This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:Did you know. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
... that the New York City-based fashion label Sandy Liang is inspired by grandmothers in Chinatown, and often features Liang's own grandmother as a model?
Please change "and often features" to "has featured", as the "often" / ongoing tense is hard to verify with 100% certainty unless you have a very current source.
Tbe "inspired by Chinatown grandmothers" and "Chinatown grandma chic" is mentioned all the time in conjunction with Sandy Liang...but is it still intriguing? Yes, because most people have probably never heard of the designer or the label.
Is it overly promotional? The second half of the sentence is about the act of promoting/advertising, which can be grating, but in this case it doesn't seem that offensive...possibly because it has the word "grandmother" in it. (If you were to replace the word "grandmother" with "baby" for example, it might seem more annoying to more people.) Cielquiparle (talk) 00:30, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Personally I don't really see this as a promotional hook. It's a interesting and unusual fact, and merely saying that Liang's grandmother models for the label doesn't seem like actually promoting the label, it just says information about it. To me there's a difference between an actual advertorial hook, which would be a big no-no (something like "did you know that Sandy Liang is perfect for grandmothers?") and a hook that simply discusses about inspirations or unusual aspects. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The problem here isn't about commercial products. The problem is the use of "you" in wikivoice even if it is in the quirky slot. (And related to the "song lyric" problem discussed extensively recently.) Also, some users might find making a joke about "hoes" offensive on the main page. There might be a clever way to fix the hook while keeping it concise and quirky but it's beyond me. @ULPS @Schminnte @VaticidalprophetCielquiparle (talk) 01:04, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm new to DYK, so forgive me if I'm misunderstanding any policy here. I think "CACP" means available commercial products, but I don't see it as promotion (if anything it's the opposite, but I believe it to be neutral). The direct quote from the artist while discussing the album was this is what we would sound like in the 90s with no Pro Tools, so it would not work without that. (EDIT: I realized this may be referring to the album itself, again I don't believe it to be promotional. Is stating a fact about an album promoting the album? If so all releases of well, anything would be banned from DYK) I believe that I have seen DYK slots with '"you" before, but if that is an issue a change to something along the lines of Pro tools aren't needed to... could work. I do understand the issue with "hoes" being offensive, but considering that is the quite literally the name of the article I don't see a way around that while still keeping the hook interesting/quirky. If someone else has any ideas it would be great to hear them, but there has been worse on the Main Page before. NOTCENSORED and all that I guess. ULPS(talk • contribs)01:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes we have occasionally had hooks with "you" in them but you can't rely on precedent. Revving what @ULPS proposed:
Is there a specific issue that would be caused by using 'you' here and fixed by not using it? I'm not proposing suddenly putting it everywhere, but checking that I've promoted 40 hooks in the current p/q sets and one uses 'you' (and I think it might be the only one of ~450ish that does), I think there's an acceptable bending-the-structure rate in the same sense as something like "did you know ... that?" was. Vaticidalprophet05:06, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
It's mainly the "what we state in wikivoice" problem. We generally don't use wikivoice to make recommendations about whether or not you need to use certain tools to achieve an outcome (which is what "you don't need" sounds like).
On second thought, I don't think the statement "this is what we would sound like in the 90s with no Pro Tools" necessarily means that Pro Tools weren't used or "needed". So the hooks still don't quite work. (Quirky is hard.) Cielquiparle (talk) 05:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
@Cielquiparle, my two cents: I think the statement is backed up by the full quote from JPEGMafia, when combined with the other relevant quote in this source. As for a hook that doesn't use "you", how about this hook which I think keeps the quirky aspect:
@Schminnte Thanks for the Dig! / Warner Recorded Music ref, which makes the claim clearer. (A primary source but apparently it's case by case for primary source-based hooks.) Latest ALT makes it sound a lot less like inciting readers to bully or commit violence but how about swapping "when" with "for" or "in":
Either your suggestion or mine is fine by me. I feel that yours is more "socially acceptable", but loses a bit of the quirkyness. But as I say, I'm open to either. Schminnte (talk • contribs)09:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I think Schminnte's version is better. The plain version reads a bit boring, like "did you know that Kusma did not use power tools to assemble his Ikea shelf?" —Kusma (talk) 10:45, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
While I don't think the original was problematic, I'm fine with Schminnte's rephrasing (and only that one) if there's a desire for one. (I think it flows a little better as "didn't use Pro Tools", though.) Vaticidalprophet12:22, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I like the warning colours for admins about the number of filled queues, but I think they should convey more urgency when we are at 2/day. Perhaps the colour scheme/urgency level should be based on how many days' worth of queues we have left?? —Kusma (talk) 09:55, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I am switching to two sets per day. We have too many approved nominations (130 is too many) and need to get through them faster. I will try to do some more p2q promotions while we are on 2/day. Are there any date requests I need to fix now? (Is there an easy way to find out?) —Kusma (talk) 09:21, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
It would also help if people could fill up Prep 2 (needs four more hooks) until midnight UTC to avoid us running out of promotable preps. —Kusma (talk) 09:34, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
P2 is finished. Technically (because we're only just ending a shortage of bio images, and because the prep that was built before I got there was set up how a bio image prep is) it means we now have two consecutive bio images, but, you know, something tells me readers aren't going to riot and picket WMF headquarters? (Of the informal-formal rules, 'no consecutive bio images' is probably the least adapted to actually building preps.) After building 6 consecutive preps a large chunk of what's left is articles I nominated/reviewed/GA-reviewed/have way too much involvement with to promote, so probably watching for a moment rather than building much. Vaticidalprophet09:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Kusma, there are no special occasion hooks identified by comments in the existing queues and preps, and none on the Approved page now—the last batch placed in the special occasions area was for September 1 hooks, so there shouldn't be anything unidentified in the queues or preps either. BlueMoonset (talk) 20:09, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
The source given in the nom [1] states that Freeway escaped twice, and was once found on Highway 94 and once in Chollas Creek, and does not say that Freeway travelled up Chollas Creek. The two sources in the article attached to the statement that Freeway traveled up Chollas Creek to reach Highway 94 are [2] (no mention of Chollas Creek, unreliable source) and the other source [3] just offers it as a possible theory, "But how exactly did the sea lion get so far inland? Near the highway is a dry Chollas Creek bed. Maps show a possible 3-and-a-half mile path from San Diego Bay, up the waterway to Highway 94." This seems to at least require a hedging "may have traveled up Chollas Creek", but that isn't quite as hooky. Or are there better sources? Ping nom RightCowLeftCoast, reviewer Blythwood, promoter Cielquiparle. —Kusma (talk) 22:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Have changed in article to make the statement more precise. I think "may have" is OK and more true to source than saying "likely" (and also better than referring to the other time he actually was found traveling up Chollas Creek, because that isn't exactly what the picture is showing). Cielquiparle (talk) 00:02, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Ugh, thanks for picking it up. That's annoying, I clearly didn't quite process the order the source was describing. Thanks for being so attentive! Blythwood (talk) 12:07, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think there's any way to have rules about "currently-available commercial products", as a category, that isn't...unreasonable. I'm reminded of the Jimbotalk regular who insists all Final Fantasy FAs are sponsored by Square Enix. To explicitly say the thing I implied at ANI: this article got through because no one was willing to look at the women's soccer hooks after Themedsetgate, because we'd already had a huge drama blowup and rejecting the article as an involved party would have presumably caused another, and enough people looked away it got through. Given the article was at-a-glance-obviously-problematic, this seems to have the simpler solution of "reject at-a-glance-obviously-problematic articles". As someone who looked at that article and went "well, if I-specifically knock this back to DYKN I'm going to reignite Themedsetgate, but someone uninvolved will definitely notice it", I recognize this is easier said than done. Vaticidalprophet16:47, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I think you meant there's no reasonable way to do it? Sure there is. If the article is about a CACP, a link to the nom (or alternatively the promoted hook) has to be posted here to get more eyes on it. How is that an unreasonable requirement? Valereee (talk) 16:52, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
What is a currently available commercial product? Is a song released last week a currently available commercial product? Is a video game released last week a currently available commercial product? What if they were released 20 years ago? Is a book released last week a currently available commercial product? What about one released in 1850 that's still in print? Is this 30-year-old shirt a currently available commercial product? Is a film that's on a streaming service a currently available commercial product? Does it depend what service? Is a play that's currently touring a currently available commercial product? One that just finished touring? Does it depend if it's community theatre vs Broadway/West End? These aren't gotchas, they're exactly the questions people raise when debating this (as noted, things given as examples of articles "too commercial" to run TFA in that discussion are a historical article about a small loss-making football club founded in 1908, owned by its own supporters for a period of the history in question and a culturally significant but commercially irrelevant punk album from 1982). Vaticidalprophet17:01, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd say use your judgement. If anyone who touches it thinks, "Huh, this looks like possibly a CACP...let's post it", it gets posted. If literally no one who touches it thinks so, any questions ultimately asked about why they didn't think so will help us clarify. Valereee (talk) 17:12, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I also think that the Themed Set Drama was a large contributor to a hook that was bland and an article that had problems getting through, and I was going to start a discussion on related observations and proposed solutions - since this is here, I'll springboard off. Kingsif (talk) 17:20, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Something like this:
FWIW, I think it's reasonable to have some kind of guidance on "CACP" hooks that encourages other editors to post about them here. It can be intimidating to challenge a hook (especially if you're new to DYK), so having a culture where bringing CACP hooks to this page is seen much less as "I find this hook problematic" and more "I think this hook falls under CACP and might need more eyes" would be helpful. JoelleJay (talk) 19:24, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
If the CACP bar is "all modern video games", that's going to either get rapidly clogged up and die, or become a box-checking exercise that doesn't do an improved job of rejecting at-a-glance-obviously-problematic articles (because people will not look at them long enough to glance). The shoe should have been spotted by the first person to look at it, and would have been if it wasn't very specifically the subject of a different drama making no one touch it with a ten-foot pole. Vaticidalprophet17:18, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
BattleBit Remastered is a June 2023 release. No one has to use any judgement to say that one should be caught. One that's 20 years old? I literally do not know the subject area well enough -- are there actually 20-year old games that are still being actively marketed in their original form? If there's active advdertising, my judgement would say, yeah, it should be covered. If it's just people still buying a copy here or there, probably could let slide. Valereee (talk) 17:21, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
The 20-year line is gesturing a little at "I said both 'song' and 'video game', and a 20-year-old song is a different timeline to a 20-year-old video game". (I have some drafts on games that age, and they're abandonware, but abandonware for an extremely popular series, so I'm sure some definitions would count them as "products" based on the series name even if you literally can't buy them.) Other media have yet longer timeframes; a book or play can be commercially popular centuries after release. The linked conversation includes a "too commercial for the main page" argument for a book from 1985. Vaticidalprophet17:32, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
So use your judgement. If you think a nom you are making/reviewing/promoting/otherwise looking at should have more eyes on it because it's a CACP, list it here. If not, don't. Easy peasy. Valereee (talk) 17:37, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
@Valereee: I just wanted to comment on the question are there actually 20-year old games that are still being actively marketed in their original form? because the answer is "absolutely yes", which I know because I had an experience with this the other day. A site like GOG.com does marketing, which I know because I got an ad the other day for Heroes of Might and Magic III that stood out to me because I remembered and loved that game, but it's a game that was originally released in 1999 and would still qualify as a CACP depending on how you want to word the requirement. The oldest game I found on that site that was available for purchase (I don't know if they're actively advertising for it) is from 1983, 40 years ago. - Aoidh (talk) 09:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Requiring discussions on things just because they're currently commercially available would probably be highly impractical an counterproductive. It could also potentially ban, unfairly, large swathes of content. What is needed here is simply common sense: if an article is clearly promotional and the hook could be reasonably interpreted as being advertising even if unintentionally, then reject the hook and the article, or fix up the article before approving it. Use common sense when reviewing, that's pretty much all that is needed, no need for special sections or an extra set of eyes except for contentious cases. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 19:14, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Discussion doesn't need to be required. I think notification is a good idea. If no one else thinks so, it's cool. I've edited the nom for BattleBit Remastered to strike
ALT2: ... that within two weeks of release, BattleBit Remastered was the #1 top seller on Steam and sold over 1.8 million copies?
I'm not convinced that a notification requirement for certain classes of nominations is the right way forward. It seems very much like a band-aid solution. The problem we have is that there isn't enough scrutiny on DYK hooks and articles between nomination time and Main Page appearance. Sometimes this is particularly embarrassing, like when we run something that sounds like an advert or with a poorly sourced and easily disproved "first" claim or a BLP issue or a copyvio problem. Identifying some classes of noms that are more likely to cause embarrassment and announcing them here so more people check them may help with problems in some of these noms, but could make people concentrate less on checking other things. If we single out one source of issues, I don't actually think potential advertising is the most important problem. It is also potentially a very wide issue (anything about a song by an active artist or any video game series currently on sale or any book on sale or any TV series currently streaming or any sports person viewable on paid streaming services or pay TV or any nice holiday spot could reasonably be included). As they say, hard cases make bad law. Let us not allow this snafu to make our rules even more byzantine (remember, a rule like "this typo of noms requires notification" isn't automatically something that will happen, we will also need people to check it) when what we really need is to motivate people to scrutinise, fact check and sanity check all of the hooks we run. —Kusma (talk) 20:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
There are currently 3 in prep or queue right now which would fall into this. Until Taylor Swift releases a new album, that may be typical. And when Taylor Swift does release a new album and there are a dozen CACPs here, maybe someone will say, "Hey...maybe we limit these to one a month." Instead of no one noticing that we're suddenly Swiftopedia. Again. Valereee (talk) 21:07, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Why would we limit new articles about a current topic that our editors care about to one a month? Sometimes we have a lot of species, sometimes we have a lot of bishops, sometimes we have a lot of football players. A large amount of DYK noms related to one topic of current interest is fine unless there is a COI involved. What is not fine is bad hooks, where the possibly promotional hooks are just one of many problems. In my view they are less deserving of additional scrutiny than "first" hooks that often fall apart at the first critical look. But my point remains that we should identify the systemic problems we have at DYK and address them, not add yet another rule targeting a few particularly embarrassing that will need to be policed. —Kusma (talk) 21:30, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't really want to go off on a tangent. I don't care what we decide -- one a week, one a month, whatever -- but we shouldn't be doing multiple hooks every week for six weeks running without someone at least bringing it here to say, "Hey, we've got fifteen Taylor Swift hooks in the system. Should we figure out a way to not actually look like we're part of her publicity machine? Valereee (talk) 21:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
IIRC we were fairly good at mentioning when we suddenly had 15 Taylor Swift hooks, though it got sort of bogged down in the Radio Station Wars. (That, specifically, could've been mentioned earlier and without the radio station digression.) I think at this point there are a whole bunch of people, myself included, who will be well aware that the next Swift album will probably be a pain on DYK, and can bring it up and handle it in sets without needing a structured "approval double-check" system for a different thing entirely where no one agrees on its inclusion criteria. I recall approving ALT0a, not ALT2. Vaticidalprophet04:12, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
To get back on topic (I really don't have any interest in discussing Taylor Swift), you missed a few:
For any of these, the DYK appearance could cause additional sales. Do you really want people to consider pulling such hooks if the nomination hasn't been announced here on WT:DYK? (That would be the natural enforcement mechanism for your proposed rule). —Kusma (talk) 21:56, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I just saw the dustup/ANI that has caused us to look at our methodology. I think the nature of hooks - especially about restaurants, merchandise, books, TikTokers, athletes, musicians, and let's face it hooks for all living people; have the tendency to trend toward some level of promotion. I have seen editors here use judgement to shut down hooks, and we do have a system of checks and balances both here, and at errors. We get collectively worried when we get called out because we work so hard to improve this section. Let's face it sometimes we make mistakes but we do learn from them. I feel like the morning's concerns were escalated and that was unfortunate but I am sure we will learn from this. I do not want any of our reviewers and promotors to feel so stung by this that they curtail their involvement here. I want all the editors who work here to know that I appreciate you and I have much respect you. I am a work in progress and so are all of you. Bruxton (talk) 23:40, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
I used my judgement that those were unlikely to actually be promotional. Those are all at least a few years old and likely not currently being advertised. If someone wants to get more eyes on them, great, but I didn't think they fell into the category of concern. The restaurant opened 150 years ago. I see a difference between that and
... that within two weeks of release, BattleBit Remastered was the #1 top seller on Steam and sold over 1.8 million copies?
But if you don't see that difference, you can go ahead and call attention to the years-old books, albums, and restaurants. Or not, if you don't feel like it. And the natural enforcement method would be to simply post the hook if no one else has. Hopefully before it gets posted to errors and does get pulled. Valereee (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Hooks about years old books or films are more likely to make me spend money on these products than hooks about current video games. But I don't see them as necessarily problematic. I want everyone to call attention to any bad hook they find in preps or queues, but I do not think the hooks I mention above are bad. I don't see any reason treat the BattleBit hook differently from the Castle in the Sky hook.
Overall, I don't think it is helpful to post hooks here without an identified problem, and this includes "CACP" hooks. —Kusma (talk) 05:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Agree with @Kusma that everything is promotional on some level.
I take full responsibility for promoting a hook that shouldn't have been promoted.
More discussion is helpful for sure. But rather than drag all discussion here I wish more of it would take place within the nomination template itself. The question of "is this too promotional?" is sometimes explicitly discussed within the nomination template, and for sure it should have been in this case. Appreciate it when passers-by take the time to flag their concerns at WP:DYKNA.
In any case, don't make another rule to try to band-aid what appears to be the proximate problem, but absolutely keep encouraging more scrutiny at every stage. Cielquiparle (talk) 01:52, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
How? Workers here, especially promoters, have a very difficult job. When they pushback, noms and reviewers get bent out of shape. When they don't, and something like Nike Phantom Luna, they're the ones who most often get called on the carpet by the rest of the project. If we simply "encourage more scrutiny", aren't we just telling people "Do your difficult and visible job better."?
What we need is more critical eyes. The way to get critical eyes on a nom is to call attention to it somehow. Too many people, operating on their own, look at something like Nike Phantom Luna, think, "That seems kinda (whatever)", but shrug it off because the (others who've worked on the nom) thought it was okay, and surely someone would have said something by now. I can almost promise that is exactly what has happened with every problematic hook we've ever had: a generalized reluctance to be the first to speak up when you notice a problem no one else seems to be noticing. Valereee (talk) 11:03, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I looked at Nike Phantom Luna and thought "This is obviously problematic, but I just spent ages on WTDYK with the guy who forced its author to pump out a ton of hooks in a month for a botched themed set, and if I specifically say this is problematic that's going to cause issues, so I'll wait for someone else to obviously notice". I admit some surprise no one else obviously noticed. Given the background of those sets can be described as "many people pointing out issues without being listened to", well, there certainly was an issue there, but not quite the bystander one. Vaticidalprophet11:20, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Again I'm having a hard time connecting this with the themed sets issue, but clearly multiple other people think it's directly connected somehow so I'll accept that it is and that I'm just not familiar enough with that particular debacle to see it. Valereee (talk) 11:28, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I have only occasionally experienced nominators and reviewers getting "bent out of shape" when I push back. And when they have, I have escalated to the Talk page where appropriate, just to get other opinions and suggestions. For the most part, the DYK project seems to work well in terms of constructive feedback and improvement of both articles and hooks, and helping editors learn. I am always learning. I would still encourage people to be candid and respectful about flagging concerns at WP:DYKNA as many editors do. (Focus on the content at hand; it shouldn't be personal.) Cielquiparle (talk) 19:58, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Hello! Sorry in advance for not flagging this before, but I've changed the image for my aforementioned nomination, as suggested by @BorgQueen, and marked it as available for a new review.
I'm actually uncomfortable with how recently it's become assumed routine that prepbuilders can make major changes to hooks -- which made me surprised to see I was one of the people who changed the hook here! I think adding "service area" is an improvement for context, but I'm equivocal on the changes I didn't make, and I think any culture where prepbuilders are encouraged to alter hooks in post needs to also be one where nominators can similarly revert no questions asked. (Not relevant to this case, but I also think you need a really high bar to make said edits once a set is full-protected.) Vaticidalprophet19:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
If the reversion involves a choice of two more-or-less equivocal options (e.g. not involving any MOS-related improvements), as in this case, I would be happy to let the nominator's choice stand, especially if the change is straightforward. But I'd also say that discussion is normally a more useful course of action, and resist the notion that simple attempts at improvement (not changing the substance of the hook) first need to be discussed, or reverted otherwise. — RAVENPVFF·talk·20:21, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
While I don't like "undiscussed" as a reason to revert anything (you should never revert changes as merely "undiscussed" unless you agree with the change; it is always better to give an actual reason why any particular change is revert-worthy) in this case I actually think that Ritchie's revert was an improvement. Pointing out so explicitly that they are a service area makes it rather unsurprising that their fuel is extra expensive. If more context is needed, we could go for something like "the petrol station of the Pont Abraham Services" but I think it works as is. —Kusma (talk) 21:29, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I hadn't seen this discussion; I reverted the reversion just now because nominators are not allowed to edit their hooks once in prep—if they have objections, they should bring it to this page. Since the discussion is under way, perhaps someone uninvolved can edit the hook as appropriate. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:39, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I remember when I was learning this, there was a rule (which, sadly, I can't find anywhere now) which said the prep builder was free to edit hooks during promotion, as long as they pinged the nominator. I remember the rule even talked about how you had to put User:Example in the edit summary because templates like Example wouldn't work. I also remember taking this to heart and doing some substantial hook editing, and even getting into a bit of trouble over it from some noms who didn't like the changes I was making. RoySmith(talk)21:51, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I've restored the nominator-preferred version. Do we actually have a "prepbuilders are encouraged to majorly change hooks in post, and nominators can't revert them (rather than making edits that aren't just reverting to a preferred version, like using a different hook to the promoted one)" rule? If so, why and how do we repeal it with a minimum of fuss? Because that's a perverse outcome -- a "nominators shouldn't rejig stuff post-facto" rule is necessary to avoid stuff like wars over which version of a hook gets promoted, but "everyone can completely revise a hook except the person who has a stake in it, who can't object" is...bad. Vaticidalprophet04:35, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Maybe we can add that nominators are free to revert small or even any changes to their hooks? I do also feel like "DYK volunteers need to do better at keeping bad things from reaching the main page" and "DYK volunteers should have to go through heaps of bureaucracy to change anything" are two diametrically opposed messages. Lotta stuff comes through messed up, we should just be able to fix it a lot of the time. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:09, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Absent a consensus that the originally promoted hook is deficient, we shouldn't make a huge fuss if someone reverts to the promoted version. In other words, normal WP:BRD should apply, with the promoted hook serving as the status quo ante of the BRD cycle. —Kusma (talk) 15:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
@Remainsuncertain, Gonzo fan2007, Lightburst, and Kusma: The promotionality thing was already briefly discussed above (I don't have much of an opinion on it), but the article is based on quite a few iffy sources that are best removed. Reader's Digest, Business Insider, Mental Floss, and BuzzFeed are not my favorites. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The sourcing isn't great (as a start, instead of Reader's Digest, it would be better to cite the original from Time Magazine), but I don't see a problem that needs discussing here at WT:DYK. (Some of the sources are not of BLP standard but WP:RSP doesn't prohibit them). —Kusma (talk) 08:06, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Lower quality sources introduce undue information, which is maybe something we want to watch for on a commercial product article? And WP:DYKCITE requires that articles rest on reliable sources, and we generally hold that standard at about the same level as GA. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
we generally hold that standard at about the same level as GA -- do we? (Maybe inasmuch as the level of reliable sourcing for GA is Reviewer Roulette-dependent.) Vaticidalprophet08:14, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd give some extra leeway for one or two yellow-tier sources, and we do generally give more leeway on the balance between primary and secondary, but four sources that range from "slightly too light-reading oriented" to "is not within six feet of due weight for this article" is a bit much for me. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I looked through the use of the sources you mention, and I just can't get myself to worry about them too much. Sure, the article could be improved, but it doesn't seem at all worse than the usual standard we have at DYK, which is quite a bit below GA standard. —Kusma (talk) 08:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
It's somewhat of a misconception that DYK articles need to be perfect. And while it is true that DYK and GA's standards have overlap (even disregarding that becoming a GA is one path towards featuring on DYK), DYK's standards are actually lower than GAs. Sources should ideally be reliable, but as long as they don't say anything controversial or contentious then even sources marked as yellow on WP:RSP can be used. They're yellow for a reason: yellow means "case-by-case" and doesn't not mean outright prohibition. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:50, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Who exactly made that determination? Both DYK and GA simply require that articles are cited inline to reliable sources. GA recently copied its guideline on what needs to be cited, as a matter of fact, from DYK. To the extent that words mean things, two venues that enforce the same guideline should probably enforce it at least similarly. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:58, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
To be clear, there are a lot of places where DYK's standards are lower than GA's, per WP:DYKNOT. We require bare minimum completeness, rather than breadth; we require a single spot-check for the hook, rather than ensuring that the article is verifiable as a whole; we have no written guideline as to how and where articles need comply with the MoS (we generally just make sure they're not complete messes). But when it comes to the reliability of the sources in the article, the guidelines are written the exact same way. If we're gonna interpret them differently, at least one needs to be changed. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:05, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm most concerned about the sources for the somewhat controversial quotes attributed to Jim Sinegal. The Seattle Times is OK, but I'm less sure about 425business. RoySmith(talk)19:09, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Money I wonder if the hook should specify US$1.50 per MOS:MONEY. I looked back in our archived sets and it is used in some $ related hooks and not in others. Since Costco is in many different countries the hook is likely to be perceived as non-country-specific so it should probably use US$. Bruxton (talk) 23:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I am wondering why the DYK tool does not recognize the 5x expansion of the article: Key date. It had 287 characters on September 11 and it now has 2295 characters. Bruxton (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I would hazard that it's because the article used to be much larger, until it was AfDed and stubbed. The 5x expansion does still appear to be valid, so carry on :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:15, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The 5x calculator often makes mistakes when the article history is complicated. Use it as a guide, but don't be afraid to do some math on your own when in doubt. RoySmith(talk)21:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I've discussed this formal-informal-rule before in passing, but it's rarely been seriously discussed in WT:DYK's long history. There's an inherited practice that we don't run consecutive sets with bio images (but can and do run as many consecutive sets with non-bio images as we want), putting a hard ceiling at 50% of sets having bio images, and generally well under. It's not a hard rule (the official wording is "try to avoid"), but not doing it tends to see sets rearranged in post. While I respect the idea, I've never been a fan of it as something strictly enforced, for a few reasons:
Assuming the classical alternating bio/non-bio style, bio image sets have non-bio quirkies and vice versa. We usually have far more and far higher-quality non-bio candidates for quirkies, so intentionally requiring over 50% of sets have a setup that almost always requires bio quirkies (because under normal circumstances, we have enough excess of bio hooks that routinely running three-bio sets to allow for non-bios in both image and quirky would result in an overflowing backlog) seriously limits prepbuilding options and decreases how interesting an overall set can be.
The un-rule tends to suffer from "the borderlands of what constitutes a 'biography' aren't actually that clear" syndrome, and in particular any image of "a person" is roughly considered a bio image even if it links to an article about a list of performances, or a book they wrote, or something that is not a biography. This doesn't help with the problem it's intended to solve (ensuring bio hooks come through at a rate fast enough that they don't sit forever while not flooding a set with too many of them), because it keeps an actual-bio hook waiting and if overused creates backlog overflow syndrome.
Bio hooks tend to have a greater excess of images than non-bio hooks. Understandably, people are disappointed when their images don't run. Prep building means disappointing people sometimes, including about this -- I'm not saying we can pretend otherwise. However, this specific version of it frequently seems to be one of our own making. Having somewhat more flexibility in image choice can aid in encouraging editors, especially newer editors excited to see their first image hook, back to DYK and help them feel as though they have more control over the process.
Even given an attempt to get as close to 50-50 bio/non-bio as possible, the fact we permit as many consecutive non-bio images as desired doesn't seem that we're preventing saturation of a given topic -- as has come up here before, non-bio image hooks are themselves frequently on recurring subjects. It's not clear that this quota actually aids in set diversity compared to something with less restrictions, and in particular the desperation for "oh, we have to run a non-bio image here" can lead to people quantity-over-quality picking things that are safe bets but not necessarily the best option, just to get the set done.
I don't think a free-for-all would be a good idea -- we should have some limitation on how many bio image sets run, or otherwise we actually do risk saturation -- but a more freeform interpretation of such a requirement seems like it might be beneficial. I've been thinking about this a lot lately since 1. shifting many of my prepbuilding attentions to OTD (where amongst other things I built all of September), which has a far more impressionistic attitude to set diversity and 2. noticing our current unusual deficit of bio hooks, crossed with an even greater proportionate excess of bio images. Prepbuilders have the capacity to self-manage and use judgement, and an encouragement to alternate sets and keep their proportions balanced, without explicitly instilling either as requirements, could allow for the benefit of greater flexibility without the drawback of suddenly running eight consecutive bios.
I'm just laying out thoughts at the moment -- it's a practice that's been Done For Years but rarely seriously assessed, and I'm wondering if it might be time to think about if there are less reductive ways to get the intended effect that can work throughout DYK's feast and famine cycles. Also it would be good if people can review bios, because we barely have any at DYKNA and I've still managed to get too involved with half the ones there to promote them. Vaticidalprophet13:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I mean, sure, it's at WP:DYKVAR (Also try to avoid having two images of people in adjacent sets.), but that doesn't mean people really follow it; the queues right now have two consecutive people images, and the same for the preps (all six if you include artworks as "images of people"). It makes sense that it's a "try to" rather than "must be", because that allows prepbuilders the necessary flexibility. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 16:51, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I know there's two consecutive bio image queues, because I built them both, and I explicitly mentioned that here when I built them because every time I've seen it otherwise (or tried to intentionally bend the rule) the prep order was rearranged to prevent two consecutive bio images. Vaticidalprophet17:12, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Support: my hunch is that we don't have many non-editor regular readers of DYK, just people flitting by. So I don't think the editor-hours we spend taking this into consideration are well-spent. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:35, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
My hunch is that there are more regulars than you might expect (I get queried about main page stuff a lot by people who know I edit, and know at least one guy who seems to regularly read DYK going by how frequently he posts quotes from it), but that they're absolutely not looking for things like 'DYK just ran two consecutive bio images!'. (They are not infrequently looking for something like 'why do you guys run so many similar hooks', going by the queries that sometimes end up here/ERRORS/T:MP, but that is a hard problem.) Vaticidalprophet20:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
For what I'm worth: I've read DYK consistently for a couple of years, generally getting much obscure knowledge from this site. I notice overuse of things like radio stations, Swift albums, and female firsts. (I primarily consider myself a reader because I only got this account to copyedit annoying things I run across; I'm on a banned IP range.) Kymothoë (talk) 01:47, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
The calculus is different when we're at two-a-day rather than one a day: if you have every other lead hook a bio, then they'd appear during the same 12-hour period each day. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:32, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose The OP offers no evidence that this non-rule is a thing. A glance at the archive for the current month indicates that it isn't. The most recent image (shown) caught my eye on the main page yesterday and is outstanding as a good choice. That's because it was a famous pinup and it works well at the size shown on the main page. The preceding images don't work so well at this size, becoming too muddy and indistinct. So the quality of the image should be the main consideration – is it a good picture qua picture? Whether the image is associated with a biography or not is arbitrary and irrelevant. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:35, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
... that films starring actress Louise Franklin were banned in Memphis, Tennessee, by the film censor because they depicted African-Americans as "well-dressed, intelligent acting sweethearts"?
uses the source "Shades of the late Lloyd Binford, who banned Rochester and Louise Franklin in "Brewster's Millions," and others because they portrayed well-dressed, intelligent acting sweethearts in the films." (Harry Levette, The Call, Kansas City 1957) In the hook, it sounds to me as if "well-dressed, intelligent acting sweethearts" is what the film censor said, but after looking at the article about the film in question, Brewster's Millions (1945 film), which says The film was banned in Memphis, Tennessee, on the grounds that it was "inimical to the public welfare" because the servant character, played by African American actor Eddie "Rochester" Anderson, had "too familiar a way about him." The Memphis Board of Motion Picture Censors complained that the picture presented "too much social equality and racial mixture" for Southern audiences, and expressed fear that the film would "encourage" racial problems. it seems to me that this is an interpretation of the Memphis censor's attitude by the author of the 1957 article. Also, I don't see an explicit connection to Louise Franklin's films; the "others" could just as well mean "other black couples". Pinging nom @Silver seren, reviewer @Epicgenius, promoter @Vaticidalprophet: is there a way to make an interesting hook that is better supported by the source? —Kusma (talk) 21:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
The part you quote from our article works just fine with the reference I used. "Well-dressed, intelligent acting sweethearts" works quite directly with presenting "too much social equality and racial mixture", ie well-to-do black people. I don't see any problem here. SilverserenC22:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree with Kusma that the hook is misleading, as it gives the impression that is a direct quote from the censor, whereas in fact it is an aside from a newspaper columnist reviewing a different film some 12 years later. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:38, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
Would it be better to re-arrange the quoted part to before mentioning the film censor to lessen that impression? Such as like this:
... that films starring African-American actress Louise Franklin in roles showcasing "well-dressed, intelligent acting sweethearts" were banned by the film censor in Memphis, Tennessee?
Should I go and add that in as an alt hook on the nomination page so the prepped hook can be replaced or what's the best method for that? SilverserenC02:43, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Once there is agreement here, someone uninvolved can fix it in the prep. I am still not convinced, though: do we have evidence that more than one film featuring Louise Franklin was banned by the Memphis censor? Or generally, a better source than a side remark in a newspaper article about Island in the Sun (film)? —Kusma (talk) 09:01, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
I just see that @theleekycauldron has promoted this to Queue 5, while I was considering to postpone it in order to promote the queue without having an unsupported hook. leeky, do you have a suggestion how to fix this? —Kusma (talk) 09:04, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
OK, I can't do it, too many server errors to mess with the Main Page. @DYK admins: we need someone to perform an update ASAP, but I won't be around much longer (work reasons), so can someone else do it? —Kusma (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
I have updated the hooks and the queue. Haven't done credits etc. yet, I might not have time right now, so if someone else wants to do that, please step in. — Amakuru (talk) 12:46, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
OK, update done. But anyone who is awake at midnight UTC (probably not me): please check if the bot is back, and if not, we might need to do another manual update. —Kusma (talk) 17:00, 12 September 2023 (UTC)
In case anyone is wondering why the 12:00 UTC update was delayed: KrinkleBot was down, and DYKUpdateBot doesn't update the Main Page until the image has been protected (the update only happened after I had found a Commons admin who protected the image). Everyone please watch User:DYKUpdateBot/Errors to help avoid late updates. —Kusma (talk) 12:49, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
It is now protected on Commons and here (the local version can probably be deleted). KrinkleBot seems to be down, so we may have this problem for a few more updates. —Kusma (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
@DYK admins: According to the count of DYK Hooks, the number of approved hooks is 121. There are also 5 queues and 6 filled preps, so we can probably switch to two sets a day after midnight UTC. TSventon (talk) 20:33, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
Noting that I have no time to do any promotions right now unfortunately, so I hope there are others who can step up to the plate to do the admin checks! — Amakuru (talk) 20:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
yeah, theleekycauldron, i had been thinking of creating a template for date requests, to append at the end of hooks, that would show up in the nominations and in the queue, but not on the main page or in the archives. maybe seeing something like date requested: x in the queue would easily allow one to determine, at a glance, whether a hook should be rescheduled. dying (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
I've removed the nominations from Prep 7 and reopened them both; the September 1 section was still there on the Approved page, and they've reappeared there. A quick look at the history on the Approved page and checking past dates shows that the most recent special occasion date was 22 August, so anything from there has already run. What I find concerning is that the practice of adding a comment to special occasion hooks in Prep has died out. Not only do comments it make such hooks easier to find, it prevents them from being swapped between sets by someone needing to balance sets, grab a hook to replace one that had to be removed for more work, or make room for late-appearing special occasion hooks. If that can't be done, I'm wondering how a new template is going to get attached, found, and properly dealt with. (The template would also need to suggest which of the two slots should be used in a two-a-day regimen, which seems overly complex.) BlueMoonset (talk) 14:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, i would assume that some kind of conditional statement would be needed. i admittedly found it easier to use if and ifeq statements rather than a switch statement in my code, which i have placed in an invisible comment underneath this unicorn: . thoughts? i'd be happy to use a switch statement if you can propose a cleaner implementation. i'm currently thinking of naming the template {{DYK date request}}.BlueMoonset, i admittedly wasn't envisioning the template to be anything other than a more visible version of the invisible comment. the current practice of using invisible comments to mark nominations scheduled for specific dates is invisible enough that many don't realize that it is a practice, so hopefully, making the practice more visible would change that. the template would also have the same functions that similar invisible comments have, such as helping prevent the shuffling of a hook scheduled for a specific date to a different set.i imagine that the template could be attached or removed by anyone, just like invisible comments. i think they'd be much more easily found than invisible comments currently are. also, the template wouldn't be restrictive about what could be passed in as the optional argument, so there shouldn't be any issues regarding how it would "suggest which of the two slots should be used in a two-a-day regimen". for example, the template could display date requested: 2023.08.31 19:30 utc or date requested: any saturday evening (eest) in october if such requests were made. dying (talk) 06:35, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, after reëxamining my code with fresh eyes, i realized how i could use a switch statement to make the code simpler, so have done so in the code placed in the invisible comment underneath this octopus: . i'm not sure if this is what you were suggesting by using the switch statement, though. please let me know if you have any other ideas on how to improve the code. dying (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
thanks, theleekycauldron! i'd be chuffed if you copied my code hiding practice. by the way, one thing previously unmentioned is that i avoid using the same emoji twice on a page so that my description of the emoji only appears once in the page's code. if i used, say, two snakes in a plane row, someone searching for "snake" to find the invisible comment might accidentally review the wrong code.anyway, i've gone ahead and created the template. please let me know if any issues arise. thanks! dying (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
Done though please double-check to ensure I did it correctly. My swap puts 5 bios in queue 1, but I think it's OK to IAR as the topics are still balanced in Queue 1 and Prep 5. Others are welcome to make swaps if they wish to balance the bios, too. Z1720 (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
The article Jewish astrology was nominated and approved for DYK, but has yet to appear in DYK. Is it normal to wait many weeks before the approved nomination is displayed on the DYK platform?Davidbena (talk) 23:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
My average nomination takes around 23 days from creation to appearance, but much longer wait times are definitely not unheard of. Five days is a normal time for the nomination to go through the queue :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 00:07, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I've been working with @ITBF: on the review of Big John Dodo DYK nomination. There is a non-free content image in the article and I will acknowledge I do not fully understand the nuances of non-free content to fully assess whether this article should be approved. All other questions/issues have been resolved. Could I please get some help in determining if the non-free content image is appropriate for usage in an article nominated for DYK? Thank you! Dwkaminski (talk) 19:38, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
@Dwkaminski: Thanks for asking! DYK does allow non-free images in articles, but not on the Main Page – the tags on the image are routine and seem to check out, so unless you think the image does not fall under fair use guidelines, it should be good to go. Cheers! theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:41, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
How can I find the discussions for old DYKs (and the ones currently on the main page)?
Is there a link somewhere?? I don't see anything in T:DYK/Q, DYKNA, DYKN, or DYKA? It would be really helpful to be able to find these nomination discussions! JoelleJay (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
One of the issues we face here is that it's not easy to navigate as things move through the process. If you're just looking to browse discussions, probably the easiest way is from the archives; the nomination discussion for each article will be on that article's talk page or archives. Valereee (talk) 18:49, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks all, I was somewhat aware that one could find the discussions from the talk pages, I just thought there would be a more direct way to find them and assumed I was missing it among the million DYK subpages listed in the sidebar. JoelleJay (talk) 02:33, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I wonder which more direct way than an article talk you'd expect, and for most it's even transluded. Another way is to check out where an article is linked from, and then search for "Did you know". They typically come towards the end. I did that for Ute Vinzing yesterday because its her birthday today, and found two.
Today, I'm on the way to my first Parsifal, mentioned on DYK with Ursula Schröder-Feinen, in 2012, when a reviewer said "Not a hook that interests me particularly but can't find anything else more interesting in the article.", but approved. I miss that attitude. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:42, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
One strategy is to go to the article, click "What links here" in the nav bar (which gets you to Special:WhatLinksHere/<article title>, and narrow the search down to Namespace:Template. That should get you pretty close. But yeah, it would be nice if this was easier. RoySmith(talk)19:08, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
JJ, just for what it's worth...the nom discussion quite often isn't the only discussion. There may be one here at talk or at errors, and there's no easy connection unfortunately. On WP there are often stray discussions -- maybe someone takes a discussion that should be at article talk to someone's user talk or something ends up at a noticeboard -- but at DYK, it's multiplied. Valereee (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I know this is entrenched in the DYK culture, but it's for exactly this reason that I don't like the WT:DYK discussions. It makes more sense to me that all discussion about a hook should take place on the nomination page, so it's all in once place. WT:DYK should be for discussions about the DYK project in general.
Roy, I totally agree it ideally should be in one place, but the nom might only have three people. It would be best if it were there, so it could all be together, but how do we get other people to weigh in? If we bring it here, dozens see it. Valereee (talk) 20:43, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I very much like the idea of moving those discussions to the nom talk page. And we could always transclude those discussions here to give an overview without the need to click dozens of links. Schwede6621:00, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith It's because I occasionally do manually archiving when the page gets too long. No need to bury the "hot" discussions requiring immediate attention underneath all the old discussions about Queues that have already run. Cielquiparle (talk) 03:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think in the sense of putting it on your watchlist, but I meant in the more generic sense of bookmarking it and looking at it every once in a while. RoySmith(talk)18:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Valereee, yes, you can watch categories. i was rather surprised to learn this myself recently. i think, if a page gets added to a category you are watching, the fact that it was added to the category shows up on your watchlist. i'm not sure if only the latest page added to the category shows up, though. also, the page itself does not automatically get added to your watchlist. dying (talk) 02:03, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
The image appears in the non-bolded article Angeline Quinto, but not in the bolded article. Does this violate WP:DYKIMG?
Yes, it violates WP:DYKIMG: It must already be in the article means the bolded article being nominated, not some other linked article. For the Quinto nomination, the image must either be added to the bolded article, a different image chosen from the bolded article, or the hook has to moved from the lead slot. BlueMoonset (talk) 14:51, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
It violates the letter of DYKIMG, but does it violate the spirit? Switching the images between the bio and the list seems pointless. —Kusma (talk) 15:08, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
We have always required the image to be in the nominated article, so yes, it violates the spirit. If the image is not appropriate to the article and doesn't appear in it, said image shouldn't be used on the main page. BlueMoonset (talk) 16:06, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@Kusma @BlueMoonset @Pseud 14 @Gonzo fan2007 I have swapped out the image to match the main image featured with DYK hook. It would be a shame for the DYK hook and/or the image to get "pulled" at the last minute due to a technicality. In future we need to make sure that the image nominated to run alongside the DYK hook actually appears in the corresponding article. Cielquiparle (talk) 02:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
... that the Hotel Brexton in Baltimore was once home to Wallis Simpson, the American divorcee for whom Edward VIII abdicated to marry?
This could do with further copyediting (I added the "whom" but I'm still not satisfied). Or simply use "the future wife of Edward VIII"?
@Kusma: Agree that the revised wording is awkward. How about just "the American divorcee who married Edward VIII" ? (More active, gives Simpson some agency back.) Cielquiparle (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Images relevant to the non-bold article aren't super rare (there are several at DYKNA right now). I don't like or personally promote them, but if we want to call them as a violation of DYKIMG we should make them explicit and enforced. Vaticidalprophet10:02, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
I think we can fix this with attribution. Take your point about the fixture's absence from the Guardian article, but I wouldn't take a tour d'horizon column as the holy grail. Perhaps:
@Longhornsg, that is an improvement, but it is still a bit odd to have a lone voice calling something "widely regarded as the greatest". I have found another book calling Stanley Matthews's contribution "one of the greatest displays of dribbling ever seen in top-class soccer". [4][5] The book cited for the original hook fact has lots of trivia around the game (pickpocketing, for example) that could make good hooks, too. —Kusma (talk) 09:18, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
@Kusma @Longhornsg @Sahaib This hook cannot run as is, as it is proving difficult to verify with another source. I would suggest this further tweak to Longhornsg's hook:
... that according to sportswriter Jon Henderson, the 1943 Football League War Cup final was "widely regarded as the greatest club football match of the war"?
We don't need to make it explicit that it is "World War II" he is referring to, as it's implied (because the article title contains "1943"). Henderson makes no reference specifically to the "United Kingdom" – in fact, it's likely he meant "in England" rather than "in the UK" which in football especially is not the same thing – so we should NOT say "United Kingdom" in the hook. And now that it's a direct quote with specific attribution, I think it's OK not to specify which country. To find out more, click on the link and read the article. Cielquiparle (talk) 04:46, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Hard as it is to say when there's a bunch of preps, but we might want to think about dropping back to 1-day for a couple sets at least if we're having recurring issues, just to make sure they're totally resolved before we go back to full throttle? Would also buy some time to plug the hole in prep 3. Vaticidalprophet02:57, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I'd really like for us to try to get the backlog down below 80 before we go back to 1/day again. I'll watch for bot issues at noon UTC today and do the manual update if needed. —Kusma (talk) 08:19, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
We should probably add something about "drift" to the manual instructions, though, to avoid unexpected update times unless necessary. —Kusma (talk) 12:21, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Drift is determined by User:DYKUpdateBot/ResyncDrift when DYKUpdateBot discovers it isn't promoting at midnight (or midnight/noon when twice a day); it will currently move two hours in the shortest direction with each promotion to get back to the usual time of midnight UTC when once a day; also to noon if twice a day, so it will add or subtract up to two hours from the usual period until it's back to the regular midnight or midnight/noon schedule. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:25, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, the hook is also supported by the article's first source from the National Ballet of Canada, which offers "Five Things About Petit Mort", the second of which supports the hook as given. As this is a ballet that seems to be widely produced, either they're basing such articles and program notes on things inherent in the ballet, or statements of intent by the choreographer. The fact that the music is from slow movements of the two Mozart concertos is indisputable; that it contrasts with the physicality of the choreography seems to be implied by the statement from the choreographer in the Philadelphia notes following the assertion in those notes, but the Canadian page making a similar comparison seems sufficient to me. To get back to the original question, program notes can be written by the original artist (musician, choreographer, author...), by someone in the presenting organization, by someone commissioned by the presenting organization, or the like. Without an auctorial credit or knowing their affiliation, as with Philadelphia, it's hard to know how independent they can be considered, but they can at least show artistic intent. Critics can let you know how well the intent came across, though said critics can lean on the materials offered up by the production, such as program notes... BlueMoonset (talk) 16:31, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@BlueMoonset: national.ballet.ca works for me as a source, seems to verify – I would have to hazard that program notes are written by people who work for that presenting organization, right? There's no reason the artist would write different notes for each org... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:54, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@Mottezen, Dumelow, and Bruxton: That is impressive, but given that it could have been anyone in a similar position, I'm not sure that this hook passes interestingness muster. Maybe we could mix this with something about his dislike of hospital hierarchies? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:45, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
The 1.8 million units sold hook was struck per earlier discussions here on WT:DYK regarding concerns about "currently available commercial products" (see #Hooks for currently available commercial products). As for the currently promoted hook, I do find some interest in it but I agree it's somewhat meh unless you have an interest in video games and know how game publishing works. ALT1 is still available: is there a reason why we can't go with that instead? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:32, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
ALT1 fails verification in that IGN doesn't verify that the developers put up that FAQ answer in response to media comparisons; what about something like:
I wrote this hook. It's extremely weird. It's like someone getting struck by lighting twice in a row and then finding the winning Powerball ticket in their pocket. Vaticidalprophet08:58, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
It is not weird at all; what is weird is that the game is successful, but that is omitted in the hook. It would need the sales numbers or the top 1 position on Steam to become surprising. (In my book, "hugely successful game by indie developers" is closer to advertising than "sold 1.8 million copies" but neither of them is problematic). —Kusma (talk) 09:07, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
I suggested having a variant with all three included (scope + team + success), but we never got around to it. A three-person team finishing a playable MMO in the first place is already remarkable, but all three is of course moreso (if you can make the case it's not Promotional). Vaticidalprophet09:38, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@Sammi Brie: I'm not interpreting this as a letter-of-guideline interestingness fail, but i think we both know it's not gonna do great :j so, I'm not gonna pull the nom as is, but if you've got a better hook in your back pocket, I really would appreciate it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:40, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Thanks for pointing this out. My understanding was that DYK standards are below GA standards in relation to having all claims covered by inline citations. I only checked the hook-related sources but I didn't do a general spot-check. Phlsph7 (talk) 08:21, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@Phlsph7: The standards for what needs to be cited are identical – you can check WP:DYKCITE and WP:GACR#2 to verify. DYK doesn't require that anyone check the sources (other than for the hook), but it does require that statments are cited to reliable sources. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 23:16, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: In that case, the article does not qualify for DYK in its current state. You already pinged the nominator but it may take them a while to respond and address the issues since they have not been very active recently. I'm not sure what the best course of action in this case is. The nomination page was closed but it could be opened again until the issues are resolved. Phlsph7 (talk) 07:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
The hook says: ... that the poetry of Kishvari, one of the most important Azerbaijani poets of the 15th and 16th centuries, was only discovered in 1928?
The source translates into English as follows: İsmail Hikmet Ertaylan introduced Kişverî's poems to the scientific world for the first time (1928).
The article says: Kishvari's poetry was first brought to light by the Turkish literary historian İsmail Hikmet Ertaylan [tr] in 1928.
A dīvān is a large collection of poems. Ertaylan uncovered the initial set of Kishvari’s poems, while the complete dīvān was discovered in 1946. — Goldentalk09:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
A better translation would be: It was İsmail Hikmet Ertaylan who first introduced Kishvari's poems to the scientific world (1928). I believe all three phrases essentially convey the same meaning, albeit with slightly different wording. — Goldentalk09:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The trouble is that different words have different nuances of meaning. Discovered in the hook suggests that some poems were found in 1928; brought to light in the article could mean either that the poems were found or that they were published in 1928 and introduced ... to the scientific world in the source could mean that some poems were published or just described in a 1928 book. TSventon (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Does it seem odd that "Kishvari's poetry played a significant role in the development of the Azerbaijani literary language during its formation period in the 15th and 16th centuries" and yet we're saying it was only "discovered" in the past 100 years? I mean, it must have been widely read at the time if it played a significant role in the development of the country's literary language. Maybe it was lost and rediscovered? @Golden, can we clarify? Valereee (talk) 16:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
It was likely lost and then rediscovered. The poet may have lost popularity after the 16th century. Regrettably, the sources do not provide any information on when or how the work was lost, leaving us to conjecture. — Goldentalk16:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks! I don't think it matters for DYK purposes, but as you're a native speaker of Azerbaijani, maybe put a pin in it in case you ever do come across a source that explains. I'm leery of things being "discovered" in the period during which the western world was "discovering" things like entire inhabited continents. :D Valereee (talk) 16:25, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
If we want to avoid "discovery", how about something like
... that scholarly study of the poetry of Kishvari, one of the most important Azerbaijani poets of the 15th and 16th centuries only started in 1928?
We could consider altering the hook entirely to a less confusing statement. Here are some options:
... that the poetry of Kishvari, a 15th- and 16th-century Azerbaijani poet, is regarded as "one of the most valuable resources" to the evolution of the Azerbaijani literary language?
... that Kishvari, a 15th- and 16th-century Azerbaijani poet, left the palace of Yaqub Beg after he was compelled to continuously compose eulogies to him?
... that Kishvari is considered to be one of the two Azerbaijani poets most profoundly influenced by the Central Asian poet Ali-Shir Nava'i?
I actually like all four of those, Kusma and Golden. I kind of like the juxtaposition of dates in:
... that scholarly study of the poetry of Kishvari, one of the most important Azerbaijani poets of the 15th and 16th centuries, only started in 1928?
And for the quirky:
... that Kishvari, a 15th- and 16th-century Azerbaijani poet, left the palace of Yaqub Beg after he was compelled to continuously compose eulogies to him? Valereee (talk) 18:00, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Just recording here that Earwig returns a 92.6% result for this article from jungledragon.com. It does say on that page, though, that some text fragments are auto parsed from Wikipedia. So how would you know who copied from whom? The Wayback Machine has archived a version on 18 January 2022. What matches back then was already in the Wikipedia article at that time, so let's AGF. Schwede6620:33, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Extremely high Earwig results should be assumed mirrors unless you have a very, very good reason to believe otherwise. I have never seen a 90%+ that was copied rather than someone copying us, across many articles. Vaticidalprophet20:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet, even in brand new creations by spa editors? I feel like at AfC I've at least occasionally come across something that was clearly copied 100% from an online 'about us' or bio. Valereee (talk) 22:07, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I specifically said "on Earwig", which is a bit different. Brand new, obviously nonviable spandalism is straight copyvio a lot of the time, but I've never seen a viable article (in mainspace, not clearly a G11) where such a hit wasn't a mirror. I have seen many cases where people, say, quickfailed a GAN because they saw 90% on Earwig and panicked, and learned shortly after about mirrors. Vaticidalprophet22:10, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if that is interesting to any broad audience, but confess that the hook leaves me disinterested. What in it makes me think I'd like to read an article about the bold bird. The image perhaps. That two kinds are similar - so what? That someone (who?) thinks another is cuter than the bold bird, - so what? (I'd rather be interested in the cuter one.) No idea about where these creatures live and how, - anything about them, rather than some unknown persons idea of cuteness. Am I the only one expecting a hook should - besides being hooky - include also some information about the subject? - We'd almost run in the next set a hook that said no more about an interesting composition than that it's musical pieces, without the slightest information about what kind, how long, you name it. Should we really offer a hook that leaves unclear if the pieces are piano works or violin etudes or symphonic poems, just impressing by a high number? Discussion and ideas in the nom or its talk please, where the several changes were recorded. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 10:36, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I haven't seen the original text, but it is cute that a scholarly publication apparently distinguishes birds by their cuteness. The image makes it clear it is a bird; for most other things, the reader can check out the article. As our hooks have a 200-character limit, they will always omit important information. —Kusma (talk) 10:51, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I think the main job of a hook should be being hook-y and get someone to click on the article that's linked. If we're going to explain a bunch of dull information about the subject in the hook, we might as well shut DYK down because very few people are going to be interested in what we're saying. In the example you mentioned, very few people know what lieder even are, and the fact about it being a wedding gift is clearly more interesting, if less informative. AryKun (talk) 10:53, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
The cuter bird got more reads. But, yes, Gerda, I do think, as we've discussed many times, that your idea of what makes a good hook differs profoundly from that of most here. DYK is not, IMO, "what you should know". That's what the article is; the hook's job is to get the reader to the article. Valereee (talk) 13:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
And now that I've tracked down what you were objecting to...yes, I'm afraid I agree with tlc on this. The fact it's a song cycle of 26 lieder in 4 books, for me, muddies the charming story that he composed it as a wedding gift for his bride. By the time I get past three terms I'm only fuzzily familiar with, plus the numbers, which I don't really understand the significance of -- it's a lot, I'm guessing? -- I've lost track of what I'm even reading, and by including those numbers and terms, you're basically telling me that understanding those numbers or terms is important for me to understand why they're important to the fact he composed it for his bride as a wedding gift. Which tells me that I probably won't be able to educate myself well enough to get the significance of this hook. Which, having read the article, isn't true. So you've told me this article probably isn't for me before I even get to the end of the hook.
@Sdkb: I know you've already been through this, but I'm not entirely satisfied by the explanation for Articles of Interest. Yes, a podcast can be reliable, but this boils down to asserting that Trufelman is subject-matter expert (since Radiotopia doesn't do fact-checking and neither do critics), and I don't see the case for it. That's not a distinction we give to most journalists, and I don't see why we'd make an exception here. Maybe the sheer quality of the podcast could make it situationally reliable for fashion-related topics, but even then, making it the underpinning source on a fairly controversial biography? Not sure I'm on board. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron, I have to admit I'm perplexed by the reticence; I don't think this is borderline. Avery Trufelman is a professional journalist whose main beat is fashion, which absolutely makes her a subject-matter expert. For Articles of Interest, the normal reputation for fact-checking and accuracy standard from WP:RS applies. If reviews from The New Yorker, The New York Times, and the BBC that speak to the podcast's research don't qualify as evidence of such a reputation, what possibly would? In any case, the podcast is not an "underpinning source" of the article at this point. It shows up a lot in the references since it has a separate entry for each timestamp, but that's just visual; sources like Vestoj (cited 13 times) are used just as much. {{u|Sdkb}}talk19:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: You can disregard "but not what" in my previous post. Friedman does say on that page; I was just momentarily illiterate: Basketball Digest did not publish my author acknowledgements, so I'd like to take this opportunity to thank Arthur Hundhausen of RememberTheABA.com and John Grasso for providing box scores and background information about both games and Paul Silas, Mel Daniels, Bob “Slick” Leonard, Julius Erving and Rick Barry for contributing their personal recollections.Rjjiii(talk) 08:17, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
The page started in Draft workspace, when it was heavily dependent on blogs.[8] When I got involved, I added mainstream RSs. Friedman seems reliable per Rjjiii. The hook isn't dependent on him, and I'm confident content can be sourceable to alternative RSs, if contested.—Bagumba (talk) 14:56, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
So it does. WithGuitars.com has "Made during a period of turbulence and miscommunication in their relationship, writing the track became a form of catharsis for the pair", and I've added it to the article. Pretty sure they talk about it during at least one interview as well. With the benefit of hindsight, I'm fairly sure ALT2 was acceptable after all, per WP:CALC.--Launchballer21:54, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I don’t see how ALT2 is acceptable as either a hook or as inline content, since it lacks a secondary source. I am happy to be corrected on this if I’m wrong. Viriditas (talk) 03:13, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I guess I'm also at "who cares?" Is it really interesting or unusual that singer-songwriters write and sing about something they've experienced? Someone should inform Taylor Swift.Valereee (talk) 22:15, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
We've ran a substantial number of hooks lately about this specific act, which gets fewer baseline views than most sex chromosome disorders that's the official benchmark for "incredibly niche subject that is higher-view than you think". While I'm skeptical about some variants of the "overly clustered subject matter" argument, I wonder what readers think of the several-hooks-a-month we're giving them about this. Vaticidalprophet22:34, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I don’t have any strong opinions about the hook, but DYK has run multiple hooks about musical artists before. I’m thinking of the DYKs that came from the author behind the Meghan Trainor hooks, of which more than 40 appeared here. So it’s nothing out of the ordinary, and Piri and Tommy are hugely popular with GenZ, so it’s not as niche as you might think. Viriditas (talk) 00:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't appreciate the way I have been mentioned here. The artist I write about is not obscure. Anyways, the only reason I would share the concerns about running too many Piri & Tommy hooks is because most of the songs don't appear to clearly pass the notability criteria.--NØ00:35, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm Gen Z (if right on the upper end) and have only heard of them through DYK. I don't have a problem with running many hooks on any topic -- buildings, TV stations, musical acts. But for the last one specifically, which is by definition a far narrower topic than the broad-scope things we tend to repeat, it can look strange and promotional to run a constant stream of them close together. "Promotional" here is not a statement of intent about why the articles were made -- I know full well they weren't made to promote anything -- but readers don't have that context. Readers tend to assume Main Page topic repetitions are some kind of quota or requirement, and repetitions on something very specific and obvious like individual musical acts combine inauspiciously with that assumption.
We've seen a lot of this with Taylor Swift lately, where the cluster of hooks after she released an album got complaints. There are still two Swift hooks at DYKNA, one of which I was hoping we might be able to promote soon. Then we ran a 36-hour Swift TFA, so...I'll object to any more in the next month. Now, Taylor Swift happens to be once-in-a-generation huge, so the degree to which it looks odd for us to run a lot of Swift hooks is mitigated -- obviously there's a lot to say. But for an act that isn't nearly so huge, running so many hooks so close together stands out ("who are these guys and why does Wikipedia want me to read about them so badly?") and risks being actually promotional.
I don't have a problem in and of itself with us running these hooks. I'm not offended by the articles or think they should be deleted or anything. But we've run two in less than a month, have another two coming up soon, twomore in the pipeline, and have a significant number more stretching across the last few months. We're also running, now I check, even more hooks on Loud LDN. Is there some way to intentionally slow-track these promotions? I'm working on a narrow-topic series myself and more or less telling every other prepbuilder "hey, please don't promote these close together". Vaticidalprophet00:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
There is definitely a way to 'pause' nominations, because we do that if articles go to AfD. I did suggest going quirky in the nom; if you really wanted to space these out, an April Fools' hook could be ... that Dork described words as "a condemning narrative around a lack of communication"?--Launchballer07:26, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
If Piri & Tommy are "hugely popular with GenZ" you'd have thought one of their singles could have managed better than #99 in the charts, given that streaming counts towards the singles charts these days. This is actually quite an obscure act, thought I'll AGF that this slew of DYK nominations isn't promotional. Black Kite (talk)17:33, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
My assumption is that they come from a fan who is making the usual incorrect fan assumption that something they are super-interested in must also be interesting to the rest of the world. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:24, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
We should probably postpone one of the P&T hooks (there is another one in Q7) by a week or two to give people a break. —Kusma (talk) 09:36, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
ALT$$: ... that the art direction for "Words" features Scrabble tiles and a frog? [10]
Just doesn't feel great to be citing Promonews.tv as a source...but cited it is, many times across Wikipedia. After all, where else would we get detailed information about music videos? Cielquiparle (talk) 09:38, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith, yeah, that's not great. @MaranoFan, I'm sorry you aren't happy about this discussion, but honestly if there's literally nothing interesting in a particular article that you can build a hook around, maybe don't nominate it? Those hooks are all exactly the same: Singer-songwriters write and sing about an experience they had. It's not a failing if an article just plain doesn't have a good hook. It's still worth writing, and people will still read it when they want to know more about the story behind that song. Valereee (talk) 11:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Re FA, to be honest, I just want the certification - I don't plan on putting in a TFA request for until well after these have all run. What is your opinion of staggering hooks? I note that Froge.mp3 and Feel It have anniversaries in the next few months (October and January), so they could easily wait until then, and Words could go somewhere in the middle.--Launchballer18:54, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Queues 4 and 5 swapped
@Schwede66: I'll be out until well after today UTC ends, and I won't have time to make the necessary checks and tweaks on Q4, there are two hooks that need to be pulled and replaced and three more that need further review. I've swapped it with Q5, making it next in line. I hope that's all right with you, and my apologies :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 16:54, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we need to explain the reasons in the hook (they are explained in the article), and I don't see a good way of doing so without going into the question of legality of abortion in the UK between 1938 and 1967. But perhaps @Whispyhistory and @Dumelow have a helpful opinion to offer here? —Kusma (talk) 07:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
...that obstetrician William Nixon promoted psychological preparedness for childbirth?
...that obstetrician William Nixon performed abortions on Britain's National Health Service in order to prevent women going to backstreet abortionists?
...that obstetrician William Nixon performed abortions to protect the mental health of girls pregnant by rape?
...that obstetrician William Nixon took psychiatric evaluations of patients before offering them an abortion?
Really there is a lot of good material in the article that is better than just saying he did something before a particular law came in. Philafrenzy (talk) 10:18, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Lava Ridge Wind Project
Queue 1: Lava Ridge Wind Project (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @AdJHu @Kusma per your request above, I took a look at this one. I think the sourcing needs to get firmed up. The only place in the article that says "internment camp" is the lead. It's talked about more under ''Reactions", but only in the guise of "Minidoka visitor center" and "Minidoka National Historic Site"; presumably this is the internment camp, but it would be better to state that explicitly. I think the source being cited is "Lava Ridge Wind Project". BLM National NEPA Register, but that's a 578 page document with 456 search matches for "minidoka", so regardless of anything else, that needs a more specific citation to a page number. RoySmith(talk)21:07, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't believe that the woman on the photograph is 32 years old, nor that the photograph is over 100 years old. —Kusma (talk) 15:55, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
As I understand it, the publisher staff is usually responsible for the blurp. In that case, the quote could be attributed to them as a collective author. I'm not sure if that would be appropriate in this case. The suggested paraphrase would also work (I fixed a spelling mistake in it). Phlsph7 (talk) 08:25, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
... that Major League Baseball player Wade Meckler was 4 feet 10 inches (1.47 metres) tall, and weighed 75 pounds (34 kilograms), as a high-school freshman?
I have no idea how old a high school freshman is, so I'm not too sure how surprising this is. Also, is it OK to focus this much on a BLP's body measurements? "The shortest kid in school" (if that is sourced properly) might work better? Ping @Schwede66, @Turnagra, @Vaticidalprophet. —Kusma (talk) 09:37, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Dwarfism is defined by a height of 4.10 ft (1.25 m) 4 feet 10 inches (1.47 m) and under - and the given weight of 75 lb (34 kg) is less than the well known "98 pound weakling" of popular culture. I see why the hook was selected. But I agree a diminutive freshman is not very unusual and growth spurts are fairly common in pubescent teens. Lightburst (talk) 14:43, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
I have nominated this on behalf of an IP editor, hence know nothing about the subject. I’ll post on my talk page; that’ll be noticed by the IP. Schwede6619:15, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
4 feet 10 is more than 4.10 feet though. Anyway, can I have more input on whether this is (a) appropriate for a BLP and (b) interesting? It is about a baseball player, and the only thing I know about baseball is that the hot dogs are expensive. —Kusma (talk) 08:56, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so I've created a new list the first 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through August 26. We have a total of 272 nominations, of which 123 have been approved, a gap of 149 nominations that has decreased by 28 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
Reviews seem to be taking longer right now -- none of these are struck yet, and spotchecking finds almost none have had even a further-comments-requested review. At the same time, we have a number of "qpq pending" nominations. Might be worth restricting the latter. Vaticidalprophet17:30, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
We shouldn't allow QPQ pending nominations. It's a requirement that you do one (modulo newbies) and it's unfair to your fellow editors to make additional work for them having to nag you to do it. Now get off my lawn. RoySmith(talk)17:40, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't disagree. There seems to be a run of them at present, and even before checking this list and seeing how open everything was, I noticed that all the still-open stuff on my QPQ chain tracker was sitting forever. By the way, check out User:Vaticidalprophet/QPQ chains#Imprinted brain hypothesis -- a double-hook that split into a sextuple-hook, then into a triple-hook and a septuple-hook! It's a Who's Who of 2021 DYK if I've ever seen one. Vaticidalprophet17:47, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
BTW, this was one of the things drilled into me at one place I worked. Things you do broadly fall into 3 categories: Stuff you do to make your co-workers more productive, stuff you do to get your own work done, and stuff you do that makes things harder for your co-workers. You really want that third category to be empty. I recognize a volunteer project isn't private industry, but I think the same philosophy should apply. RoySmith(talk)17:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
At the very least, if a QPQ is needed but not supplied within a week, we should seize the opportunity to reduce the DYK backlog by rejecting the nomination. —Kusma (talk) 17:49, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Not sure I entirely agree. I'm seeing a lot of rather cursory QPQ reviews – in some cases performed by experienced editors who should know better. I would take quality and thoroughness over timeliness any day. To RoySmith's point, the careless "rush job" QPQ reviews end up making a ton of work for other editors too. Cielquiparle (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I really don't understand why people do QPQ reviews after nominating things. It is much less rushed if you just do a review when you have time for a review, and then when your next article is ready for nominating, you don't have to worry about the QPQ anymore. Anyway, to address your point, perhaps we should reject QPQs if the review is too far substandard. Bad reviews cause a huge amount of work later, but our current system gives very little incentives to review thoroughly. —Kusma (talk) 18:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Maybe we could do a voluntary (and lightweight) QPQ rating thing. A little javascript widget where you can give the reviewer 1 to 5 stars (1 to 5 question marks?) to indicate the quality of the review. It still counts, but might be an incentive to reward good reviews. Kind of like barnstars. RoySmith(talk)18:21, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I like that. Changing, "QPQ done" to "Thank you for the in-depth review of xxx" is very lightweight and provides the desired positive feedback. RoySmith(talk)16:00, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
1. "...several dozen families deported to Siberia settled over several thousand kilometers, from the swamps of Western Siberia to the Yenisey River in Eastern Siberia and created a new language"
or
2. "...several dozen families deported to Siberia settled over several thousand kilometers, from the lakes of Western Siberia to the Yenisey River in Eastern Siberia and created a new language"
or (more briefly)
3. "...several dozen families deported to Siberia settled from the lakes of Western Siberia to the Yenisey River in Eastern Siberia and created a new language"
4. "...instead of "several dozen families..." can also "people..." - "...people deported to Siberia settled from the lakes of Western Siberia to the Yenisey River in Eastern Siberia and created a new language"
source in this artical: "The Siberian Ingrian Finnish speakers made rather long migrations in Siberia. In the 19th century, part of the Siberian Ingrian Finnish speakers migrated to the village of Verkhny Suetuk [ru; et] (now Krasnoyarsk Krai)". The village of Verkhny Suetuk is located east of the Yenisey.
And see also the source about the Siberian Ingrian Finnish speakers in Verkhny Suetuk: https://iling.spb.ru/theses/1999 page 35 (in Russian): "...необходимо упомянуть ещё несколько поселений на территории Южной и Восточной Сибири, где проживали ингерманландский финны и выходцы из Финляндии. В первую очередь, это с. Верхний Суэтук...".
5. and another option (with Altai)
"...several dozen families deported to Siberia settled over several thousand kilometers, from the lakes of Western Siberia to the Yenisey River in Eastern Siberia and to the foothills of the Altai in South Siberia and created a new language".
source about "...the foothills of the Altai...": https://iling.spb.ru/theses/1999 page 36 (in Russian): "В начале 1880-х гг. ингерманландские крестьяне из д. Фины Тарского уезда основывают на берегу реки Кулунда в 500 км. от Омска (на территории современного Алтайского края) ещё одно автономное поселение - д. Аштшегул (Ashtshegul) просуществовавшую до 1910 г. [Granö 1905]." Ubaleht (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Ubaleht. It is actually very simple and intuitive. I am a #visualeditor and spend as little time as possible using markup. Go to WP:DYKN where you'll see a blue button that says "Nominate an article". Above the button, there is a link to DYK rules...though in real life you could probably just click on the blue button, fill out the form, hit submit, and then you should get a fair amount of help getting through the process. It's important that you do it soon, as the cutoff is 7 days from when you moved the draft into mainspace. Cielquiparle (talk) 19:41, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a consensus to close this nomination. The chief concern is that the nomination is promotional, and that this is worsened by the COI. The opposition is strengthened by the opposers' raising of (a) the past evidence that TTT was sanctioned for pictures about himself, coupled with the proposed image of himself, (b) the birthday date request could be interpreted as a personal gift, (c) the 2022 thread where TTT proposed creation of this article and multiple users responded cautioning on COI grounds. All of these had the effect of tainting the nomination on editors. Even the supporters for proceeding have not totally accepted the conditions proposed by TTT. Hence, by arguments and numbers, this should not proceed. This close does not conclude how DYK is to handle COIs, and I would suggest a new discussion for that. starship.paint (RUN)12:08, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Its a longstanding issue, I suggested a long time ago that TonyTheTiger take a step back from promoting his sister but they do not appear to have. Note that the most problematic aspect is the promotion of the subject, but that would be an issue regardless of the COI (promotion is not allowed per WP:PROMOTION). Nominating it for DYK himself is inexcusable, that is clear promotion and TonyTheTiger needs a block or ban quick. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:47, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
I don't think DYK has ever had a rule against featuring articles created through COI editing or paid editing (see also: DYK–Gibraltar discussions). If that's something we want, that's a rule we should create, rather than inferring it from WP:PROMO. In the meantime, the article isn't in the best shape and I hope the reviewing process will whip it into shape, should the nomination survive the COI question. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:46, 29 August 2023 (UTC)
It does appear to be a COI promoting one's relative to the main page. We may not have a codified rule but like the majority of editors in this thread it does not seem kosher and probably falls under DYKNOT as Narutolovehinata5 stated. We cannot list every single thing so we have to use our judgement and see that it passes the smell test. Lightburst (talk) 00:45, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I agree that we should clarify/modify WP:DYKNOT to make it clear that all forms of WP:COI and WP:PROMO are ineligible, not just commercial or political causes. And that should include all paid editing, regardless of whether the disclosure required by WP:PAID has been made.
Looking at my own DYKs, that would have disqualified both Cranksgiving and Rocking the Boat. In neither case was I paid (or even asked) to write them, but in both cases the impetus to write them was indeed that I though they were worthy entities which deserved greater visibility. That's pretty much the definition of WP:PROMO. RoySmith(talk)16:15, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
Not knowing your relationship with Cranksgiving and Rocking the Boat its hard to evaluate that but IMO "the impetus to write them was indeed that I though they were worthy entities which deserved greater visibility." alone does not PROMO make. There is also somewhat of a self promotion angle to this as the picture they want to use for the article has them in it as well. He even named himself in the image description[12] so it goes beyond just promoting someone close to him, he's effectively promoting himself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:26, 30 August 2023 (UTC)
I think there's also a difference between what Tony is doing and for example Rachel from BYU. For one thing, Rachel's COI is not only declared, but her DYK nominations have generally have not much to do with BYU specifically but more about the LDS church in general. There's some distance involved and the COI is not as direct. She may be employed by BYU and may be a member of the LDS church, but that isn't any more different than a person being a Catholic, being a member of or being employed by a Catholic organization, and editing articles on Catholicism. As long as it's not directly about the organization itself that should largely be fine. By contrast, Tony wrote an article about his sister and nominated it for DYK. That's very direct and even if she was notable in her own right, that's at best a bad look. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:35, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I did not know that Rachel from BYU was making LDS related DYK nominations. IMO thats not appropriate as it is basically promotion of her employer (for COI purposes there is no separation between LDS and BYU, BYU is not independent of the Church). That she is LDS herself isn't really of concern IMO, its not to my knowledge a faith that exercises coercive influence over its member's contributions on wiki. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:10, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Well we are at work getting a better image for the article and will definitely have one before my sister's birthday of October 25 (the intended date request) since I will be staying at my sister's place in LA October 4-10. I may have some before then. I also have pictures of my sister on my phone from my mother's 80th birthday (November 21, 2021). Every picture that includes my sister either includes us both hugging my mother or hugging each other, except for one in which her face is partially cropped. The thing is I am not sure which were taken by me and which were airdropped from my mother's or sister's phone. Thus, there is a muddled copyright situation on those.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:23, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
DYK is designed to promote new content, so I am attempting to promote my sister's article in that regard. I try to promote all of my new content on the main page. I have promoted 18 articles at DYK in the last 6 months and about 900 DYK articles. Many of these are people that I know. I promoted two at both DYK and GA that I met at a party (Kelly Hecking & Ryan Roberts (American football)). For some reason there is a COI tag on one and not the other. I have also promoted several former classmates like Michael Novogratz and Rose Catherine Pinkney (I don't know why there isn't a COI tag on this since she was a frequent cheerleading partner of mine and I have declared such on the talk) who were undergraduates with me at Princeton and Rob Pelinka who I barely knew and who was an undergraduate at Ross School of Business when I was in the MBA program there. Also, I have a COI tag on Lauren Cohen who was a classmate of mine at University of Chicago, but was able to promote him at DYK. I am a huge Michigan sports fan and promote Michigan sports articles at DYK and GA all the time. Basically, I have a long history of promoting articles at DYK that I am connected to. I am always forthright about my connections and have been allowed to pursue encyclopedic merits for these topics to the best of my ability. I intend to pursue the best encyclopedic merit for my sister just as I have for all other topics to which I was connected.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:41, 31 August 2023 (UTC)
It's probably not a very good idea to nominate your sister for DYK, even if you declare a COI and even if she is notable in her own right. At the very least it may have been better to ask for community input first, and/or to ask a third party to do so instead. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:17, 1 September 2023 (UTC)
By the time we get to the date request date, there will be a more conventional infobox image. My sister is a COI and regardless of the specifics of our relationship, the COI has been properly declared so that all interested parties can rubberneck while the review goes on. If anything odd happens you can slap the cuffs on me yourself. I would step aside, but so far that has been a disaster. Much of my main space edits to the page have been to correct glaring errors that happened due to my stepping aside.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:10, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
If I were you, what I would have done is ask for a third party here on WT:DYK to do the nomination for me, then have that nominator be the actual nom and do the necessary changes. That way, there would be less of a COI issue than what's currently happening right now. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:32, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
Noting for the record that I've been following this conversation, looking into the background, and am willing to review the nomination. I will try to deliver a probably-way-more-comprehensive-than-DYK-requires review in the next couple days, after I finish catching up on what seems to be 20,000 posts on various fora across several months. Vaticidalprophet08:12, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
User:Narutolovehinata5, as I have noted, I was forced to step aside until the article got into main space. The article entered main space with many inaccuracies. Given that after 7 months in someone elses hands the article emerged in a poor state, I don't trust that a DYK nom would be handled any better than the AFC nom was. Sometimes if you want something done right, you have to do it yourself and I will be editing with my COI hat on for my sister's article. Right now, I am working with her staff about a professional photo. Between now and her October 25 birthday that I hope will see her appearing on DYK, there are more inaccuracies to address and other issues.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:01, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
I am quite concerned about the above statement. Basically you're saying, "I'm willing to stand back and let other edit, as WP:COI requires, unless I don't like what they're doing then I'll just do it myself". RoySmith(talk)23:18, 2 September 2023 (UTC)
COI does not require COI editors never directly edit the article -- though it is very much encouraged that they don't -- and one invocation of IAR I've seen people make a lot is "COI editor is fixing obvious errors or issues". Looking at the recent history here, what I see is fixing of unambiguous factual errors (and here I'd say BLP-policy trumps COI-guideline) and a minor ref formatting tweak. More use of {{edit COI}} would be appreciated, if nothing else to get more eyes on (the talk looks a bit going in circles right now), but I see nothing impeachable about what direct edits have been made. Vaticidalprophet04:40, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
@Narutolovehinata5 Not sure I agree. You could argue that it's "cleaner" for the COI editor to do the nomination themselves, so that it's transparent, rather than requesting a third party to nominate and turn that person into a "proxy" for the COI editor (or put the other editor in an awkward position regardless). Cielquiparle (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
I've completed a review. I think this can run, but there are some tone issues I've noted in the article that any uninvolved editor could address (I'm considering reviewer status too involved for that, especially in case an uninvolved editor doesn't agree), and I want some more thoughts on the date request specifically. Looking to get the image (which Tony is handling) and date resolved before approving, and I know I'm a hardass on date requests, so bringing that one to WT:DYK's attention. Vaticidalprophet02:04, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Given the circumstances I'm not keen on having the hook run on the subject's birthday, less it be thought of as a birthday gift. If the article ends up running, IMO it should run as a regular hook without regard to date. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I have made dozens of main page (including DYK) date request in the past and don't recall one having been declined. In addition, aren't birth/death dates fairly standard dates to use for a biography article. All main page content seems to have a strong preference for presentation with date relevance. Are there any guidelines for date requests?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
User:RoySmith, This is your second attempt to put words in my mouth with false quotes in this discussion. Would you mind stopping your pattern of WP:PAs. I have made no statement about getting away with anything. All admins of all processes on the main page are aware of the precedence for presenting content with date relevance.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:26, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I'll admit that "getting away with it" is editorializing on my part, but you are clearly arguing that because you've done this before you should be allowed to do it now. I disagree with that premise. RoySmith(talk)16:22, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
In terms of a date request, what I am arguing is that I do not recall having been declined a non-rivalrous main page date request. At WP:TFA when multiple articles were vying for the same date, I have been declined, but in this case it is essentially non-rivalrous because there are not 8 other articles vying for the DYK date. What is the precedent for a date relevant to the article being declined?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:11, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
Multiple times actually. Sometimes it's because the date requested was considered tangential to the article, sometimes it's because the date was considered promotional, and sometimes it's because it's outside the six-day requirement. Just because a date has been requested and is relevant does not mean the date will be granted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:05, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
A little unexpected history fell out just now. Way back in 2011, TTT was tbanned from "uploading images about himself, broadly construed." The tban was lifted in 2013 by Floquenbeam who said, "I'm assuming the problems leading to the topic bans will not recur" So here we are, with TTT uploading pictures of himself and trying to get them featured on the main page. I guess not technically a violation since the tban was lifted, but seriously? RoySmith(talk)23:06, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm very uncomfortable with the whole situation and the prior topic ban has tipped me over the edge. The DYK crowd is exposing itself to criticism by other editors if we didn't push back on this. My suggestion is that we decline the nomination outright. Schwede6623:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't think this hook should run given the circumstances. This is a situation where people should use their own brains and think for a minute and realize trying to get a DYK hook to run about your own sister and where a photo including yourself is in the article is a bad idea. It's pretty clear that TTT doesn't get it. Saying I am a huge Michigan sports fan and promote Michigan sports articles at DYK and GA all the time shows a fundamental misunderstanding of what a COI is. "I want to write about something I'm passionate about" does not a COI make. Writing about your sister does. While I appreciate that TTT properly disclosed his COI in relation to this article, he doesn't seem to understand why other editors are (rightly, in my opinion) concerned. And no way in hell should this be run on a certain date "as a birthday gift". Trainsandotherthings (talk) 00:42, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
There is a huge amount that routinely concerns me at DYK regarding undisclosed connections, POV-pushing, factual accuracy, etc. This is...not that high, comparatively? I genuinely get what Schwede is concerned about, because it's much easier to point at and go "there's obviously something weird here!" than the far more subtle and complex issues that come up more often. But if every weird nomination came with an attached "I'm making this because I think it'll help me win an internet argument" or "I've been repeatedly told my articles have factual errors, come check them", I'd call that a win. That's not to say I'm going to die on the hill of running this, but I am really not comfortable drawing the line at "you admit the problem". Vaticidalprophet00:48, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree, this is blatant promotion and would be unacceptable if it was, e.g., a new account run by an employee of a company trying to get their company a DYK (even with COI disclosed). I'm baffled that there isn't already a rule prohibiting COI content from landing on the main page, even when it's not being promoted there by the editor with the COI. Moreover, is no one else disturbed by how many articles TTT is creating on people he personally knows, and that he is not only continuing to edit these but also actively pushing them into more visible spaces (GA, DYK, FA...)? JoelleJay (talk) 06:17, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
User:RoySmith, you are making a third false assertion in this same discussion regarding me trying to get a picture on the main page that I did not even include in the DYK nomination. Furthermore, as I have already explained the other pictures that I can currently provide for the article involve my sister and me both hugging my mom at her 80th birthday and us hugging each other at the same event. There will be an appropriate main image in the article before the nomination runs.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:15, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
the image at right appears to be one in which your sister's face is neither cropped nor obstructed, and she is neither hugging nor being hugged by anyone. would this be a more appropriate image to use until a better one is procured? dying (talk) 21:52, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
As I have stated on the nomination, I am running into difficulty finding a RS for her birthdate. Although, I know her birthdate, my WP:OR does not count as a source. So the date request may be somewhat moot if the article does not contain the date of relevance.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:31, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
P.S. As a creator of many WP:BLPs, I must add that if I had the option of including a presentable image of any BLP subject along with their only sibling in an article, I would consider it a great plus for the article to include such an image although it might be an odd addition as the main image. If any of you knows of any PD image of any biographical subject that I have created the article for alongside any of their biological siblings let me know so I can add such an image to their article unless User:RoySmith has a false assertion to make about its merits.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:44, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment - I made a comment at Template:Did you know nominations/Carla Vernón, but to cut a long story short, I think this nom should be archived and we move on. There's too many questionable aspects of this for me to be comfortable that this is a suitable article to run at DYK. I do think Tony is acting in good faith here, but I think their thinking on this is still out of line with how the community views here, and for someone who's explicitly in the past had the very unusual topic ban of not being permitted to upload images of themselves to now be telling us they strongly believe an image of Vernón with her "only sibling" has a strong encyclopedic value? I'm not aware we'd usually think there was much encyclopedic necessity to add photos of people's siblings to articles - WP:NOTINHERITED and all that. So yeah, let's close the nom and move on. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 09:49, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Call for a decision
This nomination has led to a lot of discussion without a clear directive. It seems certain that there is significant discomfort with me 1.) nominating my sister for DYK, 2.) requesting her birthdate as a date request, 3.) including a picture of her that includes me, and 4.) me choosing the currently nominated hook fact.
My Template:Did you know nominations/Carla Vernón nominator has stated that they do not feel that going forward with this hook was appropriate and to seek a clear resolution here. I double checked with the DYK admins on what was appropriate and they also feel that a consensus should emerge from this discussion. It seems fairly certain for this nomination to have any chance to proceed the following things need to be put forth for consideration. Can the nomination go forward under the following conditions:
A Non-COI editor take over as lead nominator at DYK giving them the freedom to
propose/edit/tweak the hook,
edit the article
determine the relevance/propriety of a date request
The main image (further discussed below) be approved by said nominator with discretion to omit it from the nomination regardless of its propriety.
P.S. User:Amakuru, has subtly worked in the false assertion that I feel biological sibling images are a necessity. What I have stated, is that in any BLP (or biography in general), we usually welcome pictures of the subject with their family members. I have edited a hundreds of BLPs and have never been in a situation where there was any feeling that if we had a picture of the subject with any of their family members it was not additive to the article. Additive and necessity are different. Everyone here brings in a wealth of editorial experiences, I am very welcome to being taught why including family members in BLPs images is not additive in certain contexts. Thus, it is not clear that the prior topic ban is relevant for family members where such images are generally considered additive. However, this issue will be moot since I will have a conventional main image by mid-October for the article and could either move or remove the current one at that point. The WP:DCM update is that I have identified an image that is suitable and that the photographer has been identified. Honest currently has contractual ownership of the usage rights for the photo, but the original photographer owns the copyrights. It is unclear whether this image or a similar one will lead to a DCM or whether I will just ask my sister for her best selfie as a DCM. However, in either case, I will be staying at my sisters from October 4 through 10 and will donate a suitable image myself after this trip. The image should not really be an issue at all with this eventuality.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Should this DYK nomination proceed with the above conditions
Support
Support as DYK nominator willing to surrender to a Non-COI lead DYK nominator. I would nominate User:Silver seren for the task if it is acceptable him. As stated above a suitable main image will be available by mid October. There are many shades of COI ranging from paid editors to employees as well as close contacts. DYK is a benefit to any article because it gets fresh eyes on a subject. This article is no different from any other article of modest quality. DYK will give it a chance to be improved. I am hoping that this article can be accorded the beneficial exposure of DYK where other editors may help tweak it.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Ultimately, good content is good content. But I oppose the conditions specified. TonyTheTiger should remain responsible for the nomination, the date request should not go forward, and the image should be removed from the article. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:17, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Either an article meets notability or not and it meets, upon creation, the requirements of DYK or not. Those using WP:DYKNOT as an argument clearly need to actually read it, as this isn't an article about a commercial or political cause nor is it promoting any form of product or campaign or anything like that. So unless the argument is that all BLPs are inherently promotional of the person they are about, then DYKNOT doesn't apply in the slightest. Yes, Tony has a COI and should have had someone else make the nomination. But, regardless, the article on a person meets the requirements. To try and claim otherwise is to yourself be in violation of the rules of DYK. This doesn't even meet the level of the past incident claims involving Gibraltar, since there isn't even anything actually promotional in this. And those DYKs were run. Please actually follow the rules of DYK and don't make up non-existent ones. SilverserenC00:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
If nothing else, surely this is promotion of Honest, considering the hook is literally described by TTT as Honest PR material, and TTT states he is directly working with the Honest PR team to help make this DYK? JoelleJay (talk) 01:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
TTT states he is directly working with the Honest PR team to help make this DYK Wait: did Tony actually say that? If that's true, then the nomination should be rejected on the spot for promotion, regardless of the whole "the subject is my sister" thing. DYK doesn't allow promotional hooks so that alone, if true, would disqualify this. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
That was my interpretation of this comment at the nom (emphasis mine):
I'll reveal a little inside information. A hires a person based on suitability for the job. Honest did not decide it was time to pick an Afro-Latina. They felt that based on their personal business interactions with my sister and her career track record on matters of import to their corporate mission, she was well-suited for the job. Once they decided they wanted to hire her and vetted her to be a public company CEO, they then realized that they may have something special on their hands, but were not sure. It is hard to prove the negative (that no A-Ls have been public CEOs before). If one were known, it is easy to prove the positive that there has been one. The complication is that in recent times it has become more fashionable to be Afro-American and Hispanic/Latinx-American. When I was in school and trying to find jobs you had to choose one box or the other. Even when Carla started her career, she had to choose one or the other. Now that you can be both, it is not clear whether someone in the era of being only able to check one box, was both. There certainly aren't a lot of either Afro-American women who have been CEOs of public companies or Latinx women who have been CEOs of public companies. However, there is no Wikipedia list or easy list to find on the matter. Out of an abundance of caution at the time of her public announcement as CEO, the decision was made to avoid potential controversy of declaring her to be the first, but to make it clear that she was one of the first and monitor feedback. Months later, there were no mentions of prior A-L woman CEOs of public companies. There is no proof that one has not preceded her, but there no proof that one has. The claim is being made and has yet to be refuted. Honest PR has not been corrected. It is also possible that someone who was an Afro-Latino CEO of a public company now identifies as female, but none are known.
Even the original quote you gave is worrying either way. It seems that the intention of the DYK hook was to correct prevailing information of Vernon being merely one of the first female Afro-Latino CEOs and instead state directly that she was the first. If that is indeed the intent of the nomination then, even if Vernon wasn't TTT's sister, it would still be a promotional hook or a hook meant to push a particular side and thus would not be suitable for DYK. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:48, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Comment At no point has Honest had any involvment in the nomination. I have asked if my sister has a more conventional photo for her bio and she said Honest has professional photographs of her. She would find one and I could work with her team to get everything sorted out. I have been sorting out an image. My sister and I have had discussions about her status as the first A-L CEO. She explained how her company has handled the situation and I have relayed that to you to clarify that the claim is based on the high probability of its truth based the historical sequence. It is not clear to me if the claim is about U.S. markets or worldwide markets. However, Honest is not involved in my nomination. To be clear: 1. I am working with Honest to get a photo of my sister. 2. The hook fact is based on PD sources that my sister has explained to me are supported by Honest's assessment of history.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:17, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
User:JoelleJay, My sister is CEO of Honest. I talk to my sister about getting a photo for her WP biography. She knows the purpose is to have a conventional image for her biography. She has choseen a preferred picture. It is "...from a paid photo session commission [sic] by us so that there are updated professional headshots of me and Jessica [Alba]."-quoting from a Sept 2 text between me and my sister. She has me working with 4 people from "her team" (an assistant, as well as communications and PR people) to get the WP:DCM ironed out. I have asked her (on September 6) to try to get it done in 2 weeks, so that I can have time to go with plan B before just taking her with my own cellphone (plan D).-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:08, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
JoelleJay, i think i've read most, if not all, of it, though admittedly, there are a lot of things i still don't understand. earlier, i didn't understand why the photo i posted above wasn't temporarily selected for the infobox image, instead of the one where a slice of pizza obstructed the view of TonyTheTiger's sister's face, and it turns out that TonyTheTiger had simply forgotten about that photo. now, i don't understand why TonyTheTiger mentioned that there was a professional headshot of alba. is it being added to the article? i get that alba is one of the founders of the company, but she is not mentioned in the article's prose. (likewise, the article on tim cook doesn't have a headshot of steve jobs, steve wozniak, or ronald wayne.)in any case, we already have a bunch of decent photos of alba available on commons; honest's pr doesn't need to submit one for this article. if anything, i think it would be more helpful if they instead donated headshots of co-founders christopher gavigan and brian lee. commons doesn't appear to have very good pictures of the latter, and apparently have none of the former. dying (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Question (not a support or oppose, although I'm leaning towards the former) - if there were no COI concerns, would this DYK nomination be in acceptable shape to be approved? BeanieFan11 (talk) 17:28, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, articles that look more or less like it does and have hooks more or less like it does run routinely. (This is a descriptive statement, not a prescriptive one.) I still think some of the wording is not-great, but I've promoted articles I think are in worse shape than it is right now.
I remain uncomfortable with the idea declared problems, specifically, should be a priority for where to draw the line -- there's plenty out there much worse than declared COIs and I'd argue we've done some of it, and most of them are harder to spot, such that penalizing "you explicitly say there's a problem" is to our detriment in the long run. But...that's why I soft-rejected when it was clear which way the wind was blowing, not hard-rejected. It's a sticky situation and I really understand where both groups are coming from. I can't see any way this runs, and think it would be to the project's detriment to do so, but I think that should be cause to be stricter on a lot of things markedly less obvious than it is.
I land very similarly to NLH re. Allowing this could lead to a precedent of other editors doing similar things, and I believe that would be detrimental to DYK...except I think we're doing that, actively, all the time, for things much more complex and harder to untangle than this. (The hooks I think should be announced at WTDYK, if we ever actually did that, aren't hooks about products -- they're hooks about culture war topics.)
I'm not making a support-oppose statement, because I was the reviewer and I don't think I...can. I oppose it, but I don't Oppose-column oppose it. "It would be better if this was never nominated so we don't have to debate it" is my ultimate position here. Vaticidalprophet17:53, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Support. I feel we're punishing someone for following the COI policies and declaring their COI. If the article really is in good enough shape that it'd be promoted if the writer did not have a COI, it doesn't make sense to me that we'd decline it when the writer does have a COI solely because he has a COI. BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:03, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
I find I lean towards "inasmuch as this article is similar to a lot of things that run, that reflects more on the other things". Not necessarily in a solvable-problem way, though -- DYK is not GA. Vaticidalprophet19:08, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
The nomination is blatant promotion of a person and business by someone with a clear COI (and a history of sanctions for self-promotion!) effectively acting as a proxy for the person and business. It should be rejected. JoelleJay (talk) 00:37, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I'll note that these issues were brought up at the COIN thread TTT opened up in 2022 about creating the article on his sister, where there was broad agreement that his promotionalism was in bad form and the inappropriateness of promoting the unsubstantiated A-L CEO claim in particular was highlighted. That discussion had at least 8 different editors strongly advising against making the article at all... JoelleJay (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Even with the above conditions, and while I do think that Tony was assuming good faith while working on the article, the nomination is a Pandora's Box. We have had cases of COI on DYK before and while they have had varying levels of suitability, this is one that gives a very bad look. The nominator making an article on his own sister (already something that COI strongly discourages except for very limited circumstances) regardless of a third-party also contributing to it is a bad enough look. But wanting to include a picture that also includes him, along with him being an editor who had a since-lifted topic ban from uploading images of himself, arguably makes it worse.
There's also the desire to feature the subject on her birthday, which apart from the technical issue I discussed before about it being ineligible due to DYK's six-week limit for special occasions, is also a bad look since not only did he admit that the date is unsourced in-article so it's real but unverifiable, but it would give the impression that the DYK is a birthday gift. Now I understand that birthday special occasions are often arguably birthday gifts as well (I've had similar feelings before when I've done DYK nominations where I requested the hook to go up on the subject's birthday), but I think there's a difference between a special occasion request for a celebrity you merely admire or have written about, and a special request about your own sister.
Even if Silver or another editor were to adopt this, the damage has been done and allowing the nomination would open a whole can of worms. The article, even if it may not been intended as such, appears to be "promotional" in the sense that Tony is trying to put his own sister on the main page of Wikipedia. Allowing this could lead to a precedent of other editors doing similar things, and I believe that would be detrimental to DYK. If Tony wants to work on his sister's article under what COI allows, he's free to do so, but it featuring on DYK given the circumstances seems like a bad idea. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:45, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose, and possibly clarify WP:COI after this concludes. The Conflict of Interest policy is seemingly so confusing that multiple editors in this thread alone seem to have mistaken the "interest" as a passion when it's almost always used to mean a stake. It isn't a conflict to be interested in something like local sports or fascinating people you meet. It is a conflict of interest to have a stake in something that a reasonable person would assume competes with or outweighs your volunteer editing on the encyclopedia. In this case, a reasonable person would assume Tony's familial relationship with his sister outweighs any responsibility here. And an example from the other direction: there was a Conflict of Interest complaint at ANI a while back where a biographer who had written two books on Tom Crean (explorer) and kept making edit requests was accused of "promoting the man" and having a conflict of interest with him. Tom Crean died in 1938. The policy is, I think, written vaguely to avoid paid editors coming up with loopholes, but there is likely some way to better clarify it. Rjjiii(talk) 04:05, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose, and decline the nom outright. Tony is acting in good faith here, but the precedent set would be terrible. If it's happened before, it was a bad idea then, too. Putting something on Wikipedia's main page is giving it publicity. We should not do that when a COI is involved, period. Perhaps we can codify this into the DYK rules, but WP:COI already discourages it, and in particular discourages doing things besides fixing basic factual information. The image issue does not necessarily impact my assessment of this DYK, but that doesn't reflect very well on Tony. Vanamonde (Talk)17:45, 11 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose On the one hand I agree with @BeanieFan11: 11 when they said I feel we're punishing someone for following the COI policies and declaring their COI. Once the COI is declared however we see that TTT is promoting an image that makes us uneasy. And @RoySmith: has shown us that TTT was t-banned from "uploading images about himself, broadly construed." It was a mistake on their part to continue to try and promote the image, and for me that taints the whole process. Also the ffact that they wrote the article and then tried to get it featured after the feedback at COIN was that they should not write the article. @JoelleJay: summarized: That discussion had at least 8 different editors strongly advising against making the article at all. TTT is a good and valued editor and I am going to assume that they know better. Lightburst (talk) 18:55, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
I don't see this as punishment for following COI policies, but rather as a small step towards pushing back against the promotionalism that has at times overrun DYK. We should do a lot more of that. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:20, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose per my comment above, and also the others here. This isn't a punishment, but simply setting the precedent that we don't publish COI DYK noms. — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Should this article include the latest picture of the subject with her brother as long as that image be displaced from the infobox position
Support
I feel any picture with a family member is additive to a biography article regardless of whether that person be a violent criminal or a topic ban subject. If I were ever to become a notable person, I would hope that this image with my sister be included somewhere in my biography article.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 22:10, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
I am opposed to the current setup: a sort of strange self-flagellation ritual where nobody is ever allowed, under any pain, to mention the forbidden fact that Wikipedia articles are written by humans. Who cares? jp×g01:10, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
I can't say I follow your reasoning here, as someone who was a strong proponent of restoring Guy Standing sitting and generally tries to retain a bit of the human element in his editing. A number of articles I created or massively expanded feature images I uploaded. I don't see how people being uncomfortable with someone uploading and using a picture of themselves with their Wikipedia-notable sister can be described as the way you have here. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 02:18, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Oppose
I'm not against images including siblings, but I am against people including images of themselves with prominently notable people. It comes across as promotion by proxy. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:19, 9 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, we never include the subject's siblings in any photos I've seen. I'm really having a tough time understanding the problem here; if the subject is Tony's sister, can't he just ask her to take a photo of herself and upload it? Sure seems like that would be the quickest way to end this discussion. AryKun (talk) 11:12, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Images of subjects with their non-notable siblings are not "additive" in particular, there is no reason to include such a thing and it's not something you see at many other articles. Indeed we'd usually discourage it to protect the privacy of the siblings concerned. And all the more so given that (for reasons I haven't looked into) Tony has already in the past had the highly unusual TBAN which specifically forbade the uploading of images of himself... — Amakuru (talk) 12:50, 19 September 2023 (UTC)
Other
Just crop the darn photo. Yes, Tony shouldn't be in it. Crop it so only the article subject is shown. Problem solved. This is making a mountain out of a molehill. SilverserenC00:47, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
Our policy on images seems entirely geared towards copyright. The Adolf Hitler article has like 10 separate articles of Nazi propaganda because they're available and in the public domain. I've seen businesses upload glamorous photos of their establishments to use on articles. And if Tony is going to add a better photo next month, the clear photo should be the top one in the article. Rjjiii(talk) 04:13, 10 September 2023 (UTC)
For those interested, my sister's picture has been submitted. However, the WP:VRT team (Commons:User:Krd) seems to be ignoring the donation and somehow made the nomination about the photo at issue herewith. They seem to have discarded the image donation are ignoring the request for clarification at Commons VRT.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 01:50, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
There is currently another open COI nomination from an experienced DYK editor at Template:Did you know nominations/Kessel Run. I...do not personally want to get further involved with COI nominations, but believe editors interested in this discussion may have thoughts on it and whether it is or should be considered equivalent to this case. I note that another COI nomination by the same editor ran some years ago; this statement is made without any implication on whether this was a good idea or serves as a precedent. Vaticidalprophet19:10, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Given that GRuban is currently employed by Kessel Run, normally I'd say that we should treat COI noms on a case-by-base basis, but I really don't know if it's a good idea for him to be directly involved in the nomination even if it's in good faith. COI is one of the most serious issues on Wikipedia and ideally editors have to tread carefully. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:48, 14 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping! In the DYK nomination, the COI notice is the entire comment field. Also, as you note, it wasn't an issue last time, so I had no reason to suspect the rules changed since. --GRuban (talk) 14:56, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
I was going to hold this until the Carla Vernón thing was completely finalized, but given that we've got a second example, I guess it's time.
We should modify the DYK rules to just flat-out disqualify any COI nominations. I'm grateful that both TonyTheTiger and GRuban were up-front about their conflicts, but putting COI material on the front page is still not what we want to be doing. RoySmith(talk)15:05, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
If we disqualify all COI nominations, I am afraid we will end up banning disclosed COIs while letting undisclosed COIs pass, which is obviously not the best outcome. There is also a difference between a COI article advertising your company's newest product and a COI article about your war hero grandfather. I don't really have a solution, but we certainly should not punish anyone for disclosing their COI as long as their articles adhere strictly to NPOV. —Kusma (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
a radical proposal: what if we began assuming that all dyk nominators have a conflict of interest with the hook subject, absent a declaration of no conflict of interest? dying (talk) 03:18, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The issue raised by me remains unanswered. It appears that the AFC reviewer was unaware of the CoI as it had not been declared as part of the AFC submission, nor was the conflict stated on the talk page. For that reason, I submit that this nomination should be rejected. I reserve judgment on whether we should reject all CoI nominations. Schwede6617:54, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
@Robert McClenon: My apologies: the CoI is the only reason I put the article in AFC in the first place, otherwise I would have just put it in main space, as I do with all my non-CoI articles. I am sorry that I didn't notify the AFC reviewer, I missed that requirement, it was not intentional, just an oversight. (I consider myself an experienced editor who has written plenty of articles, but not that many CoI articles!) But let me ask the reviewer (with this ping here and will post on his talk page), and ask if it would have made a difference to the review. If so, we should probably put it back in Draft, and have him or someone else re-review it. I don't want to take unfair advantage of the system. --GRuban (talk) 18:22, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
On the one hand, a draft which has a conflict of interest should be tagged as having a conflict of interest, and it wasn't. On the other hand, I accepted the draft because I thought it satisfied notability and neutral point of view, and neutral point of view is the concern with conflict of interest. Also, it didn't "smell" like a COI draft, and it wasn't your run-of-the-mill COI draft. (Sometimes a draft that smells of COI isn't COI, but an ultra, a fanatical fan, who ignores neutral point of view.) If it had been tagged for COI, I probably would have taken half an hour longer to review it before I accepted it. The basketball expression is no harm, no foul. And the basket is good. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:44, 15 September 2023 (UTC)
Time to close?
The "call for a decision" discussion has been open for over 10 days and has somewhat petered out. In terms of raw numbers, including Tony, there are four straight supports for the hook running, one !vote opposing restrictions (without specifying if the hook should run or not) and 13 opposes. Even remembering that discussions are not votes, consensus appears to lean towards the hook not running on DYK at all. Is it time to close the nomination along those lines? Closing the discussion though might be tricky since most DYK regulars have provided input in the discussion and thus are involved: would it be advisable to also post a closure request at WP:CR? Note that this is only talking about the question on running the Carla Vernon hook, with the other stuff involving COI nominations at DYK probably worth discussing separately. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:11, 20 September 2023 (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.
Quick query on if I'm involved for a promotion
I don't promote articles if I reviewed them at GAN -- I'm not sure if this is actually required, but I figured between "can't review at DYK if I reviewed at GAN" and "can't promote if I reviewed at DYK" this is deducable. There's currently an article that's been in the backlog for a while, and has a workable hook, where I originally quickfailed it at GAN and it was later passed (making it DYK-eligible) by a different editor. Involved or not? Vaticidalprophet14:09, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I would say 'quickfailed' = 'not actually reviewed', so I'd lean towards uninvolved. I'd want to see the article first though.--Launchballer16:13, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Like Kusma, I tend to think you aren't involved, but unless there's some urgent reason (a quickly upcoming spec occ or something) I'd just let someone else promote. Valereee (talk) 22:11, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The list of viable quirkies at DYKNA that aren't unpromotable for some reason (subject matter conflict, nomination has been reopened over an issue, etc) is not long right now. As noted up in #Older nominations needing DYK reviewers, we've had a major slowdown of reviews -- I'm currently doing most of the promotions and have noticed it, and can't fix it myself without being involved with those articles and thus unable to promote them. Vaticidalprophet22:16, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
Just noticed I'm involved in the next prep up for promotion :( We should really have more admins active in promoting ... —Kusma (talk) 11:04, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
Need to know if I am needlessly holding up this nomination with my concerns. I think a few editors disagree with my assessment and I do not want to be in the way if I am wrong. Thank you all and have a great week! Bruxton (talk) 14:50, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
@DYK admins: According to the count of DYK Hooks, the number of approved hooks is 120. There are also 6 queues and 5 filled preps, however last time we switched to two sets a day we had to switch back after 6 days due to running low on preps and queues. I therefore suggest we don't switch tomorrow but wait until we have a few more preps/queues TSventon (talk) 22:41, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
We're now at 138 approved hooks with 4 queues and 6 filled preps; we can't fill more preps until more preps are promoted to queue, so switching now wouldn't be a great idea. Requesting a few admins directly (since none showed up last ping to the admins as a whole: Cas Liber, Z1720, RoySmith, Kusma, Aoidh, and theleekycauldron. If we can get up to all seven queues, then we stand a reasonable chance of filling up the preps over the next couple of days, and perhaps we can have a smoother and longer-lasting switchover than last time. Thank you all very much for your help. BlueMoonset (talk) 19:34, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Real life gets busier for me in September, so I anticipate that my ability to promote preps to queue will diminish. Z1720 (talk) 23:42, 7 September 2023 (UTC)
Four days later and after having all queues filled we're down to only 3 filled queues and 6 filled preps, only now we're sending two sets a day to the main page. Hoping that Cas Liber, Kusma, Aoidh, and/or theleekycauldron can do some queue promoting to shore up our queue supply and open up preps for building. Many thanks to you all. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:45, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
theleekycauldron, Cas Liber, Kusma, BorgQueen, might any of you be able to promote some preps to queues? We're down to two filled queues, and with the weekend coming on, it would be great to free up some preps since people tend to be more available to fill them. We're getting perilously close to being below six filled queues and preps, while having 117 approved hooks still needing promotion. If we can sustain two-a-day for another week, which means regular promotions in the interim, I think we'll be in much better shape should we have a premature reversion to one-a-day. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:14, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure if we can maintain 12s right now. I'm doing most of the prepbuilding and have gotten into the "after promoting much of DYKNA, way too much of what's left is something I'm involved with" purgatory. Some of the remainder is stuff I intend to bring back to DYKN (because the hook needs more workshopping or there's otherwise a problem that I haven't promoted it yet over), which will render me involved with it once that's done. We also currently have oversupply of a couple subjects (specific musical acts, in particular) that mean a nontrivial minority of DYKNA is things that should wait to avoid topic saturation, so the de facto number of available hooks is much lower than the raw number. Vaticidalprophet04:32, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
The top prep has an article I reviewed. If nobody else promotes it until I go to sleep today, I might consider promoting it despite my involvement, but I'd rather promote a later prep if possible. —Kusma (talk) 16:35, 18 September 2023 (UTC)
We are now, 14:30 (UTC), at 4 preps and 2 queues, so we will need either at least one new prep and one new queue (ideally more) before midnight (UTC) or to go back to 1 a day after midnight. TSventon (talk) 13:38, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
... that in his 2020 book, The American Prospect executive editor David Dayen argues that monopolies are so interwoven with our lives that it is impossible to escape them?
This reads like the title of the 2020 book is The American Prospect. I was confused when I clicked on it and discovered it was a magazine of which he is the editor. I see that it's already been workshopped around quite a bit at the nomination, but I still don't think this one works as written. Pinging nom and everyone else who commented there. @Jayen466 @Cielquiparle @Paul012 @Thriley @Theleekycauldron ♠PMC♠ (talk)23:47, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I found that suboptimal too. How about this:
... that David Dayen, executive editor of The American Prospect, argues in his 2020 book that monopolies are so interwoven with our lives that it is impossible to escape them?
Is anyone either willing to trim the Anthropodermic bibliopegy link from the Paul Needham (librarian) hook in Prep 1 or has a really good argument for it to be there? "Book bound in human skin" is itself more explanatory than that link is (the article really needs redoing from scratch), and I noticed when running the Dark Archives hook that its presence meant a ton of views were redirected there. When the nomination first went up the DA hook hadn't been run yet, so I didn't have the stats to know if it needed including or excluding, but we have them now. I'd trim an equivalent link myself if I wasn't involved, but I'm the nominator here.
As an aside, there's been a few rounds recently at ERRORS where editors who don't have experience with DYK stats data request extraneous links that were trimmed be re-added, and these have been fulfilled lately more often than they used to be. Definitionally by this point it's too late for most editors to object, and ERRORS doesn't archive, so it's difficult to get across well that minimizing non-bold links is intentional rather than unintentional. Vaticidalprophet23:49, 20 September 2023 (UTC)
that Grimace's Birthday was praised by Kotaku as "part of the perfect 2000s internet time capsule"?
The text of the article actually says Ashley Bardhan of Kotaku praised the game's marketing, describing the official website as "part of the perfect 2000s internet time capsule." (my bold). Yes, the game can be played on the website, but strictly speaking the source is praising the website, not the game. The hook went through a huge amount of workshopping, so I'm hesitant to boldly rework it on my own. ♠PMC♠ (talk)02:12, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Yes, that is not good. I would prefer one of the ALTs,
ALT5a ... that McDonald's paid Fandom to replace a user-written page about Grimace with advertising for the Grimace Shake menu item and Grimace's Birthday video game? Source (Kotaku): "McDonalds paid the site's owners to temporarily replace Grimace's biography with a paid advertisement ... Nathan's research wiped and replaced with reminders that people can go buy a Grimace meal at McDonalds and play a video game based on the character"
It still looks like advertising to me. We should never put advertising on the main page. Even if we were allowed to put adverts on the main page, this one is no more notable than a thousand other adverts that first come out every month, i.e. it has pure routine coverage. I've put the advert template on both articles. I just can't imagine a good reason why people would want to put adverts on the main page. Smallbones(smalltalk)19:01, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
All of both articles are advertising/promotion. There's no real content to them, just a statement or two saying that there was a month-long advertising/promotion campaign, then statements about a fictional universe that only makes sense only in terms of McDonald's advertising/promotion campaigns. And also some nonsense about social media influencers taking the advertising/promotion campaign to a higher level than McDonald's expected. (Can anybody explain to me why influencers would seriously do this, except to promote McDonald's, and why McDonald's would play along, except to promote their product?) And it is all so routine and short term. The article on the video is just as bad. When I read these articles, I feel like somebody is trying to make a fool out of me. Why should we try to make fools out of our readers? The hook reminds me of the old saying "I don't care what the newspapers say about me, as long as they say something and spell my name correctly." Yeah, they just want to keep their name in front of an audience. The hook is just a made up controversy, that just keeps McD's name in front of our readers. I don't like it when somebody is trying to insult my intelligence with such an old trick. Smallbones(smalltalk)21:16, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
I can't see a significant difference in tone or content between Grimace's Birthday and random other articles in Category:Platform games. The only difference is that Grimace's Birthday is connected to McDonald's, but that does not make a neutral article describing the game into advertising. If you can't point to a concrete NPOV violation or have a RS that backs up your opinion that we are falling for a "made-up controversy", the "advert" tags should be removed. —Kusma (talk) 21:43, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Are you really pleading WP:OTHERSTUFF to justify a DYK? The articles just aren't notable since they violate WP:NOT (and that is solid policy). It's not a neutral article in that it plays up a routine advertising/promotion campaign into something it's not: a real controversy. 99% of people wouldn't say it's controversial, they'd just say it's a bad ad - so ignore it.
You want more? The GB article's 4th sentence: "Grimace's Birthday was released to positive reception ..." Going down to the Reception section it looks to me like the critics are damning the video with faint praise: "surprisingly solid platformer" (people who write such thing aren't saying it's good, just that it's surprising), "actually good" (they seem quite surprised too), "worked smoothly" ( like "OK, the engine started - what else positive can I say about it?) Almost every review for any game has something positive they can say about it, otherwise they usually won't publish it, but these seem quite bland. The other reviews mentioned just say that it looks like something else. That's not praise. The last sentence in the section reads 'Ashley Bardhan of Kotaku praised the game's marketing, describing the official website as "part of the perfect 2000s internet time capsule."' I don't see Kotaku as praising anything here (read the source), not even the marketing. And why do we care about the marketing in a neutral description of the game? It's really just saying that the website looks old-fashioned. Does any of this really add up to a positive reception? NO. Smallbones(smalltalk)01:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: thanks for the suggestion. I'm afraid that it might be a waste of time. As soon as I go to AfD, a bunch of folks here might rush over there, start calling for a snow keep right away, etc. Well who knows? But I'm sure you've seen that type of thing before. There's obviously a rush that has been put on this DYK. And to be clear, I do feel like I'm being strong-armed here, e.g. what was the reason I was told that I hadn't read the article in any detail? - that I used the word "video" instead of "video game." Well, I was asked above for my opinion and I gave it. If people want to have a walled garden here, there's not much I can do about it. Smallbones(smalltalk)03:04, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
There isn't any rush to put this in DYK. In fact, the nomination has been going on for about a month or more at this point. If it was actually rushed, it would have been reviewed and promoted within a week. In any case, simply saying that something was created by someone isn't promotional at all. Neither is quoting critical reception or reviews. Otherwise, we'd have to gut all "Reception" sections from all movie articles if including any positive reviews counts as "promotion". Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 03:21, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
@AirshipJungleman29: I'm sure you realize that normal people often call "video games" "videos", perhaps this is more informal than you would do it, but you know what they mean. You should also understand that video games are technically in a video format, so they are actually videos. Given that I correctly expressed what I meant in common language, and that the language was also technically correct, what the heck are you hassling me for? Smallbones(smalltalk)01:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
What in this sentence is advertising? It states the developer of the game and the publisher of the game in a perfectly neutral manner, just like every single other video game article. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me!00:28, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Can anybody explain to me why influencers would seriously do this, except to promote McDonald's: Because it was funny? It was an internet meme and a viral trend. They made funny videos, making fun of the shake and the supposed "death" reaction. My younger brother (who was certainly not trying to "promote McDonald's") made a funny little video with his friend. I have no doubt that some people were paid by McDonald's, but a trend having the auxiliary effect of boosting a company's product has nothing to do with whether the article itself is an advertisement. When I read these articles, I feel like somebody is trying to make a fool out of me.: I'm sorry you feel that way - I, and apparently most others, don't. ThadeusOfNazereth(he/him)Talk to Me!00:34, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I have no doubt that some people were paid by McDonald's so why are we promoting it on our main page. I have no doubt that you all honestly love video games, but you all should understand that other people can honestly smell the commercial stink of these articles. Smallbones(smalltalk)01:52, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
So, the hook alternative is good now, right? I presume, based on the number of other people disagreeing with them above, that we can ignore Smallbones' strange ranting about the article. Does anything else need to be done? SilverserenC01:58, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm fine with the hook. If anything, it might actually make McDonald's look bad. Obviously this isn't the intent, but that idea should at least allay any concerns about advertising, which right now no one else is holding. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I like the alt hook. I did an informal partial GA review for Grimace Shake, and that section was the only one I felt to be both broad and properly NPOV. I think a hook that draws attention there (rather than the ads or the in-universe stuff) will best serve readers. Regards, Rjjiii(talk) 02:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I see this has been moved to queue with the original hook intact, though there's consensus to change it and suggestion (which I agree with, honestly -- not with strong opinions on what the outcome should be, but there's reason to run it through and see what happens) that it should be AfDed. RoySmith? Vaticidalprophet03:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I didn't want to get involved in this discussion, but it bothers me to see several people arguing above that "none of us agree with Smallbones, therefore he is wrong". I hope DYKers realize that DYK is somewhat of a walled garden, and a visitor to the garden may well notice problems that none of its inhabitants can see. Anyway, I just want to chime in and say I agree with Smallbones. You'll also find concerns raised here by other editors about the promotional nature of the Grimace articles, and also in Rjjiii's partial GA review ("I started to pick up the GA review but almost immediately noticed a lot of promotional content").I'd also like to point out that the proposed ALT5a hook is supremely ironic. "Did you know that McDonald's paid Fandom to advertise their products, but here at Wikipedia we do it for free?" Sojourner in the earth (talk) 05:47, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
The point of DYK is to show off the bolded "new or recently improved" article. This certainly draws attention to the subject of the article. Whether this attention is positive or negative depends on the subject and the article. Sometimes (or even most of the time in case of films, books, video games or widely hyped items that have viral marketing campaigns) this has the effect of "free advertising" but I see this as unavoidable. If we decided not run hooks about McDonald's products or Taylor Swift songs or hot selling video games, it becomes hard to run hooks like the recent
which could equally be understood as free advertising for a book. That this book doesn't already have a huge marketing machine behind it may even give the "free advertising" on Wikipedia more relative impact than the "free advertising" for McDonald's products. Do we feel better about BCF than about Grimace because this supports the little guy? Sure, but I don't see how this feeling can be made into a rational and neutral policy other than by restricting DYK to the 18th century. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not a good argument. —Kusma (talk) 07:57, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Besides, any concerns about the article being promotional are independent of the hook being promotional. If the articles are basically promos and don't meet NPOV then yeah, they can't be featured. But that's independent of concerns about hooks being promotional. And let's face it, virtually all DYK hooks are free advertising. Is that an issue? Not necessarily, as long as the hooks themselves are not intended to advertise. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 08:22, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I think you've correctly diagnosed the problem. The aims of DYK are very often at variance with the aims of the project as a whole. Under the rules of DYK, giving free advertising to commercial entities is, as you say, unavoidable. I'm not going to argue that the hook shouldn't run because I know it's a foregone conclusion. But I still feel compelled to speak out because even if it's unavoidable, that doesn't make it right. Sojourner in the earth (talk) 11:30, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Okay, but as Kusma says, what is our solution? Do we limit ourselves to historical content only? If so, where's your cutoff? Do we deprecate the whole DYK feature? Do we impose the same limits on TFA, which is larger and more prominent than DYK and arguably has even more potential as an unintentional advertisement? ♠PMC♠ (talk)17:25, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Just AfD the articles already. You said it yourself -- there are people who believe it's irrevocably an advertisement, and people who don't. I have no particular strong feelings either way -- the subject matter seems ridiculous to me, but I can see an argument for both standalone and non-standalone coverage. Send them to AfD, see what happens, let the chips fall where they may. The articles running is only a "foregone conclusion" if you sit around complaining that it is. As an aside, I have never, ever seen "videos" used to mean "video games", not once in my life. Vaticidalprophet22:16, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Ugh. I see I promoted this to Q7. My bad. It passed my verification tests, but I didn't notice this discussion. If I had, I wouldn't have promoted it. This sure looks like it fails WP:DYKNOT, so my suggestion is to not run it at all. RoySmith(talk)20:43, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
How? The game came out months ago. Are you arguing that no DYK can be made on any game, film, product, ect or what? Because new articles that would meet DYK requirements are going to be on newly released things. And, comparatively, this nomination is much older on its subject matter than many other nominations on similar things. SilverserenC20:49, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
DYK bot for sending hooks from approved back to awaiting approval?
DYK goes to 2 sets a day when the approved number reaches 120, and returns to 1 a day when it reaches 60. However, there are always hooks in the approved list with additional issues, inflating the numbers. Right now, a hook is moved by a bot from the awaiting approval list to the approved list when a green or grey checkmark template is placed in the review. Is it possible to code a bot to move hooks from approved to awaiting approved if it detects a specific template (perhaps a red X, or something similar)? Is this something we want to have to get a more accurate hook count at approved? Z1720 (talk) 15:36, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Z1720, I believe that something similar was suggested recently and BlueMoonset said they move hooks from approved to awaiting approved manually, and they can check the hooks rather than moving them mechanically. I hope I have remembered correctly. TSventon (talk) 16:09, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Z1720, the bot that does the counting counts by the last-posted icon in the nomination, not by the page where it's transcluded. So if an approval is superseded, the bot counts it as a nomination but not approved; similarly, if a nomination is approved on the nominations page, it is counted as approved until another bot moves it to the Approved page. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:19, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
So from what I understand from your comment above, BlueMoonset, if there was an article on the approved page, moved there because someone put a green tick in the nomination page and the DYK bot moved it from awaiting to approved, but then later I place a red arrow (DYK?again template) or the purple slash (DYK?no template) on the nomination page under the green tick, the nomination would no longer be counted in the approved count? Z1720 (talk) 01:44, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Wug could probably do this in a tenth of the time, but given that Wug doesn't have a tenth of the time, I'll get to work. If I get somewhere reasonable, I'm gonna ask Wug to let me take over DYKN → DYKNA so that we don't run into edit conflicts. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
The bot currently runs once every two hours at odd-number hours UTC: 01:00, 03:00, etc. through 23:00. You're more likely to run into edit conflicts with people or processes adding new nominations at DYKN, or moving approved noms to the special occasion section at DYKNA, especially if you run your bot, say, every other hour on the half hour. (Note that MusikBot edits DYKN every day at 00:00 UTC to add the new date and shift the Current nominations section header a day later, so it's important not to run then, either.) WugBot not only does DYKN to DYKNA moves during its every-other-hour runs, it also deletes closed nomination transclusions from both pages. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:51, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29: should we be running this right now? I forgot to mark this one alongside the other Swift hook at DYKNA, but the topic saturation here is heavy and readers have been criticising it openly. I was hoping before the astronaut affair that it might've been long enough since the Swift album run that we could put these hooks back in rotation, but then we ran a 36-hour TFA of her only a few days ago, so it seems like we should hold both of these for a while. Am I off-base here? (not pinging nom/reviewer, because it's specifically a prepbuilding query) Vaticidalprophet00:03, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Vaticidalprophet I think it should be fine. I don't particularly want to run the risk of holding both hooks off for like a month and then finding that a dozen more have been added to their number. As a point of comparison, this recent reddit thread of readers discussing topic saturation didn't even mention Swift, instead talking about Indonesian/Bolivian politicians and US radio stations. I think her cultural impact, as you noted above, is such more attention on her can be given more leeway, compared to other saturated topics, if that makes sense. ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 00:15, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived over an hour ago, so I've created a new list the first 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 9. We have a total of 237 nominations, of which 98 have been approved, a gap of 139 nominations that has decreased by 10 over the past 12 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:50, 25 September 2023 (UTC)
This was rejected a week ago, and the article is now deleted. Is any passing uninvolved editor willing to close it and clear some space on DYKN? (More generally, it'd be nice to have a little more certainty on when nominations should be closed once they've been rejected -- this is a very clear-cut case, but many are less so.) Vaticidalprophet05:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
done. my guess is that, in this case, people were simply waiting until the afd was closed. once that was closed as delete, closing the dyk nomination was pretty straightforward. admittedly, i think i've only closed clear-cut cases, so am probably unqualified to give advice on when to close more questionable ones. dying (talk) 05:59, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
This is about a book about antisemitism not being seen as bad as other racism among progressives. Do we need to hedge this by saying "for some people, Jews don't count" or similar or can we just run this as is? I think it is reasonably clear that we are not spreading an antisemitic message here, but more eyes/opinions would not hurt. —Kusma (talk) 10:26, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
It is clear. The hook starts "according to David Baddiel", which in my eyes makes clear that the words which follow are his opinions, regardless of whether or not the final three words are the title of a book (as signified by the italics). Bazza (talk) 10:41, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not convinced this is acceptable. A literal reading of this hook would interpret it as stating that Baddiel himself believes the title phrase. That appears to be the opposite of his actual beliefs, which are that racism against Jews should indeed count as racism. We should not phrase a hook on a BLP in a way that will cause readers to take away a negative perception of the subject, especially as here when that perception would be incorrect. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Agreed. We should not be implying that people hold views contrary to their own opinions on any subject, and even less so for something like this. It looks very much like a WP:BLP violation to me. And no, before anyone asks, being able to click through the link in no way mitigates this. The text is outright misleading. AndyTheGrump (talk) 01:42, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I can see how it might be misleading, yet it exactly follows the book title as written and as presented on the cover: "DAVID BADDIEL JEWS DON'T COUNT". I hesitate to call it a BLP violation when it exactly models the expressed work of the individual. CMD (talk) 02:10, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
That would make it clear that Baddiel doesn't actually think that Jews don't count. Pinging author Frzzl, reviewer UndercoverClassicist, promoter AirshipJungleman29 for opinions. Does the fact that Baddiel uses the attention-grabbing title justify the risk of misleading our readers about his opinions? —Kusma (talk) 08:50, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for bringing this up. I can't agree with the point about a literal interpretation, because a literal interpretation of the book's title itself without any background would give the impression that Baddiel were an antisemite. Baddiel published this as a provocative title, with the fact that his name's right above it likewise showing it as an opinion. I don't see that quoting him here is a problem, but I can see how one might reason it so. If we continue to have problems, I'm agreeable to making it into an image hook, with the book cover as an image (it doesn't meet originality thresholds, so we'd be fine to do so. Frzzltalk;contribs10:25, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
The hook is a bit of a simplification: it's buried the important context that Baddiel thinks this shouldn't be the case. At review, I said that it was a bait-and-switch, but on the right side of the line: in many ways, it's doing exactly what the book itself does, whose title is a bait-and-switch in the same way. However, I do take Andy's point about the BLP concern, and I think Kusma's suggestion solves the problem. Suggest perhaps amending "become" to "become perceived as"? UndercoverClassicistT·C15:08, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
More that he thinks that Jews should and do count, but others think they don't: it's not accurate to say "Baddiel thinks Jews don't count", even though it's a rhetorical trick that Baddiel himself plays. UndercoverClassicistT·C15:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I've read the book and I'm not so sure I agree... Its ambiguous, but not inaccurate per say. Its less wordy than say "Baddiel identifies the existence of social systems which relegate Jewish people to a pseudo-purgatory status in which they are dually perceived as non-white yet too white to suffer actual prejudice and discrimination" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I have now implemented UndercoverClassicist's version of my hook. It should now be harmless enough not to get pulled at WP:ERRORS for WP:BLP reasons when the hook runs tomorrow. —Kusma (talk) 16:11, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, the set did already appear, so it has indeed vanished from the preps and queues :) two of those hooks did not make it to the on-air version of that set, so they didn't, but the rest should have. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 21:17, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I know exactly two things about American football, one of which is its highest level of play is the NFL. (The other is that its other-highest level of play is college football, and that this is regionally variable whether anyone cares about the second but that it's definitely a thing people care about, and that this is fascinatingly weird from a non-American perspective where non-professional college-level sports are always a weird hobby thing.) If anything I see "people who know exactly nothing about American football" make the opposite sort of mistake all the time, and assume that the NFL is vaguely synonymous with all American football -- e.g. in Australia "AFL" and "Aussie rules football" are often-enough used synonymously by people who aren't very into it (because AFL is the level anyone watches), so I've seen other Australians assume you can use "NFL" the same way and talk about e.g. "concussions in the NFL" as a full synonym for "concussions in American football". Vaticidalprophet02:41, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
Can't we just admit that our readership is not a random sample of the world population, and we'd lose more viewers lengthening the hook than we'd gain by pandering to the 2% of our audience that doesn't know what the NFL is? okay, that was strongly worded, but come on – I'm an American who doesn't follow sports and I still know about FIFA and the Premier League and the African Games and all that. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:35, 23 September 2023 (UTC)
I think "NFL" is fairly well known outside North America, but my bigger issue is that people won't know what a "roster" or "to make a roster" is. That's a term which isn't really used much outside North America in terms of sport (the equivalent would be "to be a member of a squad" or similar) - certainly here in the UK it is used pretty much exclusively as a word describing a rota at a workplace. Black Kite (talk)11:20, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, exactly. But this is the problem when you have articles about people who - according to said article - have done nothing interesting apart from play their sport. So how do we fix it? I'm guessing we need "... that in 2023, Julian Hill became the first player from his college ever to sign for an NFL team?". Black Kite (talk)18:47, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Note that your proposed alt hook would be incorrect, per the Campbell website at least two players had signed with teams before him. The thing Hill did achieve was being the first to make an NFL team (so, basically, there's plenty of guys who are not selected in the NFL Drafts who get signed as "undrafted free agents" - they get to play in preseason and be in training camp during the off-season all that, but only rarely do they ever make the teams like Hill did - i.e. be part of the active squad during the part of the season where games count). BeanieFan11 (talk) 19:02, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
Which proves my point that I didn't know what "roster" meant, even though I thought I did (and most non-USians won't have a clue). So how do we phrase it so that the average non-US-football-fan understands it? Black Kite (talk)21:04, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
My original concern was that people might not recognize that NFL meant American Football. If folks are confident that's not an issue, then I think the hook is fine as is. As an American who is only vaguely aware that football exists, I don't understand the difference between signing and making the roster either, but it doesn't matter. I get that the hook is about two people who graduated from some university I've never heard of and went on to play professional football. If I was at all interested in football, I would probably click on it to learn more, even if I didn't get all the nuance of what it means to be on the roster. RoySmith(talk)21:56, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
You could say "... that Julian Hill was the first player from Campbell University to make an NFL team, but Brevin Allen was the first to play in a game?" (note emphasis on the replaced word) That'd work, wouldn't it? BeanieFan11 (talk) 22:38, 24 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I'm gonna be out of commission for a little while longer – I might have some time while travelling, but I wouldn't count on it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 11:20, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I'll also be mostly off-grid until tonight. I know I've mentioned this before, but there's a number of DYK regulars who have the experience to do well at AfD RfA. I encourage you to run. We need more admins working here and the best ones will be those who already know the system. RoySmith(talk)12:41, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm not trying to delete anybody. That's not in the admin toolset. We can block users and delete pages, but we can't delete users :-) On the other hand, there have been discussions within the functionary group (and in more public places) lamenting the fact that the number of new admins keeps falling, and trying to figure out ways to reverse that trend. I was just doing my part.
One of the classic questions that gets asked at RfA is "Why do you need the tools?" It's a plus when you can point to a specific admin-only task which is understaffed and for which you have all the requisite experience. RoySmith(talk)13:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
ALT0: ... that author Sarah Jane Baker(pictured) was so desperate for gender affirming care in prison that she cut off her testicles with a razor blade?
From my reading of this hook it seems both gratuitous and biologically incorrect; I may be questioned for saying this but women do not have testicles. This is a BLP and the opening line of the article is: "British transgender rights activist, artist, violinist, author, former violent felon, and long term prison inmate." Seems we are glazing over the person's significant crimes because the lead leaves out that the person was also a rapist. The person also kidnapped and tortured a man. The article describes the rape of another man by stating that she raped him.
This is all rather confusing since the person was not identifying as a woman in 1989 when they raped another man. I am no expert, but the person must have suffered from Gender dysphoria; that does not appear anywhere in the article. Also mutilating their own genitals? Is this what we want to promote on the main page? If we run we are choosing to promote a POV and to also promote a rather abhorrent criminal? We should not promote this mentally unbalanced violent career criminal. I do not think we should run the hook, nor the image.
Lightburst: There are so many points here that I have to object to, that I may have missed some. Not having testicles in order to be a woman was exactly the point of her operation. MOS:GENDERID requires that we refer to transgender people by their current pronouns, not by the one they used at the time. I have no opinion on that rule, I just follow it. If you don't like that rule, argue to change it, in the appropriate place, but that is not here; it is not fair to say "since I don't like it, I oppose running any DYKs that follow it." The first sentence is only so long, she committed four rather heinous crimes: in chronological order, kidnapping, torture, attempted murder, and rape. I'm grouping them as "violent felon" in the interest of length of the first sentence, but it not a matter of glazing anything over, as they are detailed in the very next sentences of the lead section. That she is a career criminal is strictly untrue, at no point is or was that her career. In fact, calling her ... the second half of your second to last sentence... is certainly worthy of the Daily Mail, I wouldn't be surprised if it was a direct quote, but on this page it is an uncited, demonstrably untrue, and significant personal attack against a living person, and I request you remove it. She was a very violent criminal, as above, and the article makes that quite clear, but she is not now, and even if she were she would be by no means be the first violent criminal on DYK. It is strictly not true that we only run DYKs about subjects we approve of and want to promote. We run DYKs about new and interesting articles, and if there is one thing she is not it is boring. In just the last week, DYKs have included
"... that the heavy metal band Cradle of Filth released a T-shirt that was so offensive that several people were arrested for wearing it?"
"... that Catechumen, a Christian first-person shooter, was funded only in the aftermath of the Columbine High School massacre?"
"... that The Last Hope: Dead Zone Survival has been considered one of the worst video games of 2023?"
and all in one day:
... that the slogan "One Nation, One Language" has been used to justify the imposition of Hindi?
... that Swedish naval officer Axel Lagerbielke was imprisoned in Lima for over a year, held in Callao and eventually escaped from Panama on an English packet boat to Jamaica? (Note that Lagerbielke was also not a career criminal.)
... that the title of Olivia Rodrigo's song "All-American Bitch" was derived from an essay by Joan Didion?
Surely you're not arguing that we were trying to promote any of those subjects, which range from the rude to the horrific? Finally, if you can't find the words "gender dysphoric" in the article, twice, in the hopefully appropriate section on "Gender transition", not just casually mentioned but the focus of multiple sentences, I will not question your expertise as you propose, but rather... --GRuban (talk) 20:38, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
You mention a yellow source above, but this article uses two of them as references: Daily Mirror and Vice News. I am not sure why the examples/comparisons above are offered as some sort of justification GRuban. I am dismayed that you refer to a person mutilating their genitals euphemistically as her operation - but you actuually describe it in the hook as cut off her testicles with a razor blade?. This is a living person with a serious and horrific criminal record and other issues... it seems like a POV push to promote them - especially in the image slot. Lightburst (talk) 21:09, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Daily Mirror (and Daily Mail) are the specific articles that lied about her sex change being paid for by the government, when that was strictly not true. Our article says as much in the exact place they are used, they're not sources about anything except themselves. Similarly the Vice cite is an article by the subject about her love and sex life in prison, again WP:ABOUTSELF, and it seems (a) hard to imagine any source about her love and sex life that wouldn't be while (b) it was clearly a big part of her life and motivation, we can't just leave it out. Yes, I completely agree, this is a living person with a serious and horrific criminal record and other issues. But I'm pretty sure I did not write a promotional article. Nor, hopefully, a hit piece. She's a very complex person, and an interesting one, hopefully it is an interesting article to read, but if from reading it you think "wow, I want to be like Sarah Jane Baker" ... wow ... Or even the hook: this is just me personally of course, but speaking as a person with testicles, it's hardly one that makes me think - "Hey, I should do this too!". --GRuban (talk) 21:21, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the MOS reference above GRuban. I did not mean to say that you wrote a promotional article, I meant we are promoting the person. I also looked through the other hooks you mentioned above and thankfully I had no part in those nominations. It seems I will be alone in calling this hook out as gratuitous. This nomination is much like a third rail here on the project. Lightburst (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree the hook is gratuitous, honestly. I considered mentioning it when it was at DYKN, and I saw Bruxton also did. I'm not saying it's inappropriate to run the article at all, but the hook crosses into intentionally-gratuitous-extremeness and there is...rather more in the article that could potentially be on DYK if a hook is desired. Vaticidalprophet23:51, 26 September 2023 (UTC)
I disagree. I want tighter rules on gratuity as well, but as long as we're going to let through all manner of hooks as NOTCENSORED, I think that something that touches on the current state of trans medical care is absolutely relevant to her career as an activist (which is presumably why she included it in her book) and to the encyclopedic topic of transgender medical care.
In fact, the last hook I can remember that was shot down on gratuity grounds was Fucking Trans Women (nom). (I had a role in that, but I actually didn't realize that I'd significantly misread the hook until after the controversy was said and done.)
@Theleekycauldron: So saddened that you called me transphobic but I was expecting it from someone. Sad that it was you. We can go overboard with this NOTCENSORED and I see that we occasionally invoke it to suit an agenda. IMO there is simply no reason to promote a rapist kidnapper with a hook about them mutilating their own genitals. Lightburst (talk) 01:06, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Lightburst, I didn't say anything about you. You made a statement that women do not have testicles, and that is, at the very least, an invalidation of all pre-op trans women. It's your choice to incorporate that statement as a part of your identity, but it is open to criticism nonetheless. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
So, the line between unwarranted censorship and avoiding outright obscenity is going to be subjective and Potter-test-y. I'll try to show my work. When judging if opposition to a hook is censorship or warranted, one moving part (imo) is how core that is to the subject. A hook about a sex worker, notable for being a sex worker, is not being gratuitous by being about sex work. A hook about someone notable for writing about drug use is not gratuitous if it mentions drugs. (None of the Fucking Trans Women hooks are gratuitous by this benchmark, imo.) A hook about a children's TV presenter who posted nudes in 2014 that's about the nudes is gratuitous, to give a rather extreme example.
Any hook about this subject is going to be shocking, because the reasons the subject is covered in sources are shocking. For BLP reasons I'm unenthused about the idea there's a usable hook here at all, but...this specific hook crosses into "both shocking and not particularly central", which makes it raise a gratuity alarm more than it would be for a subject for whom autocastration is more load-bearing (there are subjects this is true for). Vaticidalprophet01:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm open to another hook; and only mostly agree with the "any hook about this subject is going to be shocking" bit. We could go with something like "was the longest serving transgender prisoner", that isn't shocking. It also isn't very interesting, but better any hook than no DYK at all. --GRuban (talk) GRuban (talk) 02:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm cool with such a hook -- it's interesting (unusual or intriguing to a reader with no special knowledge or interest), a fairly significant part of the subject, and striking without intentionally-ratcheting-up-the-tone, I think is a good way to put it. Vaticidalprophet02:49, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
The only problem is that I'm not sure Lightburst is good with any hook; their main point seems to be "articles about bad living people should not be on DYK", which that won't fix. GRuban (talk) 13:52, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm okay with that hook – I do think that the current hook isn't completely immaterial, since it directly relates to her activism on treatment of transgender people in prisons, but I recognize that it's a balance thing and that it is pretty visceral. We did just run a hook on police opening fire on university students, but I don't think I'll convince anyone that that's worse. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 06:32, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I find the hook rather disgusting and think that many will find it confusing - I would suggest it not run - I know there's WP:NOTCENSORED but that doesn't mean we need to be highlighting gross facts on the main page. BeanieFan11 (talk) 02:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I think that was a good move. I was debating doing it myself, but for a different reason. Once a hook hits a prep, the clock is ticking. This is obviously a topic which will engender a lot of discussion and having a ticking clock over your head isn't good for consensus forming. RoySmith(talk)14:00, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Mhm, you're right, the sourcing is rather unclear about this. I'd change it from "was placed near the top of the" to "was nominated in the" (and remove the word "ballot"), if that's alright (I've edited the article accordingly). Elli (talk | contribs) 22:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm still not seeing how the source supports that. The source says, "Democrats [...] also ran John A. Kennedy, a Winnetka businessman who was no relation to the president slain less than a year before." All that says is that the two weren't related. It doesn't say anything about being nominated because of the name similarity. RoySmith(talk)22:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Kennedy is brought up as an example of Popular or familiar political names were sought after as vote-getters, so that's what the hook should mimic. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 22:42, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Queue 4: Chelsea Waterside Park
... that the original design for the water playground at Chelsea Waterside Park (pictured) was criticized because local residents thought that the sprinklers resembled sex toys?
When I first read this, I took it to mean that this was a design, that was never put into place. But from what I can see in the source [13], the sprinklers were actually built and active. Don't know if the hook can be made clearer in this regard. Also, it would be nice to know (in the article) what the fate of the sprinklers was. Pinging @Vaticidalprophet, Corachow, and Epicgenius: Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
@Amakuru, thanks for the heads up. I think we could just remove "original" from the hook. Sadly I can't find any sources about what happened to the original sprinklers, but I think they were removed or are being removed during the ongoing renovation. – Epicgenius (talk) 23:18, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Prep 1 political hooks
Prep 1 has two hooks on the same day that portray left-wing groups in a negative light:
"... that climate change protesters vandalized and glued themselves to a version of Andy Warhol's Campbell's Soup I?"
I agree this is a bit of a topic concentration (I don't think the topic itself is unusable), so I've swapped the Campbell's one to p6. I'm involved with the Moloise one so won't touch that, but Viriditas's tweak sounds good. Vaticidalprophet00:55, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Just FYI, I don't see the hooks as portraying left-wing groups negatively, but I would switch the wording around on the second one to make it clear that they were extremists before the name like this: "...that after Benjamin Moloise's execution, the extremist group Direct Action bombed two Paris companies linked to South Africa in protest?" Viriditas (talk) 00:54, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
i do not know if it is just me, but i had interpreted the current hook to mean that the hromada is currently split between russia and ukraine, in the same way that hans island is split between canada and denmark, while the hromada is actually fully ukrainian territory. would it be helpful to replace "divided between Russia and Ukraine" with "divided between Russian and Ukrainian control"? dying (talk) 22:11, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
As promoter, divided referring to de facto control is, to my mind, evident from the reference to the counteroffensive and general knowledge of Russia/Ukraine's "interactions" over the past year, but if de jure territorial concepts need to be clearly excluded, the change is perfectly acceptable. As an aside, how do you produce your nomination/involved user template above? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 22:54, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
AirshipJungleman29, that makes sense. i think my mind may have assumed that the hook was not referring to de facto control because there presumably are a lot of ukrainian hromadas currently split between russian and ukrainian control, so any specific one may not be interesting due to this fact alone. after reading the hook, i was wondering if there was some unusual political quirk to explain it, like how it isn't clear whether egypt or sudan has de jure sovereignty over the halaib triangle, or how moscow's kremlin is the property of ukraine's national postal service according to a decree by the head of ukrposhta. as a result, i was very confused when the map in the infobox showed me that the hromada was entirely within ukrainian territory, and i ended up trying to understand how i was misreading the map.the code i used above isn't really produced via a template on wikipedia, though i have been meaning to create one. you are welcome to copy the code and use it however you wish, though i should warn you that the version above does not take into account varying cases at the start of a bolded link (e.g., "Dvorichna settlement hromada" versus "dvorichna settlement hromada") or article titles using characters that have special meaning in lua regular expressions (e.g., '%', ')', and '*'). dying (talk) 07:49, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, it's not so much the tense of the "robbed", it's that the original hook suggests he did all his ninja robbing at the age of 74. Your alteration fixes this issue but introduces a new one—it could be that he had done the robbing at the age of 20, and had simply aged. Perhaps "... that the Ninja of Heisei, who robbed places in Japan while wearing a ninja costume, was caught at the age of 74?" or something similar? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I've noticed a trend lately of admins re-adding intentionally excluded links to hooks once those hooks are already full-protected and on the main page. Hookwriting practice under most circumstances is to minimize links outside the bold link, including many words that would be worth linking in an article, to avoid diverting traffic; links that would be made in articles are routinely both intentionally omitted and intentionally removed from hooks. This has been overruled a few times lately, with predictable view-diversion consequences:
This is a tricky problem, because it suffers from the "you can't mark things as good" issue -- twenty people can look at something and think it's fine, but there's no way to mark it as "no action needed", so the twenty-first person who thinks an action is needed unknowingly bucks consensus (also well-recorded with maintenance tags, blocks, etc). At ERRORS this is semi-resolvable (a lot of ERRORS queries need to be told "this isn't a problem" rather than acted upon), but unilateral changes are much harder to prevent. Is there some way to make it clear that link omissions are a feature rather than a bug? I'm under the impression the number of editnotices on the MP is already way into banner blindness, so the obvious route probably won't work. Vaticidalprophet07:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
My apologies. I presume I didn't check the nomination page. I can't check because the target article isn't linked to here. Schwede6607:30, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
No intent on calling either of you out -- you're both people I have a high opinion of -- but it's hard to hash out how to resolve these and useful to get thoughts of people involved. Hidden comments might work (after seeing two consecutive hooks linking anthropodermic bibliopegy get absolutely bodied by that article views-wise, I am absolutely adding a hidden comment when I nominate the third). It may also be worth revising the ERRORS introductory spiel a little to include something about "things that look like errors but aren't"? I'm not sure most people at ERRORS...read it...but at the very least it'd allow pointing to "see the bold text on this page, that's not an error". Vaticidalprophet07:39, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree that hidden comments are a good potential solution. They are ubiquitous in our TFA and POTD blurbs, and I notice and (mostly) respect them when responding to ERRORS posts. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 13:13, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
So in some cases this is definitely workable, but I'm not sure it scales indefinitely -- people request all sorts of unpredictable links, and it's the addition that can't be anticipated that's harder to prevent. Where in the pipeline do you think the latter problem can be addressed? Bot at ERRORS that reverts link requests? Vaticidalprophet16:50, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
This post helps. You may also want to post at WT:ERRORS. I imagine the folks at OTD and ITN have similar incentives to avoid overlinking terms that aren't the main target article, so perhaps solicit their input? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:00, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Force of habit? Also, sometimes it would be weird not to link if the hook involves two equally important people, but only one of them is a recent GA. —Kusma (talk) 18:15, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
But if you keep linking some things, no matter how few, that aren't the target article, people will inevitably think that there are some that got missed and will (understandably) post to ERRORS. Primergrey (talk) 19:20, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I agree that "why link anything?" is a valid question. There could and need to be exceptions to it, as suggested by Kusma. But as a basic premise, this could form the basis of a useful discussion. Schwede6622:48, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Usually, it's to add context. Remember that DYK readers are not a monolith and their experiences and knowledge may not be the same. For example, terms that some groups may take for granted may be alien to others; this tends to happen for example in sports-related articles. Of course, there has to be a balance; ideally you'd want to limit the number of links whenever possible, but there are also times when they're necessary to explain more niche or technical ideas. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:04, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I think we should worry less about "diverting traffic", and more about serving our readers. If a wikilink is helpful, it should not be excluded just because the nominator is worried about their page views being diluted. Pawnkingthree (talk) 23:24, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Well, one of the primary examples is the anthropodermic bibliopegy article, which needs to be rewritten from scratch and does an actually worse job of explaining the practice than either Dark Archives or List of books bound in human skin. The other is "urinate while sleeping" piped to Nocturnal enuresis, which is a definitional link for a common term, and also has what could lightly be called "MEDRS issues". I'm not convinced there's encyclopedic value in linking either in a hook, which by its nature requires strictly triaging what's included. Vaticidalprophet00:51, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Back to 1/day
We currently have 3 queues and 2 preps filled, under the threshold of 6 prescribed in the WP:DYKROTATE rules. There are about 90 approved nominations, so filling 4 more preps would get us below 60. Anyway, I think switching now makes sense to give people some rest again. Are there any date requests that I have missed? —Kusma (talk) 08:23, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
There's an October 12, but nothing actively in prep.
This was a hard 12s. I don't like the idea of switching rapidly back there the moment we're technically over the limit. We currently have a mix of a bio shortage, a quirky shortage, multiple fronts of topic saturation, and multiple queries at DYKNA. The de facto number of promotable hooks is probably well below 60. Vaticidalprophet08:27, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
Vaticidalprophet, we did wait a few days before switching to 2 a day this time, moving on 9 September rather than 6 September. I noticed that approved nominations were down from 130 on 9 September to 76 on 21 September, so this round of 2 a day did clear a lot of the backlog of approved nominations. TSventon (talk) 15:00, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
The count of approved nominations is now down to 54, so hopefully some of the less promotable hooks have been dealt with and the next run of 2 a day will be easier. TSventon (talk) 13:17, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Page moves aren't supposed to be an issue with regards to notability. Indeed, it's not uncommon for articles to be moved even during the review process. What isn't allowed is moving the nomination page; even if the article is moved, the actual page should not be renamed as that would break things. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
The nomination can be passed while there is an active move request, but it would be best to settle the article title before promoting the article to a prep set. —Kusma (talk) 08:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
The alternative to that is to move-protect the article so that only an admin can action the move. If the article is at that point on the main page, that admin can then also fix the resulting redirect in accordance with WP:MPNOREDIRECT. Schwede6604:51, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
@MaranoFan, Damien Linnane, and Lightburst: Even if I agreed that the hook were interesting in some circumstance – which I'm not wholly certain I am – I don't think I can get behind using this hook for not just a single artist, but the list of a single artist's discography. This hook could conceivably be used for 39 other people – maybe that'd be a fun multi hook, but I don't see the case for it here. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure I share the concern. But I will let uninvolved people weigh in and maybe come up with suggestions for alternate hooks from the list.--NØ10:14, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the article, there isn't much to go on. However, if there's a desire to have a hook specifically about her music, maybe some of the mentions about one of her albums being like going through the stages of grief, or fighting insecurities over writing music alone, could work? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:23, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
The tack I took for "List of Alexander McQueen collections" was to summarize his entire body of work - "...that across his thirty-six collections, fashion designer Alexander McQueen contemplated religion, told fairy tales, and criticized the fashion industry?" A similar approach could work here - "...that Alessia Cara has recorded songs about [thing], [thing], and [perhaps a surprising thing]?" ♠PMC♠ (talk)06:06, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Here's something I came up with, that hopefully satisfactorily takes both yours' suggestions into account:
ALT3: ... that across her first three albums, Alessia Cara co-wrote 43 songs ranging in themes from teenage, her insecurities about writing music alone, to the five stages of grief?
Was just limiting to what was already in the article. I have now added a sentence corresponding to her debut album and updated the hook accordingly.--NØ13:23, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: given that plenty of colleges both (a) play it pretty fast and loose with athletic scholarships and (b) are more than a little kind to legacies, is this hook really all that unusual? I'm sure Spiers is good, but if I had to guess, I don't know that a college athlete from a family of college athletes is all that surprising to me... especially since it doesn't really make it out of the local newsosphere. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:35, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
(driveby) I think this is unusual-or-intriguing as someone who has no-special-knowledge-or-interest, but that might be from that same paradox I alluded to earlier (that college sports are a Weird American Thing completely outside the sociological Overton window everywhere else). "Colleges admit disproportionately many sports players as legacies because it's so big a deal" gets "wow, that's super weird!" just as much. There are certainly interesting, unresolved, and unresolvable questions about what "no special knowledge or interest" is. Vaticidalprophet09:41, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
Given that our readership pretty frequently turns up its nose on college football hooks, I'm not sure I see a broad-based topical argument for interestingness – and if we're going for that angle, we certainly don't have the sourcing to talk about it in this article. But, as always, we can come back to check how it does. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:47, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
The hook seems complicated as is. Would it be advisable to have two separate suggestions: one about him being blinded then being elected, and the other suggestion solely focusing on him being elected by soldiers? Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
It was the combination that caught my attention; the fact that he was blinded in battle, and then elected to one of the special seats in the Assembly. (1) TheLeekyCauldron, yes, soldiers don't normally have special trouble getting elected. That's not what I think is interesting here; I think it's rare for someone with such a serious disability to get elected, especially a century ago, where about the only aid for the blind was Braille and a white cane. And yet, he had a significant political career. (2) I also found it interesting that he was elected by his fellow soldiers overseas, and that he topped the poll, which indicates major support from his fellow soldiers, knowing that he had suffered such an injury, and yet they trusted him to represent their interests. (3) It's also interesting that the constituency he represented was so specific: Saskatchewan soldiers serving in Belgium and France. There normally aren't special ridings for soldiers; didn't happen again until WWII. I imagine a lot of people would be intrigued by that. (Query: Do US states ever have soldier representatives from overseas?) (4) I think when you put it all together, it's an interesting hook, that will attract readers for different reasons: some might be interested in the disability, some that he was elected by fellow soldiers; and some might be intrigued by the election occurring overseas. I think if we break it up, we lose some of those intriguing aspects. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 23:12, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I sympathize with the intriguingness aspects, but hooks generally have to be catchy and snappy whenever possible, and complicated hooks tend to underperform compared to expectations based on previous experience. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:29, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
One way to fix that is to substitute Battle of Mont Sorrel. The Battle of Sanctuary Wood was part of that battle, and is where Turner was wounded, but there's no wikipedia page on it. The article on Battle of Mont Sorrel mentions Sanctuary Wood as part of the larger battle of Mont Sorrel; just a larger area covered, so it does include where Turner was wounded. Would that respond to your concern? Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 22:59, 28 September 2023 (UTC)
I'm sorry, @TSventon, been a bit busy lately. I would agree; it should read "before releasing their second album, Tip". Sorry for not catching that. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 23:44, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I see what you mean. In this context, it means "the only one", i.e. she was the only contributing artist to the soundtrack. Open to suggestions for tweaking this hook... -- P 1 9 9✉15:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
The source is this one, which states, "Despite the end-of-the-season slide, the overall success of the four years - two WAC titles, three bowl appearances and a 35-11 overall record - quickly turned Roach into a legend in Wyoming sports history. Heck, he even got a few votes for governor in the 1990 election." I would be fine with the re-wording. BeanieFan11 (talk) 15:43, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
OK, I see it now, but technically that doesn't support the hook. Both the current hook and my suggested rewrite assume he was not an official candidate and thus the votes were write-ins. I'll admit that's a reasonable assumption, but the source doesn't actually say that. RoySmith(talk)16:00, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
The two facts here - that Louis the Fish was inspired by The Metamorphosis, and that it's a children's book - are fully cited and correct. However, I'm slightly concerned about the use of "despite" here. The sources don't appear to connect these two things in particular, so for us to do so here appears to be an element of WP:SYNTH. The article also doesn't say that it's inspired by the work despite anything. @MonarchOfTerror, Vaticidalprophet, and Onegreatjoke: Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 18:59, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
@Amakuru: So I had a look to see where I might've gotten the despite from and Children's Books and Their Creators (source number 2 in the article) has this line: "Yorinks’s inspirations come from many sources, including, a bit unexpectedly, Franz Kafka’s Metamormorphosis. In Louis the Fish (1980) ...". It might still be too WP:SYNTH however since it doesn't mention that Louis the Fish is children's book directly either, I'm fine with either modifying the hook to something like "... that Arthur Yorinks's children's book Louis the Fish was inspired by Franz Kafka's The Metamorphosis?" or switching to the original hook/ALT1 instead. Scientia potentia est, MonarchOfTerror19:13, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
Amakuru, you've omitted the italics for The Metamorphosis, which is required for a book title and was properly formatted that way in the original hook. Can you please restore them before the hook hits the main page in just under twelve hours? Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Minor point, but the article doesn't say "high school" anywhere. Perhaps we could infer that the "Gualberto Villarroel School" is a high school, if indeed they have such a concept in Bolivia, but should explicitly clarify that somewhere. And actually, on that topic, the link in the article and hooks is to Spanish Baccalaureate, but is that really what she gained? The source doesn't seem to explicitly say it's a qualification from Spain. @AirshipJungleman29, Gobonobo, and Krisgabwoosh: — Amakuru (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
The Spanish Baccalaureate is the model used in most Latin American countries – [a] I linked it because "baccalaureate" is a more precise term than high school diploma, the English equivalent. To receive one's baccalaureate exclusively denotes that they completed secondary school or equivalent. E.g. someone who received their high school diploma can be said to have graduated high school, even if the institution they attended doesn't have "high school" in the name (the Kirov Academy of Ballet, for example). Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Admittedly, "high school" isn't really a term I typically use when talking about Latin American education – preferring the term "secondary school". However, for the hook, I figured "high school" would be more understandable to a broader audience. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 17:59, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Notes
^The article could stand to mention that other countries use the same system.
@AirshipJungleman29, Gobonobo, and Krisgabwoosh: sorry to be difficult, but I am seeing this as not meeting the DYK rules at present. Per WP:DYKHOOK, "The hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change, and citations in the article that are used to support the hook fact must verify the hook". Currently the assertion that she received a diploma from a high school, and also the fact that this was a Spanish baccalaureate, are both uncited in the article. This will need to be fixed up before the hook goes live, currently scheduled for Wednesday. If more time is needed than that, we can always push it back. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 18:48, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
A simple fix would be to change "high school baccalaureate" to "secondary school baccalaureate" and, if need be, de-link the word. I do apologize if I come off a bit frustrated, but I personally think it's quite counterintuitive to discount certain facts simply because they're not explicitly spelled out – we must be able to infer at least some meaning from surrounding context. Krisgabwoosh (talk) 20:38, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
@Amakuru The Spanish Wikipedia has an article for the generic baccalaureate (es:Bachillerato), but we only have an article here for the degree from Spain. As far as I can tell, Gualberto Villarroel only offers secondary school level degrees. I think Krisgabwoosh's suggestion of unlinking the baccalaureate and changing it to secondary school baccalaureate should address the concern. gobonobo+c21:34, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so I've created a new list the first 39 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 22. We have a total of 203 nominations, of which 66 have been approved, a gap of 137 nominations that has decreased by 2 over the past 9 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:39, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Help requested
Requesting help with the review of the "Get Him Back!" DYK nomination. It involves a bit of a unique situation with a prior AfD (Following comment removed by author) and probably won't be reviewed by the less-experienced. Following comment removed by author.--NØ09:14, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Minuscule 1582
Queue 6: Minuscule 1582 (nom) @Vaticidalprophet @Stephen Walch @Frzzl There's two issues here. One is that I don't see the connection between the hook fact and the article. I see where the article discusses Mark 16:9 starting at After Mark 16:8 is a colophon... but I can't work out how that "casts doubt on the authenticity of these verses?" Maybe it's obvious to a biblical scholar, but I'm not seeing it.
Please do not pull this - you seem to have misunderstood the discussion. I was not the review, that was @Narutolovehinata5, who was previously unrelated to the article. I was the one who ultimately stuck a tick on it, as I ended up offering an alt after the discussion went stale. @Gerda Arendt and I both interacted with this nomination, but this did not make us reviewers; my putting-the-tick-on was only a result of Gerda's courtesy to check approval of the selected hook by all participants, and me being late to reply. There is therefore no violation of WP:DYKRR.
If you put the tick on it, you were the reviewer of record. If Gerda wants to give a tick, she knows how to do that. But there's still the issue of the casting doubt which needs to be addressed. RoySmith(talk)16:58, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
What RoySmith said, Frzzl: if you ticked it, you are saying you reviewed it and have made sure it meets the criteria, something that a GA reviewer is not allowed to do. Gerda's been doing DYK for well over a decade, and knows how to conclude her own reviews; you are free to ping her on her talk page to get her attention on a needed approval. You can always edit the article or post to the review, if you wish, but cannot pass final judgment on its fitness as a DYK. BlueMoonset (talk) 21:49, 2 October 2023 (UTC)
RoySmith, the colophon says In some of the copies the evangelist finishes at this point, at which point also Eusebius Pamphili finished his canons. But these [verses] are also found in many (others), the manuscripts that finish at Mark 16:8 suggest that Mark 16:9-20 was not regarded as part of the Gospel of Mark, while the manuscripts that include Mark 16:9-20 suggest the opposite. Hence the colophon shows that there was doubt about whether Mark 16:9-20 was authentic (i.e. part of the Gospel of Mark rather than a later addition). Hopefully someone who knows more about the subject than I do can explain this in the article. TSventon (talk) 10:26, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
OK, that helps, thanks. I suspect this is something that will only really make sense to people who are already familiar with the topic, but such is life. I also see that "miniscule" is linked to Letter case in the lead, which I suspect is not the meaning you intended. RoySmith(talk)14:35, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the ping. Let me toss a few ideas out and see what sticks:
ALT1: ...that Pacific First Centre's developer courted the Japanese? But this might be too simplistic.
ALT2: ...that U.S. Bank Center's lobby was a third place? Without the link, so people will wonder "Third place what?"
ALT3: ...that a death at the Pacific First Centre caused a fine for the Erection Company? Yeah, this is childish humor, but honestly I can't think of anything else.
To be honest, after reading the article, I don't see anything hook-worthy. This is basically the eighth-largest generic office building in any city. RoySmith(talk)17:08, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
I personally wouldn't count on eighth-largest generic office buildings not being hookworthy. After all, the eighth-largest generic office building in NYC had a hook about a whole Broadway theater at its base... If there's anything more that can be said about the design, perhaps someone can write a hook about the design features of this building? – Epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Except in the most egregious cases (which this certainly isn't) I see my role as a queue promoter as commenting on problems I see. I leave it to others to figure out what to do about it. RoySmith(talk)23:35, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
alt4: ... that, after being called "U.S. Bank Centre" for nearly 30 years, a building in Seattle was renamed, to "U.S. Bank Center"?
i'm not sure if it works better without the comma after "renamed". also, i couldn't decide where to put the link: on the former name, the current name, or "a building in Seattle". note that this hook fact isn't currently explicitly stated in the article; i am relying on wp:calc and trusting that the dates mentioned in the article are accurate, as i do not have access to the cited sources. dying (talk) 00:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
Is there a reason that adding "on the 23rd floor" to the Montessori school hook doesn't work? That was my first thought with "Erection Company" being my second. Vaticidalprophet02:07, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
I've updated the hook per the above suggestion. I still think it's not very interesting, but it's less uninteresting than it was before :-) RoySmith(talk)22:24, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Just wanted to come here and say that I have been promoting a handful of hooks each day. I do not have time to fill out a every slot in a prep set so I only promote a few. If anyone here sees any issue with a promoted hook or image feel free to move them to suit prep building needs. There was a question about my image promotions today so I thought to mention it here. Cheers! Lightburst (talk) 15:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
From there, Berman joined the NHL, where over the course of 13 years -> She then spent 13 years at the National Hockey League
In 2019, Berman became -> In 2019, she was named
making her the first woman to hold that title in a men’s professional sports league -> becoming the first women to hold the position of deputy commissioner of a men's professional sports league.
Thanks. I was going to pull this, but if you say you're working on it, I'll hold off on that to give you some time. Please don't take too long, however. RoySmith(talk)15:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that looks better, thanks. I recognize that with this sort of biographical history, it's hard to come up with a truly original way to convey the list of positions held. The general idea is to avoid starting with the original text and altering it. Instead, extract from the original text the facts that are being conveyed, and then take that collection of facts and cast it into your own prose. RoySmith(talk)15:44, 6 October 2023 (UTC)
Danny Ocean is a fictional character so I'm not particularly concerned with that, and while I know Steve McQueen died in 1980 and therefore isn't a WP:BLP, I'm concerned by the wording of the hook, which to me implies that Steve McQueen has some association with child abduction, which is what I thought was being implied when I first saw the hook. The article itself clarifies that the actor Jake Lacy took inspiration from Ocean and McQueen for their fearlessness and charisma, which makes more sense. Should the hook be reworded to clarify what inspiration was taken so that any such implication isn't presented, or am I reading too much into this? - Aoidh (talk) 11:25, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
OK, possible alt, maybe?
... that to portray a child abductor in A Friend of the Family, Jake Lacy took inspiration from Ocean's Eleven character Danny Ocean?
The new proposed hook looks good to me. I guess there might be a way to keep both the names and still have it be within the character limit, something like:
I do think this second proposed hook would be better, since it retains the interesting aspect of the original hook but adds important contextualization. Does anyone have any objection to this one? - Aoidh (talk) 01:09, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't love that it feeds into the same trope of, like, "oh look at how smart this serial killer is! Did so well in school, just a bit shy but always charismatic...". Maybe just:
@Theleekycauldron: I certainly see where you're coming from, but in this instance (according to the source in the article) the trope is present because the actor himself is the one leaning into it. I think some sort of contextualization is needed whether it involves the fictional character alone or not, because it feels clickbaity to make it sound like there's an association with child abduction in people (fictional or otherwise) with no such association. That's my main concern. - Aoidh (talk) 15:11, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Queue 4: Frank (company) (nom) @AirshipJungleman29 @Thriley @Mottezen The article says According to the lawsuit, Javice claimed that Frank had 4.25 million users; in reality, the company had fewer than 300,000 This needs to be reworded to make it clear that "fewer than 300,000" is something claimed by the lawsuit, not something we're stating in wiki voice. RoySmith(talk)14:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@BeanieFan11, Bloom6132, and FormalDude: I know that it's a rare transition from what BeanieFan11 has said (although I had to cut that from the article), but I don't think it's likely to be perceived as unusual by the reading audience. (The trouble with smaller articles is that often you don't get the high-quality sourcing that draws those connections, and you have to instead work off of primary sourcing.)
Is there any hope of rephrasing this hook in a way that would make it more obvious to non-fans that going from QB to OL is very unusual? —David Eppstein (talk) 01:01, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
Is it also possible for there to be another hook option here? The old supplementary guidelines did say that we shouldn't assume that the whole world is aware of the intricacies of sports, and I imagine most of the world doesn't even know what a quarterback is, let alone how changing positions in American football can be uncommon. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:46, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
that guideline wasn't about interestingness, it was just making sure people provided context for their hooks. We can make it interesting, but I'm not sure it's really worth it to basically just tell our readers "trust me, this is cool". theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 02:02, 3 October 2023 (UTC)
We could do something like:
... That Dylan Cook is one of only N players in history to switch from playing quarterback to the offensive line?
... that there are Jewish tartans made for the Jewish community of Scotland?
@Bohemian Baltimore, CJ-Moki, and Vaticidalprophet: I think we could buck up this hook by mentioning the length of time in between Jews arriving in Scotland and the first tartans being created and canonized. Something like:
ALT2: ... that the first Jewish tartan was designed over 300 years after Jews first began arriving in Scotland?
Hi @RoySmith:, the table in the source lists the titles of the paintings and whether the omen is good, bad, or middling, so that's information that needs to match the source. Then for each painting there is some explanatory text, which is original text I've written to summarise what a source says about that painting. So I wouldn't say that the whole table only has minor differences from the table in that book; it has substantial original text, but a lot of text matches that source because the painting titles have been copied over from this or from another source that translates the titles. Hope this clarifies, MartinPoulter (talk) 10:02, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Indexing of DYK nominations
DYK nominations are usually indexed by Google search results – given that most noticeboard discussions are exempted, I'm not sure that we shouldn't be following that path. Thoughts? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:24, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
I've just searched a couple articles of mine for which WP and mirrors are the main results, and didn't find any DYK nominations. On the other hand, I routinely find AfDs in searches, which aren't indexed by WP proper but are indexed by mirrors, so it's not clear that noindexing would change anything even if these did come up high in results. There's a lot to say about that one. Is there a particular issue this is hoping to solve? Vaticidalprophet18:31, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
this search takes you pretty much right to the DYK nom – it'll often get buried by more relevant pages, but it is still indexed. Hooks that are struck on BLP grounds routinely appear in DYK noms – keeping them out of the public eye might be a good idea. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:40, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Would finally moving DYK noms into a less unsuitable namespace ("template" is about as appropriate as "timed text") help? —Kusma (talk) 18:48, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
Mistaken DYK accept and reviewer's response to error being pointed out
I noticed that the recent DYK Campbell's Soup Cans I was an article split that had not received 5x expansion as required by the DYK rules. I assumed that the reviewer in question, Ykraps, was not aware of the split or else unfamiliar with the rules. Unfortunately, when I pointed it out, the response was not encouraging. Although eligibility issues are not the most concerning errors that could make it through an inadequate DYK review, I believe that people who are not following the rules should not be reviewing at DYK. (t · c) buidhe05:33, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I use User:Shubinator/DYKcheck.js to do the counting for me; it knows about the rules for what counts and what doesn't and handle that all for you. I find this superior to using any of the various on-line counting tools because they don't know our convoluted rules. In complicated cases, I'll make a copy of the article in my sandbox, hack away at that to get just the relevant parts, and then run DYKcheck on that.
Taking a step back, we encourage people new to DYK to do reviews. That's how we ensnare new victims grow our base of DYK experts. New people will make mistakes. As long as the old timers are willing to accept the occasional mistake and the new people are willing to admit they don't know something and ask for help, it all work out. When either of those things is untrue, friction happens. When both are untrue simultaneously, we get airborne fecal contamination. RoySmith(talk)20:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
User:buidhe I think the onus should be on the creator of the article. Have you raised this issue with them directly? Yes, the reviewer should have noticed it, but I don't think they shoulder the responsibility or the blame. Viriditas (talk) 21:53, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree that the article creator should not nominate an ineligible article, but it is equally important that the reviewer (and promoter) doesn't pass an ineligible article. I don't have high hopes for getting any information across to the nominator because he is also ignoring what everyone is telling him at FAC and other forums about image licensing and NFCC. (t · c) buidhe22:19, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
I think there may be a larger issue at work here. Because I follow the visual arts, I noticed the issue immediately, but I declined to say anything as I was busy with other matters and didn't want to get involved, because ideally, I'm not here--most of us are not here--to be involved in disputes. Yes, there are a small minority who love it and enjoy that kind of environment, but most avoid it. When I say there is a larger issue at work here, I think we need a way to report problems other than just logging out and doing so from an IP. Might be something to think about. For example, if we had a way to report issues without the reports tracing back to a user, that would be ideal. Viriditas (talk) 22:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Rebecca Struthers
Queue 4: Rebecca Struthers (nom) @Lightburst @Panamitsu @Sahaib I gotta ask, lightburst, if you knew the claim would be questioned, why did you promote it? By the time it gets to a queue review, it's a lot more work to fix. Yes, it's being questioned. DYK has had lots of problems with first, best, only, etc claims. In this case, the supposedly WP:RS is an interview, which means she said, "I'm the only" and the interviewer wrote that down. That's not good enough. RoySmith(talk)15:01, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I apologize if that promotion was a mistake. I read the article and from my reading, the article's writer (Jo Glasbey) made the statement that she was "only". I know there is scrutiny on claims like this so I stated that in the nomination. Lightburst (talk) 16:08, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
It looks like she's the only person ever to gain a PhD in horology [14], which makes the current hook a little pointless, but does of course suggest a different hook based on that fact. Black Kite (talk)16:39, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Um, actually, perhaps not - "the first person ever to combine the practical skills of watchmaking with the theoretical research behind an impassioned doctoral thesis about Dutch watch forgery." suggests she might actually be the only watchmaker. In any case, this source means the original hook is OK. Black Kite (talk)16:43, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Indeed. There's also this and this, though both say she's the first watchmaker to earn a Ph.D. in horology in the United Kingdom (which is slightly different). Frankly, I've no doubt that the hook is right, but it's such a niche subject that you're only ever going to get RS articles that areinterviews with the subject, or similar. Black Kite (talk)16:49, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Reading the article, I'm thinking something that talks about how an Egyptian water clock is connected to the Apple Watch might be hookworthy. RoySmith(talk)16:52, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
That's not really about her, though. To be honest, I think having a PhD in horology is hook-worthy in itself, whether she's the first, only, or whatever. Here's another link - NYT - that I can't read because it's behind a paywall [15]. Black Kite (talk)16:56, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
If we can't use the "only", how about "... that the watchmaking course Rebecca Struthers took no longer exists?" If we could be more playful, we could do something like "... that the watchmaking course Rebecca Struthers took popped its clogs?", although that one doesn't sound particuarly interesting. —Panamitsu(talk)00:04, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
Some pre-2017 horology/watchmaking doctoral dissertations:
Pierre Hostettler, The Future of the "World Watch Industry": A Comparative Study Using Delphi, Texas Tech University, 1976, [16]
Ryan Raffaelli, Identity and institutional change in a mature field: The re-emergence of the Swiss watchmaking industry, 1970–2008, Boston College, 2013, [17]
Yu Fu, A study on the dynamics of periodical impact mechanism with an application in mechanical watch escapement, Chinese University of Hong Kong, 2008, [18]
Jane Desborough, The Changing Face of Time: the Making of the Modern Clock & Watch Dial 1550-1770, University of Leeds, 2016, [19]
Note that the last example shows that even the more restricted claim of being the first British doctoral thesis in this topic is false. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:53, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for finding those. Let's put to bed the idea of rehabilitating this hook and find a different one. It's really hard (basically impossible) to prove a "first" claim unless it's from an enumerable set (i.e. "First United States president to have three arms"). My Egyptian idea didn't float, so what else do we have? RoySmith(talk)20:07, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Good research @David Eppstein:. Maybe we can just shorten it to
I am guessing many people would be curious enough to check it out. It would also be nice if we clean up the horology article. Lightburst (talk) 21:19, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
Though it doesn't appear that any of those four theses appear to be part of an actual PhD in horology. The first one is for a PhD in Management and the second for Business Administration. The actual degree is a little unclear for the other two; but the third is from the Faculty of Automation and Computer-Aided Design, and the fourth from the Faculty of Philosophy, Religion and the History of Science. Regardless, it's clear enough that a PhD in horology is rare enough that it's a useful hook regardless of whether it's the first or only. Black Kite (talk)12:36, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
This is going live in a day or so, so I've gone ahead and made this "... that Rebecca Struthers has a PhD in horology?". If somebody still wants to do something better, there's time, but at least now we've got something that's defensible. RoySmith(talk)01:11, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Queue 5: Sheryl Cooper (nom) I know this is already being discussed above, so I'll just note it here as having made it to the queue and will be on the main page in a couple of days, so if people want to change something, now is the time. RoySmith(talk)14:13, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Guidelines re-org
I once again find myself unable to find a rule that I know exists. Or at least used to exist. I'm talking about the one that says something like "A hook must present a fact which will still be true in the future". Can we please, please, please go back to the old-style bullet list of rules? That was so easy to search. The current prose version I can never find what I'm looking for. RoySmith(talk)14:30, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
Might be the first line in WP:DYKHOOKThe hook should include a definite fact that is unlikely to change I did enjoy the older version which was bulleted - but the previous discussion seemed like it had reached no conclusions. Lightburst (talk) 14:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
This was "possibly couldn't sing" until just before full protection. Spelling out the contraction makes it clunky. Could the original hook be restored? Vaticidalprophet19:12, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
@Vaticidalprophet I think some people like to avoid contractions because we're expected to use formal language when writing encyclopedic articles. Whether the formality should be extended to DYK hooks is, I suppose, debatable. BorgQueen (talk) 19:33, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
I spell out all contractions in articles too. That's not the case for hooks, and I've never seen it be the case before...today, really. Vaticidalprophet19:36, 4 October 2023 (UTC)
That didn't used to be the case; back in the day I can remember many hooks changed when under review to avoid contractions, or at the point of promotion. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:23, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
on a completely unrelated note, i don't think i've ever seen a singing fossil. (by the way, i think the image hook of that set is missing a "(pictured)".) dying (talk) 00:31, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
Of course I overlooked something. :) I've added it, though because of the exact wording I was considering making it (carrier pictured) but I don't know if that's necessary. - Aoidh (talk) 01:13, 5 October 2023 (UTC)
thanks, Aoidh. speaking of overlooking things, i completely missed the fact that "Sea" should not be italicized in the caption. "Intrepid" is in italics because it is the name of a ship. "Sea, Air & Space" describes the subject matter of the museum. could someone please correct the caption? sorry to be a bother.also, i apologize for being somewhat opaque in my original comment about the republicopteron hook. to be more clear, what i meant was that, from my reading, the current hook expresses doubt that a fossil could sing, which doesn't seem all that surprising because fossils generally do not sing. what the hook probably meant to say was that the katydid-like insect r. douseae may not have been able to sing while it was alive, which, i assume, is interesting because katydids generally can sing (while they are alive).i am not sure if i am the only one having trouble with this hook, but if this seems like a valid concern, i would suggest either replacing "fossil" with "insect" or dropping the word altogether. in addition, "extinct" could be inserted before "katydid" if "fossil" was originally used to suggest to the reader that the species is now extinct. dying (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a little over an hour ago, so I've created a new list of the first 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through September 28. We have a total of 209 nominations, of which 62 have been approved, a gap of 147 nominations that has increased by 10 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
(If anyone's interested, I reviewed this article's DYK nom.) Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour is currently in Prep 4, which is set to go live on 13 October in most of the world. That date's also the film's release date. The hook mentions the release date pretty prominently:
While not technically a special occasion (it was never requested as far as I know), this seems to fall afoul of WP:DYKSO, which states that hooks for such occasions should not put emphasis on a commercial release date of the article subject for promotional reasons. Thoughts, anyone? Pinging the nominator, thethreeauthors and promoter. Also pinging Vaticidalprophet, who made a comment about waiting some time for promotion on the nom page. Pamzeis (talk) 05:31, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
I was the nominator, and WP:DYKSO was the reason why I did not specify for a date for the DYK to appear. I propose changing the date part in the hook as follows: "... that Taylor Swift: The Eras Tour caused the horror film The Exorcist: Believer to move its release date one week earlier from a Friday the 13th?" Thus, the release date is not explicitly mentioned. Also, as I commented on the nom page talk, if someone more familiar with the DYK process can shed light on spacing out similar topics on the main page, that will be greatly appreciated. Shuipzv3 (talk) 07:28, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
As the promoter, I thought that it was the release date of the horror film that was being promoted; I figured that since it was moved a week earlier, it would be fine. I didn't see that the Swift movie releases on Friday 13th; I can see how it might be construed as promotional. Maybe move it a couple of daysater? ~~ AirshipJungleman29 (talk) 08:57, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
@Lightburst: How is it promotional? I have no connection with the band or any of its members outside of being a fan for decades. I simply thought it was interesting that, despite no longer being in the band, he continues to hold events promoting the band. It seemed somewhat unusual to me. Usually, when people leave bands, they don't do things like that (at least not that I've ever seen). ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 13:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to pull this. It's scheduled for tomorrow so there's not much time. But what pushed me over the edge is there's a lot of material in the article about criminal activity that's sourced to Japanese language sources. Non-english sources are allowed, but I'm not comfortable publishing that level of negative WP:BLP content based on sources I can't read. RoySmith(talk)12:21, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I can read them and all of them clearly support the information included in the article. I'm always very careful about including such things, and always make sure they are very clearly backed up by solid sources. I'm extremely familiar with WP:BLP as I've been participating here since before it was created. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 13:59, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: probably a good call. And @Nihonjoe: without the pressure you can edit the article and work on a new hook. My promotional comment was about promoting the event. But I admit that may be a narrow interpretation. Lightburst (talk) 14:11, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Lightburst: Edit the article how? It's perfectly in line with all policies and guidelines. Mentioning that he holds occasional events isn't advertising, especially since the name of the bar and the address of the bar are never mentioned in the article. That he holds them was reported in multiple reliable sources, and that he holds them and is a former member is discussed in multiple reliable sources. And I already offered a number of ALTs that no one has commented on. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:07, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I had previously nominated Deshong Art Museum for DYK on September 6th but canceled the nomination after several relevant questions/concerns from reviewers. I have since upgraded the article to good article status. I tried to nominate again but received an error message that the page already exists. How can I nominate again or renominate? Thanks for your help! Dwkaminski (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
OK, I created a submission for Deshong Park, then copied the content with changes over to the Template: Did you Know Deshong Art Museum. I apologize in advance if I have messed up anything. I also need to now delete the Deshong Park DYK. Dwkaminski (talk) 13:04, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Comment: I placed the second DYK nomination template on the talk page and I am not sure why it was not there. One concern I have is that the GA reviewer only has 350 edits to the English Wikipedia. So the DYK review will probably need to be comprehensive. Lightburst (talk) 14:17, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
"... that Sheryl Cooper (pictured) and her daughter Calico beheaded Sheryl's husband in front of a live audience?" Am I the only guy who had to click it to see if it was literally true? If not, I thought we didn't post things that were false and not just misleading. Art LaPella (talk) 04:50, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
You're not the only one. To move it towards merely misleading, perhaps at least mention they did this more than once without switching to a new husband. —Kusma (talk) 11:16, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
thanks for bringing this up, Art LaPella. i was admittedly confused by the hook as well. the financial times source cited in the nomination uses the word "played", making it clear that it was describing an act, and the daily mail source (reproduced at alicecooperechive.com) uses "beheading" in quotes. the hook doesn't seem to mention the beheading in a similar context. (i don't think we can rely on main page readers being familiar with alice cooper and his family.)courtesy pinging 3family6 (nominator), TonyTheTiger (reviewer), and AirshipJungleman29 (promoter). dying (talk) 01:27, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
So, I didn't believe this was making a factually incorrect statement. When a character in a film dies, the article plot description might state it that way. In the stage show, Sheryl or Calico Cooper, as themselves, will behead Alice (there's more sources in the article than just the two in the nomination). Respectfully, I wasn't relying on familiarity with the family - that's a boring hook if so. I wanted the hook to be easter eggy and give the reader a double-take, as I explained in the comment in my nomination. I had considered adding "repeatedly beheaded", which makes the hook even more perplexing but gives a queue to the reader that there's more going on. Alternatively, "beheaded" could be put in quotes, which is less perplexing but similarly queues the reader.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 03:42, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
It's now in queue 5, so this needs to get resolved promptly. I think "... that Sheryl Cooper (pictured) and her daughter Calico both independently beheaded Sheryl's husband in front of a live audience?" would move this into misleading rather than false. Does that sound good? Pinging RoySmith who was the approving administrator for the queue.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:15, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
i thought putting quotes around "beheading" "beheaded" would work well. "both independently" admittedly just confused me further. dying (talk) 02:22, 12 October 2023 (UTC) [copyedited. dying (talk) 20:29, 13 October 2023 (UTC)]
note: this hook has been independently raised at wp:errors here [perm]. the proposal to use quotes around "beheaded" has been implemented, though further input is welcome. dying (talk) 03:30, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Admins needed to promote preps to queues
Admin mop
Pinging @DYK admins: we're down to two queues, one of which will be promoted in the next few hours, so promoting a couple of the available preps would be most welcome. TSventon (talk) 18:43, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
@TSventon: a bit of a ghost town here on the weekends. Sunday even more so than Saturday. And yesterday was Friday the 13th! I like to imagine that the DYK admins are dancing around outdoors and having picnics. lol. Lightburst (talk) 20:49, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Actually, we're all huddled in a dark cave trying to figure out how to encourage more of the DYK regulars to get their own mops :-) RoySmith(talk)21:02, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
I am not the nominator, IPs are unable to create pages so someone else needs to transclude their nominations onto a new page. CMD (talk) 01:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Looks fine to me. I might suggest linking the UCLA Bruins to the basketball team like in the original, but I'd understand wanting to avoid having two linked items plus the bold link consecutively. Not something I'd fuss over. Giants2008 (Talk) 13:06, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Tails Wx and Pbritti: Listen, I might not be haranguing y'all about this hook if it weren't for the fact that a sinkhole opened up in Massachusetts and damaged cars and that's somehow not what we're making a hook out of? I mean, truly, we gotta :) (welcome to the promoter's corps, Graearms! a preemptive "thank you for your hard work" to make up for the thanks you won't get later :P) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:00, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
This may be ignorance showing but I figured sinkholes were something typical? Is that not the case? If I'm way off base here, I'll gladly work on an ALT2 to submit for your approval, leeky! ~ Pbritti (talk) 13:05, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, that's what I thought, I must've completely missed that fact while nominating. I've thought of a ALT2 (sorry, Pbritti),
well, i'm from LA, so sinkholes sound cooler to me than inches of rain. Different strokes for different folks, I guess? I'll swap it in :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: Yeah, the term "Potato King of Colorado" has actually been in the article the whole time, but I added it again at your request. The term is normally used to describe him, but in some contemporary news reports he was also simply referred to as "Potato Clark"; both names were used (alongside "Dad Clark"). ~ Pbritti (talk) 23:38, 14 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, do DYK rules say anything about setting up specific dates for hooks (outside of April Fools)? I was thinking that if one of my particular hooks is going to hang around in the approved area for a bit, I would like for Anoplotherium to be set up for October 31st's DYK page, since the fun fact about the endocast study and an old skeletal reconstruction image could vaguely be associated with the holiday. Let me know if this is or isn't possible. Thanks! PrimalMustelid (talk) 10:23, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
You can make a special occasion request here or on the nomination page, but the reviewers and promoters have to agree that the request is sufficiently special. The more obvious or stronger the relation of the subject to the date (for example, a hook about a person going up on their birthday, or a Christmas hook going up on Christmas), the more likely the request will be accepted. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:05, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think we've done a Halloween set but we have done Halloween special occasion hooks in the past. Personally I think the hook being proposed here is a stretch for Halloween but perhaps others may feel it's appropriate. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 11:22, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
To be fair, a fossil for Halloween is pretty bent, although that's got to be the first time in history that "fun fact" has been used in the same sentence as "endocast study". Serial11:54, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
What is the policy on promoters changing hooks?
Could someone reply with a link to the policy about how promoters can change hooks? It surprised me how my recent nomination said had two public holidays, but the main page says had another public holiday. Is the disparity between the nomination template and the main page not an issue? —Panamitsu(talk)00:19, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm sure I've seen a tool to do this somewhere, but can't find it at the moment... does anyone have an easy method to see if a nominator is exempt from the QPQ requirement? UndercoverClassicistT·C09:19, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
... that Songs and Flowers of the Wasatch represented a shift in Mormon history toward a "socially-accepted American cultural and religious heritage", according to historian Jennifer Reeder?
Slight concern that this hook may be misleading as to the provenance of this quote, given that Reeder is described simply as a "historian"... According to the article, she is "a women's history specialist at the LDS Church History Department", which suggests to me that her research and writing is in some sense the "official version" approved by the church, and verging on being a primary source, not an independent historical opinion. Probably worth clarifying in some way. As an aside, I'm also not really sure as an outsider what this hook is saying - is it simply that the LDS church became more in line with the American mainstream norms? Or something else? Pinging @Rachel Helps (BYU), Vaticidalprophet, Onegreatjoke, and Narutolovehinata5: who were involved with the hook. Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:27, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi Amakuru, the idea that the LDS church did away with polygamy and started trying to assimilate to American norms to be admitted as a state in the union is not all that controversial, although traditionally in LDS teaching, the manifesto ending polygamy is said to be prophetic revelation and not affected by like, the federal government threatening to confiscate all the LDS church's temples (any historian would say that the government's sanctions were certainly a factor). This particular research by Reeder is in her dissertation which she received at George Mason University (not as part of her work for the LDS Church History department). With the poetry collection (Songs and Flowers), Eliza Snow and LDS church authorities are trying to show the world that LDS women are independent thinkers participating in their beloved religion of their own free will and not thralls of some polygamist cult. Unfortunately I couldn't find a quote that made that more clear. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:58, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
This is all of them. Every one. There are three biographies at DYKNA that can be promoted.
The DYKN-DYKNA pipeline is really slow lately for some reason, and there are a number more biographies at DYKN that aren't reviewed yet, including a number of bio images. It would be great if reviews could step up a little; the tricky thing about prepbuilding is that because you can't promote hooks you've reviewed, if I went and solved this myself I'd still have three promotable biographies. I'm also unclear on exactly why the pipeline is so slow. More biographies at DYKN would also be nice, but is harder to control. Vaticidalprophet 09:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC) (I did just review a fourth after writing this.) Vaticidalprophet09:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Yes, we dropped below 40 after this, which I have another section for now. De facto (excluding stuff that has some procedural issue or an unresolved discussion) I'd guess we're at 30ish. Vaticidalprophet15:08, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Why is it a problem that we have too few biographies? Historically the problem has been that we have too many so we instituted rules to limit how many can be in a hookset (WP:DYKVAR). I don't see how it's a problem to not have enough of them. People go nuts when the queues get too long. And now people are going nuts because the queues are too short. Seems to me, we need a better algorithm for regulating queue length. RoySmith(talk)15:35, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
@BeanieFan11, Lightburst, and Crunchydillpickle: This is CrunchyDillPickle's nom, so if they (and everyone else) are happy with ALT0, then that's totally fine. I just think the topic is so great that there's room to have a bit more fun with the hook. In summary, from the original nom:
Lightburst was (presumably) concerned that ALT2 was a bit too far, non-encyclopedic, etc.. I'm not a DYK regular, so I'll leave the boundaries of acceptability to those with experience (though I still love ALT2). Some toned downed suggestions though:
I did not promote that hook based on the unattributed quote. So I will leave it to others, perhaps an administrator familiar with rules or another promotor. Lightburst (talk) 13:55, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
If somebody else wants to promote ALT2, I won't object, but to my eye, the sourcing is dubious. I found a few mentions of this quote, all repeating it from the Tone Madison article. Mostly social media. And, frankly, Tone Madison doesn't strike me as very high on the WP:RS spectrum. RoySmith(talk)14:44, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
Any thoughts on promoting ALT4 in the mean time? It was the original nom's 2nd choice and seems like a nice alternative if others agree ALT2b/c is too dubious. Cerebral726 (talk) 14:50, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
@Cerebral726: I'm not sure why "Great Butter Fire" is in quotes, and I'm also not sure why it is capitalised (indeed, I'm not sure if any of the titles for this event including Wisconsin Butter Fire itself really qualify as a proper name under MOS:CAPS. Can we amend to sentence case and no quotes? — Amakuru (talk) 12:42, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Currently in prep 2 is an ALT0 hook I nominated weeks ago. @Gerda Arendt posted a message on my talk page pointing out some issues with the hook that I agree with and did not realize when I nominated it. The use of "Indian girl" is not appropriate, especially for the main page, and this phrasing has been changed within the article itself to "Native American girl". Furthermore, this article fails to mention anything about it actually being a ballet and really doesn't even relate to how it stands now. If someone could either correct the hook to say "Native American girl" or simply replace it with one of the ALTs, I'd very much appreciate it- sorry for getting it all this way just to turn on it at the last minute. MyCatIsAChonk (talk) (not me) (also not me) (still no) 20:19, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
@MyCatIsAChonk PS, when I look at the article with Who Wrote That, I get a bunch of "Cite error: There are<ref>tags on this page without content in them (see thehelp page)." messages. I can't see what's wrong, but you might want to follow up on that. RoySmith(talk)21:34, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
... that Julia Marden was the first known person to create a Wampanoag twined turkey-feather mantle since European contact 400 years earlier?
A few queries here - firstly, minor point but I think Wampanoag should have a Wikilink, either to Wampanoag itself or to Wampanoag Tribe of Gay Head. I know we like to avoid excess linking in hooks, but this is a basic Wikilink without which it's very hard for a newcomer to process the text, as required by MOS:UNDERLINK. Secondly, even with such a link it is not clear from the article what the significance of this is. Why are turkey-twined mantles special? Are there no articles covering such a thing that the article could link to, to establish why it's relevant? And the source mentions that there are others in existence but it's not totally obvious to me whether those don't count because they're not "twined" at all, or just because it wasn't a Wampanoag person who twined them using the ancient technique. In such a case, wording is important so we know exactly what the claim is. Finally, the line about "European contact" doesn't seem to be mentioned in the source [20] at all, and looks a bit like WP:SYNTH to me. Is there any significance to whether turkey-twined mantles were made before or after European contact? We seem to be creating an implication of significance which is not present in the source. Sorry, this has ended up a bit wordy, but think some tweaks may be required somewhere. Pinging @ForsythiaJo, BeanieFan11, Cielquiparle, and Vaticidalprophet: who were involved with the hook. — Amakuru (talk) 09:41, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
At the time of writing, there are 37 hooks at DYKNA. Some of these need to go back to DYKN, need querying, or have open queries. There are four promotable biographies. Vaticidalprophet15:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
There are more qpq-pending noms than I consider the norm, and I've heard the suggestion there are more <5-credit noms. (The latter isn't a bad problem to have, but it is, in this context, tricky.) DYKN proper doesn't have nearly as bad numbers as DYKNA right now. I'm not as calibrated on what an average count for DYKN is, though. (This seems like a good time, if we want to, to introduce that "backlog mode" of 2-QPQ requirements we technically have.) Vaticidalprophet17:41, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I suspect what happened is we got flooded with a ton of submissions out of the latest GA backlog drive, chewed through that by shifting into double overdrive mode, and now we're paying for it. RoySmith(talk)19:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: Since the GA backlog drives have been one of the few reliable ways to reduce the backlogs there have been some discussions about running another in November and perhaps running a couple of them annually going forward.[21] I don't know if there's anything you may need to do to prepare, but thought that notice may be welcome. Regards, Rjjiii (talk) 03:17, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I would be up for a temporary bump to mandate 2QPQs. I also like Roy’s recommendation that we not go to 2 hooks per day unless really needed. Ktin (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
I am not sure that mandating 2 QPQs at the moment is a good idea. It may or may not increase the number of reviews done, but it is likely to reduce the number of new nominations, which are already at the bottom of the 8 to 16 a day the system is designed to cope with. TSventon (talk) 22:37, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
The last two days have exceeded 8 noms per day already, and we have 9 prep/queue sets already filled, so things may be picking up again. Things have been slow at GAN, which may have been contributing to the decrease in nominations. I suppose that, rather than recycle, we could keep sets on the main page for 48 hours rather than 24—we've never had to go that far, but we could give it a try if it comes to that rather than recycle old hooks. BlueMoonset (talk) 06:01, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I like BlueMoonset's idea of increasing to 48-hour sets over adding a temporary 2-reviews qpq because it might be hard to explain the temporary-ness of the 2 qpq (which noms need 2 reviews and which don't). However, I do not think we need 48 hour preps quite yet because we have lots of full prep-sets and more hooks will be approved in the coming days. Z1720 (talk) 14:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
The New Zealand mega-nom two threads down is using up 4 days worth of articles in one shot. Maybe solve two problems at once by breaking that up into individual hooks? RoySmith(talk)15:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I personally prefer one somewhat boring hook to fifteen somewhat boring hooks. I don't think we should discuss things like going to 48 hours unless we are getting really close to running out of material. 3 queues plus 6 preps is more than a week, and there is another week's worth at DYKNA. If we go below five days of potential hooks, we can start thinking about emergency measures. Let's just try to approve a few hooks and collect some QPQ points for the future. —Kusma (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Discussion is ongoing about whether individual hooks or a multihook works better for the NZ politicians nomination. I absolutely don't think we should go to 48 hours -- things have improved somewhat since this message, and prepbuilding during 24s is slow enough (even with little material). Vaticidalprophet15:44, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
No, because it adds the problem that has traditionally made 18s nonviable (being out of sync with days) while simultaneously being still-very-slow. (12s are very fun, if you have enough good hooks. You tend to run out of good hooks before you drop below 60.) Vaticidalprophet17:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I was never a fan of the 12s, but, if 12 is possible I would think that 36 would also be possible. But, I might be missing something here. Ktin (talk) 22:19, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
It's actually a really cool sculpture. Have driven past it (and stopped at times) many a time. Most of the locals absolutely love it! Schwede6601:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
@Reywas92, Surtsicna, and PrimalMustelid: The source supporting this hook states that 12 tribes stepped up to request that this monument be declared, which isn't the same as being involved in its management. Also, it seems a little odd to phrase the hook in future tense, as the monument has already been designated. — RAVENPVFF·talk·14:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
@Ravenpuff The Proclamation includes establishment of the commission that includes the tribal nations, with a description here. It should be future tense because the commission hasn't been set up with appointments yet, and the management will continue in the future. Reywas92Talk15:33, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
@Reywas92: Thanks, that's helpful. Apologies if this is a bit nitpicky – neither source states that the 12 tribal nations that requested the monument's declaration will be the same ones that will join the commission (any Tribal Nation with ancestral ties to the area [...] as stated in the proclamation). Maybe we could rephrase the hook to say instead "that local tribal nations will be involved". — RAVENPVFF·talk·15:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I reviewed Killing of Wadea Al-Fayoume on the 17th and since that review there have been about 48 edits. I think we have to wait for the article to stabilize so I placed a message on the nomination. I also wonder if it should be on ITN instead of DYK, it is more news than DYK. Ping the nominator MagicatthemovieS. I am unable to find anything in our rules about article stability, but that does not mean it is not in there somewhere. Lightburst (talk) 19:25, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Regarding ITN, that won't be happening due to two reasons. Firstly, given it happened on 14 October, this would roll off the nomination page in exactly 27 hours, not enough for consensus to form. Secondly, having watched dozens of these kinds of nominations being put forward, it has a snowball's chance in hell to be accepted. Too local an issue; zero impact. They can't even agree on a hospital being blown up with 100s of casualties to be ITN-worthy, it seems.
WP:DYKCOMPLETE does say The article should not be subject to unresolved edit-warring. With edit comments like "rmv inaccurate speculation by nonnotable partisans" and "Stop trying to remove these from the motives section in the box!" within the past 24 hours, I'd say that applies. RoySmith(talk)21:08, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I'd agree. Edit warring is a form of instability but not all article instability is edit warring. I remember that this was an issue a while back because there were some Indian politics-related articles that had issues regarding stability, but it took some time to reject them because "instability" wasn't directly codified as a disqualifying factor, only edit warring. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a couple of hours ago, so I've created a new list of the first 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 5. We have a total of 209 nominations, of which 67 have been approved, a gap of 142 nominations that has decreased by 5 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 04:39, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Lightburst, I will ping @DYK admins: as we are down to one queue. Admins may not have been aware as the message at the top of the page continued to say two queues for several hours due to a bot malfunction. TSventon (talk) 09:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I've done one queue. Will do the checks as I can, and will also promote another one if I find I have time for that. CHeers — Amakuru (talk) 10:01, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Perhaps not an issue, but I found the wording here slightly confusing. When I first read that he ran all of Glasgow's 6,143 streets I thought it meant he ran them in the sense of governing them or something, or being responsible for some aspect of the streets. I then twigged that probably it meant he ran as in with his feet... but could be worth a wording tweak to make this clearer? Pinging @Sahaib, Llewee, and Vaticidalprophet: Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Amakuru It might be helpful to change "ran" to "ran along". It also may be good to change the image to his new portrait in the article. However I think only administrators can do that now the nomination is on the preps and queues page.--Llewee (talk) 10:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Fixed. I had suggested not mentioning "by awarding points" in the nom, although for a different reason. Given the above, I've just made the change in the prep myself. Feel free to revert if that's out of process. RoySmith(talk)12:02, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I'm not really planning on being a regular in this area - I just noticed that several approved hooks were lingering around for ~2 months that were undisputed, so I decided to promote them (I'm generally more of a specialist editor who'll occasionally linger elsewhere briefly). I used that image from the hook because nobody seemed to suggest that the photo is unsuitable for usage due to being public domain, so apologies if it actually was. PrimalMustelid (talk) 18:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Please do continue to promote and contribute @PrimalMustelid:. It is sometimes ego-killing to work here because people question or undo your work. But your contributions are needed and appreciated in this area. Lightburst (talk) 18:48, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I uploaded a new version that has the contrast enhanced. It's a little better, still not wonderful. I'm not thrilled about using this image. RoySmith(talk)19:19, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I'd been looking at that one wanting to swap out the image, but wasn't sure if it'd cause more discussion than leaving it. If there's this much dispute, I already have image hooks planned a few sets out, so I'll swap in one of those here and move the hook down. Vaticidalprophet13:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Red Hill Band has been moved to a non-image slot in Prep 5. Prep 2's image hook is now Lingang DRT. This puts two Chinese transit hooks a bit closer than I originally intended them, but I suspect this is unnoticeable nitpicking from most reader perspectives, especially given they're geographically nowhere near each other. The Lingang image is showing up unusually small in thumbnail (it's a normal-sized image), but I can't figure out what's causing that. Can still make out what it's of, though. Vaticidalprophet13:10, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Queue 6: Seraphina Sforza
... that Blessed Seraphina Sforza was implicated in a murder plot at the age of twelve?
When I read this, I thought that it sounded very interesting and that I would glean more information on this story from the article, but then I found that the only lines dealing with it are these:
In March 1446, the 12-year-old Sveva was implicated in Sigismondo Pandolfo Malatesta's plot to murder Federico. The other conspirators were executed, and Sveva was sent to Rome to stay with her maternal uncle, Cardinal Prospero Colonna.
To me, this seems to leave the matter so vague that I wonder if we ought to be mentioning it in the DYK hook at all. Unanswered questions include (a) why was she implicated in this plot, (b) was she exonerated, (c) was the sending to stay with her uncle in some sense a punishment or confirmation of guilt (since it's juxtaposed with the mention of three others being executed)? Obviously this isn't a BLP, as she died 500+ years ago, otherwise this would be a WP:BLPCRIME fail, but still... I'd expect a bit more detail than just saying she was "implicated" . Pinging @Moriwen, Dahn, and Vaticidalprophet: Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
The source says Sveva in 1446 had been implicated in the plot to assassinate Federico (see note 15 above) in a footnote on page 127,[1] which isn't much help. TSventon (talk) 11:18, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, unfortunately that was all the information I was able to dig up on the topic! (Despite some serious digging, because believe me, I'm as curious as you are.) If that rules it out as a hook I totally understand and am happy to come up with something else. — Moriwen (talk) 15:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
My biggest concern is that the rephrase makes it vague whether the tridactyl trait is characteristic of all species of Diplobune - that in part differentiates it from its relative Anoplotherium where one species A. commune is two-toed unlike the other three-toed species. I think if the phrase makes it clear somehow that all species are three-toed, it would work better. PrimalMustelid (talk) 12:40, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
See above discussion on Diplobune (nom). TLC changed the approved hook and there is some discussion about it. I preferred the approved original. Lightburst (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Hmmm, I didn't realize this was already under discussion. My general philosophy of hooks is "shorter is better" Give them a tease, let them decide if they want the whole chicken. But given that there's already controversy here, I'll just toss out my suggestion and people can go with it or not. RoySmith(talk)21:03, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: With the edit this one loses what I think is the most important/interesting part of the hook, contrary to NFL rules. I preferred the original in the order becasue leading with the sentence about rules cause me to read. Lightburst (talk) 14:43, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I hear you, but now the hook is shorter and contains less jargon, so I think it's still better on the balance (and it does still contain the phrase you mentioned, just not in that exact order.) If you've got an ALT, I'm happy to hear it :) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 20:01, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
I also don't like the rewrite. I don't see anything wrong with the existing ALT, nor do I see any "jargon". Seems like just a personal preference. Gonna revert to the original approved version. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 03:45, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
@Gonzo fan2007: Even if it weren't against DYK guidelines to edit your own hook, I would argue that it falls afoul of WP:INVOLVED and WP:RAAA to revert an edit through full protection relating to an article you created. I would appreciate it if you were to revert your edits and instead discuss your issues with the revision here. If not, I am happy to put this hook in another prep, and another admin can put their stamp of approval on it. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:32, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
It was approved by nominator, reviewer and promotor, so there is really not a need to kick it back to prep. The change to the hook was a personal preference and was made unilaterally so it seems unfair to override all the involved editors. Lightburst (talk) 13:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
Theleekycauldron, you made a bold change, I reverted, now its time to discuss. We are both admins, its not like I made an edit that you are unable to make. I'm not going to edit war on it, but WP:BRD is a fairly straightforward application here. As Lightburst mentioned, you made a unilateral change. If you want a bigger discussion on it, then ping everyone involved in the hooks approval and let's see where consensus falls. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 15:44, 13 October 2023 (UTC)
I've been thinking on the WP:RAAA thing all day and feel the need to address that specific issue. In theory, editing a hook in a queue is an admin action because of the page protection, but I don't think that's what anybody had in mind when RAAA was written. Hooks in queues get edited all the time and every one of those is an admin changing something another admin did. We'd be going down the dangerous path if we started invoking RAAA every time. Just my personal opinion. RoySmith(talk)03:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith, Theleekycauldron, and Lightburst: just wanted to come back to this after a few days. Regardless of how RAAA applies or doesn't, there was probably a better way to go about reverting the change, probably by gaining a bit of consensus first. For that, I apologize. I often get frustrated, as many others do, when a hook I developed that went through the whole approval process gets unilaterally changed without any input first. Obviously, if there is a policy-based reason for the revision, then so be it. My revisions generally came from a place of annoyance, which is generally not a good reason to revert. « Gonzo fan2007(talk) @ 18:13, 16 October 2023 (UTC)
I understand the frustration, but generally speaking, it's strongly frowned upon to edit one's own hook once it's been promoted. If there are really concerns and a desire to change it back, then speaking with the editor or bringing up here is the way, not unilaterally reverting. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:28, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
@Victuallers and Di (they-them): The lead is in pretty bad shape. Not sure why a profession can't be nailed down in wikivoice, or why the following sentences are the ones most relevant to her life. Plus, Her early life was described in a dubious account by Gibson. sounds like it was the husband. Why is "bitter, vengeful woman" relevant at all? theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 08:16, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
@Theleekycauldron: If you want to improve it you can, DYK is for new articles, and they will have areas where they can be improved .... by the community. "Not sure why a profession can't be nailed down in wikivoice" see the infobox! or is not where you would like it? "why the following sentences are the ones most relevant to her life". You are not sure? Do you expect me to sooth your brow? Is "a bitter, vengeful woman" relevant? Should we take your opinion or the judge and the Australian Dictionary of Biography? I have a temptation to go with the latter two, but I'm willing to add your view if you have a reliable citation... Anyone can edit it? . Victuallers (talk) 09:03, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Better pull that one, what a problematic article. To start with the hook, in the article it is said: "Despite being a notorious fortune-teller[1] she was awarded £1,000 by the jury as damages for being called a notorious fortune-teller.[5]" Now, source one is this, where the only dscription of her as "notorious fortune-teller" is ... "the Herald described her as 'the notorious fortune teller'". So even though a judge awarded her AUS$1000 because describing her a such was libelous, we not only repeat it, but act as if the ADB describes her as such, even though they only quote the rejected newspaper article. All rather circular... Anyway, the remainder of the article is a good reminder of why their autopatrolled was recently removed.
An essential part of her life is the Colin Ross conviction and her role: "Matthews encouraged Gibson to bear witness to hearing Ross's confession to the crime." Actually; the exact opposite happened: "Ross sacked Ivy Matthews, who rented a flat from Gibson and was encouraged by her to testify against Ross." (plus, nothing is said about what he testified about, the confession of the crime was supposedly heard by a fellow inmate, not by Matthews[22]) Such factual errors coupled with very poor writing ("During the trial, Matthews, was a crown witness living in Gibson's house[4] in Rathdone Street, Carlton." or "She and Henry were back in Britain where they had met in 1912," meaning apparently that they had met in Britain (no source for this though?) before their 1903 marriage in Poland and were back there in 1912). Not really the kind of article we should show on the main page, certainly not from an experienced editor (it's not as if we are encouraging a new contributor). Fram (talk) 09:46, 12 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, quite a few from this set! In this case just a quick query about the use of fair-use images at Mural. Obviously it's fine to have an image of the work itself, as we see at the top with File:Julie Mehretu Mural 2009.jpeg. However, I think including a second fair-use image, File:Mehretu Julie Empirical Construction 2003 MoMA.png, with a fair use rationale of "This is an example of the artist's use of urban spaces/cities/cultural centers as a source of inspiration. It relates to the subject of the article and allows the reader to see the painting discussed in the article within the broader context of the artist's painting practice" is excessive, per the stipulations of WP:NFCC - "Multiple items of non-free content are not used if one item can convey equivalent significant information". I think the image of Mural itself conveys sufficient information about her style and artistry, and readers can infer enough about her using the Istanbul image as inspiration without needing to specifically see it. I'd suggest limiting the fair use images to just the top one. @Ppt91, WatkynBassett, and Lightburst: Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 11:08, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello DYKers. I've just made a mass nomination for the new MPs arising out the recent New Zealand general election. We had a DYK for our new MPs from the last election with 19 articles, and we're trying to beat that this time (nothing like a bit of healthy competition with ourselves!). New Zealand editors and friends have been working hard on the bios, but there are still some that need expanding and tidying up to be DYK ready, not to mention there may be some changes when the final election announcements are made (due 3 Nov). So I would expect to finalise the list of articles then, as well as the numbers of new MPs for each party. In the meantime I wanted to get the nomination made and start work on all the QPQs. I would also expect that we will make a composite image to go with the hook. DrThneed (talk) 00:04, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't see how this passes "Hooks should be likely to be perceived as unusual". New Zealand has general elections every, um, 3 years? At every one of those, some bunch of new MPs come into office. How is this in any way unusual? RoySmith(talk)01:03, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I agree. About the only unusual thing about the hook is that there's so many people in the hook. However, I think such a thing, while cool, does kind of violate the spirit of the "hooks should be perceived as unusual" guideline, as in the information presented by the hooks is perceived to be unusual or interesting, rather than the hook itself. I appreciate the work being done here and it's a lot of effort, but I don't think the hook as currently written meets the "hooky" criterion. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 02:47, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I've twice nominated hooks of this type in the past: 2011 and 2020. It wasn't a problem back then; just saying. And in terms of "unusual", I suggest that it's the hook itself that's unusual; how often do we get a nomination with 20 to 30 target articles? Schwede6603:57, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Might I suggest a tweak to remove the party names and add a bit of colour, eg. "... that New Zealand's 2023 election saw almost a quarter of parliament being new MPs, including ..." CMD (talk) 04:24, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
That might be a reasonable compromise if a quarter of a parliament's MPs being new is considered unusual, but I'm not that well-versed in world parliaments to know if it is or not. About the only comparable example I know of is Mexico where every new Congress is composed of different people, but that's because reelections are prohibited there. Edit: I just found out that the Congress reelection ban was lifted years ago, though it was indeed the case in the past. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 04:26, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
If that doesn't work (and I think general interest won't be something grounded in a widespread well-versedness in world parliaments) we should try to work towards finding something that does, before moving towards a discussion on rejection. It's almost always possible to get something interesting! The new MPs come from 6 different parties, which personally was the point of most interest to me (and that's all the parties [provisionally] in parliament, although that isn't stated in the original hook). CMD (talk) 04:46, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't know, isn't it normal for parliamentary system to have that many parties in parliament? Six parties doesn't seem that unusual when many parliaments have more than that. Even as someone who is interested in politics I'm asking more from the perspective of someone who isn't as well-versed in politics to know the intricacies of these things. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 05:16, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Not sure what normal is, and NZ uses a mixed proportional system which might complicate comparisons, but for all six parties to have new MPs is something I found to be a nice little note. Looking at nearby Australia (greatly oversimplifying etc. etc.), it has 5(ish) parties, but two are just single MPs who have sat in the same constituency for awhile. CMD (talk) 05:55, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Given the nomination has already been made and credits towards it already used, I'm inclined to take it as fine this year and strongly suggest individual nominations next round. Both "a quarter new" and "this many parties" sound usable to me. (Also, not to put too fine a point on it, but we've ran so many NZ hooks in the last few weeks that I don't think this hook specifically is going to be the one that tips into readers freaking out about overrepresentation...nor that 30 individual hooks on NZ politicians would improve it.) Vaticidalprophet07:36, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Vaticidalprophet. You say: we've ran so many NZ hooks in the last few weeks. Not sure whether you've noticed but those nominations are all from one editor. A reasonably new editor at that. Only became super-active a few months ago; writes an article every second day and only some of those get nominated here. Picks reasonably interesting topics for DYK and plugs some obvious gaps. We can't stop keen editors, and nor should we. Schwede6620:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Chipmunkdavis, I like your suggestion: "... that New Zealand's 2023 election saw almost a quarter of parliament being new MPs, including ..." It's closer to a third, though. At this point, we have 38 new MPs out of a parliament that's currently 122 MPs. Both those numbers might change, e.g. I expect that we'll have one additional overhang seat, bringing the total to 123 members. I'll add that "one third" hook to the nomination. Schwede6621:13, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Looking at the Multiple Article Hook Hall of Fame, most of those hooks would no longer qualify. I'm not sure that we were conscious of that when we discussed the interestingness criterion. It's a hidden side effect. Is there a need to have an explicit discussion that multiple article hooks with a dozen or more target articles, say, are a thing of the past? Schwede6621:37, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, I should add my own QPQs first. I have seven, I think. Let's see where we are at once I've done that. Thank you for your very kind offer, Lightburst. Schwede6623:52, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't think the new guidelines rule out multihoooks regardless of how many there are. It's just that making a hook "interesting or unusual" by including as many hooks as possible is kind of like cheating. Thus, a good multihook would ideally have several names and an actually good hook fact to tie them all together, as opposed to basically going "did you know that all of these people did X?" Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:07, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, during the last New Zealand election multihook, how well did each article do back then views-wise? Did they underperform, overperform, or perform as well as you'd expect? Because if being in a multihook didn't harm their readership, that might be an argument towards allowing this proposed multihook to run, but if it did, that might be an argument against the multihook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 23:10, 18 October 2023 (UTC)
So basically, they underpeformed views-wise? If that is indeed the case then that would probably be a point against pursuing the multihook, if readership is going to suffer as a result. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:30, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Not sure I would agree. Over my time here, I've had quite a few politician bios at DYK and they never do very well. It's a bit of a niche subject. Why would the wider world be that interested about a new member of parliament from New Zealand?
I see the benefits of this mass-nomination in a completely different area. We have quite a number of Kiwi editors beavering away on MP bios. They are doing this because we are collectively working on a DYK nomination. Most of them would otherwise not bother with politician bios. They are in it for the fun of this being a group project. We would never have that level of engagement if we didn't work on a collective goal. I cannot see those editors being interested in individual DYK nominations; they are mostly in for the fun of having another massive DYK from downunder on Wikipedia's homepage.
We do have get togethers in New Zealand once or twice a year. Typically, one of us talks about DYK and enthuses about it to the rest of the team. DrThneed, for example, had only one prior DYK when she got involved in the 2020 initiative. She's done quite a number of DYKs since. It's great to be able to talk about these achievements and to highlight how collaborative this can be. Schwede6600:51, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I could see it happening a few years ago, but DYK has changed quite a lot between 2020 (the last NZ multihook) and 2023 and I'm not sure what works then could still work now. After all, consensus can change and interests of editors have to be balanced with the interests of readers, or even ideally it's the latter whose interests should be supreme. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:03, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I just want to say that comparing the pageviews they'd get in a multihook versus individually is probably not reasonable, in my view. As @Schwede66 has outlined, it is unlikely any of us are going to take the time and to nominate these pages individually. So the better comparison is pageviews they get in a multihook versus pageviews if they don't get DYKed at all. DrThneed (talk) 01:28, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
More leniency for multihooks if needed is a good idea. The alternatives are 1) running a bunch of individual hooks on similar topics, which I'm not sure is of particular benefit to the reader (or to editor/reviewer time, for all the time multihooks take to evaluate it'd be longer if they were individual), or 2) creating a new block on some articles from appearing on DYK, which conflicts with our goal here which is to promote the generation of new content. That said, I stress "if needed", because as with individual nominations, we can definitely try to get a hooky hook out of a multihook. CMD (talk) 01:40, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
That's the thing here. I don't necessarily think multihooks in general are a bad idea, and with the right hook they could work. But multihooks still need to meet criteria like the interestingness criterion, and if a multihook is basically just saying that the following won an election without additional context, that's not really going to be hooky to begin with even if it was a single hook. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 01:43, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
I am following the discussion. I see what a large task it is to write, nominate, review and promote the bunch. Ambitious! Lightburst (talk) 01:57, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
multihooks still need to meet criteria like the interestingness criterion, and if a multihook is basically just saying that the following won an election without additional context, that's not really going to be hooky to begin with even if it was a single hook Agree with this, and that's the only hook you're going to get to write that involves all of these people. Whereas I imagine if they ran individually, some of them would have some actually interesting hooks e.g. on a cursary look, Tim Costley was in the air force. Also, quite a few of these articles are nowhere near the 1500 character mark, and so should not be accepted as bold items unless that's fixed quickly. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:34, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
We are well aware that not all articles are DYK-compliant as yet. We are keeping a tally and of the 31 new MPs with new bios (DrThneed has nominated 30 but we've identified the missing guy), 19 currently meet DYK requirements. Schwede6621:06, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
Articles should meet DYK requirements before being nominated for DYK. That's just basic common sense, and overrides the desire for this "special" hook set. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:27, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
They are being worked on, @Joseph2302, never fear. I'm sure you appreciate that sources about new MPs, especially ones that not certain of being elected, tend to appear in greater numbers after an election. DrThneed (talk) 21:50, 19 October 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I can try to help. The source cited for the hook is Hering 1999, pp. 790-791, but it doesn't really directly support the hook. It's entirely possible that they mixed up the sources, and there's another source that does support it. Hering 1999 simply says Shelly integrated dance into the physical education curriculum in the 1930s and early 1940s before becoming "a lieutenant in charge of physical education and drill in the Women’s Naval Reserve." Just to compare, the hook says Shelly "used her background in modern dance and physical education to train women in the military during two wars". There is additional material about her work on WAVES and her work in WWII and the Korean War. My guess is that they mixed up citations somehow, and there is another citation that supports this, however, it does seem to be true using this citation alone, that is to say, Shelly had a background in modern dance and PE and she was in charge of physical education and drill in the military in WWII and the Korean War. That's the distinction that needs to be made. I think just changing a few words around in the hook should allow us to keep it. For example, instead of saying "she used her background in modern dance and physical education to train women in the military during two wars", which goes slightly beyond what the cited source says, just change it to "she had a background in modern dance and physical education and trained women in the military during two wars." Or something like that. That's the easiest fix that preserves the source integrity and keeps the hook in the queue.
To summarize, here is what we can verify both from the article and in the hook:
She brought her interest in dance into physical education.
[She joined] the Women's Naval Reserve as a lieutenant in charge of physical training and drill.
[She] led the United States Navy's education for WAVES in World War II.
She later served as director of Women in the Air Force in the Korean War.
I can't verify that Shelly "used her background in modern dance and physical education to train women in the military".
@RoySmith: I think I've said all that I can about the hook up above, so I won't revisit it. I will comment on the photo, however. My guess is that the image you found is an official U.S. Navy photograph taken at some point in the 1940s. Many of these are in the possession of the National Archives, but I didn't find this one there. I don't know of any way to verify the photo is USN. Viriditas (talk) 20:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I'd bet dollars to donuts that it's an official USN photo, but I don't want to say that officially until I can find something that verifies it. RoySmith(talk)20:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Well, it's probably true that the USNI only archives official USN photos, but I don't think you'll find that statement helpful. Viriditas (talk) 20:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I was at the gym yesterday when something odd caught my eye and I did a double-take. It was one of those annoying TVs they inexplicably have running all the time. I couldn't catch the audio, but it was some sporting event on ESPN with somebody in the crowd holding up a "Stop Taylor Swift" sign. RoySmith(talk)16:55, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Funny! I have a friend who absolutely hates her; myself, I like pop music. I remember when she was a country artist and came out with Our Song. She was about 15 years old at the time and her talent was evident. She is a bit overexposed now however but a decidedly much bigger juggernaut. Lightburst (talk) 20:46, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
PrimalMustelid, this should work now. The actual nomination is at Template:Did you know nominations/In a Nutshell (suite); the article was originally under In a Nutshell (suite) but was quickly moved to In a Nutshell. The nominator then tried to edit the nomination page to reflect the new article name, but should have left the nompage and subpage fields alone so they still pointed to the existing nomination page; I've fixed them.
Reviewer Wehwalt followed the bad nompage link and ended up creating a separate review page that you were finding with just the final review/approval; the review/approval was ultimately duplicated on the original review page. At this point, we should delete that separate Template:Did you know nominations/In a Nutshell page, but it may be appropriate to do a history merge first; pinging admins Amakuru and Cas Liber to see if either of them can handle a merge of the two DYK nom pages if appropriate, or simply delete the duplicate page if not. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
See WP:ERRORS. I was going to change the hook to the other one that is in the nom, but that doesn't appear to support the hook either, as far as I can see.
The hook is supported by the two sources I provided in conjunction with each other; one verifies the existence of the Android port of Ghost Trick and its exclusivity to the G-Gee platform, and the other verifies the merging and discontinuation of the G-Gee platform. The WP:ERRORS discussion only mentions the source about the platform shutting down. — hoopderscotch14:49, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Yeah ... it's not ideal though, is it, especially as "lost media" doesn't appear in the article at all, so it's synthing the hook between two sources. I would have been quite happy to flip over to the original hook, but that's not supported by the source in any way. Surprised this got to the MP, especially as a GA there must be plenty of other available hooks. Black Kite (talk)16:12, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
That's fair! I completely take responsibility for not knowing about synthing, I apologize. Would it have been more acceptable to say, "...that the Android version of Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective is no longer available"? There's also a second hook suggestion in the DYK discussion made by LaundryPizza03 that I think works better. — hoopderscotch16:26, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Featured list
I just have a couple quick questions. If I were to have a list promoted to Featured List, would that make it eligible for DYK like a new GA is? Or are lists in general even eligible? -- ZooBlazertalk19:52, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh wow -- I've been planning a writeup about this for the last few days! Let me just make my case here, then...
FL eligibility for DYK is a regularly-revisited idea. The current answer to your question is that no, FLs are not in and of themselves DYK-eligible (though lists in general are eligible if they fit other eligibility criteria). There's a longstanding demand within the FL community for them to become eligible; this was a common subject of discussion by TRM (an FLC coord and...editor very familiar with DYK) when he was active, and I've discussed it a fair bit lately with a handful of FLC regulars. I was recently in a conversation with one such FLC regular about the phenomenon, where he remarked that he really wanted to get more involved with DYK but had trouble remembering to nominate things at expansion.
The nominal reason FLs are not eligible for DYK is because they have a main page section -- though FLs weren't eligible for DYK before they had a main page section, so this is a bit retrospective. Having said that, TFL occupies a complex place compared to other main page sections:
It's not a Big Four. TFL has extremely low visibility compared to any of TFA/DYK/ITN/OTD, which is reflected in its stats.
More significantly, it's not daily. It is the sole section of the main page for which this is true. TFL only runs twice a week.
The latter of these is a big, big deal. There are two-thirds as many FLs as FAs, but only around a quarter of them have run TFL, whereas virtually all FAs have run TFA. Under current backlog conditions, it will take multiple decades for all FLs to run TFL. TFL can't be realistically treated as "the main page section" for FLs in the same sense as TFA for FAs under current circumstances.
Main page sections try to avoid oversaturating individual articles between them, which is why we set up these rules the way we do. However, there exists precedent for allowing limited repetition between sections deemed to be of lower visibility. DYKs are eligible if they've been at RD regardless of how recently, which can lead to articles running in two of the Big Four as quickly as a few days apart. RD has greater visibility than TFL, with higher average views. If we consider RD low-visibility enough to make articles eligible for DYK, we should do the same for TFL. This might change if TFL became a Big Four somehow, but under current circumstances there's little argument it'll contribute to article oversaturation, given it's such a long backlog for markedly lower views than DYK.
Given that FLC participants want their articles to be DYK-eligible, that TFL has a several-decade backlog, and that TFL visibility is lower than that of an area of the MP we already consider low enough visibility to be compatible with DYK, I believe there's a very obvious case for making FLs eligible at DYK. Vaticidalprophet20:06, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Even if TFL frequency were to be increased to daily, there’d still be years' worth of backlog. I’m thus sympathetic to the proposal. It would have to be upon reaching TFL status or upon expansion. Schwede6620:48, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
If in the process of improving it to FL, you also 5x expand the text content, then it is eligible for DYK. Or if it's a newly created list of at least 1500 characters. Otherwise it isn't eligible. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Whether there's a backlog of FLs who haven't appeared on the main page or not isn't really DYK's problem, IMO. Showing FLs just... isn't the role DYK has. Now of course the role of DYK is negotiable, but I'd see including FLs as watering down what DYK is imagined as being, a place for fun facts and to highlight new article creation. I'd imagine a lot of very cookie-cutter facts like "Did you know that album XYZ won over 14 music awards" for a lot of FLs. If there's really a desire to speed up FLs on the main page, that's an argument to run the FL slot daily for awhile, not to dilute DYK's "brand" IMO. SnowFire (talk) 21:59, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Lists can definitely have good hooks. Not every list, sure -- accolades lists are a complicated cross-section in the first place, and there's an argument they should almost never exist at all -- but given that people are a lot more inclined to query hook interestingness these days, and that FLC isn't so active as to produce a noticeable burden on DYK, I don't see the "tons of bad hooks" failure mode being any sort of realistic concern. Inasmuch as DYK as a process has "incentivizing the improvement of articles" as part of its mandate, FL fits clearly into that to me. Vaticidalprophet22:11, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm about to nominate a bunch of eclipse DYKs. I've had quite a large number of stuff I've written on the Main Page, so if it benefits you to put them in storage for a while (or schedule them for the week/day they happened or whatever), feel free. It will not bother me at all. jp×g02:18, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Admins needed to clean up after incomplete midnight bot run
It looks like DYKUpdateBot did the first step of the midnight update at 00:00, 20 October 2023 (UTC)—copying the contents of Queue 4 to the main page—but it didn't do anything else, which amounts to:
creating a File page for the image? (Not sure how this works)
Pinging Shubinator, whose bot it is, because it's probably dead and will need to be restarted.
Although the admins have recently been pinged, cleaning this up is rather more urgent than promoting preps to queues at the moment, so I'm hoping at least one of the @DYK admins: can shortly take this in hand and manually finish what the bot began. Thank you very much. BlueMoonset (talk) 04:59, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
DYKUpdateBot crashed due to pywikibot.exceptions.UserRightsError: User "DYKUpdateBot" does not have required user right "purge" while attempting to purge the Main Page
mw:Manual:User rights claims that the user group has the purge right, for the default Mediawiki setup
Curious, that does look like the same issue! Unfortunately the issue either hasn't been fixed, or the fix hasn't deployed. Currently enwiki is on 1.42.0-wmf.1 and the bot still hits the same permissions issue if I add the purge code back in. Comparing timelines on mw:MediaWiki 1.42/Roadmap to when the issue showed up for us, 1.42.0-wmf.1 likely introduced the bug on enwiki. Shubinator (talk) 05:24, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
I noticed that there's some above sections about both a lack of biographical DYKs and lack of approved DYKs in general. I've been getting a lot of GAs promoted recently on bios and have some articles that are eligible, but I haven't thought of good hooks yet. Listing them here in case anyone else can think of good hooks for them.
We're doing a bit better now, but DYKs are always appreciated. Checking a couple of these, His "ability to scramble through small holes" earned him the nickname "Rat" from his teammates out of Jeff Allen (defensive back, born 1948) and Smith opened a restaurant after his football career out of Ralph Smith (American football) seem promising. Dawson was inducted into the South Carolina Athletic Hall of Fame in 1974, the first black person ever to receive the honor in Oliver C. Dawsonmight work. On a similar line to Smith, After his football career, Daukas earned a law degree from St. John's University School of Law and became an attorney in Lou Daukas is a solid juxtaposition. (By the way, that image of Daukas might be PD if it doesn't have a copyright notice, which these eBay photos often lack.) Vaticidalprophet00:06, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
Read through Riley Morris. I must say I have zero knowledge on American football so I have no idea what exactly would be defined "interesting", but When asked "the best pro prospect among the unheralded gridders [players] who reported to camp," Coach Sid Gillman named Morris. and Morris later was employed at Polaroid are both fairly intriguing to me. S5A-0043Talk09:04, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
The least bad option might be to set a manual width, as so (this is 170px, which is a fairly normal width for landscape DYK images -- no, I don't know why the checklist says "clear at 100px", nothing actually runs at 100px). I think it's just a little too much a landscape and the automatic width adjuster was freaking out. (I think it's fine to specify the hook as "a passenger's journey"/"one passenger's journey", yes.) Vaticidalprophet21:13, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
I think someone fixed the inline citation on behalf of me.
As for the buspedia, it's a general database for buses used within Mainland China by many bus enthusiasts. I would say that it is generally reliable for buses within Shanghai (which is the city this system runs), although I can't speak for the accuracy on the other cities. I was thinking to go WP:IAR on this because (quite strangely) there weren't any other sources more reliable than this talking about the change in vehicle from the ART to bus for lines 1 & 2, but it's a real thing happening right now, and I can't say that lines 1 & 2 are still being run on ARTs while in reality it's being run by buses. S5A-0043Talk01:39, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I'll explain with an analogy so that y'all might be able to understand better. Say you have an Italian restaurant and they're changing their pasta choice from penne to spaghetti. No reliable sources reported on it. However, it's still a real thing that they changed their pasta choice. You can't say they're still using penne for the pasta. In this case, the restaurant is the DRT system, and the change in pasta is the change from the ART to regular buses for lines 1&2. And while merely changing the pasta (in the literal sense) is probably not notable to write in Wikipedia, in the case of the DRT it's misleading to imply they're still using DRT vehicles, when they're not. S5A-0043Talk02:00, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Responding to ping. The image size is looking fine now, in prep. I understand that the inline citation issue is resolved. I agree with the last comment above, by S5A-0043. As far as I can see, all questions here are resolved. Storye book (talk) 08:45, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
No, inline attribution for the hook isn't the same as inline citation in the article – but i'll take care of that. I guess we're IARing on a wiki (it seems to be one?) as a source – never thought I'd see the day... theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 09:12, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
There is always room for commonsense. For example, lot of us would like to see IMDb brought back into the fold as a source, especially since (like the abovementioned source) it is sometimes the only source for certain agreed facts. Storye book (talk) 09:33, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I'm going to be honest I'm not exactly happy with having to use this source either, but neither am I more willing to put outdated and possibly misleading info into the article just for the sake of not finding a WP:RS when I already searched Google and Baidu at least a dozen times and didn't find a single thing. S5A-0043Talk11:26, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Erm, it's not about whether the RS is wrong, it's about whether the RS existed at all. But either way, I'm fine with pulling this hook for now until we discuss and solve this issue. S5A-0043Talk11:48, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Update: I found a Weibo page by an account called "Bus Home (translated literally)". And while Weibo is indeed a WP:UGC platform, I did a Google search. Apparently they're based in Hangzhou, and is one of the most reputable and popular bus fan pages over there. They previously published bus route maps for Hangzhou, has an official website (although for some reason I can't access it) and was reported in the news as well. [23][24][25][26] I think this is a good starting point for a RS, since to me it satisfies WP:SPS (the part on the work in relevant field). S5A-0043Talk12:58, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Hello, friends! I appreciate your support. The Kulis.az website is one of the 2 most authoritative cultural sites in the country. But in any case, I will find and post more links to confirm the written fact.--Rəcəb Yaxşı (talk) 06:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
Prep 1, the next set up to build, runs Halloween. I already have a sense from DYKNA how I'm going to assemble the next generic/non-date-specific set, but there's nothing there that obviously fits the date. To put some feelers out, does anyone have any thematically interesting articles in their pipelines or at DYKN? Not required, but would be cool. Vaticidalprophet23:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Update: not seeing anything obvious at DYKN, but I have a couple article ideas I could write in a day or so. (Someone else would need to promote.) Vaticidalprophet00:27, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
Interesting. I know we have had video and sound clips, but I do not know if we ever had a whole movie. I imagine people would click and watch a few seconds and then scroll on, but it might be an interesting lead. Too bad we do not have other articles about pumpkins and ghosts. Lightburst (talk) 15:14, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
I've copyedited a section so far. There's a little that needs trimmed, and some copyediting in general, but I've added a good source that can be used for more in the article. Vaticidalprophet01:15, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
I was prepared to rework the lead when I saw that it had been edited, but I cocked my head and said out loud, "That's a very good lead." Now we need a full review and perhaps a swap of the image to the carved gourd which was offered in the nomination. It is so wonderful to see a group of editors tidying up the article. Thanks to Vaticidalprophet for finding the article and thinking of the 10-31 prep set. One thing I am embarrassed to say is that I learned in the expansion of the article is that a pumpkin is a fruit. Lightburst (talk) 14:52, 22 October 2023 (UTC)
Pumpkin queen - I have begun expanding the article. It began as 500 charactersand I welcome any help with it. It was more of a list than an article. It would be nice to have it available and I have a QPQ. I also wonder if it should not be a capitalized title.Lightburst (talk) 00:06, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
It's possible for a single set to contain up to ten hooks (vs the usual default of eight). 11+ we'd need to switch to 12-hour sets for Halloween alone (has been done for April Fools). Any help for Di with expanding that last one would be great, as would some copyediting on the pumpkins and maybe a bit more expansion on Pumpkin queen (I'm not sure if it's quite past the line). More proposals are also always appreciated. Vaticidalprophet16:15, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I don't know if I'll be able to 5x the Satan's Kingdom article using the sources I found, so we can use Ur Mum instead if that's what we want. Di (they-them) (talk) 23:45, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
I reviewed Pumpkin queen and gave some concerns and approved Berkeley Faculty Club. Since we are getting close to the date, I hope someone will consider promoting Berkeley soon. Z1720 (talk) 01:20, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
in case people aren't aware, i thought i might point out that there is a "thumbtime" parameter for the {{main page image/DYK}} template, which allows editors to choose a thumbnail different from the one generated by default. i believe the default thumbnail is based on a frame in the middle of the film, and in this case, i felt that the default thumbnail seemed a little lacking. i admittedly haven't watched the whole film, so i don't know where the most dramatic scenes are, but i figured that i might offer a few thumbnail alternatives that i was able to find.
Thanks Dying, I didn't realize that was an option. Your thumbnails look better than the default. The title card ties into the hook, and Karen Cooper as the little girl zombie is pretty iconic. This ping-pong-ball-eyed corpse was also heavily used to promote the film:
Queue 5: Georg Karo (nom) @Vaticidalprophet @UndercoverClassicist @Panamitsu This needs more clear sourcing. I assume the statement in the article that backs up the hook is From his arrival in the United States, Karo was accused of working or spying for the Nazi government., but that needs an end-of-sentence citation, and it also says "working or spying", which isn't quite the same as "being a spy". RoySmith(talk)23:02, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I'm unsure when that tag got added. The article got through a GA review plus additional changes during the DYK process, so it was likely sourced at one point. I'll fix it as soon as I can. NegativeMP100:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Is the information something contentious about a living person? If not, I don't really see what's wrong with the source being used. For information that isn't contentious or controversial we usually don't need super strong or reliable sources. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 15:09, 26 October 2023 (UTC)
Article contains numerous places that need citations. I have added cn tags in the article to indicate the locations. Z1720 (talk) 00:26, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Hook mentions the Nimrod expeditions, but the article does not. Can this be added to the article with a citation? Z1720 (talk) 00:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Earwig picked up substantial similarities with this article from the Sun: [28], which seemed to be published the same day as this article was written. This will need to be addressed before the article goes on the main page. Z1720 (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Giving it a look, The Sun seems to use military time (see [29]), so the article was posted around 4 PM GMT (12:09 ET). The last significant edit in the article was 2 PM GMT – 2 hours before The Sun’s publication. Juxlos (talk) 02:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The article confirms that Villiers had a guitar solo on Feel It, but does not confirm that he was the guitarist. I can't access the credits for the song on Tidal, so can someone double check that he is listed as the guitarist, and if so add that information to the article? Z1720 (talk) 00:15, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I added to the credits in the article that Villiers was the guitarist of the song, and cited indiependent.co.uk. This addressed my concerns. Z1720 (talk) 00:36, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Updating our guidelines in regards to recent products
Hi all. After reviewing Template:Did you know nominations/Grimace Shake I thought it might be good to adopt some formal language in our guidelines regarding recent products; particularly trademarked products. This would have been an ideal topic in the Wikipedia:Did you know/Supplementary guidelines. Sadly I notice that was recently redirected... (why? Perhaps we should undo the redirect? The Wikipedia:Did you know/Guidelines page isn't as thorough or informative and the supplement page is still needed in my view.) Regardless, in my opinion, generally recent copyrighted and patented works such as films, books, tv shows, technology, etc. are fine to appear at DYK as long as they are written neutrally and in an encyclopedic tone that is non-promotional, and contain some sort of critical reception section that utilizes independent reviews of the product published in RS. However, in the spirit of WP:NOTPROMO, I think recent (as in the last 12 months) trademarked products (unless they are original in some way as proven by a copyright or patent) should be banned from DYK entirely because trademarked products are about promoting a brand/company rather than promoting an original product. Also any product with excessive details on the advertising and promotion of the product either by the company or by fans on social media should be banned regardless of whether it is copyrighted, patented, or trademarked. By excessive, I mean that the article has less information about the product itself or content on independent critical reaction to the product, than it does on the product's promotion. See Grimace Shake as a case in point.4meter4 (talk) 17:36, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
I think a blanket ban on "new" things per WP:NOTPROMO would be a very bad idea. For one thing, most of these hooks aren't actually promotional at all and in fact are subject to third-party coverage. Covering is not the same as promoting it. If there are any concerns about articles being promotional, we already have policies and guidelines to take care of that and they should be treated on an article-to-article basis. These issues are generally surmountable and are not necessarily the fault of the subject or the type of material. Narutolovehinata5 (talk · contributions) 00:32, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
The vast majority of articles about new things on Wikipedia aren’t trademarked, so your summary of what I stated is not accurate. I’m specifically referring to trademarked products that do not also have a patent or copyright. I’ve yet to see many articles on Wikipedia on these types of products that aren’t overly promotional. Just my opinion.4meter4 (talk) 03:51, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Older nominations needing DYK reviewers
The previous list was archived a few hours ago, so I've created a new list of the first 36 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 11. We have a total of 249 nominations, of which 112 have been approved, a gap of 137 nominations that has decreased by 5 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 05:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Opinion on hook facts in the article
I've only done a few DYK reviews. Could I ask someone to check my work on Template:Did you know nominations/Al Diaz (artist) One potential hook is verifiable, cited, and in the article. The others are composed of things from the page/sources, but I would not describe them as contained or cited in the Wikipedia article. Rjjiii (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
I would appreciate additional eyes on Template:Did you know nominations/Global Engagement Center as I've previously been accused of going too far beyond the DYK requirements in the past. My main concern is that the current version of the article relies too heavily on primary sources, but if that's not a concern for other reviewers, and they think I should pass this in its current form, please let me know. Viriditas (talk) 22:41, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Thanks, Launchballer. Cielquiparle just swooped in like an eagle and made some great edits. I think the article is now either ready to pass or close to it. Any further thoughts? Viriditas (talk) 19:53, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
Notification when pulling hooks?
Hello all. Recently I realised that two hooks I had proposed, which passed review and were promoted to queues, were pulled during their main page time without any notification to me whatsoever. These are:
I can see why this was done; on reflection these are hardly the best hooks I have proposed. However, I am quite distressed that I wasn't even notified to a discussion, let alone told that they were pulled. I only found out about these by reviewing the DYK credit and wondering where the listing was on recent additions. In the past I have proposed alternatives for hooks caught in similar situations (see Wikipedia talk:Did you know/Archive 195#CACP in P1, an example where everyone was pinged and the issue was resolved), so I would have relished a chance to propose a new hook in these scenarios. For each I can think of possible hooks even now:
... that Arc's "boosts" allows users to customise how they see certain websites?
... that Solo Per Due is a restaurant that only seats two people?
In the case of Arc I even proposed a similar ALT in the nomination! This notification being missed once I can understand, could have been an oversight: but twice? Is this normal, to have hooks pulled without ever telling the nominator? If so, I can now speak from experience that this is a distressing experience for the nominator, so perhaps notification to these discussions should be considered common courtesy. All the best, Schminnte[talk to me]19:09, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
I am sorry that this happened to your nominations. You should have been pinged and you were not. It certainly looks as though there was a disconnect here. Lightburst (talk) 01:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Schminnte, i remember opening a discussion here at wt:dyk on your solo per due hook, and then adding a link to the discussion at wp:errors so that those who were following the discussion here could be aware of the discussion there as well. did you not get the ping when i first opened the discussion here? it should have been sent with this edit. (Lightburst should have been notified too, so if neither of you were, it looks like my ping failed somehow.)i'm sorry that you weren't aware of the discussion at wp:errors until recently. admittedly, i had thought that what i had already done was sufficient notification, and didn't want to ping you again when the hook was pulled because it might have felt like a ping of shame if you were already aware of the discussion at wp:errors. however, i can do that for you in the future if you would prefer.by the way, if an issue i raise about a hook places it in danger of getting pulled and the nomination has no other acceptable hooks, i generally try to suggest an alternative myself. i did so when i opened the discussion on your hook here, though i obviously have no control over whether or not my alternatives are used. dying (talk) 06:59, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
@Dying and Schminnte: Thanks for the message and for the diffs. I remember finding out about this from errors at the time but I did not comment because the decision was made rather quickly: it was all over before I could comment. None of the nomination participants were pinged at errors from what I can see. I do not recall your ping at DYK talk. There is really no notification procedure at errors. Some administrators wait for discussion and ping the relevant parties and some act quickly without discussion or pings. Lightburst (talk) 13:23, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I think I may recall your DYK talk ping, but by the time that I had looked into the discussion RoySmith had commented that it seemed ok, so I thought no more of it. I didn't receive any further pings after this discussion (on DYK talk or ERRORS) so assumed that the situation was fine. Forgive me, I may have phrased the above wrongly as my judgement was a bit clouded after discovering these issues. I do prefer to be pinged (see my userpage) whenever a comment directly addresses me, especially if a nomination or similar listing is in danger. Schminnte[talk to me]13:44, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Ah, now I remember. I think that was the hook that got me my current bug up my posterior about using absolutes like "first" in hooks :-) RoySmith(talk)14:02, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
Understandable, I was completely unaware of the other restaurant until that conversation. Unfortunately I received no further notifications to that discussion, so thought nothing more of it after you had appeared to have green lit. I did keep track of that discussion for a few hours, but after a sleep with no further pings given when it ended up at ERRORS, along with recieving a DYK credit, I had no idea it had been pulled. Schminnte[talk to me]15:26, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I think what I am ultimately wondering is: should nominators (and possibly promoters, reviewers, etc) always be pinged to discussions regarding hook pulling? This would give the nominator: a) a semblance of a chance to save the hook by proposing an ALT or arguing their case and b) some closure over the pulling. This would mirror other parts of the DYK process such as the original review, where reviewers are recommended to notify the nominator of any questions, issues, or outright failure. A similar process is also used in the good article process, where nominators are given a talk page notice that the article has failed (be it a quickfail or after discussion). It is not much extra effort to do this, as merely clicking through the article and onto its talk page will show both the nominator and promoter. Thoughts? Schminnte[talk to me]16:16, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I think we could use a reminder at errors, maybe some boilerplate or header. Someone else may know if that is doable or needed? Lightburst (talk) 20:19, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I patrol ERRORS and my practice with regards to DYK is:
If it's "Next DYK" or "Next-but-one DYK", I generally ping everyone from nominator to promoter to queue as there's at least some time before it hits the main page. We might as well get everyone's input.
If it's "Current DYK", I action it as fast as it reasonably possible.
User:GalliumBot posts hook changes to the nom talk page. I wasn't aware that pulled hooks don't get recorded by Leeky's bot. Could that functionality be added without much effort? Schwede6622:00, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
I could do it with a decent amount of effort, but it wouldn't matter. The only people who see GalliumBot's darn messages are people watching the nompage (who would obviously see the nom getting reopened anyway), and this protocol doesn't ping anyone. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:42, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
I don’t understand. If a hook gets pulled off the main page, why would the nomination be reopened?
Could the bot create a ping if it wanted to? You already identify the nominator, it seems. Including their linked username and the bot's signature should trigger a ping, or does that not work with bot signatures? Schwede6618:55, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
Oh, that's true – usually it just remains pulled. If it hasn't run for too long, though, it'll often get another shot at airing, so the nom gets reopened while the problems are fixed. Identifying a nominator once a hook is on the Main Page is... not fun, but I can look into it. (I do think that the pulling admin should probably be the one to send the notification.) theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 19:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)
It's something that happens and it should be part of the instructions at ERRORS. I once had a hook pulled from a completely trivial issue (IMO), neither me nor the approver was pinged, and even worse, the reviewer had reviewed and given a thumbs up to an alternate hook anyway which could have been slotted in as a replacement to avoid controversy. I get that removing a genuine error is more important than hurting people's feelings, but there is a long-term cost here in "feel-bads", especially when it's not an outright error but more like a complaint. I'd suggest that the wording be updated to strongly encourage that both nominator and approver be pinged - by the admin removing the hook if nobody else has already done it. (Maybe make clear that it's okay for editors in a hurry / newbies to just report an issue without having to report it, but then the people monitoring ERRORS can do the ping for 'em.) SnowFire (talk) 22:04, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
As a follow-up to the above section WT:DYK#Potential DYKs, I've got a bunch of other recently-promoted good articles in case anyone can think of good hooks for them:
I see prep 1 has 10 hooks in it. How did that happen? I see a short discussion under #Halloween, but I would think a major change like this would require a broader consensus than one formed by a couple of people in a minor discussion where most people are probably not even aware that decision was being dicussed. RoySmith(talk)19:33, 28 October 2023 (UTC)
Oddly enough, I find I can't get too excited about view stats. For me, the satisfaction comes from knowing I wrote a good article or hook. Whether the great unwashed masses find it interesting, not so much. I will admit to taking advantage of our archive of Night of the Living Dead to watch the entire movie, which amazingly enough I'd never seen in its entirely before. RoySmith(talk)14:14, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
@RoySmith: I have never watched the movie. I imagine people visiting the main page just like to get a quick look, and they are not ready for a whole movie. As far as views I am always surprised by what hooks attract clicks. Lightburst (talk) 16:38, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
DYK stats
I want to check, is there a website or tool that can help count individually how many DYK credits you have or how many DYK articles you have contributed to? I recall there was something like that since I don't think its practical just manually counting everything. ImcdcContact03:52, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
I think it is good to raise the issue. The nominator may be able to find more sources and, if they can't, you have alerted the promoter and the admin who moves the prep to queue that there may be an issue. TSventon (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2023 (UTC)
There were eight expansion packs for TS2, which have now all run (this seems like a good time to mention that stuff packs aren't notable). I never played the other games very much, so I don't intend on writing articles on those. The whole set took a couple months to go through; I was vocal that they should be promoted spaced apart and avoid topic saturation, which was partially but not wholly done. The game itself has been unavailable for purchase for nearly ten years and takes significant work to even run on a modern PC, so advertising concerns are pretty negligible. Now that they've all gone through, there are zero hooks in the pipeline and zero articles I intend to write. Vaticidalprophet05:18, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
yeah, something went wrong with the archiving. i'm looking into it, but it's on the backburner because at the moment, I'm just trying to keep head above water with queue count. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 07:16, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
nah, UTC doesn't change for daylight savings :) however, your local time will change in relation to UTC, so the set changeovers will be at a different time for you. theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 18:01, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
I can think of a group of Kiwis who would gladly help with work towards a GA. May I point out, though, that daylight saving start and end dates vary by location. Maybe we pick Hudson's birthday or something like that. Schwede6618:24, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Just like when daylight saving time ended in Europe last week, the hooks were visible for 24 hours but the start and end time in local time looked like they were 25 hours apart. —Kusma (talk) 18:15, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
The previous list was archived a little over an hour ago, so I've created a new list of the first 37 nominations that need reviewing in the Older nominations section of the Nominations page, covering everything through October 17. We have a total of 252 nominations, of which 108 have been approved, a gap of 144 nominations that has increased by 7 over the past 8 days. Thanks to everyone who reviews these and any other nominations.
Please remember to cross off entries, including the date, as you finish reviewing them (unless you're asking for further review), even if the review was not an approval. Please do not remove them entirely. Many thanks! BlueMoonset (talk) 03:33, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Prep 2 has a dense concentration of incredibly long hooks. Is there some chance we could shuffle things around to distribute hook lengths better across the built preps? Sets as a whole will vary in length naturally, but this one is at-a-glance on the far right tail of average length, in a way that's tricky for main page balance.
Prep 7 is also on the longer side, but not to quite the same extreme. I might want a 2O on whether that should be the image hook, though -- it's not a great photo and we've had few bio images lately, of which there are numerous good candidates at DYKNA. Vaticidalprophet04:09, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
For anyone wondering who isn't in the Wikipedia Discord, we briefly discussed the issue, and I changed up prep 2 to have shorter hooks, moving some of the longer ones to the empty prep 4 set. As for the prep 7 photo, I thought that maybe people would be interested in a photo of the council in historical contexts, but if not, I'm fine with an image/lead hook change. PrimalMustelid (talk) 05:20, 6 November 2023 (UTC)
Done theleekycauldron (talk • she/her) 03:25, 13 September 2023 (UTC)
date requested: x in the queue would easily allow one to determine, at a glance, whether a hook should be rescheduled. dying (talk) 05:40, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
. thoughts? i'd be happy to use a switch statement if you can propose a cleaner implementation. i'm currently thinking of naming the template {{DYK date request}}.BlueMoonset, i admittedly wasn't envisioning the template to be anything other than a more visible version of the invisible comment. the current practice of using invisible comments to mark nominations scheduled for specific dates is invisible enough that many don't realize that it is a practice, so hopefully, making the practice more visible would change that. the template would also have the same functions that similar invisible comments have, such as helping prevent the shuffling of a hook scheduled for a specific date to a different set.i imagine that the template could be attached or removed by anyone, just like invisible comments. i think they'd be much more easily found than invisible comments currently are. also, the template wouldn't be restrictive about what could be passed in as the optional argument, so there shouldn't be any issues regarding how it would "suggest which of the two slots should be used in a two-a-day regimen". for example, the template could display 
date requested: 2023.08.31 19:30 utc or 
. i'm not sure if this is what you were suggesting by using the switch statement, though. please let me know if you have any other ideas on how to improve the code. dying (talk) 04:03, 25 August 2023 (UTC)
If there's anything more that can be said about the design, perhaps someone can write a hook about the design features of this building? – Epicgenius (talk) 22:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Lightburst (talk) 14:03, 9 October 2023 (UTC)
. Pinging @Moriwen, Dahn, and Vaticidalprophet: Cheers — Amakuru (talk) 10:34, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you Shubinator Lightburst (talk) 14:40, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Approved Z1720 (talk) 23:39, 27 October 2023 (UTC)
