (UTC)
I have changed the hook in Queue 6. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:24, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

fivefold expansion?

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I came across Jack Mitchell (photographer) this morning and saw that it was in very sad shape -- just a single sentence for this important photographer -- after being nearly completely deleted in 2017 due to serious copyvio. I've rewritten it. However it's not as long as it was before the copyvio removal. Does it qualify per our RfC last year for DYK? —valereee (talk) 14:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, the rule specifically lists copyvios as an exception (rule A4 of Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines: "Fivefold expansion is calculated from the previously existing article, no matter how bad it was (copyvios are an exception)". Once the copyvios were removed, it was 190 characters, and it's now way over 5x that. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:31, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Ah, @Joseph2302, thank you! I wasn't even thinking about that -- I'd forgotten about the copyvio exception! I was thinking more about the 'someone else guts it before you come along' exception! —valereee (talk) 14:46, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Clarification on building preps

Latest comment: 3 years ago24 comments5 people in discussion

I was taught to work from the back of the approved list while also building balanced sets. Now I'm seeing articles that were nominated within the past few days making it into preps such as in the current prep 7. I'm not sure if how I do it is just a preference or a rule, but I personally believe that it should be a rule if it isn't. Promoting recent nominations is not a good way to clear a backlog. SL93 (talk) 14:07, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Well, I finish building a prep and come here... I have a significant preference myself to working from the back. This doesn't mean it's my sole consideration. If I'm promoting more recent hooks, it's because my other considerations are outweighing it. Other prep builders will weigh that promoting from the back is the highest consideration that trumps things I find to trump it, and that's just as valid. I can't picture a way to legislate 'work from the back' as 'the back' is so subjective and dependent on how large the backlog is at any given time. Vaticidalprophet 14:15, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
SL93, I always tell prep builders to move from the top down, but when they're new, I'm sure the top of the pile can seem a little daunting. There are often long discussions, arguments over issues, etc., so it's possible they get down to the middle of the list before they start finding hooks they're confident enough to promote. But yes, as much as possible we should be trying to promote those older noms. —valereee (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Vaticidalprophet I'm just looking at other's opinions per how I was taught by Yoninah and saw others complete it until just recently. It's actually not subjective when nominations from even the past 24 hours are being promoted. SL93 (talk) 14:17, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Valereee I wish it was at least the middle then. SL93 (talk) 14:19, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
(edit conflict) If you believe they should go back in the pile, put them back in the pile. I can note I've had hooks that I made or reviewed promoted on that timescale, so I don't think this is some unprecedented sin solely I'm committing. Vaticidalprophet 14:20, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Vaticidalprophet Why are you being so defensive? I didn't name you or say that you were committing a sin. I didn't even say that it was only you. SL93 (talk) 14:22, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't believe I'm being unusually defensive. This has been a tough day and it is conceivably possible I am overreacting to wording other people would have more muted reactions to, but I am perfectly happy for you to reverse my promotions if you believe they were as inappropriate as you are saying, and as far as I can tell you're definitely saying they were inappropriate. Vaticidalprophet 14:23, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Vaticidalprophet I have no intention of reversing the nominations because that could make multiple people angry. I believe that it shouldn't be acceptable which is why I'm trying to gain consensus. I'm not going to do something that some editors might be against. SL93 (talk) 14:25, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't think it will be possible to have "Promote from the back, always, this is the highest virtue, there is absolutely no excuse not to do so" until and unless the following happen:
  1. We get much, much stricter about striking uninteresting hooks and actively rejecting nominations that have not produced interesting hooks
  2. We get much, much stricter about article quality
  3. We get much, much stricter about not having huge and terrifying discussions take up thousands of characters
I don't think these will happen, and I'm not even convinced they would work. (Hook interestingness is a tough one in particular -- it's both so grotesquely subjective, and something where if you get it wrong people will want to shut down DYK.) I think #1 will never happen, #2 might if the "widen the range from seven days" stuff happens, and #3 is really unenforcable (I suppose we could move stuff to talk pages?). Vaticidalprophet 14:30, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
VP, re: concern #1: I think you seem to be saying that you skip a hook because you don't find it interesting enough? If that's true, rather than simply skipping it, you should post something like, "Came to promote, but I don't find either of these hooks interesting."
Re: concern #2: you actually shouldn't be skipping hooks because the articles aren't high-quality. That isn't a requirement here. One of the things we're doing is bringing new articles to the attention of other editors so they'll help improve them.
Re: concern #3: this is something that many newer promoters feel. As you become more experienced, you'll learn to get to the heart of most of these, but there are the occasional discussions that eventually simply get failed because we can't come to consensus on solving the issues. —valereee (talk) 14:38, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
VP, I don't think SL93 is trying to say any single given promotion was inappropriate. What I'm hearing is "Do people at DYK think we should be encouraging promoters to start from the top so as to get the oldest nominations schedule on a timely basis, or do we not take that into account?" Sometimes it's inevitable that a very recently nominated hook will be scheduled, but it's IMO a kindness to those nominators who've been waiting a while if we do our best to pick as many promotions off the top of the pile rather than the bottom. —valereee (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Vadicalprophet, I'm not sure who you think you're quoting because there are always possible exceptions per IAR. Now I'm starting to get angry myself and I just started my day recently. SL93 (talk) 14:34, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
But I do my best to do that! Tons of my sets are built primarily from old hooks. This one was not. I've had a freakishly godawful day onwiki today, I head to DYK because it's fun and de-stresses me, I do what de-stresses me, and I get called to the talk page to have the third consecutive set of people today yelling at me that I fucked up and they don't want me around. I do not understand why "building a prep where one consideration was weighed below others" is something that needs to get me castigated at DYKTALK. When I see preps built with different considerations to how I'd build them, I shrug and leave the prep be, because it means hooks I wouldn't have promoted got promoted = a good thing for everyone. Vaticidalprophet 14:40, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Vaticidalprophet, I didn't say that you fucked up or that I didn't want you around. I saw other editors do it also and I didn't even name you. I mentioned prep 7 so that others wouldn't be confused about I meant. God fucking damn it - per this and the queue 6 discussion above, you really can't deal with much can you? SL93 (talk) 14:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
I can recognize that I am reacting differently to how I would if it wasn't for the current background. I can also recognize that you would likely not have written the last of those sentences if you weren't frustrated yourself. Vaticidalprophet 14:47, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I will just leave it completely. I was calm up until the over-reactions. SL93 (talk) 14:48, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with MeegsC about a hook that they commented on and I was going to bring it here for further discussion, but I guess someone else might deal with that important issue. I don't feel like making more editors angry today. SL93 (talk) 14:53, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I'm sure (given that a note was left on my talk page several days ago) that I'm one of the people SL93 is talking about here. And I'll respond as I did there. Guilty as charged. And occasionally, I'll continue to do exactly that. When I build sets, I start at the top of the list and find a picture that I think will work for the picture hook. Sometimes, that's well down the list. Yes, I could just pick the first "good" picture I come to. But sometimes it's too similar to one that ran within the last two or three days. Or it would be the second (or third or fourth) person picture in a row. Or some other reason that makes me skip it – for now. Yes, I could choose it for a non-picture spot, but if it's a good picture, I'd rather wait a few days and choose it then! Once I've found a picture I like for the picture hook, I pick and choose among the hooks to build the rest of my list. Yes, I always start looking – each time – at the top of the list. But I don't always choose from the top of the list, for a variety of reasons (some already enumerated above). I want hooks that are varied in length, varied in structure, and about a wide range of topics. I don't think we should be requiring people to pick only from the top of the list; otherwise, we might as well get one of our computer boffins to create an algorithm that does the choosing for us. To me, building an interesting, varied set is the most important thing we do. If that means I occasionally choose a hook that was only created 2 or 3 days ago, so be it! I don't think we should be chastising set builders for doing that periodically. If someone is consistently choosing only hooks from the bottom of the list, that would obviously be a different story, and we should address that issue with that set builder. As someone who's had to wait more than a month more than once for my hooks to be run, I know it can be frustrating to have to wait. But our readers are the most important thing here, and enticing them into reading – and perhaps then writing – some new articles is what we should be focused on. My two cents. MeegsC (talk) 17:11, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • MeegsC I'm focused on interesting varied sets and our readers also, but I have been able to get varied topics in each prep set without promoting hooks from a few days ago or less. Doing such a thing is nothing new. SL93 (talk) 18:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Boy did I miss something. I think all prep-builders agree on a balance of promoting older hooks and creating a varied set, and this discussion has at least devolved into fighting over, it seems to me, personal views on where that balance lies. I'm not sure it's very productive. Kingsif (talk) 19:05, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Good for you. We have different ways of doing things. Let's leave it at that! MeegsC (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

MeegsC OK, good for me then, but I'm just trying to make myself clear. Kingsif If editors wouldn't assume the worst in people, especially in a case where I didn't name any names and didn't notice who promoted hooks to prep 7, everything should have went fine. SL93 (talk) 19:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Steve Cherry/1

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have commented in support of closing this reassessment as passing GA. Given the small number of participants, I'd like a neutral participant to evaluate consensus for closure and whether the tags can be removed from the article based on that consensus. The outcome will impact the DYK status of the Steve Cherry nomination for DYK. I've reached the limit of what I personally can do to help move this article along. Best,4meter4 (talk) 16:05, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Two filled queues

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The are only two filled queues and all 7 preps are filled. Cwmhiraeth Amakuru valereee ONUnicorn SL93 (talk) 00:53, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

QPQ question

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

What are the rules about QPQ and multiple writer/nominators? If two people collaborated on an article, and one has well over 5 DYKs while the other has under 5, does a QPQ need to be done? I've assumed yes, but want to make sure I'm right. MeegsC (talk) 16:23, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

If Template:Did you know nominations/Safe listening does need a QPQ, I will donate one of my own and undo the promotion. I review more than I nominate anyway. SL93 (talk) 16:26, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I know that you weren't referring to the safe listening nomination, but I'm just trying to state that I'm interested in knowing the answer myself. SL93 (talk) 16:28, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
QPQ has nothing to do with who collaborated on the article itself. It's about clearing out the nominations backlog, and is relevant only to the nominator. One QPQ per one nomination, if the nominator's prior DYK count warrants it. If there is more than one nominator, it's still only one QPQ if any of the nominators has passed the 5 prior nominations mark.— Maile (talk) 01:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
This is my understanding as well. If there's multiple nominators, the QPQ applies to the one who created the nomination. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:37, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Maile66, there are two editors who worked on the article, and two who are listed as nominators (though obviously, only one person could actually start the nomination template). One has scores of DYKs. The other less than 5. Does a QPQ need to be done for Template:Did you know nominations/Joel Fagliano? MeegsC (talk) 09:22, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
There is only ever a single nominator for a hook, and that's the person who filled in the nomination form. Theoretically you could have dozens of DYKs but avoid having to do QPQs entirely by getting all your friends/acquaintances to nominate them on your behalf. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:03, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The rules state it as, "For every nomination you make you must review one other nomination ... ", which is that whoever creates the nomination template is liable for the QPQ. — Maile (talk) 10:44, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

Alec Sutherland

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Hi editors, can I get a second opinion at Template:Did you know nominations/Alec Sutherland regarding paraphrasing concerns at Alec Sutherland? More info is at the template link. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 22:42, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

I did a ce to remove some close paraphrasing. —valereee (talk) 18:45, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Q2 May2a

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Mikoto Misaka

@Link20XX @Narutolovehinata5 @Kingsif

There are multiple unsourced paragraphs in the Characteristics and appearances section...Are we counting these paragraphs as plot? Should we change the section head to Plot to make that clear? —valereee (talk) 17:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

@Valereee: As far as I am aware, it is being considered plot. Though I don't feel calling it "plot" would be an appropriate section name since it is focusing on the character rather than an overall work. Link20XX (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
"Appearances" is common on character articles for Plot, but I don't know if characteristics, which may be open to interpretation, should be sourced. Kingsif (talk) 17:30, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Well, I'll go with consensus if both of you think this is plot and therefore sources aren't required...to me it seems like a lot of sections/section heads to have zero citations. You don't think it looks excessive to have three section heads and none of them have a single source cited? Is no one discussing any of these things anywhere? —valereee (talk) 17:36, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
If you would rather, I could merge them into one section, however, the series she comes from is notorious for its weird timeline, so I felt it was best to make it multiple subsection. Link20XX (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
For what it's worth this kind of sectioning isn't uncommon in anime character articles, including GAs. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 17:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
And it's all unreferenced? It's not the sectioning that bothers me, it's the multiple unreferenced sections. —valereee (talk) 18:07, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
To be fair, all the three sections are short enough that it can be argued that they do not need sourcing. Plus our rules already state that the "every paragraph needs a source" rule doesn't apply to plot-related sections provided that it can be assumed that they're sourced to the relevant media. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 18:35, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Okay, I'll leave it as plot/reasonable, as no one else is having a problem with it! :) —valereee (talk) 18:46, 30 April 2021 (UTC)

Queue 2

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

@Valereee and Cwmhiraeth: - fifth hook is missing one dot of the ellipsis. Kingsif (talk) 15:15, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kingsif, got it, thanks! —valereee (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Approved nom not moving

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

Mandarax, can you see why Template:Did you know nominations/Giovanni Rossi (anarchist) isn't moving properly to the approved noms page? The C of E approved it on 25 April, but it's still showing in the pending list. MeegsC (talk) 15:34, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

The page transcluded on WP:DYKN was Template:Did you know nominations/Giovanni Rossi (anarchist), which redirects to Template:Did you know nominations/Giovanni Ross (anarchist). I switched the transclusion to the unredirected page, and I expect the bot to move it on its next pass. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 16:29, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  Done. The bot did move it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 17:02, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Mandarax. You're a star! MeegsC (talk) 17:36, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Q5 May3b

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Kiss Me More

HeyitsBen, we generally don't name people without articles in a hook, would

work for you? —valereee (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Valereee, yes that works great! HeyitsBen talk 21:24, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you! —valereee (talk) 21:47, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Backlog

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Amakuru, Maile66, Casliber, valereee, ‎Cwmhiraeth: The queues are down to three, and the prep areas are full. MeegsC (talk) 15:11, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging all of us. It's better now. — Maile (talk) 22:22, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

On the main page: Montero

Latest comment: 3 years ago42 comments12 people in discussion

How did that hook get through checks, when it just mentions something that happened in the video? Does the rule about PLOT not apply to music videos? Kingsif (talk) 09:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

In the past hooks about what happens in music videos have been approved and it can be argued that music videos aren't really fiction, although the hooks have not escaped controversy either. Maybe we need an RFC to clarify things once and for all? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:08, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Maybe, because I do think it goes against the spirit because the hook reveals nothing that merely watching the video doesn't tell you, the same as reading a book (and I know there's been controversy with non-fiction books) or looking at a work of art (we also haven't accepted art descriptions). Kingsif (talk) 10:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
"Gives Satan a lapdance" is fiction, as it was actually someone portraying Satan. Whether you believe Satan exists or not, the individual in the video certainly wasn't him. --Khajidha (talk) 11:26, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Can 'repeal PLOT' be an option in such an RfC? My views on PLOT are "it's the reason I'll never take another hook about a work of fiction to DYK again", and virtually every good fiction hook I've seen has just IARed it. Vaticidalprophet 11:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Then I would say that you have seen virtually no good DYK fiction hooks. --Khajidha (talk) 12:14, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
We actually did have an RfC on this very subject last year, and consensus was overwhelmingly in favor of keeping the rule. Even though I'm personally against it being used all the time, it just isn't going anywhere anytime soon. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:05, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Indeed I haven't. I wonder why. Vaticidalprophet 15:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The golden rule is that hooks should be interesting. This one was definitely interesting, so I really don't see what the fuss is about here. FWIW it also references the real world, because it is about an actual music video.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
1) We straight up LIED to our readers. The lap dance in question was not given to the Prince of Darkness. 2) That is not what "reference to the real world" means. We wouldn't allow something like "Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star in Star Wars" and this is the same sort of thing. --Khajidha (talk) 15:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Of course it's a reference to the real world. If the hook just said "... that Lil Nas X gave Satan a lap dance?" then it would be factually incorrect, and a violation of rule C6. But the context is laid up front, and the hook is a description of something real-life, i.e. the music video for the linked song. If anyone thinks readers will misinterpret and think the actual real-life Satan is in the video, then some degree of WP:COMMONSENSE has gone missing.  — Amakuru (talk) 15:30, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
No, describing the events in a music video is not a "reference to the real world". It's the equivalent of a plot summary. As I said, "Luke Skywalker blew up the Death Star in Star Wars" is not a reference to the real world, even though it explicitly mentions the movie. This is the same thing. --Khajidha (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Khajidha: If you want to extend the rule to mean that no reference to any plot elements whatsoever is permitted, then go ahead and propose it. The rule currently merely says "the hook must involve the real world in some way", however, so does not prohibit references to plot elements.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
I don't have to "extend" the rule to do that. That is what the rule means. A reference to a plot element is obviously not a reference to the real world. Unless you are doing something like comparing uses of similar plot elements in multiple works. --Khajidha (talk) 17:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
We straight up LIED to our readers. The lap dance in question was not given to the Prince of Darkness -- there are much, much bigger issues on this project to worry about, including actual factual errors, than claiming it's "lying" to readers to describe the plot of a fictional work (something any healthy person past mid-childhood can distinguish from reality). Vaticidalprophet 15:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
If it's a simple plot description, then it fails to involve the real world. There's a lot that could be said about this video's reception in the real world that would have been much more interesting than "work of fiction shows fictional event". --Khajidha (talk) 15:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
It could be argued that music videos aren't really fiction since they're tied to songs which are real things, plus when that rule was thought up I imagine what people had in mind were stuff like literature, film and television, not stuff like songs or music videos. What about scripted stuff like online videos then, do they count as fiction? The lines are admittedly rather blurry. Perhaps we really do need an RFC to clarify things? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:12, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: you mentioned above that there was an RFC about this last year. Please could you link to it?  — Amakuru (talk) 16:29, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Amakuru: Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 156#Can we please get rid of/modify WP:DYKSG#C6 already?. And my apologies, the discussion happened in 2019 not last year. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:00, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5: OK thanks. What a depressing discussion. Not one person seems to have conme up with what I'd regard as a good reason for the existence of rule C6. Everyone worries about misleading or boring hooks, but that's already covered in the rules by criterion 3a. And then when a good fictional hook does come along, everyone says it's fine to IAR. So the rule C6 basically serves no purpose, other than to chew up our time in threads like this one.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:21, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The songs are works of fiction, too. Just quoting lyrics would also run afoul of this. --Khajidha (talk) 16:34, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is consensus that music videos, song lyrics, documentaries, and some kinds of online videos fall under "works of fiction" and require a real-world tie-in in the hook. In exceptional cases WP:IAR may apply. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 01:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)


Do certain kinds of works, such as music videos, song lyrics, documentaries, or certain kinds of online videos fall under "works of fiction" and thus require a real-world link in hooks about them? Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging previous commentors: @Kingsif, Khajidha, Vaticidalprophet, and Amakuru: Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:17, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

  • No, in significant part because the "real-world link" seriously limits the range of "hooks a reader might actually want to click on" available to a nominator and so forcing ever-greater expanses of art into the aspects of DYK that make so many people mock it does everyone a disservice, but also because they aren't. Vaticidalprophet 16:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes - descriptions of the events in these sorts of things is not a "real-world link". Real-world links are things about inspiration, production, reception, etc. --Khajidha (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Comment - this seems to be inspired by the discussion above, but is a red herring in connection with that discussion as the hook in question did discuss the real world.  — Amakuru (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
No, it didn't. That's the point. "This fictional event happened in a work of fiction" is not a reference to the real world. --Khajidha (talk) 17:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • comment I was not familiar with the rule, but on the main page, the text says "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." This is a bit surprising and I suppose it came from some discussion, but I do not understand it. What is the context of that rule? Is there discussion to read somewhere? Blue Rasberry (talk) 17:57, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes. Fictionalized short video dramas set to music are still works of fiction. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:07, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes you're going to have two kinds of music video, performance and narrative. If it's a performance, the most you could say is "... that in Video, Singer dances and lip-syncs?" which is boring as hell (unless it's the hell Lil Nas is pole-dancing into). If it's a narrative, it is not meaningfully different to a short film at all, and the same rule applies. Kingsif (talk) 18:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, but... I can see why the rule exists, and it's mainly to prevent the types of hooks to which 99.9% of readers would react "so what?" (like the example just above this one) but I can see a minority of situations in which a genuinely interesting hook can exist without referencing the real world. And let's face it, many real-world hooks also suffer from the "so what?" problem. Black Kite (talk) 01:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
    Per my comment above, my experience is real-world hooks trigger the "so what" problem more often. And considering that "so what" is DYK's death knell and the reason a sizable subset of the project would happily kick it off the Main Page, I've no enthusiasm to broaden that scope. Vaticidalprophet 06:46, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Hooks are supposed to highlight an interesting fact. Facts that are obvious, banal or everyday are by definition uninteresting, or to put it another way, a hook has to highlight some exceptional, surprising or unusual fact. But how does one judge what counts as exceptionally unusual in the world of fiction, where strange and outlandish events are commonplace? One expects to encounter unusual or surprising events in a fictional work, so it's not at all surprising to encounter them there, meaning that hooks which highlight such facts commonly fail DYK's "interest" requirement. Gatoclass (talk) 15:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
@Gatoclass: that's as may be, and reviewers should be rejecting hooks that aren't interesting to a broad audience as a matter of course. But sometimes one of these comes along that is interesting - and I'd contend the Satan lap-dancing hook is one such. Rule C6 just creates a rod for our own back in that situation, and the de facto situation is that we end up IARing it. Which means that in the ultimate analysis C6 adds nothing beyond what 3a already says.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:07, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Amakuru, what C6 does is prevent an avalanche of hooks like "did you know that in video game X, the munchkins battle a three-headed cyclops to rescue the princess?" Without C6, there is no obvious reason for vetoing such hooks, and since many reviewers struggle with the concept of hook interest anyway, hooks of this type end up getting approved and going to the main page. It's much better IMO to accept the occasional such hook per IAR than to be constantly having to try to explain to nominators why their hook about heroic munchkins isn't interesting. Gatoclass (talk) 08:30, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Yes, but per Black Kite, one might occasionally exercise a little flexibility in the application of the rule in exceptional circumstances. In the case of the Lil Nas hook above, for example, the given scene from the video attracted quite a lot of media attention, so clearly it was widely considered to be remarkable and therefore the kind of occasion IMO where the rule can be justifiably suspended. Gatoclass (talk) 14:48, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
Then make the hook about that reaction. There's your "real-world link". --Khajidha (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
What Khajidha said, it would have been much better to have something like "a scene in the music video of Montero where Lil Nas X gives Satan a lap dance attracted wide media attention [condemning/celebrating] the message". The PLOT of Montero is more inherently interesting than other music videos, but it's nothing you won't know if you've watched the video, which I think is the point. It's little more than "this exists", and we turn down general knowledge about not-fiction articles for the same kind of reason - what is information you might only find in the WP article, because a hook about the video content will get someone to watch the video, while a hook about its place in the world will get someone to read the article. Kingsif (talk) 19:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm not disagreeing, I'm simply saying that we can maintain a little flexibility with this rule. Yes it's a good thing in general to avoid hooks based on fictional elements, but there may be occasions where they work. Gatoclass (talk) 20:31, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Album release as a special occasion hook

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

This Delta Kream hook is requested for May 14, the scheduled date of the album's release. Is it right for DYK to list it then, it's like a free advert? Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:35, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I seem to recall previously that we deemed it wasn't suitable to run an article on an album being released on the same day. I do agree, it would probably be WP:SOAP if we did. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 05:40, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

DYK has not updated

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments6 people in discussion

The DYK template has not updated. Shubinator. SL93 (talk) 00:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Amakuru, Maile66, Casliber, valereee, ‎Cwmhiraeth, ONUnicorn SL93 (talk) 00:25, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I just updated the DYK template on MainPage. Can someone be so kind as to give out the credits, please? I have to go offline. Thanks. --PFHLai (talk) 00:44, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, we've had some conflicting edits since you posted.
User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors, which I guess we all missed, tells us what went wrong: "Unmatched left ("{{") and right ("}}") curly braces in Queue 5" here.
After your posting above, I corrected it. here. Clearing the error would have normally done the main page posting, postings on the editor and article pages, and moved the empty Queue 5 to the bottom. However, as I was doing that, @PFHLai: manually posted the set, so it did not go through the process.
The end result, is that we have the set on the main page.
The bot cleared Queue 5, but didn't move it to the bottom. (I just took care of this one) — Maile (talk) 01:11, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
The same error was in Prep 5. I've fixed it, so we won't have to go through this again in a few days. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 04:20, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Sorry, Maile, I had no idea that my edits would get in the way of your fix. --PFHLai (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
@PFHLai: No need to apologize. You did exactly what you knew needed to be done. We all raced to the rescue at once, and I'm glad DYK has any admin so willing to quickly jump in and help. — Maile (talk) 03:48, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
And I guess the DYK notices on the article and nominator's pages needed to be updated. Anybody care to do that? I'm a little busy at the moment. — Maile (talk) 00:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I can work on the credits. DanCherek (talk) 01:32, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Credits and article talk notices posted, assuming I haven't messed anything up. DanCherek (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, DanCherek. --PFHLai (talk) 03:27, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Good idea. I've added a link on {{Main Page toolbox}}, too. I hope the easy access would help. --PFHLai (talk) 03:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I did a bit of investigative work and I found that the error had been introduced several days earlier when Prep 5 was cleared, after moving its contents into the queue, and a small part of the text at the end was lost. The best way to highlight the complete text when copying the contents of Template:Did you know/Clear back into the prep area is with the use of "ctr A". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Exception for first DYK?

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Berliner Journal was created on April 5 and nominated on May 2. It was approved despite that. I was wondering if this could be a case where an exception is made for an editor's first DYK. SL93 (talk) 00:41, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for the nomination date requirement to be waived for new nominators per IAR, provided that they're made aware of the requirement for next time and that all other criteria are met. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:25, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I could go along with IAR on this one. It's been up for GA since April 20. First glance - looks like a really interesting, incredibly well-sourced, article. — Maile (talk) 01:32, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I restored the approval per IAR. SL93 (talk) 01:35, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree that new DYK participants should be given reasonable leeway in missing the 7 day mark. I would define a new participant as one who has not in the past nominated a DYK, and who hasn't participated in the DYK process at all. I would say reasonable leeway would be either within three months or so, and within a week of anytime they are suggested to nominate to DYK or come across this project. Perhaps it's best not to try and codify this and just leave it as an IAR thing - with the understanding that only blatantly outside the rules applications by reviewers be brought here, or a requirement that reviewers applying a non-trivial (i.e. not a few hours after 7 days) IAR to the timeframe explain such in the review? -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 01:39, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Yeah. This is definitely a gray area, to be employed in exceptional cases. And I agree ... as much as we like to get every dot and squiggle of the rules in writing, one size does not fit all for IAR. We could leave it open-ended and take each situation as it comes. — Maile (talk) 02:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Five Pianos

Latest comment: 3 years ago19 comments7 people in discussion

There is a concern about if the pianos or pianists are humming (or both) at this older nomination - Template:Did you know nominations/Five Pianos. SL93 (talk) 18:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

We can explain this concern better. The hook and article use the term "humming pianos" without explaining what it means. Gerda has said it's "obviously" the pianists who hum, though it doesn't seem obvious at all, and while this could make someone click the hook link to find out what a humming piano is, the article doesn't clarify, and it seems Gerda doesn't want to make changes to the article to clear it up. That's the issue. Kingsif (talk) 19:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: I felt that there was no reason to explain the concern better when I linked to the discussion and that is where further discussion should take place. Gerda didn't state that they didn't want to make changes in her statement of "Sorry, I don't understand. It says that the pianists are required to hum. How could a piano even hum. - I don't know any other composition for FIVE pianos." I don't even see how there can even be an assumption of it seeming like she is talking down to you or it seeming that she doesn't want to make it clearer. SL93 (talk) 19:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I too found this hook unclear. I assumed it meant that Morton Feldman was someone who hummed while he played anything, and that there were five such concert pianists in the world. The article talks about "humming pianists" before it ever explains that they're meant to hum, and that it's actually part of the composition. To me, the article was a bit confusing to read, and could use some clarification. I realise it makes perfect sense to Gerda, who is familiar with the topic, but it's less straightforward to some of the rest of us. MeegsC (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for chiming in. I do want this to be constructive, but I feel that assumptions shouldn't be made as well based off of three sentences that don't confirm such assumptions - in reference to the above earlier. SL93 (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm going to leave this discussion to others. I'm not sure what is with this week and unfair assumptions. This is the third time that I have been a part of such a thing that involves myself and/or other editors. It makes my head hurt and it is frustrating. I admit that I have did such a thing before in the heat of the moment, but I then quickly realized that my assumptions were wrong. Maybe give Gerda more of a chance as someone who contributes much to DYK? SL93 (talk) 20:21, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Where does the hook say "humming pianos". The hook I see says "humming pianists". I have been reverted a lot today, so who knows if at some time it said "pianos". How could I say that better than "Sorry, I don't understand."? The source also says "humming pianists". - Also, I'm only the nominator, - for article concerns, please include the author. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2021 (UTC)

for article concerns, please include the author -? that's like nominating an article for GA and refusing to respond to comments on parts you didn't write. It's my understanding that it is on the nominator to make sure an article is MP, DYK, ready. It shouldn't be a surprise to you that when concerns are raised, if you want the DYK to pass you should address them, not brush them off. Kingsif (talk) 20:28, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I still don't know where anybody read "humming pianos", sorry. I also thought the discussion should be in the nomination, and supplied an ALT there, a while ago. Sorry, I don't understand "brush them off" either. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:24, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
More specifically: Kinsif, you say "problems", but they seem to be mostly your problems, and you have not been successful in telling me what they are. The reviewer who approved seemed to have no problems. - When I suggest I make nothing "sure" but make a proposal. It's not that I want it to pass. This proposal was passed, by CeeGee. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:33, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
I have explained the problems about three times now, with varying levels of simplicity. I couldn't have been more explicit. Kingsif (talk) 22:06, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
Gatoclass, I like that one. It's clearer and still intriguing – "HUM while they're playing? What?!" I'd click on that. MeegsC (talk) 07:08, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
That sounds better than the original hooks. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Didn't we agree to discuss this in the nomination? I saw it only by coincidence, and miss that the composer was one of the performers. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:06, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
Gerda, I tried to preserve as much as possible of your original hook but it isn't possible to preserve everything. There were two objections to your original hook so a new one had to be found. If you think you can come up with a viable alt, you are welcome to do so, but I don't think I can do much better than the above. Gatoclass (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
English is difficult. Repeating: the discussion is in the nomination, not here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 05:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

7 May, 18 May

Latest comment: 3 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

Three concerns:

  • 7 May: I just approved Template:Did you know nominations/Murder of Peggy Knobloch, 20th anniversary of disappearance of the "German Maddie" on 7 May. The preps are full, and close to being promoted to queue, so I better raise attention here. I could "donate" the Schuke hook in prep 5 for a swap.
  • I don't like that modified hook anyway. Please help rewording in a way that the key word "Berlin" comes sooner, because the church mentioned first (because of the chronology) doesn't have it, and the highly recognizable image was not taken. The Philharmonie has Berlin as part of its name, but there's no hint that the other is also in Berlin. Best solution: take the image.
  • 18 May is museums day (highlighted by Wikimedia), and one hook is already there for it, a second planned (but same user), - should we try more? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:33, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Ahh Gerda Arendt, you were faster. :), I was probably still writing as you opened this discussion. Thank you very much. Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:48, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you, yours is much better, - I was here anyway for the other case. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:49, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll make the swap in prep 5 - I was going to say that a like-for-like swap (non-bio for non-bio) would be better, but since that prep has 4 bio hooks and we don't have a lot of bio noms at the moment, I don't think it will be a problem. Courtesy ping to @SL93: who built the prep. Kingsif (talk) 11:42, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Gerda Arendt: since I approved the Schulke hook, I've returned the nom to the approved page. If you don't like the hook, you can bring it up there now? Kingsif (talk) 11:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you for the swap. - I said the Schuke hook doesn't work without the recognizable image, - just taking the image would have resolved it. But fine, let's discuss further what is probably among the oldest nominations. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I think you said it needed to say Berlin or use the image, because you think the image identifies it? While I agree it would be a nice image to use, I promise you I could show that image to everyone in my town and only 50% would even know it was an organ, I don't think anyone would be able to place it in Germany let alone specifics. Remember, very few people know anything about opera/classical music. So if you think the hook needs to have location specified, the image won't do that. Kingsif (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you but why don't we keep the discussion in one place?? The nomination. (The image from a memorial of a church destroyed in World War II, and the ruin kept next to the new modern church as a memorial goes well beyond classical music.)
It has to be noted that none of the hooks proposed in the nomination mentioned that the church is in Berlin (perhaps because maybe there was an assumption that people know it's there?), so I'm not sure why it suddenly seems to be problematic that the approved hook did not mention it being in Berlin. In fact, the hook works perfectly fine without the location being made explicit. But if clarity on location is needed, how about:
ALT1C... that Karl Schuke's company built the organs of Berlin's Kaiser Wilhelm Memorial Church (pictured) and Philharmonie?
I've gone with the English name as the German name may be too niche to international readers, although I have no real preference either way and the German name can be used if needed. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:03, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you but why don't we keep the discussion in one place?? The nomination. (Berlin needs to be mentioned because it was the big step in Schuke's life to move his company to Berlin.) --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm a bit confused here Gerda. You raised an issue here, brought it up, but are now asking to move the discussion back to the nomination page, however only raising it several replies into the discussion as opposed to from the start. It's going to be a bit hard to do that given that the discussion is already ongoing here and it would be hard to keep things in more than one place. I would suggest that next time, if you want to keep discussion on the nomination page, state so from your initial post. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:29, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll add ALT1c to the nom page, simple approval since it just moves the word Berlin. Kingsif (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm fine with the prep changes. SL93 (talk) 20:09, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I missed the Star Wars Day... or did I? (It's today)

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

So I wrote two Star Wars - themed DYKs and randomly checked if there is something called Star Wars Day. And there is, and it is today. Not sure if we can speedy review my noms for the date, but if anyone cares, here they are: Template:Did you know nominations/Dejarik and Template:Did you know nominations/Sabacc. Note that for the Sabacc one I made a one-hook-for-two-topics, since they are quite similar, this should also help save space in the DYK template. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:05, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Don't know. I took a brief look, and find the two rather different, and both beyond what I could review - being willing isn't enough. I might be willing to look at one, but not with a super-complex hook fact, please, a hook fact which doesn't even stress a Star Wars relation. We have only a few hours until it would have to be in the next queue, not impossibly but is it worth the extra work of admins? We had Earth Day on 26 April instead of 22 (discussion above or in the archive). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:33, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

International Museum Day 2021/18 May

Latest comment: 3 years ago9 comments6 people in discussion

On the 18 May is the International Museum Day 2021 and on MetaWiki as well as on Wikipedia there are campaigns on it which could be contributed to. I have prepared a DYK hook on a democratic painting purchase about the 1967 Basel Picasso paintings purchase referendum and am preparing an other one on the Amerbach Cabinet which was the nucleus of the Kunstmuseum Basel and included the heritage or Erasmus of Rotterdam. Maybe others could think of other DYKs, too.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 08:38, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

You're making me want to expand the Jesús Soto Museum of Modern Art article now... Kingsif (talk) 11:53, 3 May 2021 (UTC) We have the nom Template:Did you know nominations/Jesús Soto Museum of Modern Art after 5x expansion. Kingsif (talk) 18:30, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Looks good at a glance. If nobody beats me to it, I can review it tomorrow. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:11, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
I promoted Template:Did you know nominations/Musée Archéologique de Dijon to prep 4 this past weekend. We could ask the nominator if they'd be willing to wait to see their article on the front page. MeegsC (talk) 12:51, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@Deku link: about the Dijon hook? Kingsif (talk) 14:07, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
@MeegsC: I'm absolutely willing to wait to coincide with Museum Day. Sounds like a plan to me. Paragon Deku (talk) 21:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)
Great! Thanks Paragon Deku; we'll add it to the list. MeegsC (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, I'm not sure how to "unpromote" a hook; could you remove the Dijon Museum hook from prep 4 and add it to the special events holding area (May 18) or tell me how to do it? Thanks. MeegsC (talk) 06:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
@MeegsC: What I do is, first find the edit where the nomination template was archived, and undo it, with a suitable edit summary. Then remove the hook and credit from the prep set, and finally add the nomination template to the appropriate date part of the special holding area. This seems to work. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 07:45, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Question about the expansion in the past 7 days

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I recently performed a greater than 5-day expansion of an article just brought to AFD. I'd like to take the article to DYK (I think I've established a fairly strong case for notability), but an article being at DYK and AFD at the same time isn't really great. But if I wait until the AFD closes, then it'll be about too late for the DYK expansion period. I don't see GA being really an option at the moment, so am I just out of luck here? Hog Farm Talk 19:42, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Nominate it @Hog Farm:. There's no rule saying you can't nominate if its undergoing AFD, it just can't get promoted until the AFD is complete. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 19:47, 4 May 2021 (UTC)
Nominated. Hog Farm Talk 21:44, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

Prep 5: Arn Gill

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

@Storye book, SL93, and Cwmhiraeth: The hook's target article appears to be about the lead mine, but is actually about the ravine, which contravenes MOS:EASTEREGG. Would it be fine to link just "Arn Gill" here for better link intuitiveness? I'd also move the "(pictured)" here to immediately after "lead mine", just to be clear as to what's actually being depicted in the accompanying photo. Thanks — RAVENPVFF · talk · 23:03, 4 May 2021 (UTC)

  • ... that the former Adelaide Level lead mine (pictured) at Arn Gill in Swaledale, England, was named after Lady Adelaide Lamont, a descendant of Judge Jeffreys?
  • I offer the above ALT. The image shows both Arn Gill (ravine) and Adelaide Level (mine), so it doesn't matter where the "pictured" goes in the hook, or which of the two captions you give it. Hope that helps. Storye book (talk) 09:33, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Backlog again

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Amakuru, Maile66, Casliber, valereee, ‎Cwmhiraeth, ONUnicorn, we're down to two queues with a bunch of prep queues waiting. Can someone please work their magic? MeegsC (talk) 17:10, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I have promoted the first two of the filled queues. Cheers  — Amakuru (talk) 17:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Amakuru! MeegsC (talk) 17:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

QPQ check broken

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

The QPQ check from {{DYK tools}} appears to be broken (possibly as a result of this merge? Idk) and no longer adding more recent credits. It's located under the toolforge domain of long-banned Betacommand, so I'm not sure who controls it now. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 03:26, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Are you sure it's not working? It's counting my DYKs correctly (including one that was from yesterday, [2]). Joseph2302 (talk) 13:23, 27 April 2021 (UTC)
I just checked again and several entries from the past two months that weren't there for me are now there. So it seems the issue has been solved or disappeared or something. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 06:02, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
I checked the tool out of curiosity and it's missing just one of my DYKs from last year, (Japan National Route 58), but it's counted all of them before and after that one. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 18:18, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

Special occasion in Prep 4

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

@SL93: Thanks for promoting! Would it be better to place Arthur Kopit as the picture hook in Prep 5? That way, it will run during the day in the US. —Bloom6132 (talk) 18:44, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I moved it. SL93 (talk) 18:59, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks a million. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

QPQs for multiple nominators

Latest comment: 3 years ago15 comments9 people in discussion

I've had two instances in which I've co-nominated a hook with an editor under five hooks whose article I came across. In one of these, it went through without issue using my co-nominator's free credit, but in the other, the reviewer asked me to complete a QPQ because I was the one who technically created the nomination page (after discussing with the co-nom at their talk page), which I did. It seems that this is an unresolved question, so I think we should discuss and decide on what we want our policy to be.

Personally, I think that the wiser policy would be to let the under-five credit count in these instances, since we want to encourage the situation that they typically represent, in which an experienced editor comes across a new page made by a less experienced editor with an interesting fact on it. These nominations are good because (1) for new editors especially, seeing their article on the front page can boost retention, (2) it helps draw new editors into the DYK ecosystem, and (3) because they're typically driven by coming across a fun fact, rather than just an editor trying to garner views for their page, the hooks are typically more interesting. (I know I'm a broken record on this, but DYK has a huge problem with boring hooks.) However, because the newer editor would likely be unaware of DYK on their own (or unable to easily navigate the overly complex current process), and the more experienced editor often isn't invested enough to be willing to do a QPQ since they didn't write the page, these sorts of nominations will not happen as much if we decide that the QPQs should be required for them.

What do you all think? {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

  • Free credit should count, per rationale above. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 01:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • DYK already relies on regulars doing reviews for "free" to make up for newcomers who aren't required to do a QPQ — this prevents a steadily increasing backlog of unreviewed nominations (and I thank them for that, I confess that I have not yet done a review that I haven't used as a QPQ). So I think that this proposed change would unfairly increase the burden on those who try to keep the unreviewed DYK hooks at a reasonable number, because it would theoretically enable someone to nominate an unlimited number of articles without having to review any in return. This rule is the only thing stopping someone from going through Special:NewPages right now and nominating a hundred articles by a hundred editors who haven't reached five credits. DanCherek (talk) 01:49, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    A nit-pick: This isn't a proposal for a "change", since as I mentioned, the status quo is not clear, and some reviewers/promoters already operate with the understanding that the free credit counts in this situation. But to speak to your point, the nice thing is that we're never locked into anything forever. The backlog is not terribly long currently, and if it starts growing as a result of what we decide here (which I really think is unlikely), we could easily change course. I'd rather we explore what happens than lose out on good nominations that might have been. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 07:25, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
    If some reviewers aren't enforcing this properly, then we need to make sure that they do. Yours is a proposal for a major change, since we deliberately closed the possibility of a nominator using the creator's credits rather than their own. You appear to have lucked out with your first reviewer, who didn't realize how the rules worked, but the second reviewer knew how things work and required the QPQ. The backlog is long and will get very much longer if we allow this exception again. If an article is such that you want people to see it, then do the QPQ and they will. BlueMoonset (talk) 23:29, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree with DanCherek's reasoning. The nominations don't review themselves. SL93 (talk) 02:18, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I don't see an issue with asking a co-nominator to do a QPQ for a "newbie" if they're a longtime contributor. What does it take: 10 minutes to do a good check of sources and verbiage, maybe 15 minutes for a more developed article? That doesn't seem an unreasonable burden to me, particularly since most of the hooks we get are for very short new articles (so reviews will be on the shorter side). I can't believe people are going to stop nominating worthy articles because they have to do this. And it means that the same few people won't have to do most of the reviews and most of the promotions, which is what will happen otherwise. MeegsC (talk) 08:10, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • My understanding was that it was clear that the nominator would be required to do QPQs in these sorts of situations. I sometimes ask other editors if they want to nominate an article themselves, but as noted they aren't always familiar with the system, so in those cases I nominate myself and carry out the QPQ. I see the reasoning behind the proposal, but unsure how it balances out with the desire to make sure items are reviewed. In the past sometimes editors have left a note on this talkpage saying they found an interesting article but don't have time to nominate/QPQ, and in those cases someone else does seem to pick it up, so that is a useful option if someone is unwilling to carry out a QPQ. CMD (talk) 08:17, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I've generally thought that if you nominate for someone with under 5, you cover the QPQ with your own reviews. My feeling is that the point of not requiring a QPQ for newer DYK creators is not that someone doesn't need to do those reviews. It's that with under five DYKs yourself, you probably aren't competent to do a review. So we wait until you've been through review five times yourself, and have some idea of what the requirements are and mean, before asking you to do reviews. —valereee (talk) 15:28, 1 May 2021 (UTC)
In my experience at least I tried doing QPQs as early as my second nomination, despite not having five nominations at the time. I did mess up my first review but I was able to learn from experience. At the very least, even if nominators aren't required yet, they could be at least offered the option to try doing QPQs early if they want to, provided that they know what they're doing (or are willing to seek help if they don't). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 21:21, 1 May 2021 (UTC)

DYKUpdateBot rewritten in Python!

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

DYKUpdateBot is now running on Python & the Pywikibot framework! More details on my talk page. If you notice a bug, please let me know! Shubinator (talk) 23:24, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

What's the rule about close paraphrasing with sources that are now in the public domain? If the source is acknowledged at the foot of the article, is that sufficient? My query concerns our Max Emanuel Stern article and the Jewish encyclopedia; there are several sentences that are either very close or exact copies of what appears in the encyclopedia. The note at the top of the page there says that it's text from the 1906 version of the encyclopedia, but there's a current copyright note at the bottom of the page, if that makes any difference. MeegsC (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this answers your question, but content copied from PD sources does not count towards the "new content" requirement for DYK articles. As for your concern, I think there was a public domain template but I'm not sure if it's sufficient. To be on the safe side I would suggest rewording anyway, just to be sure. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 10:14, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Template:Public domain copyright templates — Maile (talk) 12:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Maile66, that template already appears in the article. My issue is that several sentences in our article are direct copies of sentences in the source material. Is that okay? Or should they be reworded? This is the first time that I've looked to promote such an article, and I don't want to do so if direct copying will be a copyright issue. MeegsC (talk) 13:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
There's no copyright issue per se in copying a public domain source, although I don't think it's best practice. As Narutolovehinata noted, such word doesn't count for DYK though. CMD (talk) 14:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Up to 200 characters or under 200 characters?

Latest comment: 3 years ago32 comments12 people in discussion

At Template:Did you know nominations/Arrest of Karen Garner, @EEng: said that hooks with 200 characters are allowed. The DYK page doesn't make it clear if it's under 200 characters or up to 200 characters that is acceptable. My DYK archive search showed different thoughts on the matter. Clicking on any nomination template reveals - "Hook Format – fewer than 200 characters (shorter is better) and meets the formatting guidelines". SL93 (talk) 22:25, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

The DYK rules suggest that 200 is more-or-less a fixed upper limit (but allows for exceptions for multi-article hooks), and that hooks slightly under it (so around 190 characters or more) can also be declined at the discretion of the reviewer (although some editors have approved such hooks per their discretion as well). Meaning, hooks that are exactly 200 characters are technically allowed, although in practice are discouraged. Personally if I encounter a hook that's above 190 characters, I ask for it to be shortened if possible, and would only approve it if the hook doesn't make sense otherwise and there are no other possible alternatives. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:13, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Personally if I encounter a hook that's above 190 characters, I ask for it to be shortened if possible – Why, because you're donating the leftover 10 characters to charity? EEng 05:51, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
The upper limit is actually up to and including 199.999999999999999999999999999999..... But that doesn't necessarily solve the argument. --Floquenbeam (talk) 23:24, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Frankly I think the real issue with the hook is that it's apparently making fun of the poor woman, thought that's more of a concern for the nomination page. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:36, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5 I saw that issue at first too, but I didn't want to assume bad faith on the nominator. In regards to hooks with 200 characters being allowed, I received that information about under 200 characters from clicking "edit this page" on nominations. The statement is above where it shows the tick formats. SL93 (talk) 23:39, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
So maybe that should be updated somehow. SL93 (talk) 23:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
I've fixed it. EEng 05:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
But your clarification still leaves unanswered the burning question of whether the space between "..." and "that" counts. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:06, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Only a hacker would bring that up. Fixed now. EEng 06:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
It probably doesn't. It's something like the old debate on whether or not "(pictured)" counts towards a hook length (my opinion is no since it's non-essential and can be removed if the hook isn't ultimately put in the image slot). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:13, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
WP:DYKHOOK is clear that (pictured) doesn't count. EEng 06:21, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I drop in on DYK about once a year just to see if it's really as crazy as I remember, and once again it doesn't disappoint.
    • The limit has always been 200. I've personally had hooks exactly that length run -- here's one from memory: Talk:Menace_from_the_Moon_(1925_novel).
    • As I said elsewhere: Yes, the hook highlights this appalling mistreatment – it's supposed to. But no, there's no conceivable way to interpret it as "making fun" of what happened, and I can't imagine what could possibly make you think it does.
EEng 05:46, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I would highly suggest that you propose an alternative hook, as the current one is a ticking BLP-violating time bomb. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 06:35, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Says you. And it's funny: that's exactly what a certain admin once said to me [3]; that began a chain of events which ended in he no longer being an admin. I would highly suggest that you cool your jets. EEng 07:39, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, how on earth do you interpret that hook as making fun of the arrested woman? I read it as showing the appalling treatment she received. It boggles my mind how it could be interpreted otherwise. MeegsC (talk) 09:16, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I apologize for the misinterpretation, I guess I got carried away with the "a handcuffed 73-year-old woman being forced to the ground and hogtied" wording. I still think running that hook is in bad taste but maybe "making fun of the woman" was the wrong wording to use here (perhaps I should have instead said "highlighting an unfortunate incident in her life"). Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 09:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
Narutolovehinata5, I agree with your raising of the potential BLP concern of that hook, and I have chided those who said it's not a concern below. I disagree that it's "making fun of" the woman, but it is still highlighting a negative aspect of her life for visibility on the main page - which should be avoided. There's no reason the article can't simply be linked as "arrest" and not the flowery language included - which minimizes (but does not eliminate, for that matter) the potential negative impact on a living person's life who is covered by WP:BLP1E. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:36, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Most recently slightly edited version says this:
The hook should be concise: no more than about 200 characters (including spaces and the question mark, but not including the ..., the space immediately following the..., or any (pictured)). While 200 is hard limit, hooks near or at this limit may still be rejected at the discretion of reviewers and administrators.
Here's my objection - vague gobbledy-gook in the last sentence. Any hook "may still be rejected" for any number of reasons. One or two little characters is the least of why a hook will be rejected. If we're dickering over one or two characters, I think DYK has finally reached the stage of, "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" Hooks "may still be rejected" for a lot of reasons. Is anybody really rejecting hooks because, " ... the hook seems to be one character over the limit ... bah, humbug! It fails" Seriously? For one or two characters that really make no difference on the main page? — Maile (talk)
Let's not split hairs, it's pretty clear what the rule is. Up to and including 200 characters and not a digit more. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 10:44, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
And we can IAR. After all, we do for many, many, many other reasons. ;) MeegsC (talk) 11:20, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Wow, I missed a lot while I was away from Wikipedia. I just brought this up because DYK nominations have been brought up for stupid stuff consistently here and on ERRORS after promotion. I actually added this nomination to a prep area at first until I noticed that it was 200 characters long and then I remembered the vague DYK rule for character length. If IAR needs to be used for a good reason then so be it. There is no reason to get emotional over things until it is decided for IAR to be used. I'm sorry for posting this because I didn't realize it would start a huge fight and hook strikethroughs (I especially apologize to EEng for that part). SL93 (talk) 13:45, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to apologize for the strikethroughs earlier. They were done in an impulsive state and I got carried away with emotion at the time. We all have our bad days on Wiki and I guess today was one of them for me. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:49, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree that highlighting an arrest, no matter how reliably sourced, poses a potential BLP concern - especially when the individual isn't notable independently of the arrest. I note that multiple ALT blurbs have been proposed that do not mention the person's name at all - ALT2 (if the link is expanded to include the word "arrest") and ALT3 are both interesting facts - and from my cursory glance appear to be reliably sourced. Those two ALT hooks place the primary "negativeness" on the police officers, as opposed to the original which said "hogtied", thus placing at least some of the negativeness on the victim. I also think the description of the arrest being so long is part of the potential BLP problem with the first hook suggested - we must be very careful when considering things that will be on the main page - keeping in mind that the average DYK hook gets thousands of views for an article that it wouldn't otherwise get - meaning thousands of people would associate anything potentially negative with the victim's name in this case. BLP isn't a policy just for shits and giggles - it's a policy because there's billions of people in this world, and any random one of them could happen to see something on Wikipedia and have a connection to the LP in real life - especially when it's on the main page. I think EEng's calling a legitimate BLP concern "ridiculous" is uncalled for and should reflect poorly on their further participation in deciding DYK hooks. We have a duty to the LPs of the public to prevent negative information about them from getting into Wikipedia - in their articles, but especially on the main page. Saying that someone's personal intuition is ridiculous instead of discussing the matter with them is unacceptable in my opinion. Regardless, this is rambling, because from what I can see the original hook is not being discussed anymore and the ALT hooks don't have potential BLP problems. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:35, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I didn't call the BLP concern ridiculous (though it is mistaken, as several others have pointed out). I said that one editor unilaterally striking a hook based on his personal subjective judgement was ridiculous. EEng 06:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Wow, this is a lot of words spent arguing over a single character, and epitomizes some of the less flattering stereotypes about what Wikipedia editing is. Let's remind ourselves: way back when at some point, 200 was chosen as the limit because it's a nice round number in base ten, which we use because humans have ten fingers. If we had 11 fingers, the limit would probably be 198 or 209 or 220. Unless subsequent decisions have introduced technical or layout reasons it has to stop at precisely (under) 200, my view is that this is not remotely worth arguing over. If the hook isn't concise enough, reject it; if it is concise enough, accept it even if it's 201 characters long. Overall, this is precisely the situation WP:IAR and WP:NOTBURO were written for. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 04:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    Gosh, Sdkb, we're way past the 200 thing! We've moved on to people offering their misinterpretations of BLP and so on. EEng 06:05, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    Indeed, this seems at least half BLP. On that note there is a hook vote on Template:Did you know nominations/Arrest of Karen Garner DYK editors may be interested in. CMD (talk) 06:07, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    @Sdkb: The character count issue has been resolved. Now it's a just a BLP issue slugfest. SL93 (talk) 21:04, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I've promoted a hook from this nom to Template:Did you know/Preparation area 5. I chose the ALT that was most preferred by commenters and didn't feel it was unduly negative. I did remove the word laughingly as it bothered me both grammatically and duly. —valereee (talk) 18:41, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Nothing is set in stone at Wikipedia, which is why we have a policy called WP:IAR. If somebody came up with a stunningly compelling hook that was 250 characters long, there is no reason why it shouldn't be run. However, most hooks which approach 200 chars, excepting multis, are almost always just clunky hooks with too much information that need pruning, which is why the rule exists. The guidelines also state that hooks should in general not be longer than about 150 chars, so 200 is already a pretty generous limit IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 05:33, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Prep 4

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

"... that the 2021 FA Cup Final between Leicester City and Chelsea today will be the first football match in England with more than 8,000 supporters since March 2020?" This is currently set to run on 13 May pm slot, but the match in question is on 15 May. Can this be moved to prep 1, so it runs on the afternoon of the match (it needs to run 15 May so that the hook is correct)? Joseph2302 (talk) 09:14, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

As I understand it (hope someone corrects me if I'm wrong), the prep/queue predictions are currently wrong, as a move to one set per 24 hours is imminent. —Kusma (t·c) 09:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks, hadn't seen the above 1-a-day discussion. So long as we move to 1 per day, then no action is needed on this. Joseph2302 (talk) 11:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Moving hooks to new preps

Latest comment: 3 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

When promoting hooks, I noticed that Delta Kream, requested for May 14, was not promoted to the prep. The prep for that date (Prep 6) was full so I moved Marie Desbrosses to prep 4 and promoted Delta Kream to prep 6. This is my first time moving around promoted hooks, so I'd appreciate a second look to make sure it was done correctly. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 00:08, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Did you perhaps miss my comment and the previous discussion saying we don't promote albums? Undone your changes. (And while we're at it, replacing a non-US bio hook with a US non-bio hook would have made the set uneven. It would have been better to swap out the second hook, about a US piece of media, in this case.) Kingsif (talk) 03:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure why reverting all the promotions were needed. For example, Template:Did you know nominations/A Question of Love is in limbo now. SL93 (talk) 03:40, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
If Z promoted any others you can add them back; since it took 4 edits to remove the hook from prep 6 I assumed the 4 edits on prep 4 were an equally-long addition. Kingsif (talk) 03:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm good. It really isn't my responsibility. SL93 (talk) 03:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
That also reminded me to un-promote the Delta Kream template. We are low on hooks, though doing well for image hooks. Kingsif (talk) 04:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm hoping reviews pick up, hopefully for more non-QPQ reviews. Though I'm guessing it should be fine once we move to one set a day. SL93 (talk) 04:06, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kingsif: yes I did miss that discussion: sorry for the problems my changes caused. Thanks for correcting the mistake and for your feedback; I struggled with deciding which one to move. I chose the non-US bio because it was an opera singer, and I thought swapping a music topic for a music topic was the best choice. When I build preps in the future, I will try to be more mindful of location and if it is a bio, and factor in "media" as a topic. I welcome more feedback to help build better preps. Z1720 (talk) 12:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Special occasion requests

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Would it be acceptable for nominators who have made a special occasion request that has already been moved to the special occasion holding area by some other editor to put a comment into the correct prep when the date moves into prep? I ask because I sometimes forget to check the special occasion holding area myself, and it would actually be helpful for me as a prep builder to see there is a request for that date. With multiple people new to moving hooks into prep, it might be helpful for others too. —valereee (talk) 12:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why not. Gatoclass (talk) 13:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Hugh Miller hook date request

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

I recently reviewed the hook nominated for Hugh Miller. The nominator mentioned having the hook featured on the Main Page on 6 June, the day of his action at the Battle of Belleau Wood. Would this be possible if the nomination is approved by an admin? ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 02:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

I think you mean Hughie Miller. I moved it to June 6 Special Holding for you. — Maile (talk) 03:27, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Right, silly typo. Thanks for that. ❯❯❯ Mccunicano☕️ 14:31, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

16 May - 20th anniversary hook

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Hi all. I've proposed a hook to run on the 20th anniversary of the Prescott punch at Template:Did you know nominations/Prescott punch. Would be great if it can be reviewed in time and slipped into the appropriate queue. Many thanks - Dumelow (talk) 15:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Queue backlog

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

There are two filled queues and 3 filled preps. Amakuru, Maile66, Casliber, valereee, ‎Cwmhiraeth, ONUnicorn SL93 (talk) 04:30, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

on it Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 06:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
If we could also get a push to fill the currently empty preps, we might be able to get down below 60 approved hooks and go back to one-a-days for a while, which after four months would be a relief for many I'm sure. —valereee (talk) 11:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
At the moment there are no filled preps, and 3 empty queues. I'll try to check back later, if someone wants to ping me when there are preps full. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 15:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Filled a prep. I'll try to do another tomorrow as long as preps are getting move to queue and I'm not needed for that. —valereee (talk) 18:27, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
ONUnicorn, all the preps are filled now. It would be great to have one or two promoted. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:54, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Promoted one, it's all I've got time for at the moment. 3 queues are open; 2 preps are empty (or nearly so).~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Older nominations needing DYK reviewers

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

The list below includes 38 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through April 29. We currently have a total of 186 nominations, of which 48 have been approved, a gap of 138. Thanks to everyone who reviews these.

Over three months old:

Over one month old:

Other old nominations:

Please remember to cross off entries as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

OMG we're at 59

Latest comment: 3 years ago14 comments7 people in discussion

Go to 1-a-days? —valereee (talk) 19:07, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I don't know. There are still more than 140 awaiting review. MeegsC (talk) 19:19, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: did we put it in the instructions somewhere what the trigger number is for switching back and forth? I'm in agreement with Valareee on this one. The 59 approved can move pretty quickly if the reviews don't keep pace. — Maile (talk) 19:29, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Per the RfC, the crucial number is approved noms. We set it at 60 because below that, it's hard to build a balanced prep. —valereee (talk) 20:36, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm ready to move to one prep a day. I think it might be a relief to prep builders also. SL93 (talk) 21:03, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Can we start the one-set-per-day with Prep 2 (16 May 0:00 UTC)? This will prevent preppers from scrambling to move hooks that were requested to run on specific dates. Z1720 (talk) 00:11, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Nope. We should wait until the upcoming midnight to switch, just over 20 hours from now, but we're down to 43 approved at present, and going below 60 is the trigger. I'll take a look at the current queues and see what special occasion hooks need to be moved and where. Note that these special occasion hooks will get to run for 24 hours rather than 12, so I think the nominators will be perfectly happy to get the longer run time. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:48, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
In 5 days we would be at -2 approved hooks. Kingsif (talk) 04:03, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
We'll need an admin to adjust the time between updates to 24 hours after 00:00, 12 May 2021 (UTC) (and not before). Anyone going to be around then? BlueMoonset (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset, so to confirm that would be in approximately 13 hours? —valereee (talk) 11:02, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
valereee, confirming that was true as of when you wrote it. (It's about eight and a quarter hours now.) What needs to happen then, after the midnight main page DYK update, is changing User:DYKUpdateBot/Time Between Updates from 43200 to 86400. Will you be around then? BlueMoonset (talk) 15:45, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset, there is a better than 75% chance I will be available at just after 8pm EDT tonight, and if worse comes to worst there is a nearly 100% chance I'll be available before 8am tomorrow if no one else has gotten to it. —valereee (talk) 17:36, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
K, I think I did it. If I screwed something up, please ping. —valereee (talk) 00:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Only preps affected

At the moment, there are three queues filled, all of which are free of special occasion hooks, and will hit the main page by May 13, before any of the special occasion hooks would need to run:

The preps, all currently filled, will run as follows (once promoted to queue):

We have a special occasion nomination for Prep 3, which seems likely to have its special occasion status withdrawn per the discussion below at Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Moving hooks to new preps. I had put a temporary hold on promoting Prep 3 to queue, but I'm going to withdraw it so we can get a prep promoted and some room to move things around.

I have just taken care of moving the special occasion hook in Prep 1 to Prep 4 so it runs on May 15, but it didn't have a comment saying that it was a special occasion hook. It's important that all special occasion hooks, when promoted, have a comment added noting that it is a special occasion hook and what day it should run.

Finally, there are a couple of hooks that are in the special occasions area for May 18, which will need to be placed in Prep 7, which is currently full, along with all the other preps. At some point, when a prep becomes free, a couple of the Prep 7 hooks can be moved there to make room for the special occasion hooks for May 18. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:47, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Template:Did you know nominations/Susan Karike

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

Mandarax, can you figure out what happened to this nomination: Template:Did you know nominations/Susan Karike? I'm not sure what happened when the nominator created it, but it's a mess, and I can't figure out how to fix it! Thanks. MeegsC (talk) 21:07, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Done. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 21:31, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
You're a star! Thanks Mandarax. MeegsC (talk) 22:47, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
No, he's an open source Java class library for deduction rules. An asterix is a star. EEng 22:59, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
LOL. MeegsC (talk) 11:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

Honorifics

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

In Prep 3, is it appropriate to use "colonel" in the sentence about Anna von Wattenwyl? I'm assuming it's the equivalent of "reverend". MeegsC (talk) 09:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Hm, I think I'd agree, though I guess I don't have a strong opinion. Pinging nom Willthacheerleader18 —valereee (talk) 11:23, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
No, the Salvation Army uses military ranks for its members. See Officer (The Salvation Army). The "colonel" rank is appropriate. It is peculiar to the denomination because that's how they organize themselves. We should probably keep it as it. --Jayron32 16:54, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree, leave it as it is because it is what the Salvation Army use for their members. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 17:01, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
But The C of E and Jayron32, other churches use other honorifics, and we don't use them in article titles or in DYK -- I think we wouldn't refer to MLK as 'the Reverend Martin Luther King' or to the pope as 'His Holiness' in DYK, would we? This is just the very unusual honorific the SA uses, isn't it? —valereee (talk) 18:26, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
There's nothing in the DYK rules that say we can't. Besides, the majority of the time it adds to the hookyness of the hook. This is such an occasion. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Just to clarify, I am not the nominator. I started the article. I, personally, have no strong opinion either way. I feel it is appropriate, but could also be unnecessary. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:55, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Queue 5 error

Latest comment: 3 years ago19 comments5 people in discussion

I don't know if this is the right place to post this or not, but I'm posting it here. In this edit by Cwmhiraeth, an error is introduced into Queue 5 for the Ora Nichols hook: [4]. There is a difference between having been one of the pioneers in the use of something, and being the person who pioneered the use of something. I can't revert it because I'm not an admin, but I need someone to do it. I've also contacted Cwmhiraeth at his talk page. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

What is the difference? EEng 21:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
It's the difference between just being one of a group, versus being someone whose single-handed accomplishments stand out individually. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:18, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
And it's certainly not a necessary improvement. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:20, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
See also above at #"First person to do X" hooks, going down to the "facepalm". --Tryptofish (talk) 21:22, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Let me illustrate it this way. The article quotes a source that says that Nichols and her husband – who worked for her, as she was the chief of the sound effects department – were "the two people most responsible for bringing sound effects to radio". That's more than just being "a pioneer": it's being the person who pioneered. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Sounds like you're saying she was the first pioneer. EEng 22:05, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
What I'm not saying was that she was just one of a group of pioneers. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I understand what you are saying, and I've read the sources. The sources, and even your article, say she and her husband did that together as a team, dating back to silent firms and transitioning to radio. She was the first woman to do it, there is no question of that. The article also says "CBS then hired them as paid staff". He designed the equipment, and she became the department supervisor. Reading what's there, it was a team effort. Sorry, but I understand why Cwmhiraeth made the change. — Maile (talk) 21:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, if that's that, so be it, and I do appreciate what you are saying. As you note and we agree, she was the first woman to do it, which was the first version of the hook that I proposed. And that would have been a lot "hookier" than being "a pioneer". The objections to "the first woman to" do something have ended up making for an inferior result. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:16, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
As for "it was a team effort", it was really a two-person effort that she led, with some additional assistants. And it's not like her husband was the one who created sound effects while she did supervisory work: he built a machine (not the same as designing all of the equipment), while she devised the majority of the effects. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:26, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @Tryptofish: Oddly enough, considering my remarks in an above section about not caring for the "first" woman hooks, your ALT2, ALT1 an ALT3 might have been more preferable than the current one you don't care for. @Cwmhiraeth: is there any chance of switching the hook to ALT2, ALT1 or ALT3? — Maile (talk) 22:29, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Thanks for reconsidering that. If it's really OK with you to use the "first woman" wording, that would be ALT0, which at this point would be my first choice, with ALT1 as my second choice. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

How about:

... that Ora Nichols and her husband pioneered the use of radio sound effects? Gatoclass (talk) 01:56, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
  Done OK, I am back online and have changed the hook to ALT0. In making the original change, my thinking was that a "pioneer" is someone that does something first, whereas sound effects must have come in at the time radio was developing as a medium, and Ora Nichols certainly did not introduce them. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:14, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Cwmhiraeth, thank you very much for changing it. I appreciate that very much. I understand your thinking, and I know that you meant well, of course. I'll reply at much greater length in the talk section above. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:11, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Hook

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Comments and suggestions are welcome. --evrik (talk) 19:45, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

RFC to IAR for hook sets of Yoninah's work on the Main Page

Latest comment: 3 years ago77 comments37 people in discussion
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
Responding to requested closure:
Main page tribute: The most common support rationale was that this proposal is an appropriate and fitting gesture. The most common argument against the proposal was WP:NOTMEMORIAL, although some editors disagreed if that policy applied in this case. There are 18 editors in favour and 9 opposing. There is no unambiguous policy basis to rebalance any votes, so ultimately it falls upon editors to decide by consensus how policy applies to such a situation. Accordingly, with 67% support, this proposal passes. Specifics on quantity, date, and display format were not voted on, but were discussed by some editors. My reading of applicable comments is that consensus supports one set of Yoninah's hooks on DYK, without mentioning the editor's name on the Main Page. However, this could be put to further discussion if there's disagreement.
Yoninah DYK service medal: A proposal to create such a medal passes unanimously with 19 editors in favour and zero opposing. Further discussions may be necessary to design the award and set an awarding criteria. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:59, 13 May 2021 (UTC)


RFC regarding Proposed Queue IAR to honor Yoninah.

The death of Yoninah has left a void, and the above thread requests to IAR by compiling one or more sets of her hooks for the Main Page. Inasmuch as this is an unprecedented one-time change in DYK's appearance on the Main Page, there needs to be a consensus here before this happens. We have all felt her sudden absence, but not everyone agrees that it is appropriate to IAR to put one or two sets of her hooks on the Main Page. Some have suggested that this violates WP:NOTMEMORIAL. The majority seem to be holding back, silent. We cannot change our Main Page procedure without a consensus.

Please share your thoughts below. This RFC is for procedural correctness, and not a reflection on Yoninah's memory. In other words, we need our regular people, especially Admins, to weigh in on this, one way or the other. Please do not hesitate to be heard here. Either we move forward with the proposal by consensus, or we archive it and move on. — Maile (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Main page tribute

Support

  • Support For all her work, it seems a good idea to me. I don't think an RFC is necessary to IAR. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support for why IAR exists -- making the project, in some small way, better. I say this as someone with a hook in one of the sets that would be delayed by this move; it is no skin off my back to go on the main page twelve hours later so we can honour the memory of someone so important to us. (Frankly, I wish 'actively naming Yoninah' hadn't been vetoed -- I think hiding that Wikipedia is made by actual people from its readers hurts us, not helps.) WP:NOTMEMORIAL is inapplicable here for the same reason it's inapplicable to WP:RIP -- it's an article notability/NPOV issue. It does not violate "don't write encyclopedia articles as panegyrics" to run Yoninah's hooks. Vaticidalprophet 15:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
I'm also not sure exactly why the reluctance to mention her real name on Wikipedia given how her apparent real name seems to be the basis of her username and how said name has already been mentioned in a public source, not to mention those who had interacted with her through e-mail would have known a bit about it. While I do understand the privacy concerns, I'm not sure if they really apply here given the circumstances, along with how some editors whose real names aren't mentioned in their user pages are still mentioned by name on WP:RIP; some clarification would be appreciated. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 13:01, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - Think of this as a special occasion set where we honor a person. We've had precedent for something similar in the past when we've had sets dedicated to Frank Sinatra or Beethoven, not to mention other cases like the Moon landing. I'm not sure if she would be against this if she were still alive, but I don't see any harm in doing it especially when we've done similar things before. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 00:46, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - I think DYKs readers deserve to know who was responsible for so many of these hooks. This does seem antithetical to the concept of Wikipedia, but so was taking a stance against SOPA. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    But if I understand the proposal right readers will not know who was responsible, just may wonder why something is presented as new content that they saw long ago. - My approach is writing new content in memory, the next hopefully Psalm 115 (which will need a lot of expansion, - help welcome, today or too late for DYK. The beginning is - quite matching this whole topic "Not unto us, O LORD, not unto us, but unto thy name give glory"). --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    Once I mentioned it here: I managed to expand the article sufficiently, and nominated with a hook regarding Earth Day, 22 April, soon. Template:Did you know nominations/Psalm 115 --Gerda Arendt (talk) 16:22, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
It appears that I misunderstood the proposal. I have been quite ill lately. I still support the proposal. Scorpions13256 (talk) 17:14, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Best wishes for your health! The Psalm hook is approved, could someone please move it to the special occasions? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:13, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - I'd be happy for a "greatest hits" set of the best hooks that Yoninah created/promoted to go onto the main page for a day. We don't need to draw attention to the fact that it is for a memorial, but we would know. The fact it is old added information is not really all that big a deal to the average reader. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 10:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - As a one-off IAR special. We can do a quiet symbolic gesture without us having to go into details about the reasons behind to our readers. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 12:39, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
    To clarify, since apparently I appear "to be both supporting and opposing": Support running a set composed of previous hooks by Yoninah on the DYK section. Oppose any direct mention of her (similar to what Valereee is saying) while doing so. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:10, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support - It strikes me that there is an extremely limited universe for whom we would consider something like this, a universe of probably fewer than 10 editors. This is a good example, I think, of IAR. To be clear, IAR says that if a rule is preventing you from improving the encyclopedia, then it's best to ignore it. How would this improve the encyclopedia? To me, that's simple. It's a reminder to whomever stumbles on the main page that everything that is there—and everything that exists across Wikipedia—was written by real people just like them. If it encourages even one editor to make one improvement to one article, that strikes me as a net benefit. (This argument, of course, rests on including some public-facing mention of what we're doing.) Let's do it. Go Phightins! 12:45, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per IAR Eddie891 Talk Work 12:52, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The rules can be broken --Guerillero Parlez Moi 03:23, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support curated sets with no mention of why or of Yoninah. —valereee (talk) 20:45, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support per all above.4meter4 (talk) 20:50, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support. We don't need to do anything more than this, and the sets should not be marked as "special" on the main page itself, but I do think this is a nice touch and a good tribute to a DYK legend.  — Amakuru (talk) 23:27, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support -- I don't think this is a violation of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. If anything, it's a continuation of what we've already done per WP:DWG. As stated above, the SOPA vote is a great example of Wikipedia making a public statement that doesn't directly relate to normal editing. I'm not too worried about setting a "precedent", because I trust that the community will be able to determine which editors deserve this level of recognition. This is akin to the Signpost, where getting an obituary is not automatic, but rather determined on a case-by-case basis. Edge3 (talk) 00:19, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support a queue of DYK hooks that Yoninah was involved in, and also support some way to recognize the rest of her hooks - ex: via a link to a subpage dedicated to her hooks on the DYK section whenever this is run. We aren't a memorial, but we can still recognize great impacts people had on Wikipedia Main Page content - and I don't think that's a "memorial" so much as a "we recognize the contributions of this person". I also support if a direct link isn't provided that the "Archive" text is changed to "in memory of Yoninah" link - with a description of her contributions and all of those contributions. -bɜ:ʳkənhɪmez (User/say hi!) 00:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Seems like a nice and harmless gesture for a tireless DYK contributor. P-K3 (talk) 11:34, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support What is IAR for, if not for this. A fitting tribute to a great contributor. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 11:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support I'm not a regular contributor to DYK, but I understand the processes here (and the manner in which they interface with broader project policy) well enough to recognize that there is little compelling reason to view this as inappropriate. WP:NOTMEMORIAL really does not apply, provided that reference to Yoninah herself is minimal and unobtrusive: the content that the reader will be directed to will still be concerned with encyclopedic information, and otherwise serves the same function as any other DYK entries. If we can do something to honor the memory and contributions of a community member who helped shape this process, and the elements which celebrate her directly stay mostly "under the hood" on our talk/process pages, for the benefit of her colleagues and friends in our editorial corps, while also being consistent with our policies and procedures for presenting worthwhile content to the reader (be it content Yoninah contributed to or content that she would appreciate), it is a matter of all upside for our editors and no down side for our readers, making for an easy call. Frankly, if anything, this is the type of thing that we could stand to see more of, as this community ages and retention and engagement flags, and the stamina of an increasingly smaller class of editors takes on more and more of the overall burden of the project's workload. If the project is to survive on the backs of such dedicated volunteers, denying our sub-communities the right to pay their respects to a departed colleague or friend in a subtle gesture that does not substantively impact the reader's experience in any negative way seems arbitrary, verging on capricious. Snow let's rap 09:26, 17 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support Good case of IAR to honor a prolific contributor. Also, when is this going to happen? It has a consensus.Jackattack1597 (talk) 01:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Support of course. EEng 06:04, 6 May 2021 (UTC)

Oppose

  • Oppose. I'll start by saying that I didn't become active with DYK until shortly before Yoninah died, so perhaps I shouldn't vote here. But I don't think making the main page a memorial is appropriate – whether or not it's stated as such – and (perhaps more importantly) from what I've read of her, I don't think Yoninah would have approved of us making such a gesture. I do think the idea mooted above, of making a subpage of her "greatest hits" available from her page, is a great idea. And I like the idea of a Yoninah memorial award too. But not a rehash of her DYKs on the front page. Yes, we've done it before, but for important historic events, not for a single Wikipedian. Regardless of how awesome she was, that's not what this project is about! MeegsC (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose as being antithetical to the concept of Wikipedia. The ideas of a "greatest hits" page linked from her user page or a memorial award are more appropriate. --Khajidha (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Using the main page to memorialize any editor is inappropriate and goes against the concept of Wikipedia. Flibirigit (talk) 20:36, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose It is against the concept of Wikipedia and I don't think Yoninah would be alright with such a thing. SL93 (talk) 23:03, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, it doesn't seem in keeping with what Yoninah would have wanted or the way that she approached wikipedia. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 13:03, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. ——Serial 13:32, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose whilst she did fantastic work at DYK, the main page shouldn't be used as a memorial in my opinion. I think making a subpage of "greatest hits" in her userpage would be appropriate, but using IAR to run a memorial set is not appropriate for anyone (no matter their contributions to Wikipedia), in my opinion. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:29, 15 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose per my comments in the linked earlier discussion, and per above -- this neither improves, nor appropriately remembers. Alanscottwalker (talk) 14:11, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Oppose, ego was not her thing, encouraging others was. Find another more appropriate way of honouring such an influential wikipedian. Quetzal1964 (talk) 23:52, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Yoninah DYK service medal

Service medal design

Wikipedia:Service awards

In the RFC above, this is one area where there are no Opposes. Is there any DYK person who is good at designing something like a barnstar or service medal? If so, samples might be good here. — Maile (talk) 00:55, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Comments

  • I have no problem whatsoever in a set of hooks crafted to "honour" Yoninah, but I would not support anything beyond that. The Rambling Man (Stay alert! Control the virus! Save lives!!!!) 15:50, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • No objection and a slight leaning towards support, but per my objection in the previous discussion, it should be limited to a set of hooks with no custom message or other outward difference from a usual DYK set. CMD (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I am with MeegsC thinking that Yoninah would not have wanted a Main page appearance of her "greatest hits", but if a majority of users alive thinks it helps them feeling better, I will not be in the way. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 18:27, 10 April 2021 (UTC)
  • In response to the support from Narutolovehinata5, there really isn't a precedent for this. Those people have articles and those hooks fit into special occasions - Yoninah does not have an article. SL93 (talk) 00:53, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • What precedence do we set here? Will we memorialise all those who builds lots of sets? Those who generate lots of hooks? Those who review lots of hooks? Where is the line drawn? And what will other areas of Wikipedia think? Are prep hook builders more important than those who write ITN, or review FAs or generate OTD entries – all of which have no ability to do a similar "memorial"? To me, this just doesn't seem like the right way to do things. MeegsC (talk) 11:00, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Right. But none of them – other than DYK – have the ability to memorialise a Wikipedia editor on the main page. And if we do it once, it sets a precedence to do it again. That concerns me. Why should this project and no other have the right to do so? MeegsC (talk) 14:19, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • I was around for the effort to honor Dr. Blofeld on the main page. With the Yoninah proposal, I don't believe they want her name on the main page, just a set of her hooks, without mentioning her by name. My memory of the Blofeld proposal was that the request was not to feature any of his hooks, but as a banner (or specific hook) on the main page congratulating him on his achievement. That proposal went over WT:DYK like a lead balloon, because the main page wasn't designed for such personal messages . — Maile (talk) 16:36, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
When I brought up precedence, I was referring to the previous cases of us having sets in honor of dead people (such as Frank Sinatra or Beethoven), not to mention the multiple hooks about recently-deceased people that DYK has run. While a set in honor of an editor hasn't been done on DYK before, it's not as if we haven't honored people who are no longer with us in other ways either. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 16:13, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Actually, when I brought up precedence, I was referring to us setting precedence. Surely you'd agree that there's a big difference between someone like Beethoven, who's world-renowned and has had a big Wikipedia article written about him, and someone like Yoninah, who doesn't. Personally, I don't think we should set the precedence of doing this for a DYK editor. Otherwise, what's to stop others from pushing for this to be done for every DYK regular who shuffles off this mortal coil? And while you may not think that's a problem, is it really fair to those who contribute elsewhere in the project? MeegsC (talk) 16:30, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
  • The most I would support on the Main Page is a limited period during which hooks from Yoninah were used any time the section needed expansion for balance. --Khajidha (talk) 13:56, 12 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Quetzal1964 has a good point in their oppose of a set or sets featuring only Yoninah's hooks. Her thing was more about encouraging others than being in the limelight. She certainly encouraged me to help build preps and her even going so far as to help me expand my nominated articles, even though they met the length criteria, was a great help to Wikipedia as a whole. I don't feel right voicing support for it when I feel that Yoninah, even if it doesn't specifically mention her name, would not support such a thing. It doesn't take much for readers to get some sort of idea of what the set is for - they just need to look at who started the articles. I'm not saying that the supporters don't, but I try my best to honor both the living and the dead with what they would have likely wanted. SL93 (talk) 00:10, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Is it time to make a decision on this? The discussion has been running since last month and other than one new comment from EEng today hasn't had much discussion in a while now. To anyone who is planning to close this, while we don't decide by votes, the current count is 19 supports and 9 opposes. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 07:08, 6 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I agree that closing time is here for this RFC. Someone other than me, because I opened it. Is there anyone at DYK who wasn't involved in this? If not, perhaps a closing request should be posted at Wikipedia:Closure requests. One thing stands out to me - there seems to be overwhelming support for a Yoninah service medal, but no one has come up with a sample of what we could use. — Maile (talk) 19:13, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
    I think it would be difficult to find a DYK volunteer who hasn't been involved in this discussion. If that's the case, then I agree that we should request a closer at WP:RFCLOSE. Edge3 (talk) 19:13, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

Request for Closure initiated

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Down to two filled queues

Latest comment: 3 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Pinging Amakuru, Maile, Cas Liber, valereee, Cwmhiraeth, ONUnicorn, Wugapodes, and Lee Vilenski, in the hopes that at least a couple of preps can be promoted to queues in the next little while—the preps are almost entirely filled. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:19, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

International Museums Day

Latest comment: 3 years ago32 comments9 people in discussion

I finally got a nibble at WP:MUSEUM (where I posted a bit about our interest in celebrating International Museums Day on May 18 with some museum hooks) today – only a week after I posted it. A few folks are hoping to work together on some articles this weekend. I've told them I'm happy to help them create nominations when they're ready; would someone be willing to speedily review them (since they'd have to be ready to go by the 18th) and move them into queues, even at this late date? Or shall I tell them they're too late for this year? MeegsC (talk) 14:45, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@MeegsC: Jesús Soto Museum of Modern Art has been approved and could also be used for International Museums Day. I am happy to review hooks: feel free to ping me. Z1720 (talk) 15:08, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Okay! Thanks Z1720. I moved the museum hook in to the set for 18 May; thanks for the heads up. I'll let you know if/when the museum folks come up with anything. MeegsC (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
@Z1720:, the first one is ready: Template:Did you know nominations/Kimiuo Aisek Memorial Museum. MeegsC (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
That's approved, - keep going! - We have only one queue unless we make an exception, or use the day before and after, arguing that it's the day in other places. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:32, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
I personally don't think there is a good reason to do it for more than one day. Maybe if it wasn't such short notice. SL93 (talk) 23:00, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
Well then, can we do two sets on the 18th? Or shall I tell the WP:MUSEUM people not to bother with the rest of their planned updates? It's unfortunate that no one thought to involve them earlier! MeegsC (talk) 09:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Updates would be good without getting a DYK hook, I don't get this comment? Kingsif (talk) 10:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Kingsif, several WP:MUSEUMS editors are creating/expanding museum articles in the belief that they're going to be able to showcase them on International Museums Day. If that's not the case (and it sounds like it might not be), then it would be fair to let them know that. MeegsC (talk) 11:17, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Two more:

--evrik (talk) 22:14, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Updated preps - also thinking of creating Never Been Seen for a quirky hook. Kingsif (talk) 01:00, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Nom at Template:Did you know nominations/Never Been Seen - @Gerda Arendt, MeegsC, and Evrik: Kingsif (talk) 01:52, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Reviewed. Somebody else will have to add it to the queue. MeegsC (talk) 11:38, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
Maybe @Maile66: Kingsif (talk) 14:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • @MeegsC, Kingsif, Gerda Arendt, SL93, Z1720, Evrik, Valereee, and BlueMoonset: I just now saw this thread. First of all, two sets for just one day is not gonna happen, at least not from me. An admin has to manually change the code to change the rotation. And then one of them would have to go in and change it back by the next day, assuming any admin is tuned in enough to notice that. I dislike being the one to make the time changes, because it's too easy to screw it up if one is in a hurry. I have no problem with a one-time-only 9-hook set, but an admin would literally have to close the nomination and promote it directly to the queue. We have time to think about it. Let's see what others say and deal with this tomorrow. Queue 7 will still be sitting there. — Maile (talk) 21:06, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
    • I agree with not creating two sets for May 18. Can we still switch out some hooks for approved museum hooks, even if the prep has been promoted to the queue? If so, can Maile66 or another admin move Never Been Seen into the queue as the last hook, per above? Z1720 (talk) 21:12, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
      • Switching hooks around so all the museum hooks are in one queue, is no problem. Unless someone else wants to jump in over the next few hours, I can deal with the swapping around tomorrow. A little busy in RL right now. — Maile (talk) 21:29, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
        Definitely don't want to do a one-off of two sets. No objection to creating a whole set if someone can suggest enough hooks. —valereee (talk) 22:32, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
valereee, Amakuru, Maile66, Cwmhiraeth, could one of you please substitute the hook currently in the special holding area for May 18 into the final "quirky" slot in queue 7? It's one of the approved hooks for International Museum Day. Thanks. MeegsC (talk) 12:25, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
  Done. Thanks  — Amakuru (talk) 12:55, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Teamwork Yay! Lol...I moved the hook that was there out, and when I went to get the replacement from the spec occ area I was like...uh-oh... :D —valereee (talk) 12:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Gerda Arendt, Z1720, Kingsif, there's another museum hook ready for review: Template:Did you know nominations/Kosrae State Museum. MeegsC (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
And another one: Template:Did you know nominations/Museum of Literature Ireland MeegsC (talk) 16:57, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Another: Template:Did you know nominations/Musée de l'Amérique francophone Z1720 (talk) 17:33, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I reviewed Museum of Literature Ireland. Z1720 (talk) 17:53, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
And with that, I think our set is full – in fact, we'll have to get an admin to add an extra (9th) hook in order to accommodate them all. MeegsC (talk) 17:36, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
valereee, Amakuru, Maile66, Cwmhiraeth, can one of you move the remaining hooks from the May 18 holding area into queue 7? The Billie Holiday statue and Christian Linger hooks can get moved out (neither is about a museum) and we'll need a 9th spot, if that's okay. Thanks so much everybody. Great teamwork to pull it together so quickly! MeegsC (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Made room, gotta jet for a bit if someone can finish up. —valereee (talk) 19:39, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
@MeegsC: I took care of the last three. But please double-check my work, as my house/work area is a little chatty, distracting and noisy at the moment. I can correct whatever you need ... most likely, tomorrow. Just check my work this time. Thanks. — Maile (talk) 01:20, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Hi Maile66 – it looks great. Two small corrections suggested on the "Main page errors" page: MoLI shouldn't be bolded (since it's not a link) and "Ulysses" should be italicised. Thanks for your help! MeegsC (talk) 08:34, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
@MeegsC: OK. Looks like somebody already took care of the two corrections. — Maile (talk) 09:45, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Very impressive effort. —valereee (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Help with nomination issues

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/1928 Austin city plan has been stagnant since May 1. I'm seeing if anyone can help the nomination move along. I'm not leaving more details here in hopes of this actually being discussed at the nomination and not on this talk page. SL93 (talk) 16:49, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

@SL93: I commented over there, and hope it helped. I think anyone who is willing to believe cities and towns did not find a way to practice segregation, even in my lifetime and after the civil rights legislation, surely never lived in 20th century USA. — Maile (talk) 20:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Sigh. Nobody was saying that, and blanket disregarding is plain unhelpful in any case. The source seems to some to be saying that "segregation" wasn't allowed, so the city plan got around this by creating segregation-in-all-but-name. Of course, that becomes important when the article and hook want to call it segregation-in-name. Even the fact that point is debatable should rule out any hook that could possibly be accusing the city planners of breaking their own laws (even if they did openly state they were deliberately sneaking around them) just because someone else wants to be willfully blind to semantics. I imagine they're long dead so it's not BLPCRIME, but it feels like an important issue to not just assume. The real question is the nominator's sheer refusal to consider another hook subject anyway. Kingsif (talk) 03:04, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. — Maile (talk) 03:23, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Easter egg?

Latest comment: 3 years ago20 comments5 people in discussion

In the hook:

would it be better to link separately to Abdul Karim and Queen Victoria, rather than linking to the recent movie about their relationship? MeegsC (talk) 16:52, 16 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would think so. Gatoclass (talk) 18:05, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Whispyhistory and Philafrenzy, would you be okay with me making this change? MeegsC (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
No, obviously not, because the film is based on her book. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:03, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Ah! Okay. Thanks for clarifying Philafrenzy. What a shame we don't have an article about her book! MeegsC (talk) 21:58, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
I have suggested it to Whispyhistory but it would have to be quite long to justify a separate article given it is already covered in the biography - and everyone is very busy right now. Philafrenzy (talk) 21:59, 16 May 2021 (UTC)
Philafrenzy, Gatoclass and MeegsC, thank you for your comments. I'm not of a strong opinion. She does say somewhere that the film is very close to the book....but, I'll create an article on the book shortly. Excuse my ignorance, why is this section called "easter egg"? Whispyhistory (talk) 14:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
It's like Easter Egg hunt (a hidden thing). The link might not go where you expect it to. See also Easter Egg. Are you going to have enough material to justify a separate article? That would be three or four covering that ground. You could deal with it in her bio. Philafrenzy (talk) 15:06, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Oops...done it already. Whispyhistory (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks Whispyhistory. I've replaced the film link in your hook with a link to the book. MeegsC (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
That is not the normal meaning of the word discover. If the claim was that she was the first to discover the relationship, the hook would say precisely that. It's not misleading at all because "discovered" is preceded by "Indian writer Shrabani Basu", thus qualifying the statement. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:20, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Philafrenzy, I disagree. I read it as she was the one who uncovered the relationship (as, I'm sure, would others), when in truth it was already well-known, as I discovered when I went to the Abdul Karim (the Munshi) page. She certainly brought the story to a modern audience, through her book and the resulting movie. MeegsC (talk) 09:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I concur with EEng and MeegsC regarding the use of the word "discovered" in this context. "Learned about" would be the appropriate phrase IMO. Gatoclass (talk) 09:28, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The point of the hook was not to make a claim for her as the first anyway, it was that she did it while researching curry. Philafrenzy (talk) 09:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
No probs. Since we appear to have consensus on this issue, I have tweaked the hook accordingly. Gatoclass (talk) 09:52, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Technical issue on the count of DYK hooks

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

There's a problem with the DYK count template in that it's not counting the entries for today. It came after @Tamingimpala: (I assume) accidentally changed 18 to 16. After he did it again I did inform him to stop doing it. But the counter template is now no longer recognising the section for today. Is someone technically minded able to fix this please? The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 12:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks like this is resolved now, your edits fixed it up. The DYK count table is updated ~every 30 minutes, so it takes some time for changes in the nominations page to be reflected in the table. Shubinator (talk) 14:03, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Completed prep 2: feedback appreciated

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments4 people in discussion

Hi editors: I completed prep 2, my first complete set. I would appreciate feedback on how it can be improved. Thanks. Z1720 (talk) 01:59, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Haven't checked each article hook, but that's a good mix. Regarding Template:Did you know nominations/Rashid Mahdi, we generally try not to include unlinked names in hooks (although I note the individual has a fr.wiki article). Luckily I think a simple edit to make it "a French Photographer" would work without sacrificing any hookiness. CMD (talk) 02:45, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Munfarid1, are you okay with the decision to remove Claude Iverné's name, or do you want to quickly make a short article about him? MeegsC (talk) 08:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
MeegsC thanks for the suggestion, but at this stage, I prefer to remove Iverné's name and just mention him in the hook as "a French photographer". Also, there are just not enough sources about him in English. Munfarid1 (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  Done I made the suggested change in the hook, per agreement from nominator and reviewer. Thanks all. MeegsC (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the feedback CMD, I didn't know about avoiding naming people without wiki-articles. Thanks MeegsC for sorting out and fixing the hook. @Munfarid1: Wikipedia allows sources from other languages, especially for topics from places where English is not the dominant language. For example, today my hook for Musée de l'Amérique francophone is running on the main page, and the article uses many French-language sources. Z1720 (talk) 17:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Plot-based hooks

Latest comment: 3 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Sorry if this is a perennial question, but can the requirement for the hook fact to be cited in the article (WP:DYKDN) be waived for plot summaries, which are generally uncited and verifiable to the primary source? I'd suggested trying plot-based hooks for Template:Did you know nominations/22 vs. Earth, which is really short and doesn't otherwise have a lot to work with. – Reidgreg (talk) 15:58, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Plot summaries are generally unacceptable as hooks. Hooks for works of fiction need to connect that work of fiction to the real world, rather than being purely in-universe, and that connection will need a source. If an article is very short and doesn't have a lot to work with to make an acceptable hook, you could consider not having a DYK for it; not every new article should be at DYK. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
"... that the Pixar short film 22 vs. Earth features Alice Braga and Richard Ayoade as two counselors who are both called Jerry?" Black Kite (talk) 18:54, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
or more concisely "... that in the Pixar short film 22 vs. Earth both Alice Braga and Richard Ayoade play counselors named Jerry?" Something like that is quirky enough to make a decent hook, and one that should easily be citable; good idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Pentecost

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
  Resolved

I noticed only now that Q5 (23 June) has not only a hymn by me - as wished - but also Thomas Fritsch, also by me. Can the latter be moved? If not, swapped to not also have two "German" ones in a row? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:34, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Amakuru, Maile, Cas Liber, valereee, Cwmhiraeth, ONUnicorn, Wugapodes, and Lee Vilenski SL93 (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Done. I swapped in the Annamary Dickey hook which was in Q6 to keep balance. — Wug·a·po·des​ 03:40, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

AFD idea

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Having just suggested 10 hooks across two noms, each nom page now looks to me like a single set. All about the same subject. Which I find very funny. Perhaps, given the right article, we could create a full set about that one thing as one of the April Fools' Day sets next year. Or feel free to tell me that's the least funny thing you can think of! Kingsif (talk) 23:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kingsif: Rewriting this. Trying to understand. Are you talking about April Fools Day, and nothing else? Right now, I have no opinion, if this is restricted to April Fools Day. — Maile (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
@Maile66: Yes, just April Fools' Day. Kingsif (talk) 04:38, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Template problem with image

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

at Template:Did you know nominations/Glass engraving. I've tried but can't fix. Could some kind person do so? Thanks, Johnbod (talk) 13:50, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Not sure where the problem came from but I think I've fixed it here. There may have been a stray bracket in the |image= parameter. DanCherek (talk) 13:54, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, thanks. I tried all sorts of thinkgs.... Johnbod (talk) 14:14, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Prep 3 Prep 7 Prep 2 - several concerns

Latest comment: 3 years ago25 comments11 people in discussion

Pinging SL93, who built this prep.

1. ... that the delusion of Mr. Dick (pictured) went from a bull in a china-shop to King Charles's head?

My first concern was that this doesn't seem to meet Supplementary rule C6, which requires that "If the subject is a work of fiction or a fictional character, the hook must involve the real world in some way." I see from your edit summary here that you seemed to consider that concern and assumed some exception applied. I can maybe see the real world involvement when I read the article, which indicates that the author changed the nature of the character's mental illness at the urging of someone who read a draft of the article and provided negative feedback about it, however the hook doesn't make that clear. I would probably let it go if it was in the quirky slot, but it isn't - and from what I can tell the image hook always goes in the first slot, and it's a good image, so I'm not sure what to do with it.
Am I overthinking the real-world requirement in regards to this hook?
I cannot find where it's written anywhere that the image hook must be in the lead slot, but I also cannot find any time that it wasn't. Could this be moved to the quirky slot and keep the image?
Pinging article expander Andrew Davidson and reviewer Dugan Murphy
ONUnicorn, this isn't an "in universe" hook. Dickens changed his mind about the fixation the character would have. His first draft had Mr. Dick fixating on a bull in a china shop. However, he changed his mind, and the published version had him fixating on King Charles's head instead. It's pretty clear in the article. I know, because I went to the article expecting to make the same complaint myself. ;) MeegsC (talk) 07:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
The explanation here makes sense, but it is a paragraph long. I still see an issue with the hook, though, in that one needs to know that the Mr. Dick being referred to is fictional and that the hook relates to a story he features in, otherwise it is absolute gibberish. Adding "in Book" before or after "the delusion", and changing "went" to "was changed" would fix that. Kingsif (talk) 15:10, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I would just use Kingsif's suggestion. SL93 (talk) 00:03, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Why not add Dickens himself to the hook (and get rid of that odd hyphen in "china shop"): ... that Dickens changed the delusion of Mr. Dick (pictured) from a bull in a china shop to King Charles's head? BlueMoonset (talk) 00:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I've changed it to a combination of Kingsif and BlueMoonset's suggestions, to "... that Dickens changed the delusion of David Copperfield's Mr. Dick (pictured) from a bull in a china-shop to King Charles's head?" If anyone thinks that's too wordy, feel free to change it. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 03:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, it's too wordy so I've trimmed it back closer to the original. BlueMoonset's point about the hyphen is fine – I've checked the lyrics of the Grimaldi song and it didn't have one. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I reverted Andrew Davidson's own reversion, which went against the discussion here (and really shouldn't have been done by the original nominator). I thought the inclusion of David Copperfield stretched the hook out too much, so I subsequently removed it. BlueMoonset (talk) 15:17, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

2. ... that ancient Spartans ate black soup, which was made using pork blood, meat, salt, and vinegar?

Speaking of the quirky slot... Wouldn't this be more "hooky" and "quirky" if we omitted the list of ingredients? I mean - I know (and tend to think it's pretty common knowledge, but maybe not everyone watches as many cooking shows as I do) that a lot of foods called "black" black sausage and black pudding contain blood, so that's not that surprising for people who know that, and for people who don't know that, the fact that we then tell them what it is eliminates the need for them to click through and read the article.
Pinging reviewer Z1720 and WikiEd instructor Gardneca - what would you think of truncating the hook to "... that ancient Spartans ate black soup?"
I'm definitely okay with truncating the hook, I think that's much more intriguing - thanks! Gardneca (talk) 11:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I'm OK with using the hook proposed above. Z1720 (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I've gone ahead and changed this one. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 16:31, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree that the hook is better without the ingredients, making it more mysterious and so encouraging click-throughs. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:36, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

3. ... that avant-garde artist Hu Zhiying's master's degree was denied after his thesis was labeled as being "not in line with Marxist principles"?

I'm not sure how unusual, unexpected, or surprising it is for this to happen in Mainland China. Much more interesting I think is what the next sentence indicates, that other members of the university community "jointly expressed their opinion to the Academy and higher-level authorities that academic freedom should be respected". Could we craft a hook out of this that is short enough?
If we go ahead with the original hook, the hook fact needs a citation in the article. I've added a citation needed tag. I assume the citation at the end of the next sentence is supposed to apply to both, but the rules indicate it should be immediately after the sentence the hook is drawn from. I'd put it there myself but it's an off-line source that I don't have access to and it's in Chinese anyway, so I can't verify it, and would prefer to have someone who can verify it put it there (so, the article expander).
Pinging expander Jujiang and reviewer 4meter4

I hope this isn't too picky. But I just wasn't comfortable promoting this prep. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 05:01, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

I promoted the Mr. Dick hook out of good faith per the contributors and the activity at the nomination. I personally think that the next two hooks were fine, while the non-direct citation is an issue. SL93 (talk) 18:42, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
@ONUnicorn: I think that the Hu Zhiying article should be pulled. I saw that there are two online references for the hook on the nomination page, but my translator can't find even a tidbit of the hook. I then did a little research by picking a random sentence. I looked at the sentence "Hu Zhiying teaches modern art and traditional Chinese calligraphy and painting at the College of Fine Arts of South China Normal University. In the 1990s, he was invited to exhibit his work in Europe.[18][1]". Neither the English reference or the translated reference verified the sentence. I guess assuming good faith blindly on non-English sources can go too far. SL93 (talk) 23:02, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
SL93, the first reference says "华南师范大学美术学院教授", which I read as "professor at the fine arts college of South China Normal University". It doesn't say what he teaches. The second reference is an exhibition catalogue that verifies that his work was exhibited in Munich in 1996. But I couldn't find any reference to "Marxism" (马克思主义) in online works referring to Hu Zhiying either. —Kusma (t·c) 18:40, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Kusma I'm going to look into the article more. The teaching issue was found by me picking a sentence at random. I will look more thoroughly. SL93 (talk) 19:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I found more issues and I posted them at the nomination page. SL93 (talk) 20:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
I looked on the nominator's talk page and saw an articles for creation denial on October 9, 2020 with the beginning statement - "Probably notable but the draft has significant problems. Several sections are unsourced, but the particular problem is large sections are sources to the subjects own book or related sources. In these sections the tone the wrong, being vaguely promotional, using peacock terms and the references don't support the statements in some cases." SL93 (talk) 00:01, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
SL93, they also haven't edited since the 15th. Perhaps you're right and we should send it back for more work and swap in a different hook. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 03:44, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
ONUnicorn I boldly pulled the hook and I moved a hook from prep 4 to replace it. The set should now be ready to promote. SL93 (talk) 17:05, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Because of the need to promote sets in a timely manner, I have swapped Prep 3 with Prep 7, the first set without a special occasion hook, to give time for these points to be addressed. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Since Prep 7 was suddenly the next prep to promote, with Queue 7 waiting to receive it, I have done a further swap, and the former Prep 3 is now in Prep 2, from which it cannot be promoted for at least 24 hours. I hope that the issues can be settled by then. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:00, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I was only notified of the discussion here not long ago today. Thank you for your comments. I have added references to this question. The overall reference material for this article is also quite a lot and rigorous. Hope to restore the homepage to promote this article. Thank you. --Jujiang (talk) 18:15, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Prep 3: date request hook to be added

Latest comment: 3 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

Template:Did you know nominations/Sing (Travis song), which I've just approved, has a date request for 28 May. Would someone be able to promote it to the correct prep for 28 May (which I believe is Prep 3, but please do double check)? Joseph2302 (talk) 16:03, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

  Done Kingsif (talk) 18:30, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Great Pagoda, Kew Gardens

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments4 people in discussion

If anyone wants to try mining this for a DYK, they are very welcome. 80 dragons / £5M restoration / multiple awards / "the most important surviving chinoiserie building in Europe" - there's got to be a vaguely interesting hook in there somewhere. KJP1 (talk) 13:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Great topic. I would support a chinoiserie-related hook. Is Bertram 2017 a typo for Bertram 2013? CMD (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Good spot! Now corrected. Feel free to nominate/craft hook. I’ve little experience of DYK, but I’d agree the chinoiserie quotes are the most notable elements. Although the restoration was pretty fantastic, and I do like the 3D nylon dragons. All the best. KJP1 (talk) 16:57, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
Personally I'd go with the now-repaired holes for the smoke bombs. EEng 08:00, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Chinoiserie would be a nice educational angle to go with though. I myself didn't know what it was until clicking on the link. Gatoclass (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Educational, shmeducational. EEng 06:19, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
Up at Template:Did you know nominations/Great Pagoda, Kew Gardens, whether it will be educational or schmeducational now in the hands of the reviewer gods. CMD (talk) 15:44, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Odd closing error

Latest comment: 3 years ago7 comments5 people in discussion

I closed Template:Did you know nominations/Gao Jiamin, but for some reason two comments didn't get enclosed correctly and are even showing below the May 4 nomination section on the Approved list. SL93 (talk) 23:29, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

I've fixed it. If you look at the source code of the nomination before it was promoted (Special:Permalink/1023902259), the last two comments had been accidentally inserted after the closing braces of the {{DYKsubpage}} template. DanCherek (talk) 23:35, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks. I will keep this in mind. SL93 (talk) 23:37, 20 May 2021 (UTC)
SL93, I find it helpful to use "Show preview" to look at a nomination I'm closing, to make sure there aren't any issues such as comments appearing below the colored closed section. If it looks good, then I click on "Publish changes"; if not, I figure out what the issue is, fix it, and then close it. BlueMoonset (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
So that's what that "Show Preview" button is for! I've been wondering! EEng 15:31, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
I don't get the impression that SL93 didn't use the preview button. I think he used it and then wasn't sure how to fix the fact that several of the comments weren't inside the box. Unless you know to check for comments beyond the template boundaries, there isn't much you can do to correct that! Now he knows. And so do others who might not have already come across this problem (which happens pretty regularly, by the way). MeegsC (talk) 15:46, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
MeegsC is right. I submitted it to complete the promotion and then I posted here to learn how to fix it myself.SL93 (talk) 18:59, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Template problem

Latest comment: 3 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

There is some sort of template problem with the DYK nomination for Engraved glass and the review page is blank, see here. Expert help needed! Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:36, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

You mean Template:Did you know nominations/Glass engraving? User:Johnbod moved the article to the new title a day or so ago, but I don't think the DYK nomination is required to match. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:42, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
I think I've fixed it up with this edit, try again. Shubinator (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks - I should have moved it before nominating! Seems ok now. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
That's a top-class article Johnbod. Nice work! MeegsC (talk) 17:29, 22 May 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Prep 6 date request

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Please can someone add Template:Did you know nominations/O komm, du Geist der Wahrheit to prep 6 (for 23rd May)? It will require moving on of the other hooks. It's a special occasion request hook for that date, but I forgot (until just now) to put it in the Special occasion holding area. Thanks in advance. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:24, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

  Done MeegsC (talk) 17:30, 17 May 2021 (UTC)
A couple of points: Joseph2302, it's Prep 5 rather than Prep 6 that hits the main page at 00:00, 23 May 2021 (UTC), so I've moved the hook to Prep 5. MeegsC, please include a comment that mentions that it's a special occasion for a specific date with any special occasion hook that you promote to prep, so people know that it is a special occasion hook; I've done that for this hook. (You don't want it moved to some other date because someone needs to replace a hook removed from a queue or to rebalance another prep set.) Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:57, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Will do BlueMoonset. Thanks for fixing it, and for showing me how it's done. MeegsC (talk) 06:56, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
Thanks BlueMoonset I must have been looking at the wrong timezone on the dates table. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:15, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Requesting a second review

Latest comment: 3 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I had reviewed a hook recently (Template:Did you know nominations/Culture of Ladakh), but there were concerns raised about Conflict of Interest, as I had also edited the article, but only after I started reviewing, to add some content and remove content that was directly copied from sources and other Wikipedia articles causing copyright violation. The changes were also notified to the nominator. If any other user not associated with the article can again review the hook, it would be most appropriate.

Thanks!

Kavyansh.Singh (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

@Kavyansh.Singh: You should be fine to review if your edits were just that. Kingsif (talk) 19:08, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kavyansh.Singh, you also want to discuss removals for copyvio on the editor's user talk to make sure they understand our policy.
In this case, from the article history I see that they copied quite a few chunks of text from Ladakh -- which is fine -- and since Ladakh was created nearly 20 years ago, it's very possible those apparent copyvios were actually on websites that were copying Wikipedia (which is also fine) so it may not even be a copyvio. Definitely worth discussing with that editor, either way. —valereee (talk) 11:52, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

all preps full

Latest comment: 3 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

I've moved one, can someone move another so prep builders will have space to work? Amakuru, Maile, Cas Liber, valereee, Cwmhiraeth, ONUnicorn, Wugapodes, and Lee Vilenski —valereee (talk) 14:46, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

  Done - but it really makes little difference, as the queues are also full. Gatoclass (talk) 15:24, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
It's good that's done because Prep 4 (set to run on 5 June) has 2 special occasion hooks (one of which is a pic hook) in the holding area that needs to be put in there. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 15:31, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
@The C of E: moved your hooks in; feel free to check them. Kingsif (talk) 15:53, 23 May 2021 (UTC)
Also if we can keep the approved noms down we can maybe avoid 2-a-days for a couple more weeks lol... —valereee (talk) 17:16, 23 May 2021 (UTC)

"First person to do X" hooks

Latest comment: 3 years ago65 comments22 people in discussion

Continuing my broken record about the problem we have with boring hooks, I've been seeing a lot of hooks lately that derive 100% of their supposed interest from noting that someone was the first person to do something. These should almost always be failing the interestingness criterion, since everything was accomplished first by someone, and thus there is no intrinsic draw for readers to check out a page based on that alone. I think reviewers are often too polite to tell nominators this, but it'd be nice if they or someone else did. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 10:00, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

It is also often a spurious claim, relying on limited knowledge by a local source claimed to apply to a wider area, or with various qualifiers omitted in the article, or the hook. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 10:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, I disagree with the everything was accomplished first by someone argument, at least as a flat generality, because the interest for the reader isn't imagined to be that someone did X first, but rather how and under what circumstances X was done first, by what kind of person – that's why they might click. I'm not saying that as a free pass for all "first" hooks -- "first to offer free pony rides for kids in Kalamazoo" still isn't interesting.
    Anyway, the more serious problem is, as mentioned, that these claims are so often spurious. EEng 12:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    Being the first to do something is more interesting than being one of many to do it. Whether that makes a hook interesting does depend on how interesting the thing itself is, though. I don't see how to formulate any criterion around this but I do tend to agree that the requirement that a hook be interesting isn't often given much weight and perhaps it should be. I haven't noticed any particular problem with "first to" hooks. Perhaps there are other areas where we repeat ourselves a lot or could ask for more. › Mortee talk 23:23, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
  • "Everything is accomplished first by someone, back in your box Neil Armstrong!" Only in death does duty end (talk) 13:01, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    I imagine if FAs ever become eligible for DYK, "Did you know that Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon?" wouldn't cut it.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    Neil Armstrong accomplished much more than the moon landing, before and after the event. He got chosen for the moon landing because of the other stuff in his career. My objection to the "first person to do X" hooks, is that it overlooks everything else in the article. If they are notable enough to have an article, they have accomplished other things in their lives. Build the hook on the other stuff. — Maile (talk) 13:14, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
    That is a non-reason. You could say the same thing about any other one thing they have done. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
Aw, man, these hooks. The problem is the alternatives for them are generally much worse. "First X" at least has some inherent baseline amount of interest. A lot of the time rejecting such a hook would have to translate to rejecting the article completely, and while I'd be happy for DYK norms to change to "routinely reject articles unable to produce interesting hooks", even putting aside the matter of subjectivity it's...questionable...if anyone actually wants to be the people to lead that change. Vaticidalprophet 22:50, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I agree. I don't think "first person to do X" hooks are inherently wrong and in fact can be interesting a lot of the time. It's not as if we get a ton of them either. With that said, possible compromise options could include having hooks that go "that X, the first person to Y, is Z?" Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 23:04, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I think in most such cases the Z is something much less interesting that only serves to make the hooks drag, and that long hooks tend to be unpopular. Vaticidalprophet 23:16, 7 May 2021 (UTC)
I think that a distinction can and should be drawn between "the first person to" for "persons" in general, and "the first woman to" or similar firsts that represent the first person from an historically disadvantaged group. If, for example, we were just now having Jackie Robinson come up at DYK, it would be overwhelmingly obvious that the best hook would be that he was the first Black person to play in the major baseball leagues, and to replace that with a hook about him having hit a certain number of home runs would be just plain silly. I see nothing wrong with requiring that there be nothing dubious or inadequately sourced about the "firstness", and nothing wrong with examining critically whether or not being first is really the most interesting characteristic of the page subject, but I strongly oppose making this a broad requirement. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:40, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
There are biographies where being the first person to overcome a certain disadvantage is worth stressing, and others where it isn't necessarily a great idea. See also WP:FIRSTWOMAN and Finkbeiner test for one point of view. Generally I'm ok with "first person to do X" hooks, as long as X is interesting. (Disclaimer: I've recently written an article about the first Nazi concentration camp that is currently at WP:DYKNA, and my motivation to choose this particular camp wasn't that it is the most interesting camp, but that it was the first. I feel with people who care about who or what was first). —Kusma (t·c) 18:52, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
As a few above have said, it does depend on what the thing is - if you were the first woman to win a men's wrestling championship, that would probably be incredibly interesting. If it's the first European player to play in the US national team, that would be interesting (if confusing). But generally these are things that would also be interesting if you omit the "first person to" bit. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 18:47, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I'll add that it's worth considering how sources (perhaps other than sources that are "making a point") treat the "firstness". If sources tend to regard this as something that is WP:DEFINING for the page subject, then I agree that it's rather eccentric to regard that as uninteresting. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • WOW - DYK sure was a different process then. The hook appeared on the main page on March 2, but the article on Thutmose I wasn't created until March 5. I wasn't around then, but those must have been Wikipedia's salad days of trying to figure out how it should proceed. — Maile (talk) 22:31, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I do, because like it or not, double standards exist in some subtle ways . We need to state what a woman achieved either on her way to becoming the first of something, or after she achieved. Takes a lot of hard work to become the first of something. — Maile (talk) 23:25, 8 May 2021 (UTC)
I think "first person to..." hooks are far from the biggest problem in DYK hooks today. Just looking at the current set, I see yet another "did you know that a musician played a piece of music" snoozefest, for instance, along with "did you know that an athlete got an award for being an athlete", for instance. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
  • I would hope that a takeaway from this discussion is that it would be a mistake to conclude that there should be hard and fast rules about this. I find it interesting that some editors feel that it diminishes a "first woman to" to be described in that way. I can see a perfectly reasonable argument that this actually emphasizes, in some cases, an extraordinary achievement, and one that is well worth celebrating, because it represented the overcoming of difficult odds and was seen by reliable sources as having been worthy of note. My point is not that one of these views is correct and the other is incorrect, but rather that it does not reduce to a simple formula to which all reasonable people would agree. I also think that it's questionable whether being first is inherently uninteresting because there is always somebody who was the first. Sometimes, it can, inherently, be very interesting, but it depends on what "it" is, and how significant the difference is between having been first and having been second. Similarly, I don't think that it's always true that having been first at an accomplishment is less important than the total accomplishments of a person, or that the fact that the "firstness" derived from those accomplishments means that citing the "firstness" implies disrespect of the accomplishments. Does highlighting the fact that the Wright Brothers were the first at what they did diminish their mechanical design skills? Is it less interesting than those skills? Of course not.
I think part of the real problem here is that we don't want too much repetition – of anything – in hooks as they appear. There's nothing wrong with limiting only one "first to" hook in any given set of hooks that appear together. But I also think that readers – remember them? – generally don't pay that much attention to whether the appearance of one "first to" hook today follows another one yesterday. I think that's something that some editors will notice, and some of them may begin to find that they can't help but to keep noticing it, but that matters much less to most readers. In contrast, having a concise and catchy hook is much better for readers than having a verbose and committee-written one, because editors were determined not to say "first to". --Tryptofish (talk) 20:40, 9 May 2021 (UTC)
That's my cue to repeat my annual hopeless suggestion that we should run only 1/2 of the articles nominated, and select which 1/2 to run by straight ILIKEIT voting on which ones are interesting vs. not. Heartless, no-reason-given voting. Done. EEng 08:43, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
  Vaticidalprophet 08:46, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
+1 —valereee (talk) 11:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to be the first person to say: heartless, without reason: that's the en-wiki way!   --Tryptofish (talk) 16:45, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
oppose Its not a popularity contest, and never was. So nope--Kevmin § 17:08, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kevmin, I'll argue this just a bit from the other way of looking at it...in a way, "generally interesting" does need to be a sort of "popularity contest" (and always has been), although I kind of hate to term it that way. Our hooks need to be generally interesting -- that is, interesting to a lot of readers -- so if the average editor doesn't find them interesting, what would make us think the average reader would? —valereee (talk) 18:31, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Valereee Define "average reader" though. Lets be honest, its a mythical construct that doesn't actually exist, and is used as a proxy to avoid outright saying "regular DYN editors".--Kevmin § 20:44, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kevmin, I'm sorry, not trying to be obtuse, but I don't know what you mean by avoid outright saying "regular DYN editors". If I'm understanding you correctly, that's actually exactly what I mean: if DYK regulars who think a hook is boring > DYK regulars who think it's interesting, we cull the hook. —valereee (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Valereee thats NOT what the rule as it stands not says though, it specifically makes it about an "average reader", which per the main page, would be an "average reader as defined by the 6 million views the main page gets in 24 hours" NOT by the >20 regular DYK contributors.--Kevmin § 22:40, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
@Kevmin, again, sorry if I'm being obtuse. If we can't use our average regular as a proxy for our average reader, what proxy should we be using? —valereee (talk) 23:12, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
Valereee What IS the "average reader" for a page that has 6.004 million views daily, given that every hook will be interesting (with a few very obvious exceptions) to a subset that 6.004 million.--Kevmin § 00:21, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
To insert myself on this question: surely you know what mentioning "average reader" means. It's not referring to any one person or even any potential person, it's a reminder that our hooks are meant for readers. (Or, our hooks are not meant for the nominators who already know all about them.) We must assume that the average reader is capable of understanding Wikipedia, i.e. English, comprehension, standard general knowledge, but very little else; no specific interests, no specialist knowledge. If any pop culture or history knowledge is average, it is that which is international: Oscars, WW2. Thus, something generally interesting to an average reader both does not rely on specialist knowledge, and is interesting without that - typically by being generally unusual. For example, we must assume someone reading Wikipedia knows what the internet is, and by all accounts what a cow is, so if we had a hook about a specific cow, it would be interesting to say it could use the internet. It wouldn't be interesting to detail the species of cow, unless we mention that species was wiped out in the Cold War, as general audiences know that was a long time ago and can deduce this cow must be much older than one expects a cow to live. Or, we cannot quiz every MP reader (of whom only a tiny amount even see DYK, it is at the bottom and not most readers' purpose for visiting) on the hooks they want to see beforehand, which would be a pointless exercise anyway, so we ask friendly volunteers who are not subject experts to weigh in if they, as a representative poll of humanity, like any polling situation, understand and are interested. DYK editors are average readers as much as anyone else. Kingsif (talk) 03:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
From the kneejerk opposition you'll see why I introduced this as my annual hopeless suggestion. Until next year, then, adios! EEng 06:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I look forward to whatever next year's debate may bring... Kingsif (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
I like that suggestion, EEng. That'd solve our problem of boring hooks quite well. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:16, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are a lot of editors who take a kind of Special Olympics everyone-gets-a-trophy attitude i.e. that it would be unfair and judgy to actually discuss whether a hook is interesting (or, by extension, whether there aren't a lot of articles that just don't have interesting hooks within them) and therefore we have to run everything; I have never ever seen a nom rejected because no sufficiently interesting hook could be formulated. We once had a guy who (apparently working from some government inventory) nominated every river, creek, and stream in the state of Pennsylvania for DYK and we ran every one of them. 300 unbelievably boring hooks, day after day, week after week, month after month FOR YEARS. Actually, I don't think he was nearly done; he retired because of some argument over something completely unrelated. For all I know there are 5000 more little creeks to be honored with a DYK, and we'd still be working our way through them even today.
Highlights:
  • ... that Mile Run is really almost two miles long? (Get it?)
  • ... that in 1965 a USGS employee found everyone he met in Freeburg, Pennsylvania, knew a nearby stream as "Susquehecka Creek", but only two knew how to spell it?
  • ... that uses of Trout Run include a hatchery and a water supply for a city and a prison?
  • ... that the Espy Bog is the only site in Columbia County, Pennsylvania where organic soils have been observed?
  • ... that the mouths of Rough Run and Peterman Run are only 0.06 miles (0.1 km) from each other?
(That last one was a double nom -- how exciting!) Want more? See [5]. Imagine how stupid we looked featuring, pretty much every day or two, at least one such piece of nonsense.
In an abundance of transparency, I rush to point out that I found a way to cynically exploit the situation. Turns out these noms could be reviewed in about two minutes each, and made it my business to detect each new nom by this particular editor. As a result, I have hoard of about 50 QPQs going back years, and I'll never have to review another DYK for as long as I live (or possibly even longer). EEng 22:24, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
Yes, I remember that series of hooks - the earlier ones anyway - and some of them were truly awful. As I recall I did challenge some of them and the user in question did not take kindly to it. However, IIRC his hook writing did improve over time. The above selection of hooks really aren't all that bad, except for the last one.
We have to remember that DYK isn't solely about featuring interesting facts. It's also about presenting a selection of new articles being added to the project on a daily basis, to remind readers of the scope of topics being written about and the fact that new articles are being added constantly. To that end, I think it was a big mistake to remove the spiel the DYK section used to include which said something along the lines of "from Wikipedia's new or recently improved content". Readers need to understand that this is a selection of content presented on the basis that it is new, it's not a collection of the most interesting facts we could find, which is what is implied by the lack of explanation. I've been meaning to propose for years that the explanatory text be restored, perhaps in a different place (which as I recall was the substance of the original objection to it) and/or with slightly different wording, but like many of the things I plan to do on Wikipedia, just haven't managed to find the time. Gatoclass (talk) 05:12, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
No matter what the intro is ("from Wikipedia's new or recently improved content" or whatever), DYK as it stands doesn't remind readers of the scope of our content or that new stuff's always being added. It by design directs readers to our most slap-dash, incomplete articles, by inexperienced editors, that have receivied only superficial review by (typically) other inexperienced editors. 20 years ago it might have been a way of motivating article creation; now it's just a longstanding embarrassment.
We should dump the pointless newness criterion and instead run only GAs. Imagine if all this effort was redirected at bringing articles to GA! EEng 05:31, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The other reason for DYK which I did not previously mention is to reward users for adding new content, and encourage them to continue contributing to the encyclopedia. Restricting DYK to GAs only would reduce that purpose. And let's face it, a lot of GAs really are not worthy of the accolade anyway. Apart from which, your analysis strikes me as outdated - I rarely see the kind of basic stubby nominations we used to get in spades, most DYKs these days are quite substantial and well developed. Gatoclass (talk) 05:53, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
If they're so substantial and well developed, then taking them to GA isn't that big a step. That might be 70% of them, which will then be eligible to be featured on the main page (if there's a sufficiently interesting hook -- see above). The other 30% we won't feature, sorry. GA is admittedly a middling achievement but it's a hell of a lot better than some of the dreck that passes DYK currently. EEng 06:39, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Well, I hope you enjoyed your annual gripe. See you again next year! Gatoclass (talk) 01:41, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Wait, so EEng#s, do you mean that you complain about "boring hooks", and say they should be rejected, but were happy to promote "truly awful" hooks because they let you build up a store of QPQs? Huh. How strongly do you really feel about boring hooks? [Insert side-eye emoji here.] MeegsC (talk) 14:48, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
I put some effort into trying to end the flood of stupid Pennsylvania waterway hooks, but there were too many editors who believe in everyone-gets-a-trophy (see above) so I gave up. After that, I figured someone was going to review them anyway, so it might as well be me. After all, I'm universally acknowledged to be DYK's all-time greatest hooker (see User:EEng#dyk), so accumulating all those QPQs let me concentrate my creative energies on my true calling – hooking. Think of it as DYK's version of a Macarthur genius award. So it was for the greater good, you see. EEng 16:59, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Tryptofish, yep. Just to clarify, I'm not proposing that we adopt some sort of rule here, just that we hold ourselves more generally to higher interestingness standards, with this being something I see as one of example of where we falter. I also agree with David Eppstein that there are plenty of other ways we falter on interestingness, too. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:22, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • For what it's worth, I use the "ice breaker" test: if I were to read the DYK aloud to someone in a bar, would I expect them to engage? It accounts for a few things, like general interesting-ness; being comprehensible to a wide audience; not giving too much away so people want to ask more; and attention-grabbing enough to put down a drink. Lots of "did you know X was the first woman to Y" can pass this test, depending on the Y. If Y is "cross the road" or something, your bar-mate's response will probably be "that's nice" and back to what they were doing before. Kingsif (talk) 21:58, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
    I like this test a lot! Let's keep in mind that what we're competing against with DYK is every other list of fun facts on the internet, since readers aren't confined to Wikipedia. There are a million fun facts that could pass the ice breaker test, so if ours aren't meeting at least that same standard, readers will stop paying attention. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 20:19, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
  • What Tryptofish said. "First to" generally makes for a pretty good hook IMO, so long as the "first" isn't too trivial - but we should strive to avoid more than one per set. EEng also has a valid point however that "firsts" are sometimes not well enough sourced, so that is a factor nominators, reviewers and promoters should bear in mind. Gatoclass (talk) 05:34, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    I hasten to clarify that the chronic sourcing problems were originally Cwmhiraeth's point. I know it's easy to think that everything worthwhile originates with me, but sometimes an editor here or there comes up with something I didn't think of first. EEng 06:26, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
    Did you know ... that EEng was not the first person to think of that? --Tryptofish (talk) 20:12, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

"First person" section break

  Facepalm As a result of the discussion here, I agreed at Template:Did you know nominations/Ora Nichols to change:

... that Ora Nichols was the first woman to run a radio sound effects unit?
to:
... that Ora Nichols pioneered the use of radio sound effects?
Unfortunately, as I've said in Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 177#Queue 5 error, below, it got changed and full-protected to:
... that Ora Nichols was a pioneer in the use of radio sound effects?
Just look at how that progressively watered down both the "hookiness", and the fidelity to source material, of the hook. At this point, I'm very, very sorry that I ever agreed to the original change. This is a clear example of something that I, and other editors, warned about earlier in this discussion: that the fear of saying "the first person to" can lead to wishy-washy hooks. --Tryptofish (talk) 20:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
So this is a case where it would be better to pull entirely? If you can't think of anything interesting to say that isn't "first to [do something mundane]" (and the secondary change was clearly POV-guarding, a general improvement), maybe there just isn't anything interesting to say. Kingsif (talk) 23:36, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
Well that's just silly. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:41, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
For the avoidance of doubt, I too think this would be silly. pioneer in the use of radio sound effects is quite interesting; the issue is only what species of pioneer. EEng 23:57, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
A pioneer species would probably be a transgenic one.[Joke] --Tryptofish (talk) 00:15, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
Concur with Tryptofish here; this is exactly what I was thinking about. Vaticidalprophet 00:00, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
@Tryptofish: Was Ora Nichols the first person to head a radio sound effects unit, or just the first woman to head such a unit? In the first case, she might be described as "the pioneer" of radio sound effects, while in the second she is better described as "a pioneer". Cwmhiraeth (talk) 05:37, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
According to the sources, she was definitely the first woman, and probably the first person. The issue one gets into with "first person" here is that there were male radio sound effects people who worked alone before her, so there is a question of terminology: one might regard someone working alone as being the de facto head, or not. However, the people before her were minor players, and it is Nichols (and Ora, rather than her husband) who is repeatedly described, both by primary sources from the time, and from secondary sources subsequently, as being, uniquely, the person who put radio sound effects on the map. She created a huge number of them, that did not yet exist in the fledgling practice before her, and she is repeatedly singled out as having had a major influence on the sound and style of radio broadcasting as a whole. Also, I had a reason, perhaps not apparent in the discussion here, for distinguishing between "pioneer", the noun, and "to pioneer", the verb. My use of the verb form "pioneering" (or is that an adjective? in any case, not a noun) does not distinguish between "one of a group of pioneers" and "the one and only pioneer", and that is as it should be. In contrast, when one has to decide between "a pioneer" and "the pioneer", it starts to veer into original research. In any case, the change to ALT0 has rendered that distinction moot, and is unquestionably well-sourced, so thank you for agreeing to that. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:29, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
In obsessing over the correct use of the word, I looked to see how various dictionaries define the word "pioneer": [6]. If you go through a selection of the returns on that search, it becomes apparent that the word, as a noun, refers to someone who is "among the first" and not necessarily "the first", and that "to pioneer" something is to play a formative role in developing something, and not necessarily be the first person to play such a role. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
  • Why can't it just be that we don't have a hard rule against "first" hooks and instead judge them on a case-by-case basis? It would make a lot more sense and I really doubt our readers would even notice if they were common, as long as their interesting. Narutolovehinata5 tccsdnew 01:33, 13 May 2021 (UTC)
    • Yes, I agree with that.
    I've been thinking about how better to decide when, and when not, to use "first person" in a hook. As noted repeatedly before, it's a good idea to avoid excessive repetition, and it's important to make sure that there is solid reliable sourcing for factual accuracy. But I can add to that, that there should also be reliable sourcing for, essentially, WP:DUE weight for highlighting the first-ness. If independent secondary sources indicate that being the first is something important, then such a hook can be justified, but if it is not highlighted in the source material, then not.
    And the more I think about it, the more I have a problem with a reflexive opposition to saying "the first". To argue that being "a pioneer" in sound effects is interesting, but being "the first woman" loses the interest, is nonsensical, farcical, and indefensible. I've mentioned Jackie Robinson and the Wright brothers earlier, as examples of interesting "firsts". And just recently, when Joe Biden gave his first Address to Congress, he began by drawing attention to the two people standing behind him. Independent sources widely emphasized the "first person to" aspects of the first time that two women were the Vice President and the Speaker of the House. And to argue that being described as first somehow diminishes the long records of achievements by Harris and Pelosi is wrong, even though in this particular example, each of them has done other things that were more important than their roles at the speech. There is a very real glass ceiling phenomenon, and it's an error to make some kind of rule to treat firsts as being something uninteresting. I'm not arguing that we should WP:RGW, but we should not arbitrarily disregard the sources, either. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:50, 13 May 2021 (UTC)

I followed along on this thread as it was going, in part because I proposed a "first X" hook for George Mogridge that was posted to the main page for May 20. The hook fact may not be interesting to people outside of baseball, but it's certainly interesting enough to be valid. I didn't find anything else for Mogridge that I thought was hook-worthy. So, what's the harm in running the hook that he was the first Yankee pitcher to throw a no-hitter? Funnily enough, Corey Kluber just now completed the 12th no-hitter in Yankees history, so Mogridge's name is back in the news a bit.[7] – Muboshgu (talk) 02:51, 20 May 2021 (UTC)

Statistics

We have a standard metric at DYK — the number of readers which a hook attracts. This then provides a simple test for the hypothesis that "firsts are boring". Here's an example from the most recent set:

  • 00:00, 24 May 2021 (UTC)
 
Kerttu Saalasti

There are two "firsts" in this set – The Voyage That Lasted 600 Years and Steve Cherry. The former had the most popular hook in the set, even beating the picture hook, while the latter was the least popular, doing even worse than the German hymn. So, we see from this that the word "first" is not especially significant in determining the success of a hook. The hypothesis is thus refuted. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:17, 24 May 2021 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Did_you_know/Archive_177&oldid=1085471951"